Thursday, 7 June 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr Donald Cameron proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should recast his notice of motion and put it in order. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the Government Whip the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), will second: That this House- (a) is of the opinion that the Bruce Highway is vital to the welfare of north Queensland, its primary, secondary and tertiary industries and for the encouragement of tourism and better communications; (b) notes with concern the deplorable state of the Bruce Highway, its susceptibility to flooding and its general unsafe condition; and (c) supports the concentration of effort being made by the Government in rebuilding this vital highway to a standard fitting that of a national highway. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that under the new restrictive nursing home guidelines the Minister for Health expects no increase in the rate of opening of beds over the next 12 months; (2) expresses its concern that this rate of opening will not meet the increased demand due to the imposition of the 35 day rule for insured patients in hospitals, and (3) calls on the Government to take immediate steps to relieve the severe pressure on the sick elderly and their families caused by the Government's mishandling of this matter. Mr Hollis proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice of motion is out of order. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the Government's failure in- (1) not effectively intervening in the 14 per cent wage catch-up claim by the AWU and (2) displaying an insensitivity to the impact of such a claim on local Government Authorities in rural areas. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the Government Whip, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphrey), will second: That this House- (1) expresses its warm endorsement of decisions by the Minister for Trade which offer the prospects of increased exports of produce from north Queensland; (2) notes the success of the recent Trade Mission to South East Asia which explored new markets for produce from north Queensland, and (3) is of the opinion that an integral part of this new trade has been the availability of Qantas aircraft using Townsville Airport for the export of produce to Singapore. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Government to provide adequate funds for water conservation, and (2) urges the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Government to provide increased funds in the 1984-85 Budget for water storage projects and related water resources development to enable rural Australia to be more secure in times of future drought. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) will second: That this House congratulates the Government on winning international recognition for its strong stand on human rights which has resulted in the successful election of Australia to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is of the opinion that holding a referendum on the same day as a general election merely confuses and distorts the issues, and (2) urges the Government to abandon plans to stage a referendum in conjunction with the next general election, and in particular, to abandon plans to bring forward a referendum on the controversial subject of simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the Liberal and National Parties for adopting a policy statement on the environment which abdicates a primary national responsibility for the Australian Government to protect world heritage areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, south-west Tasmania and Kakadu National Park, and (2) expresses it concern that this policy may, in the future, place at risk Australian world heritage areas. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates and extends its best wishes to the most highly qualified and largest ever Australian Olympic team, consisting of 250 athletes and 84 officials, as they prepare to compete in the 23rd Olympiad in Los Angeles from 28 July to 12 August 1984; (2) recognises the achievement of Rick Charlesworth, a member of this Parliament, as captain of Australia's outstanding men's hockey team; (3) reaffirm its faith in the Olympic flame as a symbol of peace and brotherhood, and in its ability to develop trust and overcome animosity that continues to separate nations, and (4) welcomes to the Parliament, on 7 June 1984, Sue Landells and Kylie Hammond, 2 members of Australia's Olympic swimming team. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for his abject capitulation to the forces of the socialist-left, as evidenced by his failure to do his clear duty and sack the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (a) is of the opinion that the use of emotional trigger words consistently used by one Member must ultimately draw a response from the Government Members, and (2) calls upon the Member for Denison to desist from the use of emotional phrases in his references to the Government in order to restrain Government Members from using similar trigger words. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the US Government radio station in Europe, Radio Liberty, and its President, James L. Buckley, on beaming into the Soviet Union during the week commencing 4 June 1984, in various languages, a detailed account of the debate in this House, on 30 May 1984, on the motion concerning the persecution of Dr Sakharov, as moved by the Member for Wentworth and amended by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, and unanimously adopted by this House. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the new Commonwealth guidelines for community care services for the aged, and (2) commends the Government on its provision of alternative forms of care to meet the varied aged care needs in the community. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) reminds the managing director of Australia's leading pastoral house that the pensioner assets test is inequitable and those most unfairly treated are the clients of that pastoral house, and (2) calls on that pastoral house to give automatic approval for the inclusion of an amount of up to $7000 per annum in their clients' loan budgets for parental support. Mr Lindsay proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should understand that information and argument should not be contained in his notice of motion. It is out of order. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that the honourable Member for Franklin actively represents half of the city of Hobart and a large part of Tasmania and calls on the Hobart Mercury to give him a fair go, no more and no less. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Government to provide adequate capital funds for public nursing homes, and (2) urges the Ministers for Social Security, and Health and the Government to provide increased funds in the 1984-85 Budget for grants to meet adequately the growing demand for nursing home accommodation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Opposition on its initiative in organising a National Small Business Conference for representatives of small business organisations, individual businessmen and women, community leaders and politicians, and (2) condemns the Government for completely ignoring the small business sector. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) will second: That this House congratulates the Government on the fact that, since its election, unemployment has declined, the labour force participation has increased, inflation has gone down, interest rates have fallen, consumer confidence has increased to an all time high and the rate of capital investment has improved. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the Australian flag is a treasured and honoured symbol of the Australian people and the Nation and that thousands of Australians have fought and many have sacrificed their lives under the flag, and (2) calls on the Government to require that any change to the Australain flag should only be by an absolute majority of this House and the Senate, approved by a referendum of a majority of Australians in a majority of the states and territories. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its magnificent achievement in promoting tourism both within Australia and from overseas; (2) commends the Government's efforts to attract tourists to north Queensland; (3) welcomes the introduction of discounted domestic airfares for both Australian and overseas tourists, and (4) commends the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Australian tourist and travel industry. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) judges the competence of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to be far short of that required for a Minister, and (2) calls on the Minister to make a full statement to the House explaining why he should have the confidence of the Australian people when his own Commonwealth Employment Service is unable to carry out its duty due to industrial turmoil. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its ill-conceived fortified wine impost imposed in the 1983-84 Budget; (2) notes that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the impost has raised only $432,383 at 31 March 1984, of an originally estimated $13m, and (3) calls on the Government to consult with the Australian wine and brandy industry prior to the 1984-85 Budget. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the entire Opposition will second: That this House expresses deep concern at the Government's self-satisfaction, while unemployment continues at 650,000, a level which coalition Members and the Australian public regard as being totally unacceptable. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will second: That this House- (1) notes with concern the Government's decision not to proceed with the notice given for general business Thursday No. 6, condemning the Government for its negative and damaging policies on the mining and export of Australian uranium, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to change the Government's crazy and illogical uranium policy as a matter of urgency. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Coalition Parties for developing an environmental and conservation policy which will ensure the protection of Australia's World Heritage listed areas by enabling the Commonwealth to work with the States in developing a long-term approach to overall environmental management, and (2) condemns the Government for its ad hoc approach to environmental management based upon promising so much and delivering so little. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its concern that despite continuing representation by the honourable Member for Hume to the Minister for Health, the Electoral Division of Hume still has only 2 Medicare offices and that major towns like Yass, Harden, Cootamundra, Temora, Forbes, West Wyalong, Junee, Tumut, Gundagai and Grenfell have no Medicare offices. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the crucial role which immigration has played in the development of Australia, both economically and culturally, and (2) rejects- (a) the view that continued immigration is detrimental to the economic well- being of Australia, and (b) the calls from certain extremists in the community for a total halt to immigration. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that any provision of public funding for referendum campaigns should allow for equal contributions to be made to the 'yes ' and 'no' cases. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Government to provide adequate funds for flood mitigation works on New South Wales coastal rivers, and (2) urges the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Government to provide increased funds in the 1984-85 Budget for flood mitigation projects under the national water resources program to enable a more adequate program of works to be undertaken by State and local Government flood mitigation authorities. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that personal clothing is, collectively, an expensive item and will be included in a pensioner's assets, and (2) reminds the Government that the death of a pensioner can and will reduce overnight, for the surviving partner, their pension by $110 per week to $35 per week. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the position referred to by the Prime Minister in this House on 6 June 1984 that nuclear power stations are environmentally cleaner and safer than most other forms of power generation, such as coal power stations, and (2) calls on the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to conduct a program of public education to encourage the environmentalist movement to espouse uranium mining and nuclear technology as a major means of saving the world environment. Mr MORRISON(St George) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House refers standing order 133, concerning notices of motion, to the Standing Orders Committee. Mr Goodluck proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr Scholes-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is a scurrilous-- Mr GOODLUCK —That is not scurrilous. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Defence raises a point of order. The Minister will understand that under the Standing Orders a judge is one of those categories of persons who can be referred to only by substantive motion. In the notice of motion the honourable member is using unparliamentary expressions. I ask him to recast his motion so that it would be in order. Mr Peacock-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It would not be the wish of the honourable member for Franklin to use unparliamentary language in his notice of motion. As I heard it, he had only got to the stage where he referred to the fact that Mr Justice Lionel Murphy is no longer a Labor politician. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will proceed to his point of order. Mr Peacock-Mr Speaker, I wish you to advise the honourable member, as we are dealing with a matter concerning a person who is on the Bench but who yesterday stepped outside the field of the judiciary to launch a book and make some observations relating to matters in Tasmania, where he is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member cares to see me afterwards I will go through his notice of motion which is capable of being done in writing. Mr Goodluck-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Please tell me. I am just a simple person, but I do not smile like the Prime Minister all the time and expect people to like me-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will come to his point of order. Mr Goodluck-All I said, Mr Speaker, was that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not repeat it; he will come to his point of order. Mr Goodluck-Mr Lionel Murphy was a Labor politician. What is so unparliamentary about that? I will call him a politician. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will see me afterwards for advice on recasting his notice of motion. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the sensitive handling of the industrial dispute at Australia Post's Leightonfield Mail Centre, NSW, by the Minister for Communications, and (2) congratulates the union involved and the Minister upon the settlement of this dispute which affected mail delivery in much of Sydney. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Speaker, I have amended my notice of motion. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) reminds the Honourable Lionel Murphy that he is no longer a politician but a Justice of the High Court of Australia, and (2) calls upon Justice Murphy to stop making political statements such as he did on 6 June 1984 when launching the 'Greenie' book entitled Battle for the Franklin. Mr Wells-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That notice of motion is disorderly under standing order 75. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not disorderly. There is a category of persons who can be referred to only by such a substantive motion. As such, the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Franklin is in order. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to ensure that sufficient revenues are foregone as will enable the Minister for Science and Technology to give a direction to the (MIC) Licensing Board that an MIC licence must be granted to the State of Tasmania in 1984-85. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) will second: That this House- (1) notes that (a) the Member for Denison was the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory in the Fraser Government and (b) under that Government there was no effective prohibition on the dissemination of hard-core pornography in the ACT; (2) congratulates the Attorney-General, Senator G. J. Evans, for introducing an Ordinance that will stem the flow of hard-core pornography in the ACT; (3) notes that the Opposition attempted to disallow this Ordinance on 4 June 1984, and (4) condemns the Opposition for its sanctimonious actions. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to advise the House whether the Government intends to honour its pre-election promise to apply the revenue raised from departure tax to the tourist industry, or whether this is another broken pre-election promise. Mr GOODLUCK —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. If a person takes the pay as you die pension-- Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —Honourable members should be quiet. This is a serious question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will proceed with his question. Mr GOODLUCK —If a person takes the pay as you die pension and lives for many years, what will happen if, on his death, his estate does not cover the payments and interest? Will the Government sue the dependants? Dr BLEWETT —It is clear that the honourable member for Franklin has not read the statements that were made in relation to this matter. It has been pointed out quite clearly that if that option is chosen-as I have pointed out time and again , it is simply an option that is open to pensioners if they wish to pursue it- there are limits on the loans which can be made from the Department of Social Security. Those limits will apply to the amount of total assets a person possesses. Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister for Health aware of reports that non-salaried surgeons in Canberra public hospitals have been operating a pool arrangement? Does the Minister consider that this matter should be referred to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals? Dr BLEWETT —It has been brought to my attention that some practices have developed in Canberra which are worrying to the Government. It appears that a group of doctors in Canberra, in an effort to compel patients into private insurance, have refused to treat their own patients in public hospitals if they have only Medicare cover. However, these doctors, of course, are very much concerned with any income implications of their tactics, so they have organised a pool inside the hospitals to ensure that their income is maintained despite their tactics. What they appear to be doing is saying 'You do my varicose veins patient this week and I will do your varicose veins patient next week', or 'I will treat your hernia patient this week; next week you treat mine'. That kind of practice is completely in contradiction to all the claims they have made about patient care and the continuity of patient cover; a complete contradiction of everything the doctors themselves have said in their rhetoric. Let me make it quite clear that it is the responsibility of the hospitals to roster doctors. Mr Carlton —You hate doctors. Dr BLEWETT —I am certainly highly contemptuous of these kinds of practices. It is, of course, open to doctors to refuse to treat their own patients in public hospitals, but if they make that decision it is the hospital that must provide appropriate rostering to see that proper patient care is provided. For instance, it has been reported to me that in a couple of these cases the operating doctor had not seen the patient until the patient was being prepared for the operation. I have to ensure, and the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission will ensure, that proper rostering takes place so that those sorts of failures in patient care do not occur. Let me also make the following point to doctors in the Canberra area: If these kinds of practices continue, they will do far more to undermine private practice in public hospitals than any action taken by the Government. Mr GROOM —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the assets test. I refer to the Minister's assurance yesterday that pensioners who incorrectly fill in their assets test form will be treated in the same way as the substantial number of Hawke Government Ministers who failed to fill in correctly their pecuniary interest returns. Is the Minister aware that at least two Hawke Government Ministers refused to declare the very substantial incomes of their spouses and that these Ministers were not penalised in any way? Will the Minister assure the elderly of Australia that pensioners who do the same thing will not be penalised? Mr Maher —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 146. Exactly the same question was asked yesterday. I ask that you rule the question out of order. Mr SPEAKER —From memory this question is a variation on the question that was asked yesterday. I think it is in order. Dr BLEWETT —I do not intend to make any declaration in this House which would encourage pensioners in any way to provide incorrect information on such forms. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continued opposition in some quarters to the assets test, will the Prime Minister inform the House of the benefits that will accrue from the assets test? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his question. He and the House will recall that the Government established a broadly-based representative committee under Professor Gruen to look at these questions. It is important to understand, as increasingly the people of Australia are understanding, that the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test acknowledged the fiscal realities within which any government has to operate in this area. The Gruen Panel recognised that a system of universal pensions is simply not feasible in the foreseeable future if we and governments in the future are to be able to provide for those in need. That principle was recognised unequivocally by the Gruen Panel. It went on from that to recognise the need for a means test in regard to both incomes and assets. As I made clear in this House earlier this week, there is one person of prominence in the Liberal Party of Australia who unequivocally recognises this. I refer to one of the alternative leaders of the Liberal Party. Mr Tuckey —He might be doing a-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —It is interesting to note that in today's Australian Financial Review he has addressed himself very specifically to this issue. Mr Tuckey —It really doesn't make sense-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HAWKE —I ask the House to note the comments of Mr Elliott of Elders, a very prominent member of the Liberal Party who is touted as a possible replacement for the Leader of the Opposition. What did Mr Elliott-the Liberal Party's Mr Elliott-have to say about this? He was quite unequivocal. Mr Connolly —Have you anything to say supporting your assets test? Mr HAWKE —I know honourable members opposite are upset about Mr Elliott but I warn them-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr HAWKE —They had better be careful about what they say because he might not put them in his shadow Cabinet. Mr Goodluck —He won't put me in because he won't be here. Mr HAWKE —He has put the whole lot of the Opposition in by this statement. Mr Goodluck —He doesn't have to go around my pensioners. We are the ones talking to the pensioners. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, let me remind those uncomfortable people on the other side of what was said under the heading 'Elliott refuses to recant on assets'. This is what Mr Elliott, prominent Liberal Party leader, had to say as reported in the Australian Financial Review: In a telephone interview with The Australian Financial Review in New York, Mr Elliott made it clear that he intended to stand by his principles- it is a pity more of the Opposition could not do it- on the controversial assets test question, even if it conflicted with the Opposition's present views. That was a very relevant observation. They will not be the views of the Opposition after the next election because, either under the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition or Mr Elliott, the Opposition will come to its senses and stick to its principles. This is what the article went on to state: I have always argued that the social security system should be based on need. Therefore I do support the assets test. When asked how he specifically regarded the Hawke Government's assets test proposal, Mr Elliott said: I never claim to have any expertise on pensions. What we have now is an assets test that will cut pensions off for people who are affluent and wealthy. I think it is a good start. We do not have to rely simply on the statements of Mr Elliott. We can come much closer to home. I know all honourable members would have read page 3 of today's edition of the Age newspaper. For those who have not, I would like to share the beauty of the report. On page 3 of the Age, under the heading 'New split looms over Lib retirement policy'-- Mr Peacock —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —It is almost like 'woof, woof', is it not? Mr Young —I hope not. Mr HAWKE —As the Special Minister of State says, I hope not. These gems of information appear under the heading 'New split looms over Lib retirement policy ' and I would like to share them with the House and with the people of Australia . The report states: Senior members of the Federal Opposition are split over what policy the coalition should adopt on the key issue of retirement. Government members-Ah! Mr HAWKE —Ah! It improves. It goes on: The Opposition spokesman on health, Mr Carlton, has circulated a paper advocating a policy which would give the pension to all aged people without means test. But the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Howard, is opposing a policy which would abandon, for aged pensions, a needs base. It goes on, and this is no surprise: It will be some time before the Opposition releases its retirement policy. The report continues: The division which has developed is embarrassing for the Opposition because it is over such a fundamental philosophical point. But the split lacks the passion and bitterness that the brawl between Mr Howard and the industrial relations spokesman, Mr Macphee had. Then comes, if you like, the guts of it, where one finds out why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the man of principle on this issue and why the Leader of the Opposition is revealed for what he is-totally lacking in both courage and principle. The report goes on to say-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I invite honourable members opposite to listen to this and see if they can work out an answer for it. The report goes on to say: In the debate over pensions policy, Mr Howard has maintained that the universalist approach would leave less funds for other things, make the selling of the economic policy harder, and would be attacked by economic commentators and groups like the Business Council of Australia, which supports needs-based welfare. It would also mean a tax rise of one or two per cent, making it electorally difficult in a highly tax-conscious electorate. Having caused such hurt to the Opposition, I want to conclude with a constructive suggestion to it. Seeing as there is such hopeless division in the ranks of the Liberal Party, may I suggest that it refer the matter for arbitration to Malcolm Fraser's think tank. Mr ADERMANN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. What hardship provisions will apply for elderly farmers in times of drought when their farms generate no income and they are denied a pension because of the assets test? Dr BLEWETT —At this stage I cannot possibly give a precise and detailed answer to a question of that nature. Yesterday in this House I did indicate a range of hardship provisions-they were also spelt out by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry-which would deal with those situations. Quite clearly, the problem which the honourable member has raised would have been dealt with within the hardship provisions that I pointed out yesterday. Let me say again: These proposals will come in detail in a Bill before this House and the upper House for full and detailed consideration. We will welcome constructive suggestions from the Opposition to improve this measure. Mr SNOW —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Can the Minister say what the Australian Public Service staff growth is expected to be in the financial year 1984-85? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I preface my answer by saying that, after the Prime Minister's last answer, it might be better if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sticks to talking about the assets test and about needs-based welfare rather than venturing into an area which he has very much greater difficulty with-that dealing with measuring the growth rate in the size of the Public Service. We have seen in recent weeks that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been responsible for some statistical manipulation, some rewriting of history and, more importantly, some fanciful prophecies. Of course, we know that fanciful prophecies are the kinds of things which he engaged in at such damage to himself just over 12 months ago when he tried to cover up the projected size of the deficit. It took this Government to reveal the true magnitude of the horror awaiting us in 1983-84 had we not taken the action we did. Let me put this statistical fantasy to rest. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been trying to say is that this Government will be, over the period of its first two years, responsible for a growth rate of 10 per cent in the size of the Public Service. The discredited former Treasurer needs to have a short but, I think, precise lecture on the statistics involved in these measures . I will have great pleasure in giving him that lecture now. It is true that in the Budget Papers last year we indicated that the growth rate, in terms of average staff levels, in the Public Service in 1983-84 would be, and indeed was, 4.4 per cent. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has tried to do is take that figure and add to it a figure of 4.8 per cent which represented the bids for 1984-85. By adding those two figures together he asserted that there would be nearly a 10 per cent increase in the Public Service over our first two years. In the first instance, as far as the 4.4 per cent average growth in 1983-84 is concerned, half of that was due to decisions taken not by us but by him as Treasurer and the Government of which he was a part; that is, 2.2 per cent of the growth in average staff levels in 1983-84 was the direct result of the 5.3 per cent growth which occurred in one year under the Fraser Government at the time when it decided to abandon its staff ceilings approach which had caused such damage to the Administration and to the Public Service generally. I will deal with his claim about the 4.8 per cent increase. It is, of course, true that in the forward Estimates which we released earlier this year we did indicate that the bids by departments for growth rates in staff for 1984-85 implied a 4.8 per cent growth in average staff levels. But, as I have said repeatedly since that time, they are simply the departmental bids and they will not be met in full. It is important, therefore, to recognise that it is this Government which has taken in hand the size of the growth rate in the Public Service and it is this Government which has instituted a system of human resource budgeting which will ensure that there is an appropriate size Public Service under the control of the Government, which adequately meets the demands of the Administration and provides the services which the people need to have provided in the community, whether they be by way of the administration of pension payments or through the Commonwealth Employment Service in relation to assisting people find jobs. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to make certain claims to dispute the 5.3 per cent growth during the last year of the Fraser Government. In doing this he was simply engaged in an exercise of statistical manipulation of a kind which apparently he has decided to engage in repeatedly in recent times. The simple fact is that in 1982-83 there was a 5.3 per cent increase in the size of the Public Service. It took this Government to take the growth rate in hand, to control it and to ensure that, to the extent that we need to have an increase in the size of the Administration which is reflective of the growing demands within the community for services from government, that growth rate is properly applied and properly apportioned across the departments. I want to hear no more of these scurrilous and untrue claims from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He knows them to be wrong. It is about time that he returned to telling the truth rather than trying to mislead the Australian community. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, refers to his sanctimonious and deceptive statement yesterday which was not brought down in this Parliament to inform the people or the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should get to his question. Mr PEACOCK —But merely to massage and placate members of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition should get to his question. Mr PEACOCK —This statement, of course, has been attacked by members of the left wing of his Party. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition that he has to ask his question. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, are you warning me? Mr SPEAKER —I am warning you to get on with your question. I asked you to round off your preamble. You continued with it in a manner defiant to the Chair. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister claim that the information given yesterday was information not previously available? What has he said to members of his own Party who have attacked the statement as a sham and a disgrace? What attitude will he take to members of the left wing of his Party who are out to have the joint installations removed from Australia? Will he undertake not to divulge more information in background briefings to Caucus? Will he ensure that those members of the Labor Party who support him on this and are in his Ministry will not divulge secret information? Will he discipline the left wing of his Party in its attack on a matter which is fundamental to Australia's national security? Will he come clean and admit that what he said yesterday was clearly available to the Australian community beforehand? Therefore, will he admit that the whole process was a manipulative sham trying to set the scene for the Labor Party conference in July and nothing more than that? In other words, will he agree with Mrs Coxsedge and other members of the Left who have described the statement in the terms that I have just used? Mr HAWKE —Over the last few weeks, as I have seen the degenerating, pathetic performance of the Leader of the Opposition, I have been reminded of a very relevant and telling passage in a fascinating book which I recommend to him and indeed to all members of this House to read. It is the first volume of F.S. Oliver's The Endless Adventure, which is the biography of Walpole, the first British Prime Minister. In my opinion the first 100-odd pages of that book constitute the most incisive essay on politics that has ever been written. The Leader of the Opposition should note in particular one passage where Oliver refers to those in politics who would deign to describe themselves as statesmen. He says of those politicians who would deign to describe themselves as statesmen - Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister has not the courage to answer this question that has been directed to him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his point of order. Mr Peacock —The obfuscation contained in the statement yesterday is merely being carried on today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his point of order. Mr Peacock —Sensitive as the Prime Minister is to attacks by the Left on his policy, will he answer the question that I have directed to him? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his point of order. Mr Peacock —I do not need any homilies from him. I simply want an answer to my question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —I was saying that Oliver said of those who would deign to describe themselves as statesmen that they observe that they would never stoop to the gutter but they always-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In the light of your comments yesterday, I refer you to standing order 145, which states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. I draw your attention to previous statements you have made in this House quoting precedent which gives Ministers some opportunity to answer questions in a broad sense. Walpole knew nothing of uranium. Mr Young —Mr Speaker, on the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition, apart from his preamble of two or three minutes, asked at least 15 questions. I would have thought that almost anything, including quotes from Julius Caesar, would have been relevant to that question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Walpole may not have known anything about uranium; but Oliver certainly knew a lot about politics when he said that those who would deign to describe themselves as statesmen and say that they would never stoop to the gutter always ensure that they are surrounded by those whose loins are suppler. The Leader of the Opposition vicariously gets down into the gutter through the medium of the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Brutus, you have blood on your hands. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I take offence at that imputation. This is not a frivolous point of order; hear me, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister implied that members of the Opposition would stoop to the gutter. I take offence at that. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, may I correct the honourable member: Some have to stoop; some others do not because they are already there. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that remark. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has made a general statement which I think is accepted in the hurly burly of politics. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Now-- Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that. I never stoop to the gutter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, as you rightly say, it was a general observation. If the honourable member says he does not stoop to get into the gutter, that is all right with me; I withdraw and say that he does not stoop to get into the gutter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister should answer the question. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Ian Cameron —A point of order, Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will wait until the House comes to order. Mr Ian Cameron —I do not stoop to the gutter, either. I would like the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment. Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order, I will call you for your point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, I do not stoop to the gutter, either. I would like the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment that he made generally to this side of the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The use of general terms is in order. I call the Prime Minister to answer the question. Mr HAWKE —Coming to specifics, in respect of the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, as I said yesterday, there is a distinct difference between assertions made in journals in this country-whether it be the National Times or any other journal-and an authoritative statement made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of this country. I repeat what I said yesterday: For the first time, a government in this country has made a clear statement about the purpose and the functions of the joint facilities in this country and it was long overdue. If the current Leader of the Opposition and other members of the previous Government had had any sense and any idea of commitment to the security interests of this country they would have made such a statement. Of course, on behalf of members of my Party, I reject the imputations that have been cast upon them that they in some sense have less of a commitment to the security and the welfare of this country than those on the other side of this House. Mr Speaker, in any objective analysis of the political history of this country, if we look at the conservative parties and the Australian Labor Party in terms of how they have looked after the security of this country in times of crisis and in times when sound decisions needed to be made, it is the conservative parties on every occasion that have been found wanting. The people of Australia have always had to turn to this Party. It is one of the great myths that the conservatives have tried to perpetuate in Australian politics that somehow or other they are the ones who are concerned about and who can handle Australia's security interests. When this country was at its-- Mr Peacock —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is unmitigated misleading of the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should get to his point of order . Mr Peacock —The point I make is that the current Prime Minister was one of a number of signatories to a newspaper advertisement calling for the removal-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —From Australia-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —He is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER —I-- Government members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —We had to wait until the last day of these parliamentary sittings to see the Leader of the Opposition being quick on his feet. I was making the point that it rather sticks in the gullet of people on this side of the House because, when the real security of this country has been threatened, what have the people of Australia had to do? They have had to throw out the conservatives and bring in the Labor Party, as they did in 1941. It is very relevant that that point should be made-that the conservatives were thrown out when Australia's security was threatened in 1941-because it was precisely in those circumstances-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat until the House comes to order. With the gaggle of interjections, it is quite impossible to name who is making them. Mr HAWKE —The truth always hurts, Mr Speaker. Mr Howard —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your responsibility as Presiding Officer of this House, whilst constrained by the specific Standing Orders, is also constrained by a general requirement to preserve order in a fair and balanced manner. I put it to you, sir, in all seriousness that some of the shambolic behaviour here this morning is due to the long-winded, provocative and totally political answers of the Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister-in conclusion, I trust. Mr HAWKE —It is very appropriate that one should refer to the fact that, in 1941 , the Australian people threw the conservatives out and brought Labor in, because as part of the discharge of the function of ensuring the security and viability of Australia-which the conservatives were incapable of doing-one of the intrinsically important things that the then Labor Government, under John Curtin, did was to forge-- Mr Groom —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under the Standing Orders, answers have to be relevant. We have heard about the Prime Minister being in bed with John Elliott. We have heard about Walpole-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will come to his point of order. Mr Groom —These answers are not relevant, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the honourable member for Braddon is correct. There is a duty on you, Mr Speaker. In discharging that, you have to ensure that Ministers, in answering their questions, are relevant, and you have to call them to order if they go on at great length. I have noticed that you have lacked a preparedness to do that, and -- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition reflects on the Chair. He will withdraw that. Mr Peacock —Oh, I withdraw any reflection on you, Mr Speaker. But the fact is that the Prime Minister has not addressed the questions that have been asked of him at all. There is no one in this Parliament who would not give great credit to the work of John Curtin. It so happens that that was not asked by me today. I want to know what the answers are to the questions that I posed in relation to the sanctimonious statement made yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on two points. One of them concerns the length of answers. In the Standing Orders no restriction is placed on the length of answers. In fact, that matter was referred to the Standing Orders Committee in the previous Parliament, and no action was taken. My hands are bound on that question of length of answers. With regard to relevance, when general questions are asked it is very difficult to define them, down to specific relevant points. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer to determinations of your predecessors when they have asked Ministers, including Prime Ministers, to draw their answers to a close. That is point one. Point two is that my question was not a general question but was related to the statement yesterday. There has not been a reference to that sanctimonious statement at any stage in the Prime Minister's answer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister-I take it, in conclusion. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, everything has been relevant and will continue to be so. I was making the point that an intrinsic part of the discharge of the function of defending the security of this country by this Party was to forge a relationship with the United States. It was this Party that forged that relationship. We have nothing to apologise for in respect of the nature of the relationship with the United States because it was this Party that did that. On that basis I simply say that I reject-in answering the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's question-the imputation contained in it that people in the Labor Party somehow or other have less concern with and commitment to the security of this country. I say that the record shows the opposite to be true. Having said that, I state that I will not be engaging in any background briefing with members of my Party. If we are talking about background briefing let this fact be understood: The Leader of the Opposition has been fully briefed on the matters about which I spoke yesterday. He knows that what I said to this House yesterday is the complete truth. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to deny that. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I take it that the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order? Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I have been challenged by the Prime Minister. I rise to the challenge. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —What he said yesterday was not the complete truth. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that what I put was the whole of the truth about the functions of this base and that in this House I drew the distinction between what could be disclosed about the functions-which has been done-and technical information which, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, would be totally improper to disclose in this Parliament or elsewhere. I regard it as beneath contempt that there should be some implication that I, or any relevant Minister, would disclose to members of my Party or elsewhere any of that technical information that it would be improper to disclose. Mr Groom —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You gave a direction to the Prime Minister some minutes ago that he should bring his answer to a close. He is ignoring your direction. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If interruptions were fewer perhaps the answer could be brought to a close. Mr HAWKE —Those are the facts. There will not be any additional briefing of any members of my Party or of any members of the public. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition suggests or implies that that would happen. I make it quite clear, as I did in the Press conference yesterday and in this Parliament, that there are within my Party, as there are within the community, divisions of opinion and emphasis-- Mr Peacock —There are real divisions in your Party. Mr HAWKE —But no more than the hopeless divisions which exist on the Leader of the Opposition's side of the House. Mr Peacock —Don't use this Parliament-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already warned the Leader of the Opposition on interjecting. I give him a final warning. Mr HAWKE —If the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about divisions let him look behind himself, because that is where the real divisions in this Parliament exist. Mr CROSS —I refer the Treasurer to the incentives to encourage investors to provide funds for management and investment companies. Is he able to convey advice from the Commissioner of Taxation which might reassure investors that proceeds from the sale of MIC shares will not be assessable and that the 100 per cent deduction at the time of purchase will be lost only in accordance with the four-year claw-back provisions? Mr KEATING —There has been some speculation in the newspapers and some inquiry by taxpayers about the prospects of being taxed on profits under certain sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act after the passage of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 through this House. That Bill provides for 100 per cent deductions for investment in management and investment companies as described by the honourable gentleman. I have inquired of the Commissioner of Taxation on that point. He informs me that under the existing law any such profit derived from a sale made within 12 months of subscription for the shares would be taxable under section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Section 26(a) imposes tax on profit from the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. However, where a person meets the patient investor criteria by holding his or her MIC shares for four years or more, the Commissioner considers it unlikely that, on an objective view, such an investor would be found to have acquired the shares with the dominant purpose of profit making by sale, in which case any profit on the sale of the shares would not be taxable. That is not to say that MIC shareholders who sell their shares in less than four years would be exposed to tax on any profits they might derive. In that regard, investors in MICs will be treated in the same way as other investors in relation to profits derived from the sale of shares or other investments and will not find it any more difficult than investors in general to establish that their MIC shares were not acquired for profit making purposes. I mention that the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee recommended that profits on the sale of MIC shares held for more than two years should be specifically exempt from income tax. The Government did not adopt that recommendation. To have done so, I think, would have been inconsistent with the concept of encouraging into the high risk venture capital market investors who would not be tempted to realise their investment at the earliest opportunity. In the light of the Commissioner's advice, there is no basis for any apprehension on the part of potential investors that the Government's initiative in encouraging high risk investment in MICs might be counteracted by subsequent taxation treatment of profits they derive. The Clerk-Notice has been received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) of his intention at the next sitting to move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his duplicity and double standards in relation to major areas of public policy as exemplified by: (a) the clear and open breach of faith with Australia's elderly through the imposition of the arbitrary and discriminatory Hawke assets test; (b) the assault upon the retirement aspirations of hundreds of thousands of middle income Australians through the savage increase in tax on lump sum superannuation payments; (c) having presided over tax rises which will amount to $3.5 billion in 1984-85 despite his election promise of immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians; and (d) his blatant granting of privileges and advantages to trade union bosses to the disadvantage of ordinary Australians. Mr Young-I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition is up to; but, if he is moving a motion of censure against the Prime Minister, we are quite happy to take it forthwith. 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 moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Prime Minister of which he has given notice. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(11.15) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his duplicity and double standards in relation to major areas of public policy as exemplified by: (a) the clear and open breach of faith with Australia's elderly through the imposition of the arbitrary and discriminatory Hawke assets test; (b) the assault upon the retirement aspirations of hundreds of thousands of middle income Australians through the savage increase in tax on lump sum superannuation payments; (c) having presided over tax rises which will amount to $3.5 billion in 1984-85 despite his election promise of immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians; and (d) his blatant granting of privileges and advantages to trade union bosses to the disadvantage of ordinary Australians. I have moved this motion in conjunction with the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and with the full support of the Opposition because of the continued duplicity of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Over and above the substance of the motion of which I gave notice, we saw it again at Question Time today. We heard in this House the Prime Minister saying that yesterday he 'told the whole truth'. The fact is that on the matter before the Parliament yesterday the Prime Minister could not, and indeed should not, tell all the facts about the installations. He knows that there are severe constraints on any government and in saying that he told the whole truth he was nailing as a lie the very sanctimonious statement that he made yesterday. I return to the motion. What we heard in Question Time on other matters is typical of this Government. It was a display yet again of, for example, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), simply doing what the Prime Minister tells him, unable to explain to the people of Australia how the assets test will impact upon them- another example of callous disregard for the responsibilities of a Federal government and for those millions of Australian pensioners who want answers as to their future. Neither this Prime Minister nor any Ministers opposite are able to do so. It is an absolute disgrace that, after 15 months of the Hawke Government, Australians are worse off in terms of such fundamental factors affecting their lives as taxation and the other matters referred to in this motion. No matter whether one is young, middle aged or old, this grasping Government taxes one's coming and one's going. As I have pointed out in regard to pensioners, it has raised taxation to a new level and has invented some entirely new concepts, such as the Hawke triple dip. It went into the old triple dip last week. The Hawke triple dip is the mark of a government which is hell-bent on sucking every cent that it possibly can out of people's pockets. The chilling fact is that after 15 months of this Hawke Government the average Australian family is more than $17 a week worse off. Mr Howard —How much? Mr PEACOCK —Seventeen dollars a week worse off. That represents $900 less a year that the average family has to spend. There is no way that this man will be able to explain that away. When the matter has been raised in the Parliament honourable members opposite have never challenged the facts. They have simply sought to dump it on others, whether it be the Australian Taxpayers Association or the Opposition, who raise the reality that the average Australian family is $ 17 a week worse off. They cannot explain it. If the Prime Minister seeks to do so he will mislead the House. The average family has $900 less a year to spend. Labor's $17 rip-off, frankly, is bare-faced confiscation; it has nothing to do with consensus. This is the man who said in the election campaign that he would bring Australians together. No matter whether one is young, old, middle aged or a middle income earner, one is hit with such nonsense under this masking facade of bringing Australia together. A number of us said in the election campaign that this man would put the 'con' into consensus and reconciliation, and that is exactly what he has done. The next Budget is being planned and negotiated behind closed doors with Mr Dolan and Mr Kelty. As I said yesterday, it will not be Paul Keating's second Budget; it will be Cliff Dolan's first Budget. Brutus and Cassius, both of whom rolled the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), are behind closed doors-while, of course, the Foreign Minister is overseas-working out the Budget that is to be brought down in August. The Government has nothing to do with consensus. It has put the Economic Planning Advisory Council on one side and an exclusive privileged position has been given to the trade union movement. I do not know how this stacks up with involving all Australians in the process. Let us get on to a solemn promise made last year in the election campaign. I will quote the Prime Minister. He said: 'There will be immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers'. He did not say: 'In the distant future we hope to give Australians a tax cut'. What he said was that he would give immediate tax cuts. Australians are $17 a week worse off under this Government. There are no immediate tax cuts. Some 15 months later those six million Australians are still waiting for this man of immediate action. The fact is that the Government never intended to honour that very specific promise. Instead of tax cuts, what this Prime Minister has given Australians is income cuts, and there is no way that Labor will give back to ordinary Australians what it has taken away. The Australian man on the average wage is now paying 46c income tax on every extra dollar earned. Almost 400,000 Australians have moved into the 46c tax bracket. Many low income earners will move from paying no tax to paying 30c on each extra dollar earned. This absolutely obliterates Labor's claim that it stands for justice or that it stands for fairness. It makes a total mockery of the promises mouthed by the Prime Minister at the Opera House last year. There is a second barrel to Labor's tax gun. State Labor governments have hit taxpayers with massive tax increases. If one goes through every Labor State one finds that big spending Labor is squeezing taxpayers, and squeezing them every day of the week, with government charges and taxes. It is destroying the incentive to work and get ahead. The Prime Minister, in his plethora of platitudes, asks Australians to tighten their belts and then he says to them: ' You are not to pursue narrow self-interest'. What kind of an example does he set ? The Hawke Government puts on another 35 politicians at a cost of more than $ 10m to the taxpayers. It spends up big on its hare-brained schemes. It cannot escape higher taxes. It is taxing our past, our present and our future. In fact Labor is taxing one wherever one goes, whether it is through Medicare or the assaults on the elderly. Just look at the assaults the Government has made on the elderly. Listen to the spluttering, fumbling Minister for Health who, day by day, has been unable to explain an assets test that he brought down without thinking through the consequences. This Prime Minister comes into the Parliament and claims that he is directing areas of wealth from one section of the community to another section of the community; he is redistributing income. Last week we exposed what will happen under this assets test. Next year it will cost everyone here $30m. So much for the transfer from one section of the community to the other! We are told that in a couple of years' time there will be sufficient savings, of the order of $45m, to assist those needy pensioners. As the Opposition pointed out, if one divides that $45m and allots it to every pensioner in this community, each will get 36c-half a cup of tea, half a Violet Crumble or half a Kit-Kat. That is what the Government is doing. It is imposing this- Mr Hawke —So we should have been harder? Mr PEACOCK —No way. The Government should not have imposed it at all. The Government may think it should have been harder but we happen to think that there should not be an assets test. One can direct welfare according to need without an assets test. There is nothing that glorifies the assets test as having a central position. In fact, the Government has exposed it as phoney by the test which it is bringing in. More to the point, the Government is causing hitherto unknown concern and anxiety among pensioners in this community. If they are in a position where they may not be able to get their pension, the Government gives them this pay as you die scheme that will liquidate their assets, thus allowing them to draw the pension without, I take it, having a lien on their assets any more. Day by day, confusion has come through the answers. This assets test is not worth printing on tissue paper, let alone having people fill in forms. Day after day this Government has been unable to answer fundamental questions which every Australian pensioner wants answered. It has been the same from the moment that the Government announced the test. The Government simply does not know and it does not care how the Hawke assets test will be imposed. It does not know and it does not care whom it hurts. It does not care how many people it hurts. It is a damning indictment of the Hawke Government and especially this Prime Minister that after more than nine months and numerous half-baked attempts Australia's elderly still do not know what this Government has in store for them. Incidentally, the Government has set up a hotline. Mr Sinclair —A hotline? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, so the Government can answer questions. A number of us have phoned this hotline to see what it could tell us. Because we could not get the answers in the Parliament we thought we would ring the hotline. These are the sorts of things we were told on the hotline: The girls manning the hotline could not tell us whether the fines were only $500 or $1,000. They could not tell us, if a pensioner gives misleading or false information, whether he or she could be fined or a gaol sentence imposed. But they did say that somewhere, under some Act, this was possible. They could not tell us what the period of the gaol sentence would be, et cetera. The fact is that the Government cannot set up a hotline to advise those who are anxious to know what the Government's intentions are if the Government cannot even spell them out here. I am all in favour of a hotline to explain something to people if, in fact, they can be given an explanation, but there is no explanation on these calls to the hotline. The poor girls either tell people to ring back later when the supervisor is in or say that the Government has not worked it out yet. This is great revenue for Telecom Australia, at cost to the pensioners who are still trying to work out what is happening, but there is no clarification involved in the calls themselves. All the pensioners know at this stage is that once again Labor has spread confusion, concern and anxiety among those people who are the least able in this community to rearrange their affairs. Honourable members will recall that a week ago the Prime Minister came into this House gushing about his wonderful assets test. Like his statements on uranium and on United States of America bases, his statement was very long on sentiment, with empty phrases and cheap theatrics. The build-up had gone on for weeks. It is always the same old shabby stage management. Expectations are built up by a series of leaks-in this case they virtually destroyed the work of the Prime Minister's own assets test panel-they create concern and all the time the Prime Minister, in the past the alleged Mr Fix It, is waiting in the wings for the central moment to come out and explain with clarification what is transpiring. So out he came last week with the platitudes and what he thought was the way out of the mess that he himself had created. He went through the lot -the National Economic Summit Conference, the evils of narrow, individual self- interest, the greatest crisis in 50 years, the need to spread the burden, how we had to be frank, and how 'these are the facts'. All the phrases were there. There was more wind than in a typhoon. Yet, after he had puffed himself out and scurried from the chamber, the elderly were none the wiser. All we learned was that instead of shifting the burden we were going to have imposed on us an intrusive test, a test which would cost $30m and eventually, when it is in place , give pensioners 36c a week. The harsh reality is that the ramblings of the Prime Minister show a gross incompetence and an ignorance in relation to a question as important as an assets test. It is nothing short of a disgrace. We have discussed at great length the confusion for pensioners. What about those who were going to retire on lump sum superannuation? This Government said that not one cent would be taken out of the pensioners' cheques. Not only has it imposed a test on the incomes of those people over 70 and the assets test, but also the tax on superannuation has been lifted from 5 per cent on a lump sum to 30 per cent. What do we find again? We find an absolute denial that this will occur during the election campaign-- Dr Edwards —And after. Mr PEACOCK —And after the election campaign on this occasion. The matter went direct to the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it nailed this man for what he is. The forms of the House do not allow me to express it in terms that all honourable members know. In other words, he said one thing and did another. Barry Unsworth has corroborated that. That is the further difference between the parties in this Parliament. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who sits on the other side of the House, gave notice of a motion this morning deploring the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) referring to a Labor socialist Government or a Hawke socialist Government. We just happen to be on about thrift. We happen to be on about people being able to improve their lot. If they work hard they can put money aside and they can transmit it into assets and not be attacked by a socialist Government that is saying 'Come to us as the first port of call', but not saying to them: 'We can provide all this for you only if we tax you more'. The Hawke Government has taxed the community more-$17 a week more-and the Prime Minister cannot answer that. If he seeks to, the figures, to put it mildly, will be rubbery. He has slugged individuals. The fact is that we have moved a censure motion today because of the clear and open breach of faith with Australia's elderly, the assault upon the retirement aspirations of so many Australians, and the fact that the Government has presided over tax rises which will amount to $3 .5 billion in 1984-85, despite the promise of immediate tax cuts. We face, therefore, a totally illusory situation with the tax cuts that are being negotiated between Hawke and Dolan. There is no way the Prime Minister is going to return the $3.5 billion to the people. In fact, it has been leaked that it will cost the people $1 billion. One billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but the Government has already taken $3.5 billion. There will be no return to the people. Behind all this, this man is going along with the calls of the majority of his Ministry for a broadly based wealth tax, a capital gains tax, death duties and, indeed, an excess profits tax. So that is the ACTU's way forward and it is also Labor's way forward. The Prime Minister will not rule out the possibility of capital gains taxes and death duties because this Government intends to reduce every part of Australian society to a dependence on Canberra. It is ingrained in Labor that this should be done. There is no room for independence and no room for personal freedom of choice in Labor's way forward. Honourable members know the way the Prime Minister goes about consensus. He says: 'You do as I say'. He put the 'con' in consensus and the 'con' in reconciliation. I remind the House in my concluding remarks that this man campaigned on the theme of bringing Australians together. He has divided them in every way I have referred to. There is no face of compassion; there is no face of consultation. Honourable members can be sure that, if there is consultation, the 'con' will also be put into consultation. It is the face of a pawnbroker who puts the elderly in hock so that he can spend up big. This is not a government of the people. It is a government of pawnbrokers and union bosses, giving the ACTU a privileged position that it has never had before. Those 2,400,000 pensioners will-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.35) —I second the censure motion against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Indeed, this Hawke Labor Government is a very strange creature. It operates on an elaborate stage. Gauze curtains screen the audience from most of the action. Every so often one is lifted. Frequently, spotlights are brought in to highlight the leading actor, the subject of our censure. Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr SINCLAIR —He postures to the gallery, he struts to the front of the stage. Honourable members should listen to him at the table now. Oh, how our hearts tremble when we hear that-- Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr SINCLAIR —Are you right? He makes his soliloquy, then exits occasionally to a trumpet blast while his cast pays homage. It is only in his raucous Left-those to whom he tried to pay some sort of homage yesterday-that we see the realities of the Labor situation. Mind you, when the play is over and the cast goes out in best Hollywood tradition he makes his occasional celebrity appearances. They appear at all the best functions and in all the best newspapers. There is no doubt-- Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —The gaggling of the mob over there today reflects something of the performance and the synthetic approach of this Government to matters that are of very real consequence to the people of Australia. But what happens? The players themselves forget the real action. What we need to remember is that in the heart of the censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) we see the core of the problem of this Government. It is a government which has been pretending to be at the centre. It is a government which is only now, in the application of its policies, beginning to be seen by the people in the community for what it is. Of course, we know the newspaper columnists have delved into the lives of that cast, have lifted the lids off several costume chests and have told their readers just how the show is produced. The television reporters with less time for detail and finesse have recorded every line on the faces of the cast in smiles, frowns and all the emotions in between. But what is this production all about? Let us look at where the Government is going and what it has done. First, we should remember the promises. Honourable members will remember the program notes for the first night. What were they? There was the promise to govern for all Australians; there was the promise to turn the economy around; there was the promise to correct unemployment; there was the promise of tax cuts and not to increases taxes. But most important of all-what all the audience wanted to see-there was the real promise to bring down unemployment in the long term for young Australians. There were of course many other promises but how those elector play-goers were fooled and they are now being called on to pay the tax price. Since this production got underway 15 months ago, there has been a lot of singing, a lot of dancing and some clever footwork. But the play itself has hardly begun. It has got all sorts of sub-plots: The Combe affair, the dams affair, the tapes affair, the great uranium spectacular and of course that bizarre koala plot. Mr Tuckey —What about the Dawkins tax affair? Mr SINCLAIR —I am glad to hear the interjection from the honourable member for O 'Connor. I will tell honourable members about the Dawkins tax dodge. I am referring to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), that man of probity, the man who told us all about how he administers taxes and then avoids them. Of course, this Government's promises have not been kept. Sadly, the economy is not as it should be. It is faltering ahead and we are delighted that the measures which we put into place are having some benefit in the community at large. Were it not for the breaking of the drought, the improvement of the American economy and the steps which we put in place by way of a pay pause, this Government would have had nothing of its own to offer. What is happening is that it is running to a script written by those of us who were there and governed for the benefit of all Australians. What has happened to the aged, the retired and the rural sector? There has been blatant favouring of one section of the community. We were told yesterday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the way in which the Australian Council of Trade Unions, at the expense of almost all others in this community, has been given preferential access in negotiations to determine the structure of tax concessions to apply over the next 12 months. We know all about the way in which we learned of the supposed implications of the projected deficit when this Prime Minister came into office. We were told that that deficit was going to destroy the prospects of this Government implementing its forward policies. But what happened when we tried to find a projection for the deficit this year? We were told that those figures were not accurate. We were told by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that there was no point in presenting those figures either to the Economic Planning Advisory Council or to this Parliament. But who received those figures? The ACTU of course. What has happened to Medicare? We know now the feelings about Medicare of the medical profession, those who for so long have provided a professional input which has given those persons in our community who are ill a totally acceptable level of medical care, professional advice and guidance. But what about the patients? Have honourable members opposite asked any of their constituents what is happening to them because there is no gap insurance? What about those with children in independent schools? We know that a fear of selection is creeping into our community; a fear that economic aid will be given only to those schools that are directed and guided by the Australian Teachers Federation, which also has the Government dangling at the end of its puppet strings. What about the promise of tax cuts? What about the promise not to increase taxes? Where did the tax cuts for almost all Australians go? Where did the promise not to increase taxes on superannuation, petrol and excises go? Where did the promise not to impose an assets test on pensioners go? As far as the assets test is concerned, we heard today that there is a telephone ring-in service. What happens when we ring on that hotline? We find that either we get cut off or the people at the other end do not know the answers. Why do we not get the answers? Mr Howard —You get a 'knock, knock'. Mr SINCLAIR —We get a 'knock, knock' from someone saying: 'I am Mr Hawke's man. I am here to help you'. If we look at the structure and the function of the policies of this Government, we will see that the Prime Minister has got to the point where the people of Australia are beginning to see the consequences of the policies his Government is introducing. We know that tax rises have already amounted to $3.5 billion. We have been told that this year tax concessions will amount to $1 billion. Who will direct these tax concessions? Why, the ACTU. What about governing for all Australians? What about the significance of consensus? What about the idea of the National Economic Summit Conference of bringing Australians together, of coalescing, to try to determine the directions of this country? What happened? The Prime Minister said: 'We will appoint a few people to EPAC. We will have a small coterie of people but we will not even give them the economic knowledge that they need'. We find that that has been given to the ACTU. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has said, the next Budget will be Mr Dolan's first Budget, and well it should be. We can see quite properly-the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have already acknowledged-that it is only through negotiations with the ACTU that they have been able to provide what they see as an accord, not for the benefit of all Australians, including small businessmen and farmers, but for the benefit of one identified section of the community. What are Australians to believe when Ministers speak with resignation, without emotion or apparent concern of long term unemployment continuing? Mr Dawkins —Throw the read speech away. Mr SINCLAIR —I am glad that the Minister for Finance is seated at the table. I believe that it is very important that we have, at least from the man who is sitting at the table, recognition that the Government has been giving total lip- service to curing the long term problems of unemployment in this country. The small business employers are now beginning to find that the creeping intrusion of this socialist Government is interfering more and more in the opportunities they have to run their businesses. If one asks the farmer and the small businessman about how they will put on more employees one will learn that the removal of various concessions in the Treasurer's first Budget-40 cuts and modifications alone applied to the rural community-all had an effect on the extent to which the employer is able to generate employment. Let us look at jobs that have been provided in the public sector. We know that the State governments have not been able to provide the job opportunities expected of the funds allocated to them. There are three main areas of concern to us in the Government's application of policy. It is to those areas that we wish to direct the attention of honourable members in this House today. First, there is the difficulty of the elderly. No other sector of our community finds it more necessary to have continuing certainty in the direction of policies that apply to it. We know that the assets test is not new. It was first promulgated by the Treasurer when he introduced his Budget in August 1983. Since August 1983 we have had four variations of the assets test. The Prime Minister, without even telling the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), decided at a Press conference to remove the assets test mark I. Why? Because an election in New South Wales was impending. The right wing of the Australian Labor Party asserted its forces. The elderly had no certainty of what they were doing. They were told that there would be a committee of review and that committee of review would resolve all their difficulties. Since the report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test came down and those three modifications were made known to the community we have had from the Government a proposal which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who represents in this place the Minister for Social Security, cannot explain, we have a phone-in hotline that cannot give answers, we have absolute discrimination against several sections of the community in terms of the application of the test and we find that the test itself will mean that a person with a highly valued house presumably will be able to receive a pension while a person with a modest home and a few investments will be denied it. The elderly have been discriminated against in the assets test. The Gruen report states that farmers were told that they would have to have a special identity, an additional asset, to enable them to receive a pension. They will have to fit into the pay as you die model. Our second area of concern is the taxpayer. There is no doubt that, in the application of the tax concessions introduced in the last Budget, the whole income structure of young employed Australians is prejudiced. They are being called upon to pay a higher tax rate, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) properly identified the other day as costing $3.5 billion. Thirdly, we have the problem of the discrimination of the trade unions, particularly the ACTU, against those who are out of work and those who are not members of trade unions. In terms of the application of this Government's policy the Prime Minister is trying to pretend that he is all things to all people. There is no doubt that, in terms of the application of the Government's policy, changes have only just been brought to bear. If we look at the application of Medicare, at what is happening in the education sector and the tax structure, we find that the people of Australia are only now being called upon to pay the costs of this Government. This Prime Minister has been trying hard to gloat over everyone, to the degree that he believes that in some way he is above us all. I think it is important for the people of Australia to recognise that this Government has failed in its responsibilities to the elderly through the imposition of this arbitrary and discriminatory assets test. We all realise the extent to which there has been an assault on the retirement aspirations of Australians through the direction of superannuation payments that prejudice those in the paying work force and those in the Services. We know of the extent to which this Government has run down the defence effort of this country. We know that tax rises are affecting the unemployed. We know of the lack of consultation in the field of Aboriginal welfare. The passage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill the other night showed the extent to which the Government is prepared to take over private property without consultation. We know that significant sections of the community have been affected because in the middle of the night the Government decided to permit pornography in the Australian Capital Territory in a form which all members of the Government endorse. We know the directions in which this Government is heading. They are designed to prevent the contributions of average Australians. It is the man who is Prime Minister who must accept responsibility for the directions of the Government. He deserves to be censured by this House for his failure to direct his care and attention to the worries of average Australians. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(11.51) —This House has just witnessed the 'Gucci and Albatross Show'. What a pathetic performance it was! Before I analyse it, I would like to begin on what is a happy note for this side of the House, and, one would hope, for those few remaining responsible members on the other side of the House. It is certainly a happy note for the people of Australia. I refer to the latest figures on employment and unemployment which were released at 11.30 this morning. They provide yet another piece of evidence of the outstanding success of the policies of this Government. Mr Bilney —What are they? Mr HAWKE —Let me give them to the House. In seasonally adjusted terms, employment increased yet again by 8,200, following the April increase of 15,400 and the record increase of 69,200 in March. That gives a total rise in employment, since the low point in April 1983, of 233,700. That is what this Government has done. Mr Sinclair —How many unemployed are there? Mr HAWKE —The albatross has asked: 'What has happened to unemployment?'. Mr Sinclair —I said: 'How many unemployed are there?' Mr HAWKE —Let me turn to the question of unemployment. I am pleased to be able to tell this House and the people of Australia that we have cracked the 9 per cent barrier. Unemployment is now down to 8.9 per cent. I ask the rhetorical question: What was the figure when we came into office and with which the previous Government left this country? It was 10.3 per cent. We have brought the unemployment rate down from 10.3 per cent to 8.9 per cent. What was the record of the previous Government in regard to jobs in its last 12 months in office? We know that nearly 200,000 jobs disappeared under its management. Under this Government, which I am proud to lead, the number of jobs has gone up by nearly a quarter of a million. We have set ourselves a target of half a million jobs in three years. We have achieved virtually half of that target in just over 12 months. Therefore, it is no wonder the people of Australia are making the sorts of judgments they are making about the respective performances of this Government, which I am proud to lead, and the Opposition, of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is very temporarily in charge . Of course, modesty forbids me talking about the apparent assessments that the people of Australia are making about our Government and about me. I will not succumb to the temptation to refer to those figures. But my very deeply ingrained sense of modesty, which forbids me citing the figures about myself or the Government, does not prevent me referring to what the commentators are saying about members of the Opposition. It is a matter of universal recognition that the Leader of the Opposition has failed, and failed miserably. We know what people say about the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). I say to my colleagues on this side of the House that I hope they share with me the great sense of anticipation that I have as I look forward to the next election and I see the alternative Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister standing up together: Gucci and the Albatross! Can one imagine the people of Australia saying: 'Now there is a combination of credibility. That is the combination of performance and credibility that we want. We want Gucci as Prime Minister and we want the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, as the Deputy Prime Minister'? Never in the history of this country has there been a person occupying a seat in this House of the Parliament who has such a zilch credibility rating as the Leader of the National Party of Australia. One has only to attend any political meeting and mention the name 'Sinclair' and the meeting is reduced to hilarity. This is the duo that has moved the motion of censure. As I say, I do not need to refer to all of the quotations. As I am not only an efficient Prime Minister but also a contemporary and up-to-date one, I content myself with referring to today 's column by Maximilian Walsh entitled 'Issues and Ideas'. It has this fascinating headline: 'Fraser: if not king, then a kingmaker'. What are some of the things that are said in this fascinating analysis of and insight into members on the other side of the House? I will refer to a couple of them. Mr Walsh wrote: In casual but superficial terms, this is seen as a failure of leadership on the part of Andrew Peacock. . . . . All of these remarks hit home because it is apparent to everybody that Andrew Peacock is in deep trouble and probably on the skids. He continued-- Dr Klugman —Do not push him. Mr HAWKE —No, do not push him. I suppose it is not surprising that the only member of the Opposition with a hint of a smile on his face while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking was the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). A little smirk and smile crept around his lips. Mr Walsh continued: Certainly after 15 months as Leader of the Opposition and supposedly having spent a lot more time thinking about such a system,- this is about the assets test, to which I will refer in a moment- Mr Peacock has failed to produce an alternative to Labor's approach. He does not have a credible alternative. He made this very interesting analysis which I recommend to all members of the House: The reason for this is basically that Peacock belongs to the 'beaded bag' school of politics. As coined by Henry Fairlie, students of this style are akin to ladies of the night, swinging a beaded bag on the corner under a lamplight waiting to be picked up by opportunity. I come to the essence of this so-called censure motion from Gucci and the albatross. First of all, they talked about the assets test. They had the unmitigated gall and hide, after honourable members have read this morning's edition of the Age, to talk about us and the assets test. I have disclosed to this House and to the people of this country that this is the most rank and unadulterated piece of hypocrisy that has ever been practised by members of the Opposition. At this very moment they cannot say publicly what their policy is because the thoughts of some men and women of principle are solidly going through their ranks, saying that what the Hawke Government has done in regard to the assets test is right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition could not second this motion; no way could he second this motion, because he does not agree with the first item of it. He agrees with our principle of an assets test. The simple fact is this- Mr Howard —Are you going to let me speak? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will have plenty of time to speak elsewhere. The simple fact of the matter about the assets test is that people within the Liberal Party know, as did the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, that this is a necessary thing if we are to be able to do what the overwhelming majority of the people of Australia want us to do-that is, to give more in the area of social welfare to those in need. Does it not strike you as strange, Mr Speaker, that on the one hand Opposition members are saying, 'No, we do not like the assets test'-that is, the cynical and the hypocritical amongst them; others of them say, of course, that they agree with it-but then they say, 'It brings in only $45m'. Are they really saying that we should have been harder on the pensioners and brought in more? They cannot have it both ways. This is another indication of their hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to a question of analysing their economic policy. Opposition members talk about this so-called impost of $17 a week. Let us look at what they are saying on this. It is, of course, a monstrous piece of nonsense , and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at least, knows it. The simple fact is that, if we were getting this $17 a week that they are talking about, we would have another $4.3 billion of revenue available to us. We have not got it. It is a simple economic fact that if the people of Australia had been paying this $17 a week extra-which they have not-we would have another $4.3 billion. We have not got it. If Opposition members wish to talk about the question of tax, it is not a bad idea to look at what they did. They would have you believe by implication, Mr Speaker, that they were the low taxing policy party. What was the rate of increase in personal income tax that operated under the former Government? The average for the years in which it was in office was a 14.5 per cent increase in personal income tax take, every year. However, let me refer to the last few years. In 1979-80, what was the increase? It was 17.5 per cent. That was the increased slug in tax imposed by these conservatives, the people who are now talking about what we are doing. In 1980-81 the increase was 16.6 per cent. In 1981-82, what was the increased personal income tax slug? It was 21 per cent. Then, of course, 1982-83 was a little different. There was an election year coming up, so they thought-that was until Costigan shot them down in flames. So they brought in the income tax cut, and it meant that there was only an 8.2 per cent increase in tax. The people of Australia know that if they had been misguided enough to vote in the previous Government-which, thank God, they did not-they would have suffered the same fate as they suffered in relation to the previous election-'Give them a tax cut; come back a couple of months later and say, ''Gotcha! It was an illusion. Gotcha''.' The Australian people have decided that they have had enough of conservative 'gotchas'. It is an experience that they will not have for a very long period, because they know and they trust this Government. Of course, what Opposition members are saying is that at the same time, apparently, as doing something about reducing taxes-which we will do-we should reduce the deficit. They have not repudiated some of the nonsense that has been around about a $5 billion deficit. What have they done in this Parliament in terms of allowing responsible government to do something about both reducing the deficit and reducing taxes? This is what they have done: They have voted against the resource rent tax that will bring in $300m, and ultimately over $500m a year . They were against that $500m a year. They were against increasing taxation on lump sum superannuation, which will bring in at least $300m a year. They were against the bottom of the harbour taxation recoupment-another $270m. We must not get that. They were against the introduction of the assets test, the reduction of the threshold for minors, and so on. In every instance where this Government can be put into a position in which it can both reduce the deficit and improve the taxation situation, these people have operated against us. The Leader of the Opposition, by his behaviour, has become a stranger both to principle and to courage. That is the judgment which is made by his peers. He need have no fear. He will not have to live very long with them, because he will be unceremoniously dumped after the next election. The only problem that he will have is that he will have to live with his conscience, because he knows that their judgment is right. For all the reasons that I have put, this Government rejects the motion that has been, consistently with the Opposition's performance, so incompetently moved and so incompetently seconded. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister's time has expired. I call the Leader of the House. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, you have just listened to one of the most self-satisfying , patronising speeches that this Parliament has ever heard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.06) —In order to end this torture , I move: That the question be now put. Mr Howard —He taunts me to respond and then gags me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Question put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. 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.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. Katter, R. C.Bowen, Lionel McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. 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.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.Katter, R. C. Chynoweth, R. L.McVeigh, D. T. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members and pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations annual report for the year ended 31 August 1983. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947, I present the annual reports for 1983 of the Services Canteens Trust Fund, the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund and the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund, together with the Auditor- General's reports, audited income statements and balance sheets of these funds. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I table details of special purpose flights by the Royal Australian Air Force during the period 1 July 1983 to 31 December 1983. Copies of the report are available from the Table Office. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —On behalf of the Minister for Transport and for the information of honourable members, I present a report published by the Bureau of Transport Economics on Assessment of the Australian Road System, 1984. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I was a victim of misrepresentation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I was prevented from correcting it when I was gagged. I take this opportunity to correct it. The Prime Minister said that in some way it was strange that I had not seconded the censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). He tried to construe from that, quite incorrectly, that in some way I did not support the terms of the censure motion. I point out to him that it is totally normal practice for the Leader of the National Party of Australia, as the second person in seniority in the Opposition, to second the motion and that there is nothing peculiar about my not having seconded it. If he is casting around for interesting views on the assets test, he ought to remember what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said at the time of the Lowe by- election. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(12.22) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr HAYDEN —This is a comprehensive report which draws upon the considerable breadth of expertise and experience of the Committee members. It covers a wide range of issues of current interest in the field of aid. I would like to make some very brief comments about Australian aid and the Jackson report. Australia' s aid has developed over a number of years in response to a variety of impulses. It has been an expression of the Australian people's humanitarian concerns about the poor and underprivileged in neighbouring and distant countries. At the same time, our official aid has been important in our foreign relations since it is a visible manifestation of our goodwill and our wish to foster mutually beneficial relations in a range of areas of government activities, especially with countries close to us. Australia's aid has also had considerable commercial implications. It is natural that Australian businesses should have taken an interest in a government program which is now over $800m. At the same time as responding to these diverse pressures, aid has flowed through a variety of channels. Non-government organisations have become increasingly active in recent years as a strong expression of the desire of individual Australians to contribute directly to the attempts to assure a better life for others. International organisations have developed as the world community became seized with the urgency of tackling the problems of hunger and underdevelopment and sought solutions beyond those of which individual donor countries were capable. Within our own program, there is a diversity of instruments of aid delivery available to us, ranging from food aid, to bilateral projects, to joint financing of commercial ventures with development goals. I thought on coming to government that the time had come for us-as a government , a parliament, indeed, as a nation-to look carefully at the aid program; to take stock of the multiple forms of aid that have been established over the years; and to develop a set of propositions about the future directions of our aid expenditures. As I took steps to set up an inquiry, I was pleased to find that my predecessor, Mr Street, had himself already begun moves in this direction. For my part, a major concern was to guarantee that Australian aid should be as effective as possible. I believe we owe that to the Australian taxpayer-some of whom are, I need not remind honourable members, in difficult financial circumstances-and to the recipients of our assistance. There have been other inquiries into Australian aid. The last major comprehensive policy review was in 1976. The many inquiries since then have been concerned with particular aspects of the aid program. Yet Australia's official aid has grown from $347m in 1975-76 to $836m in the current financial year. The Jackson report is the first attempt to analyse official development assistance as a whole, to outline the philosophy behind our aid, to assess the impact of the various forms of aid, to consider the geographic spread of our aid and to examine the way in which the delivery of Australian aid should be managed. The Committee has not only considered; it has made recommendations. These have been put forward, not as a grand design or a detailed blueprint for our aid, but as principles which could have currency for the medium term. I commend the executive summary of the report to members as a concise statement of the Committee's findings. I take this opportunity briefly to mention some of the main points of the report as I see them. I do intend not to enter into the merits of the analysis or recommendations but simply to offer honourable members some guide-posts to this large and extensive document. The report advocates greater focus in Australian aid both by geographic region and in terms of economic sectors, that is, it recommends that we do what we are best at in fewer countries. The Committee considered that project aid in particular had been too widely and thinly spread to be effective and that this form of aid should, in future, not be implemented in areas where Australia's distance and lack of expertise might imperil effectiveness. In regard to our closest neighbour and largest recipient, Papua New Guinea, the report recommends no major change but opts for a refinement of the current program of gradual, predictable decline of Budget support in real terms with a partially countervailing expansion of other forms of aid. The report recommends reinforcing Australia's co-operative aid relationship with Pacific and Indian Ocean countries and advocates continued substantial co-operation with Asian countries. Further from Australia, in Africa, the report adopts the view that Australia should not on its own mount large in-country projects but use other relatively more effective and efficient means such as co-operation with multilateral institutions and through non-government organisations. It recommends the continuation of other forms of aid to that continent particularly to meet the needs of the poorest, including refugees. Some particular issues are covered at length-for example, the emphasis that might be placed on the position of women in the development process; the relationship between Australian development assistance and commercial interests; and the role of voluntary or non-government agencies in promoting grass roots co -operation between Australians and people of developing countries. I point out that the Jackson report covers the training of overseas students in post-secondary institutions. My colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has tabled the report of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy which considered the issue of private overseas students. Honourable members will realise that there have been some differences between the findings and recommendations of the two committees. This is an issue of some importance and the Government will need to give scrupulous attention to it over the coming months in order to formulate a new approach to overseas students. One thing which will be uppermost in the minds of some of us, at least, will be this simple consideration: Australia needs to search for new comparative advantages in its external trading and service supply relationships. In that respect, there seem to be promising prospects in the provision of services in the fields of health, financial and educational services. In respect of the latter, if we are to establish educational services as an income earning tradeable service, that in turn will require us to consider ways in which to establish commercially marketable rates for the service provided. To fail to do that in some sort of formulated way-and there may be variations of the provision and costing of services to overseas students within the formulation-would mean that we had forsworn the opportunity of developing educational services as a marketable service on our external account. I merely mention that for the record to indicate the sort of detailed attention that we will have to give this very complex and demanding issue. I express for the record my own serious concern at the state of policy and administration in respect of overseas students which I discovered on coming to office. Frankly, the system was topsy-turvy. It was confusing. There was no philosophy or clear set of objectives. Intakes of private students from some source countries had grown at phenomenal rates, apparently without any special justification. These and associated matters of concern were compounded by the simple fact that no figures were available as to the actual cost. It was extraordinary that the situation should have been out of control in this way and subject to considerable growth without there having been understanding of the costs involved. I mention for the record that costs this year are estimated to be more-much more, I expect-than $70m. That was an intolerable state of affairs and the responses of this Government have been directed to introducing a disciplined framework. As a final guide-post to the report I would like to mention the report's findings on the management of aid delivery. The report documents a sad history and points to room for improvement. Clearly, unlike in some other donor countries, a first-rate professional aid organisation has not developed in Australia. The report catalogues the development of aid administration and makes a number of suggestions designed to upgrade the aid bureau from a clerical to a professional organisation. This is an area where, quite frankly, I have had some concern-a concern which has been shared on occasions by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. These comments are not a reflection on the keenness, the dedication or indeed the competence of the people in the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, but rather on the lack of opportunity for them to harness those skills, enthusiasm and commitment in a much more productive and professional way. The Jackson Committee drew on considerable expertise and experience in management and I shall be looking very carefully at the report's analysis and proposals as a means of increasing the capacities of the aid bureau and of providing much greater opportunity for those serving in the aid bureau to experience professional satisfaction by providing a much greater level of personal input and professionalism in the tasks which have been allotted to them. The aid program is of interest to a range of individuals and organisations. It is also an area of government activity where there has been comparatively little disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. Since decisions on this report will affect the direction of our aid program for years to come, it will be important for there to be opportunity for debate on the major issues it canvasses. The Committee's report will provide the impetus for that debate. The Government will value the views of all those who care to contribute, whether they be non-government organisations, commercial interests or colleagues in the Parliament. I am accordingly referring the report to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and am also drawing it to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. My Department will be sponsoring several seminars over the coming months to consider the issues raised in the report. I anticipate that this process may extend over 12 months. I expect that the Government will respond to the report progressively over that period. Clearly there are a number of areas where I would not anticipate any dispute with the Committee's suggestions for change. In these cases I would look to an early start on their progressive implementation. Many other areas will require extensive parliamentary and public debate. I would hope to be able to elaborate in more detail a timetable for the Government's response by early in the Budget session. I mention that I will be keen to maintain continuing communication with the spokesman for the Opposition and the representative of the Australian Democrats responsible for foreign affairs matters so that we may, as much as possible in the circumstances maximise bipartisan understanding of the processes that are involved, those which are adopted and the objectives which are being sought. The purpose of this process of consultation will be to encourage to the maximum extent possible a bipartisan approach. Australian overseas aid has in the past attracted a high level of bipartisan support. Our task is now to consolidate that support while introducing some greater discipline into our overseas aid. I believe that as a nation we can achieve a substantial measure of agreement on an aid program in which all Australians can take pride and which can earn for us an international reputation for effectiveness and consistency. The help we give to the world's underprivileged is a matter which touches the nation's deeper humanitarian impulses. Gratuitous division, as opposed to rational debate, is not lightly to be introduced. I commend to honourable members the Jackson Committee's report on Australia's overseas aid program. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has acted promptly since he came to office to implement the proposal of his predecessor, Mr Tony Street, that Sir Gordon Jackson conduct an inquiry into Australia's foreign aid program and administration. I think Sir Gordon's experience is particularly appropriate. He brought to the task a brilliant career in management and his wide business achievement and an unsurpassed background in international commerce and economics obviously provided a very suitable basis for the task that he undertook. This Parliament, and I believe the nation, has considerable reason to be grateful for this work and the report of Sir Gordon and his Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program will receive very careful study on this side of politics. One of the central tasks of the inquiry has been to examine the organisation and administrative arrangements for aid. Clearly, if the administration is deficient it becomes impossible for the taxpayer and the Government to repose any confidence in the wisdom of the aid decisions, involving as they do very large sums of money indeed. Not only are the financial losses great but also public confidence is very easily dispelled. I know that this aspect has prompted Sir Gordon to weigh a wide range of administrative options very carefully indeed . It remains important that the Government does not allow a nitpicking attack to develop from within the bureaucracy, which in this area has to run the gamut of intractable and entrenched opposition to anything approaching autonomous principles for the aid agency. Clearly, the Government has to establish foreign policy priorities, the overall availability of funds and the proper accounting for them, and a stable career structure compatible with similar structures in the Public Service. These requirements have to be met and the Opposition will weigh Sir Gordon's proposals on administration very carefully. One of the important tasks of the inquiry has been to look at the bids that can sensibly be made on the Australian aid system. Clearly, when the coalition Government gave a major priority to the South West Pacific, it recognised that economic momentum in South East Asia would mean a greater regional self- sufficiency to tie directly into the major international system. The bilateral aid focus switched to meet the problems being faced by the small, newly formed independent states. This is supported by an obvious argument of neighbourhood responsibility as well as humanitarian considerations. The degree to which Australia should become involved in aid to Africa and the nature of the aid are important questions. Certain areas of Africa are suffering the combined effects of drought, overpopulation in drought areas, poor land use and political instability. There is no way that we can stand aside from becoming involved in a practical concern in these humanly tragic situations. It is important that we accompany our efforts with a diplomacy which ensures that African needs are met by a widely based international effort. The world refugee situation, typified by a great exodus of people from warfare in which, unfortunately, the Soviet Union is a major participant, is one of the characteristics of human need. Regret as we may the wars and provocations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa or Cambodia, there is no way in which the consequences can be avoided. Australia has to play its part along with the rest of the international community. One of the recommendations concerns overseas students. The Government should examine the proposals in this report sympathetically and not be too influenced by Press speculation to read into it the issue of immigration. This latter issue is one which became embroiled in the intransigence of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to recognise the importance of ensuring sensible treatment of different migration categories. I am glad that he is now doing that. Asia is in Australia's neighbourhood and we will share our skills, faculties and strengths with our neighbours. The early success of the Casey- Menzies years, when with pride and friendship Asians chose to study here rather than in Europe, produced a marvellous legacy of understanding and friendship. Those former students are now leaders of their countries. Neglect of this aspect in our policies has been short-sighted but it has not been wilful. On this question I know that the Government will approach decisions accepting that we on this side of the House, whose governments in former years did so much of the pioneering, will work with good sense in approaching the questions concerning the intake of Asian students. I am very glad that the Minister has chosen to refer this report to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I believe that that Committee has demonstrated over the years a capacity to look at questions of major interest with a degree of bipartisanship and a rational approach which enhances its recommendations, which are then considered by governments of whatever political persuasion. The Minister has yet to put his recommendations to the Government. He has outlined today that there will be an ongoing process before those recommendations come forward. This report obviously deserves the most careful consideration. I believe the Minister has shown in his statement that this careful consideration will be forthcoming, and we on this side of the House await his recommendations with enlightened anticipation. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-The Government has decided in accordance with its pre-election commitment to establish a National Population Council. The task of this Council will be to offer advice on a wide range of issues of concern to the portfolio of immigration and ethnic Affairs. It will consider and make recommendations on the relationship between population growth, immigration, the economy and the quality of life. The National Population Council will replace the former Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs which in turn replaced three advisory councils initiated by the former Government. Members of the National Population Council have been selected to represent a wide range of community interest including ethnic, economic, industrial, trade union, social and environmental areas. All States and the Northern Territory are represented. The Council will advise the Government on matters set by the Minister as an annual work program and on any matters that the Government may refer as priority items. The terms of the appointments of the Council members will be for two years. The Council will operate as follows: The Chairman of the Council will be the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There will be three committees: The first is the immigration, population and workforce planning committee. This Committee will cover: Australian and world population and immigration trends and their policy implications; the world refugee situation and its implications for Australia's intake obligations; size and composition of the migrant/refugee intake and its implications for the Australian labour market, economic situation and quality of life. The second committee will cover migration and international law. Specifically it will cover: Migration law and its application; aspects of international law which relate to migration, international criminal and security matters, etcetra; relations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; refugee status; diversification policy; international relations/law. The third sub-committee will cover ethnic affairs and settlement matters. The Committee will cover: The provision of information and counselling for migrants/refugees before and after arrival in Australia; education and national language policy, interpreters and translators; ethnic welfare and community organisations, grants-in-aid, migrant resource centres; citizenship policy and practices; government services and access to them by migrants, otherwise known as mainstreaming; migrant women. The Deputy Chairperson of the Council will be former Senator A. J. Mulvihill, who will also chair the committee on migration population and workforce planning . The Hon. Justice Sir James Gobbo who is a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria will chair the committee on migration and international law. Dr David Cox, from the Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne, will chair the committee on ethnic affairs and settlement. The Council will comprise 23 members which includes the three committee chairpersons as announced. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the names of the members of the full Council. Leave granted. The document read as follows- NATIONAL POPULATION COUNCIL Mr Tony Mulvihill Former Senator of NSW Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Migration, Population and Workforce Planning Committee The Hon Sir James A. Gobbo Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Vic.) Chairman of the Migration and International Law Committee Dr David R. Cox Social Worker Lecturer Department of Social Studies University of Melbourne (Vic.) Chairman of the Ethnic Affairs and Settlement Committee Mrs Franca Arena AM MLC Member of the NSW Legislative Council (NSW) M/s Mary Anna Bin Sallik Co-ordinator Aboriginal Task Force SA Institute of Technology (SA) Professor John C. Caldwell Professor of Demography Australian National University (ACT) Mr Cliff Dolan AO President ACTU (Vic.) Mr Albert (Bert) Evans AM National Director and Chief Executive Metal Trades Industry Association (NSW) Mr Bill Jegorow MBE Deputy Chairman NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission (NSW) Mr Alan Matheson Social Worker ACTU (Vic.) Ms Tess Mallos Multicultural Arts and Women's Interests (NSW) M/s Thea Mendelsohn Social Worker Education Director of the Family Planning Association of Western Australia (WA) Dr Geoff Mosley Director Australian Conservation Foundation (Vic.) Professor Max Neutze Professor Research School of Social Science Australian National University (ACT) Dr Charles Price A.M. Professorial Fellow, Department of Demography Australian National University (ACT) Mrs Adele Deirdre Rice Teacher/Administrator Migrant Education (Qld) Mr Ian O. Spicer Executive Director Victorian Employers Federation (Vic.) Dr Frank Stilwell Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Sydney (NSW) Dr My-Van Tran Lecturer in South-East Asian History and Civilisation Darwin Community College (NT) Mrs Maria A. Vukadinovic-Jockel Barrister and Solicitor (Vic.) Professor Colin Wendell-Smith Pro-Vice Chancellor Professor of Anatomy University of Tasmania (Tas.) Mr Ron Witton Head of the Centre for Multicultural Studies Wollongong (NSW) Mr Wlodzimierz (George) Wojak NSW Ethnic Affairs Council (NSW) Mr WEST —I thank the House. At this point I should thank former members of the Australian Council for Population and Ethnic Affairs which this new Council supersedes. Now that the decision has been taken and announced, I will of course be writing to those former members who have not been re-appointed to the new Council, although several of them have, thanking them for their services. I am confident that the National Population Council through its consultations with government and non-government organisations and the collective expertise of its members, will render excellent service to the Government and the total Australian community. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-I wish to announce the Government's decision on the report of the Fry Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia. The recognition of overseas qualifications held by people coming to live in Australia is one of the greatest difficulties faced by migrants. Their ability to gain recognition is central to their finding a job in their own profession or trade and in turn a major determining factor in their successful settlement. The Fry Committee was charged with finding some means to improve that situation. Despite growing experience with the excellent training and experience of many thousands of migrants over the years, the mechanisms for recognising overseas professional qualifications have become increasingly complex. The Commonwealth itself has little direct authority in determining whether overseas qualifications will be recognised here, for State governments and professional bodies have that role and carry the main responsibility for determining who shall or shall not practise a particular profession in Australia. The main thrust of the Fry Committee's 86 recommendations was towards upgrading the system applied to the recognition of overseas qualifications. The Committee decided that a new council was needed to strengthen the mechanisms and help to smooth the way for many frustrated migrants seeking to work in their own area of expertise. The only aspect of the Fry report not accepted by the Government was that the new council should be established as a statutory authority. The Labor Government came to power with a policy of reducing reliance on statutory bodies. The Government believes that the new council can work effectively without that need. The recognition problems faced by many Australian residents and, indeed, many potential immigrants who gain their qualifications overseas cannot be solved overnight. A key solution lies in ensuring that people understand the requirements and that the system is as open and fair as possible. The new council will have an important responsibility in working with professional bodies and State governments to ensure that Australia has the best possible recognition system while monitoring Australian professional standards. The issue , unfortunately, is not simply one of fairness. The failure to recognise the qualifications of large numbers of people in Australia is not only a source of personal frustration to them; it represents a major source of wasted talent leading to lost opportunities for Australia. I do not believe that it is in our interests to allow these skills to be wasted. The new Chairman of the council will be Professor Peter Whitton, a Deputy Vice- Chancellor at the University of Melbourne. Professor Whitton has a distinguished academic record and is a qualified engineer. He is a former principal of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. The new council, under Professor Whitton's guidance, will have the responsibility to follow up those of the 86 recommendations of the Fry report other than the findings relating to recognition procedures in the trades. These have been taken up by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The council will be responsible to me and I will take a keen interest in its affairs. It will make an annual report to parliament and I am sure that honourable members will keenly watch its progress. I am pleased to say that the Fry report has a high degree of support from State and territorial Ministers responsible for immigration and ethnic affairs. Two members of the council will represent their governments and I will soon be writing to seek any nominations they may care to make. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will nominate one member and, in addition to the Chairman, I will appoint a further four. The council will have staff located under an executive director located within my Department. The executive director will also be a member of the new council. I will be announcing the names of other council members in the near future. For the information of honourable members and the community I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the administrative arrangements for the Council. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COUNCIL ON OVERSEAS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Administrative Arrangements 1. A Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications (''the Council'') shall be established; it will be responsible to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Council's purview shall be the recognition of overseas professional qualifications. The scope of its activities in the sub-professional and technical areas shall be worked out from time to time in consultation with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. 2. The objects of the Council shall be to: (a) make information available to prospective immigrants on the assessment of their professional qualifications in Australian terms, and (b) assist Australian residents who are the holders of overseas professional qualifications to obtain assessment of their qualifications in Australia. 3. The functions of the Council shall be to: (a) provide detailed current information on the assessment and recognition of overseas professional qualifications for the use of all concerned with the rendering of advice to, or counselling of, immigrants and prospective immigrants ; (b) provide advice and assistance to immigrants and prospective immigrants seeking to have their overseas professional qualifications assessed and recognised; (c) identify the need for and make recommendations to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in respect of the provision of reorientation and retraining courses for persons with overseas professional qualifications; (d) conduct examinations in Australia and overseas for professionals with overseas qualifications and award certificates to successful candidates; (e) review the procedures for the assessment and recognition of overseas professional qualifications and where such procedures are found to be inadequate or inequitable, decide upon the action necessary to rectify the position, and. take such action where appropriate, or recommend such action to the relevant Commonwealth and/or State Minister; (f) receive, investigate and attempt to resolve complaints relating to the non- recognition of overseas professional qualifications; (g) establish appeal procedures relating to the non-recognition of overseas qualifications in areas coming within its own sphere of influence; (h) collaborate and co-operate with relevant Commonwealth and State Departments and bodies and other relevant authorities to encourage the development of acceptable national professional assessment and recognition procedures; and (i) ensure as far as lies within its powers the co-ordination of its activities within the total immigration policy and settlement program. 4. The Council shall furnish to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs such reports as the Minister requests on matters relating to the functions of the Council and may furnish other reports. In addition, the Council shall submit an annual report to the Minister at the end of each financial year, for tabling in Parliament. 5. The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such written directions as may be given to it by the Minister. 6. The Council shall consist of: a Chairperson the Executive Director of COPQ a representative of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations two members being drawn from the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; four other members being nominated by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in consultation with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Representatives of selected Commonwealth departments may be invited to attend meetings at which matters of mutual interest to the Council and the relevant department are to be discussed. 7. The members shall be appointed for terms not exceeding 3 years. The Chairperson and members shall be eligible for re-appointment. The Minister may grant leave of absence to the Chairman and members. Persons may be appointed by the Minister to act as Chairman and members for periods not exceeding 1 year. 8. The remuneration of members shall be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal . 9. Members may resign from the Council. The Minister may terminate the appointment of members by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity of the member. 10. Meetings of the Council shall be held at such times and places as the Council determines but shall be held at least 4 times in each year. 11. Staff to service the Council shall be employed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and will be under an Executive Director who, subject to general directions from the Council, will manage the Council's affairs and be responsible to a Division Head in the Department. 12. The Department envisages that the Executive Director will be at the Assistant Secretary or Senior Assistant Secretary level. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Before closing my remarks I would like to pay tribute to Mr R. G. Fry and other members of his Committee for their detailed examinations of these complex issues and for their comprehensive findings. I would also like to thank Dr D. M. Myers and the present members of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications for the work they have performed in reaching a resolution to these issues during the many years that they have all devoted to this most difficult task. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —by leave-I will in a few moments comment on both statements made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), but I have to say at the outset that the Minister should not have been making these statements to the House today. I suggest to the Minister that, if he is not prepared to resign as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, then, putting it bluntly, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should sack him. The plain fact is that, however worthy these ministerial statements are, this Minister should not be Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and his talents should be applied in some other area of the Ministry of the Hawke socialist Government. Both these reports to which the Minister has referred are significant and far- reaching. In broad terms, the Opposition extends its support to the initiatives, but with some qualifications about which I will now comment. We feel that the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs has been shabbily treated by the Hawke socialist Government and we regret its passing. It is true, as the Minister said, that there was a promise-some would say a threat-in the policy speech of the Australian Labor Party prior to the last Federal election that a National Population Council would be established. Quite frankly, we have to ask: What was wrong with the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs which had been established by the Fraser Government with bipartisan support and which had worked so well for so many years? We further have to ask why it was that this Minister chose not to call the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs together at any time since his appointment as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Whilst we are pleased that today the Minister says that he will write to the members of the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs who have not been appointed to the new National Population Council and thank them for their service, we suggest, that such letters should have been written months ago. As to the National Population Council, as it is proposed, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be the Chairman. Whilst the idea is good, does the Minister really believe that he should continue in this portfolio? He is recommending the appointment of three distinguished Australians to chair the three committees set up to work under the Council. The first of these committees , which is the immigration, population and work force planning committee, is to be chaired by former Senator A. J. Mulvihill. The second committee, migration and international law, is to be chaired by the Hon. Mr Justice Sir James Gobbo, a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, a very distinguished Australian and President of that fine Italian welfare organisation CO-AS-IT. The third committee, the committee on ethnic affairs and settlement, is to be chaired by Dr David Cox from the Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne. Whilst I do not know Dr David Cox personally, two previous Liberal Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs present in the House with whom I have conferred say that Dr Cox is a very fine person. I note the size of the Council-23 members . That includes the three chairpersons-and I prefer still to say 'chairmen'-whom the Minister has announced. When one goes through the list one finds that a number who were previously on-- Mr Darling —I just feel a little offended at your-- Mr HODGMAN —I think 'chairperson' is an ugly and stupid word and I am delighted that the Deputy Speaker of this Parliament, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), still prefers to be called 'Chairman' when she is performing her duties in the chair in this Parliament. Whether we like it or not, there are two sexes- male and female. My name is Hodgman. That name is ravaged by feminists-it becomes Hodgperson; and 'son' is now sexist, I am told, so I will probably finish up as 'Hodgper'. I really think it is a nonsense, and thank God the Australian Broadcasting Corporation came to its senses and told that stupid committee-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Denison might finish up back on his seat unless he returns to the statement that he was making on immigration. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, sir. In fact, you have just reminded me that on their theory Denison would be sexist because 'son' is male. Having said that, whilst some members of the former Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs have been appointed to the new body, we see some odd names popping up. I am not going to say anything which will set this new body off on an unhappy start, except to make the comment that I wonder where on earth the Minister came up with some of these names. I would have expected, in fact I would have bet good money, that the Hon. Franca Arena, AM, MLC, would have finished up on this body; and in fact she has. But really do honourable members think Dr Frank Stilwell, Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, University of Sydney, is a person of whom it can be said that he has no political leaning? Indeed, I suggest to honourable members-- Mr West —I said that it would be wide-ranging and have economic people on it. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister certainly has gone very far in his 'wide-ranging', if he does not mind my saying so. Again I have to ask: Where does Dr Geoff Mosley, Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, fit into this? I am well aware of Dr Mosley's activities in the environmental area. I have known Dr Mosley for a number of years. But I ask: On what basis does the Minister put him on a body which is to advise in relation to migration policy? Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the information of the honourable member, there is a relation between population and conservation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —I am not surprised at the honourable member for Burke making the interjection. The short point is that there are some odd-if I can say that with respect-names on the body and I wonder where they came from. I turn to the ministerial statement on the recognition of overseas qualifications in Australia. Again I have to say that I deeply regret the very low key expression of gratitude to Dr D. M. Myers and the present members of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, all of whom have worked extremely hard, if I might say so, in a very difficult field, and with considerable success. Gratitude is not one of the Minister's long suits. Whether it is the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs or the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, chaired by a distinguished Australian, Dr Myers, he could not wait to move them out, to get rid of them. Quite frankly, his expressions of gratitude are so low key and so lacking in substance as not to be worth anything . The plain fact is that he gave a tame cat thank you to a committee chaired by a great Australian which has worked very hard. His new committee comes about as a result of the recommendations of the Fry Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia and I congratulate Mr Fry and members of the Committee on what they have done. But why is it that, wherever the Minister sees something, he has to move toward change? It is, I suggest, because of his moves in a number of areas, with and without mandate, that by moving to change he creates division. When he creates division he causes that vital ingredient of public acceptance and support so essential in immigration policy to disappear. We are now seeing in the letters to the editor columns of the newspapers and in the public opinion polls, and hearing on radio programs, how far he has got out of touch with public opinion in this country. When one moves away from public opinion in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, one courts disaster. I suggest to the Minister that, whilst he moves with the new appointments to the new body to be chaired by Professor Whitton, setting up a new council which in turn is going to look at 86 recommendations, before implementing those recommendations he should say to the Opposition and to the people of Australia: 'We would like your view'. Far too often unfortunately since he became Minister, the co-operation and bi-partisanship which existed before just have not been carried forward. I query with him the link between the new body and his Department. I note that the executive director will be located within his Department and that he will also be a member of the Council. I trust that that will be for the purpose of receiving information rather than for the purpose of sending instructions. In both these matters, despite the fact that we feel very strongly that the Minister has taken away from the people of Australia two organisations which we thought were doing a good job and that he has taken AIMA away from the people of Australia- Mr West —I have not- Mr HODGMAN —The Minister accepted the recommendation and took the same line in relation to Dr Cass's report, which executed AIMA. He cannot hide behind the fact that, whilst he has a recommendation, he is the Minister; he is making the decisions. It is not good enough simply to say 'I have a recommendation' or to say: 'My Department told me to do it'. The Minister must accept responsibility. The point I make is that whenever he does these things he again creates division . People say: 'Why is he doing it?'. AIMA has gone; the Special Broadcasting Service is under threat. The Government, if it can, will take that away from the people of Australia. I call on the Minister, in the interests of a return to a bipartisan approach to immigration, to stop doing these things, to stop behaving in a divisive manner, and to stop moving in a dangerous and radical turn to the Left. The best service he can do, I suggest, is to acknowledge these things and to resign as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. If he does not, the Prime Minister should sack him. He is a square peg in a round hole. He has ministerial capacity but not in such a sensitive and delicate area as immigration and ethnic affairs. The sooner he goes, the better. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —by leave-The making of a statement to Parliament regarding the harvesting of kangaroos has been made necessary by the activities, both at home and abroad, of some animal welfare organisations who are damaging Australia's reputation by waging a campaign of disinformation, distortion and deceit. On 15 February this year I announced the 1984 kangaroo harvesting quota of 1,988,000 animals, a reduction of over one million animals from the 1983 quota. Seven species are involved, the largest quotas being for the most common and widespread kangaroos, the red, the eastern grey and western grey. A detailed breakup of the figures by State and species was attached to the Press release which accompanied the announcement. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 1984 Quotas as Quotas as Current Percentage Percentage 1983 Population 1984 of of 1983 State Species Quota Estimate Quota Population Quota WA Red kangaroo 140,000 1.027 million* 140,000 14% 100% Western Grey kangaroo 50,000 0.436 million* 50,000 11% 100% Euro** 10,000 - 10,000 - 100% 200,000 200,000 SA Red kangaroo 239,000 0.864 million 115,000 13% 48% Western Grey kangaroo 58,000 0.208 million 22,000 11% 38% Euro 3,000 0.090 million 6,000 7% 200% 300,000 143,000 NSW Red kangaroo 550,000 3.4 million 399,000 12% 73% Grey kangaroo (both species) 288,000 2.1 million 100,000 5% 35% Wallaroo 5,000 - 1,000 - 20% 843,000 500,000 Tas Bennetts Wallaby 175,000 6.0 million 175,000 5% 100% Rufoos Wallaby 125,000 125,000 100% 300,000 300,000 Qld Red kangaroo 450,000 2.102 million*** 250,000 12% 56% Grey kangaroo (both species) 900,000 3.102 million*** 500,000 16%*** 56% Wallaroo/Euros 100,000 - 60,000 - 60% Whiptail Wallaby 50,000 - 35,000 - 70% 1,500,000 845,000 Grand Total 3,143,000 1,988,000 - 63% * 1981 Caughley, Grigg and Short estimate, WA states that subsequent good rains have resulted in strong recruitment. ** Culling to be done only in response to specific damage situations. *** Caughley, Grigg and Short estimate (1983). Incomplete since it covers only part of the species range of the Eastern Grey kangaroo. Some reductions would have occurred as a result of the 1982-83 drought, particularly in S. Queensland: Mr COHEN —I have set quotas in the firm belief that all the species involved have abundant populations and none is threatened with extinction. My decision was based on the information provided to me by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, State wildlife authorities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and universities, using the results of extensive aerial and ground surveys and data obtained from harvested animals. The quotas take into account the current number of living animals, changes in population levels, the effects of the past drought and natural mortality, as well as authorised and illegal killing. One of the best examples of the distortion of some animal welfare organisations-I stress the word 'some'- followed the announcement of quotas. In 1983 the quota was set at three million. This figure was used extensively by them to illustrate our barbarity and the fact that we were ignoring serious drought conditions. I repeatedly stressed then that the quotas did take the drought into account as the harvesting figure was being adjusted on a monthly basis. I also said that the final number of animals culled would be well below the quota set of three million. At that time I was unable to provide an exact figure simply because it was not available. I was proven correct when the figure for harvesting was calculated at two million, one million below the quota. However, when the 1984 quota was announced, the same organisations accused me of deceit, claiming that the numbers harvested in 1984 would be the same for 1983- that is, two million-and that there would be really no reduction in the number of animals culled. They were comparing the 1983 harvest with the 1984 quota, not the 1983 quota with the 1984 quota. Some animal welfare groups protest at the strong language I have used in describing their behaviour. Whilst they persist in maligning me publicly and deliberately distorting what I have said, I will continue to reply in kind. The facts are these: The population data shows that, despite the 1982-83 drought, kangaroos are still common and in no way endangered. The species of larger kangaroos are remarkably prolific when conditions are suitable. Only a limited aerial survey was carried out in Queensland last year and no aerial survey was carried out in Western Australia, but the relevant State wildlife authorities provided evidence showing that the drought did not affect their kangaroo populations to the same extent as in other States. The populations of the species culled remain in their millions and in some areas have reached pest proportions. Against this background honourable members need to judge the deceitful stance taken by some of the more strident opponents of kangaroo harvesting. Some groups are not opposed to the killing of kangaroos on the basis of disagreement on the size of the quota or the kangaroo population. They are implacably opposed to the killing of any animal, be it domestic or wild. That is a perfectly legitimate view but it is not a view shared by the overwhelming majority of Australians who are not vegetarians and who use skin products. They should have the honesty to state what they are, namely, animal liberationists, and not mislead people into believing that their opposition to the kangaroo cull is based on fact instead of philosophy. I have no objection to people who oppose it on that basis but who state that that is their view. Still other groups and individuals are outraged by kangaroo harvesting but are strangely silent about the destruction of all feral animals such as cats, dogs, pigs, rabbits, donkeys, horses, camels and buffalo. They argue that since these are introduced species they have no right to be in Australia. I have heard them described as animal racists or speciesists. During the past year or two, a small number of overseas animal welfare organisations have decided that the next great international conservation will be to 'save the kangaroo'. Fresh from their victories to stop the killing of the Canadian harp seal and the whales, they are determined to stop the culling of kangaroos in Australia. This was conveyed to me by Mr Richard Jones, of the Fund for Animals, during a meeting early last year and it was also conveyed to the Australian delegation, led by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), when it met with the environment committee of the European Parliament last year. Why the kangaroos? Well, why not ? After all, these organisations have to find a cause to justify their existence . There are about 48 species of macropods and we need to be aware that the numbers of each of the species vary considerably. In the very early days of the European settlement of Australia the expansion of pastoral and agricultural areas and the arrival of introduced species caused a number of our mammal species, usually the smaller varieties, to become extinct or very rare. Those believed to be extinct are: The broad faced potoroo, the desert rat kangaroo, the eastern hare wallaby, the central hare wallaby, the crescent nail tail wallaby and the toolache wallaby. Those considered to be rare and endangered are : The long footed potoroo, the brush-tailed bettong, the burrowing bettong, the northern bettong, the rufus hare wallaby, the banded hare wallaby, the bridle nail tail wallaby and the Proserpine rock wallaby. This Government has indicated its real interest in the endangered group by providing a further $200,000 for purchasing a tract of land where the bridle nail tail wallaby can reproduce in a protected area. I would have thought that conservationists genuinely concerned about endangered species would concentrate their efforts on helping bodies like World Wildlife, which, together with the Chinese Government, have invested millions of dollars to save one of the most endangered species in the world, the rare and beautiful panda. I have just returned from China where I was the first Minister from any country invited to the recently established Panda Research Station at Wolong to witness the intensive campaign to save the remaining 1,000 or so pandas threatened as a result of the flowering and death of the particular type of bamboo which is the panda's staple diet. Why are these groups concentrating on the kangaroo issue and not on the shooting of bears and deer in North America and Europe? Hunting of white-tailed, black-tailed and mule deer in the United States of America takes place on a population roughly similarly in size to that of our main kangaroo species and at a similar rate, yet no one suggests that the deer is endangered. What about animals which do not occur in millions but are still hunted? A game survey by the National Rifle Association of America estimates the harvest of black bear in Alaska at 13,000 out of a population of 35,000 to 50,000. The estimated harvest of cougar in Texas is 200 out of a population of only 500-and we have Americans telling us not to cull kangaroos! Frankly, I think they have a bit of a hide. Mr Spender —No pun intended. Mr COHEN —No pun intended. Unlike Australians, people of North America and Europe are unfamiliar with the facts concerning kangaroos and will often fall for some of the more outrageous claims of those opposed to kangaroo harvesting. A claim by American Mrs Marian Newman on channel 9's 60 Minutes that professional kangaroo shooters skinned baby kangaroos alive to save themselves the cost of a 36c bullet caused the largest number of phone calls and letters to that station protesting at her absurdity. Some people have protested at my describing Mrs Newman as a ratbag and a nut. Frankly, I think I was flattering her. The international bodies orchestrating this campaign are the Kangaroo Protection Foundation-a project of the Washington Humane Society; the International Fund for Animal Welfare; and unfortunately Greenpeace, for which I have the great respect. Some of these groups are most of the other activities, supported in Australia by their local chapters. There are responsible conservation groups who have genuine concerns about kangaroo harvesting. While I may not always agree with all of their views, I believe that they are genuine and honest and I am determined to have a continuing dialogue with them. The Queensland Conservation Council, for example, stated in its newsletter of April, 1983 that it has a policy which supports strictly controlled harvesting with quotas being determined by conservation objectives and not by commercial considerations, supported by ongoing research and monitoring programs. That is the Government's policy. The Council has expressed the belief that much of the energy being put into the kangaroo campaign would be much better spent on securing a future for the native species which are demonstrably endangered. That also is our policy. One could hardly describe the Queensland Conservation Council as a tame cat organisation, but it takes a reasonable stance and we can therefore work together. At the moment I am a little confused about the Australian Conservation Foundation's position. As I understand it, it supports culling but not for commercial purposes. The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales recently adopted a policy on kangaroos which states that the Society: . . . sees no conflict, either numerical or ethical, in the operation of a carefully controlled kangaroo industry, meeting the pest control requirement and harvesting this proven renewable resource. Again, that is a reasonable position to hold. Dr Des Griffin, the Director of the Australian Museum, was quoted as denying claims by animal welfare groups and the ACF that the main kangaroo populations were threatened by commercial shooting. He said that by focusing public attention on the three kangaroo species with high populations, the ACF was detracting from efforts to save rare and endangered species. Similar views have been expressed by Mr Ronald Strahan a distinguished Australian zoologist, and Gordon Grigg, Associate Professor of Biology and head of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Sydney. In late 1983 the World Society for the Protection of Animals sent Colin Platt to Australia to investigate the kangaroo debate. I met Colin Platt. The Society comprises several hundred member groups in more than 60 countries and thousands of individual members and is the only animal protection organisation recognised by the United Nations and given consultative status with it. Mr Platt concluded that wildlife departments must have the authority to cull species to prevent environmental degradation occurring through overpopulation and that complete abolition of killing would inadvertently render kangaroos far more vulnerable to abuse than they are at present. In contrast, some organisations oppose any industry base on kangaroo harvesting . Others are not opposed to a domestic industry but oppose the export of kangaroo products. Still others recognise the need to control kangaroos but rather than utilise the killed animals, would let then rot in the bush. With all of these groups it is possible to have a sane, rational dialogue. What angers me is a suggestion that I and the State Ministers are in a giant conspiracy to help the kangaroo industry. The absurdity of this is shown when one compares the amounts of money involved in other Australian primary industry with the amount of money involved in the kangaroo industry. Exports of kangaroo skins, leather and meat in 1982-83 were worth about $12.4m. By way of comparison, meat exports during the same period were worth $1,517.4m and wheat exports $1,377.6m. If this Government were to take action based solely on commercial or political considerations we would hardly have stopped the damming of the Franklin, declared stage 2 of Kakadu National Park, created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and prohibited sand mining on Moreton Island, all of which, looked at in economic terms, would have cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. Of all the groups involved in the kangaroo issue, namely, the industry itself, the politicians, the State and Federal parks and wildlife officers and the farmers, only the farmers could possibly have a motive for wanting to destroy the kangaroo. The majority of Australian farmers know and love Australian fauna and are perfectly happy to tolerate a reasonable number of kangaroos on their properties 'Reasonable' is the operative word. It is when the kangaroo population reaches unreasonable levels that farmers want the numbers reduced. If they are not culled by professional shooters, they will poison them and there will be no population control at all. Let me now deal with some of the more outrageous charges made by some of the animal welfare groups. The first is that the kangaroo population figures are wrong or, worse, deliberately falsified. The last full scale survey was done in 1981-82 by the CSIRO, one of Australia's, indeed one of the world's, most respected scientific organisations. It came up with figures of 19.1 million for the red and grey kangaroos, the main species culled. Incidentally, that is the only figure that I have ever cited, despite some allegations by some organisations. In 1982 and 1983, the worst drought in years had its effect and in the eastern States population figures dropped by some 30 per cent to 40 per cent. In its submission to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service the Australian Government submitted these figures and identified its sources of information. Incidentally, the greatest decrease in numbers occurred in areas that had not been culled. In Kinchega National Park where the authorities deliberately had not culled kangaroos the drop in numbers for the grey kangaroo was of the order of 70 per cent, while on a neighbouring property where culling had occurred there was a much smaller drop in numbers. There was simply more feed available for fewer animals. One member of a conservation group used the Kinchega case to try to prove that there had been an overall mortality of kangaroos of 70 per cent throughout Australia. He set out to prove exactly the opposite of what the evidence showed had happened. State wildlife authorities estimated at the end of the drought that the kangaroo population of the three main species had fallen to somewhere between 12 million and 14 million. Female kangaroos are unique in being able to retain the embryo in the uterus for long past the normal gestation period and to give birth only when conditions improve. After the breaking of the drought, and if good weather conditions continue, we can anticipate that the kangaroo population will increase significantly. In fact it is already on the increase. These figures are disputed by some animal welfare groups, or they use our figures and place their own interpretation on them. Yet where is their scientific evidence? What research have they done? What are the professional qualifications of these critics? The men and women in our National Parks and Wildlife Service are professionally qualified and trained by first-hand experience. In addition, these people are personally dedicated to the preservation of Australia's wildlife and environment . This type of commitment is not the monopoly of those in animal welfare and conservation groups. The professional shooter has been accused of criminal acts of cruelty against kangaroos. Professional shooters kill quickly and efficiently . The other night I went out to witness a shoot. It was not something I particularly enjoyed, but I certainly saw how efficient they are at their job. Mr Hollis —You didn't take part in it? Mr COHEN —Under no circumstances. The charges that they deliberately shoot to maim are, of course, absurd. Quite apart from the fact that these men are not savages, in the interest of profit they are careful, as when a kangaroo is shot in the stomach both the skin and the meat are ruined. It has been suggested that harvesting should be carried out by government officers. Approximately 3,000 part time licensed professional shooters operate at present. They would need to be replaced by 1,000 to 2,000 full and part time government employees at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of more than $50m per year. That is not a lot of money when one says it quickly, but it is approximately a quarter of the annual budget of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. If I can get $50m in my Department, I can assure the House I can do some wonderful things for the environment-far better things than saving an unendangered species. An improvement of the present system of management is the only viable approach to the problem. A kangaroo monitoring unit has been established within the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. This will be concerned with all kangaroo species, paying special attention to the genuinely endangered species of kangaroos and wallabies. It will assist States in managing kangaroo harvesting programs and will provide advice to me on the setting of annual quotas. The staff of the unit will have experience in wildlife population monitoring and management and will liaise with the States, the universities, conservation groups, farmers and the industry. As in any society, there are people in Australia-yahoos, if you like-who act outside the law and either are indifferent to, or actually obtain pleasure from, cruelty. Such individuals are contemptible but regrettably are hard to catch, particularly in a country as vast as Australia. Interestingly, a number of conservation groups have made allegations of cruelty and have been asked by Professor Ovington, Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, to provide the evidence. As yet they have not produced one tittle of evidence. The prevention of cruelty is being examined by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, CONCOM. A Council working group has circulated to interested groups a draft code of practice for kangaroo culling. Once this is finalised it will be an important tool in minimising animal suffering. As most shooting is done on rural properties, farmers are in the best possible position to report illegal shooters and acts of cruelty, and I ask them to take special care to allow only expert and authorised shooters to operate on their land and to report the illegal shooters. In order that all aspects of kangaroo management can be better understood by the public, the Government has asked Film Australia to prepare a film on this subject. Honourable members will be aware that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to keep the red, eastern grey and western grey kangaroos on the threatened list under the United States Endangered Species Act. I am most disappointed that the United States authorities have made this decision. The Australian Government has provided ample evidence that the three species are not threatened. They are clearly abundant and for the United States to list them on its threatened list undermines the effectiveness of such listing in assisting the conservation of truly endangered species. The United States appears to have been unduly influenced by the dishonest campaign waged by some United States conservation and animal welfare groups, aided and abetted by their own Australian conspirators. In its decision the USFWS has placed emphasis on a decline in the population of over 19 million to about 12 million to 14 million. Nevertheless, I understand that the importation of kangaroo products into the United States of America will still be permitted and that the USFWS will monitor the status of these three species and could again propose their removal from the threatened list if numbers recover following the breaking of the drought. It needs to be noted that the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna-CITES-to which 86 countries are signatory, does not regard the red and eastern and western grey kangaroos as threatened. I take this opportunity to refute again allegations made in the media recently that the submissions by the Australian Government misled the USFWS by exaggerating population levels. The Australian Government's submissions of November 1982, March 1983, June 1983 and February 1984 were based on available scientific evidence from CSIRO, universities and State wildlife authorities. The population estimates in these submissions have not been challenged by the USFWS. A couple of weeks ago we received a telex from the United States Government refuting allegations that the Australian Government had misled them. I seek leave to table this clarification. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Minister does not need leave. Mr COHEN —I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has made it clear that only tables which cannot easily be read out in the House may be incorporated. Mr COHEN —The USFWS identified the drought as being responsible for the decline in numbers and sought additional information on the recovery rate of the kangaroo population. It recognised that kangaroos number in the millions and that Australia has a proven record of efficiently administering wildlife conservation programs. In October last year a Dutch independent member of the European Parliament Mr Doeke Eisma, and some of his colleagues tabled in the European Parliament a motion for a resolution calling for an investigation into whether imports of kangaroo products should be banned. I met with Mr Eisma and his British associate, Dr Bill Jordan, Director of the People's Trust for Endangered Species, in Canberra about three weeks ago. They were on a visit of less than one week to Australia to examine the kangaroo situation. I made the Australian position clear to them. I firmly believe there is no need for the European Parliament to consider an import ban. However, we would be delighted to receive a visit by a delegation of the European Parliament, especially if it could spend sufficient time to appreciate the vastness of this country and the abundance of kangaroos it contains. Finally, I reiterate that the Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory wildlife authorities are of the highest calibre and expertise. These professionals, responsible to the various conservation Ministers, have as their primary goal the conservation of all Australian wildlife, and suggestions that they would allow kangaroos to become extinct or endangered are ridiculous. The kangaroo management programs conducted by these authorities are, I believe, the equal of the best programs of wildlife management in the world. I welcome dialogue with those animal welfare groups and conservationists who are genuinely interested in preserving any endangered species of wildlife, but I have no time for those who, for the sake of media attention and for their own self- aggrandisement, dissemble and deceive. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I am pleased the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has made this statement on kangaroos as this subject is a matter of concern to many Australians and to people in other countries. The statement will be more notable, I fear, for what it does not say than for what it does say, and I suspect that the Minister had a sense of deja vu when he put pen to paper to draw up this statement, for no doubt he recalled how in 1980 he castigated the then Minister for Science and Environment on exactly the same subject. Now he has had the blowtorch of criticism applied to himself and not unnaturally feels the pain from the barbs of those individuals and environmental groups, both at home and overseas, which are less than satisfied with the manner in which the Minister has conducted his responsibilities in this very emotive and significant area. The Minister's injured innocence and justified concern at the degree of misrepresentation which has taken place of the policies of both governments in relation to kangaroo culling does require a response. However, the Minister has not done himself, in my opinion, adequate credit by descending to the use of emotive and extreme language and by creating the strong impression that he wishes to conduct a personal vendetta against individuals and groups who have had the temerity to disagree with the manner in which he has conducted his portfolio. This approach, regrettably, clouds the real issue-the very issue which he claimed, when in opposition, was a matter of great concern, the very issue which he has since claimed that the Government also regards as being a matter of concern, namely, the survival of viable kangaroo populations and individual species. Unfortunately, the statement has done little to answer the valid concern of those within our community and overseas who, for whatever reason, are genuinely worried that the Australian kangaroo may be under some form of threat. There is a sense of poetic justice in the fact that when the present Minister was the spokesman for the environment of the then Opposition in 1980 he spoke with great eloquence about the need to protect the Australian kangaroo. He made at least three statements during that year alone complaining that the Fraser Government was not doing enough, yet today he is here in the House defending the very substance of the policy which he attacked a mere four years ago. On 25 June 1980 in a Press release he said: A number of conservation and preservation organisations are at odds with the Government over this issue. They still are. To continue: Their fears and protests should not be dismissed so flippantly by the Minister for Science and Environment when he described their criticism as 'ill-informed nonsense'. On that occasion the Minister went on to say: Various population estimates which are used are open to question as being inaccurate. Only in New South Wales and South Australia is aerial survey of kangaroo population, the most reliable method, carried out on a large scale. It would appear that the Minister has received a rapid conversion since assuming the responsibilities of office. The sole difference from the previous policy that he has introduced has been the establishment within his Department of a national kangaroo monitoring unit which comprises some eight public servants, but in a Press release of 25 June 1980 he made a commitment which is very different from what he has in fact done. He told the Australian people on that occasion that he wished to create a body which 'would include reputable scientists and members of State wildlife authorities, as well as representatives of farmer organisations and conservation groups'. To the best of my knowledge, all we have to date is a small monitoring unit of eight public servants. He also proposed that the monitoring body would be 'funded by a levy on all the skins and meat of kangaroos killed and tagged and destined for either the domestic or the export market'. Well, we have heard nothing more about that either, nor his proposal that all culling should be conducted by government employees, not by professional shooters. I point out these facts to the Minister only to show that it is important when in government to be able to live with what he recommended when he was the spokesman in opposition. These are the realities; this is what is on the record and this is the record which the environmental movement is now holding him accountable for. In Hansard on 2 April 1980 the Minister is recorded as saying: . . . reluctantly I and many others believe that a controlled and monitored program of culling would be accepted. However, we do want some watertight assurances before such a program will be acceptable. Remember the date-2 April 1980. In the Age newspaper of 25 April 1984 there was an interesting article on kangaroo culling containing comments from none other than the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Professor Derek Ovington, who has served all governments extremely well. This is what he said this year: Australia had never supplied the United States with an estimate of the number of kangaroos because it was impossible to give a true figure . . . He went on to say: We've never given a total figure for the number of the three species present in Australia. We could never do that because only part of the country is surveyed. That is the situation and it has not changed since 1980 when the Minister made those remarks I have quoted, but the fact is that he has been responsible for the administration of this policy for some 15 months. But the situation has not changed because the Minister has discovered since taking over responsibility for the portfolio that there are some matters on which it is very difficult to make any significant improvement. The very basis of the statement he delivered today demonstrates that point so clearly. In April 1980 the Minister also came into this House and put a number of very significant questions on this subject to the then Government. He asked: Are quotas of this level- that is, of States allowing harvesting of kangaroos commercially, and then setting their quotas- likely to reduce the population levels or will this be a sustainable yield? Are regulations concerning minimum size of kangaroos being adhered to? Will the market forces place pressure on governments to increase quotas if the United States market opens up? Are protected species being shot by mistake on properties? What will happen if the long-range forecaster Lennox Walker is correct and Australia is in for a long period of drought during the 1980s? He was certainly right on that one. To continue: If numbers start to drop dramatically what control will be introduced to ensure that numbers and species can be built up again? With a rhetorical flourish on that occasion, he said: Questions such as these must be answered to prove to the Australian public as well as to the American Government that the Australian wildlife authorities have effective and comprehensive management programs. Clearly some in the conservation movement are of the same view today as they obviously were in 1980 when they no doubt had some impact on the then shadow Minister to ask them questions. But the present Minister should have answered them in the statement he delivered today. The environment policy of the Opposition has gone some distance to try to solve some of these very real difficulties. Quite frankly, we are prepared to accept that we do not know, at a scientific level, enough about the kangaroo ecosystems . Our policy is therefore based on the belief that there should be further and continuing research into kangaroo habitats, their ability to co-exist with animal husbandry and cropping and the effect of drought and other factors which may influence their rate of reproduction. We also believe that further research should be conducted into the best means of scientifically determining numbers, species, ages and sex of kangaroos on a regional basis. At the moment there is great variation between States, and this has to be faced by the Minister at the table. First, the methods of monitoring and assessing kangaroo populations, such as use of aerial surveying which is currently used only in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, do vary. Secondly, the zoning of areas where kangaroo culling is permitted does vary. Thirdly, culling in some cases is by commercial trappers or individual landholders. Fourthly, the tagging and licensing procedures vary between States. Some issue damage licences and other forms of licences for the destruction of wildlife. Accordingly, should the Federal Minister approve culling quotas when there is no current population estimate available of a particular species? This is a question of particular concern to the very people whom the Minister tried to attack in his statement today. For example, in Western Australia there is no estimate of euro population, yet there is a 1984 quota of 10,000. In New South Wales there is no estimate of wallaroo population, yet there is a quota of 1,000. In Queensland there is no estimate of wallaroo or euro populations but a quota of 60,000; and no estimate of whiptail wallabies yet a quota of 35,000. I am not suggesting that those species are necessarily under threat. I am simply pointing out that there is reason to question whether there is a scientific base against which these quotas should be regulated and decided upon by the Minister responsible for setting those quotas. Now that the Fraser Government's Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act has been proclaimed, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is also responsible for approving management plans for any native fauna which may be subject to export. He did not tell us in his statement whether he has approved these management plans or what he proposes to do. He is also required under the Act to approve commercial trading in native fauna, and confirm that such trade will not adversely affect that species. Assertions are one thing and proof is quite another. As I have just pointed out, there is some doubt as to whether the basic information does in fact exist against which those determinations ought to be made. I gather that the Minister has approved individual plans presented to him by State governments, but these have not been made public. Once again the people concerned about the conservation of our native species could legitimately ask: Are these plans adequate? We do not know because we have not been told. Are these plans consistent with the national standards? We do not know because we have not been told. Finally, are they uniform from State to State? I am prepared to bet that they are not, while I accept that there are difficulties in achieving uniformity. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Minister to tell the Australian people, through this Parliament, precisely what his policy is going to be on these matters. The Minister should satisfy the queries. They are legitimate and will remain continuing problems until he is prepared to let the situation be judged on its merits. The fact is that there are opportunities for misrepresentation of Government policy just as there were opportunities, regrettably, for the misrepresentation of our policy when we were in government, misrepresentations incidentally which were aided and abetted by the very Minister who is now crying poor mouth here today because he is being attacked on exactly the same grounds as was the Fraser Government. It is unclear whether there are proper management plans for the protection of macropods other than kangaroos which are killed under the quotas approved by the Minister. As I said, we want to have more information about what exactly his policies are and what he intends to do about it while he is in power. As I have stated, we agree that there has been misrepresentation of some of the facts, including claims that the previous coalition Government deliberately misled the United States Government on the numbers of kangaroos. I am pleased that the Minister has been fair in confirming to this House that that is not the situation. A telegram has been received from the United States authorities emphasising that the previous Administration did not try to mislead them in the calculation of numbers in this regard. Nevertheless, both national and international fringe groups will presumably remain active in this area. The Minister referred particularly to Mrs Newman and to her complaints about the skinning of baby kangaroos by shooters. I was as concerned about that matter as, I am sure, were many other Australians. I phoned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which assured me that that case had been brought to its attention. It was not the result of shooters; it was caused by a dog in somebody's backyard in Sydney attacking a small kangaroo that had been brought back to the city from the country. It was a most unfortunate event and it was very sickening to see that photograph. I absolutely abhor the fact that the people who took those photographs hawked them around the United States, outside supermarkets the length and breadth of the country, in a deliberate attempt to falsify and to misrepresent the policies of the Fraser Government in relation to the protection of kangaroos and the control procedures which applied to the export of kangaroo meat. That situation was perpetrated by people who wanted to stir up trouble for this country. I regret to say that not long after that incident we had another extraordinary situation when a film called Goodbye Joey was being produced by an Australian who in my view should have known better . This again was an outrageous misrepresentation of the facts. It was made to make money. I have no doubt that the sponsors of that film did extremely well because they were able to play on the genuine concerns of many people in Australia and overseas, alleging that the Australian people were only interested in butchering wild life, to destroy, to maim and to otherwise terrorise the kangaroos of this country, although the kangaroo is one of the symbols on our coat of arms. The Government's policy, however, as put to us in the statement, regrettably contains only one new initiative. The Minister is suggesting that we should have a film by Film Australia on kangaroos. That is a brilliant idea and I commend the Minister for it, but I suggest that he has to go a long way further than that if he is to make any impact on what apparently is a deep-seated public perception that there are problems in the area of kangaroo slaughter. Let us be quite frank about it: In Australia 90 per cent of the population live in cities. They probably see kangaroos, as I said, on the coat of arms or in the zoo and occasionally on television. They have very little perception of the difficulties facing farmers, the eco-systems of the kangaroo, or of the need to maintain a balance between agricultural pursuits on the one hand and the legitimate need to protect and maintain Australia's wildlife on the other. I am suggesting that the Government has to initiate a worthwhile educational program directed principally at school age children and at urban populations to try to get them to understand the long term viability of most kangaroo populations. Having said that, however, the fact remains, as I said before, that there is genuine and understandable concern that in respect of some species of kangaroos, especially macropods which are not adequately covered in the existing statistical base against which the Minister is meant to make his calculations for export quotas, a lot more work needs to be done. It is in Australia's interest to make sure that there is a long term survival plan for all Australian kangaroo species, and I am concerned that this has not yet taken place. Finally, I make the point that there is reason to be concerned about the loss of kangaroos through illegal shooting. I give a simple parallel of this. The Barrier Reef has been for many years an area of substantial fishing both for the industrial fishing industry as well as for weekend fishing. On a visit up there last year the Environment and Conservation Committee of this House was told that far more damage had been done to the fish of the Barrier Reef through weekend fishing than had been done by long term professional fishing. I simply make the point that the same difficulties can be faced by other species, thus the need for better wildlife conservation on the one hand and the need to have a sound quota basis for their destruction on the other. There is a very real risk that while the emphasis has been on the alleged evils of professional shooters in this particular area, which I reject, as does the Minister, there is a risk, if we cannot have a more effective system of control and licensing of weekend shooters, that the control mechanisms introduced by the previous Government and applied by this Government will continue to face certain difficulties. I end my response to the Minister's statement by saying that this is an issue of considerable concern to many Australians and to many reputable organisations, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the RSPCA and other groups in our community. They have legitimate questions which have not been answered by the Minister's statement. I find it regrettable that he has taken this opportunity essentially to abuse certain individuals who have been attacking him . We are sympathetic to his personal concerns about that, but I remind him that when he was in opposition he aided and abetted those people by leading them to expect changes under a Labor government which, now that he is the Minister, he has absolutely failed to achieve. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 per cent 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. by Mr Beddall,Mr Blunt,Mrs Child,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Goodluck,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hand,Mr Hodgman,Mr Howard,Mr Humphreys,Mr Kent,Mr Kerin,Dr Klugman,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Newman,Mr Peacock,Mr Rocher,Mr Saunderson,Mr Shipton and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Goodluck,Mr Hodgman and Mr O'Neil . To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hawker and Mr Hodgman. 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively 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 are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia, endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mrs Child and Mr 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 were 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 license 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That grave concern be expressed and decisive action be taken to prevent the lifting of the barriers to the importation, and publication of hard core pornography (including urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia and bestiality) and publications which incite the use of hard drugs. We the undersigned believe that this will cause enormous damage to the moral strength of our people, particularly the young and strongly and urgently request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification and Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. 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 there is a special need for the making and enforcement of effective laws to control the importation, production, possession and distribution of objectionable video tapes and discs depicting hard core pornography and gratuitous violence. For these reasons, we believe that the Regulations and Ordinance that are now under attack in the Parliament should be disallowed; that the pre-existing law should be enforced; and that urgent consideration should be given to devising an effective scheme for prohibiting or regulating the circulation of all objectionable publications. We, the undersigned, 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 Beddall. 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 we are most disturbed by the new Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publications and pray that they may not become the norm for either the A.C.T. or any other Australian State. We ask you not to change Commonwealth legislation in any way that would make it easier for any of the material listed in Categories ''1'' and ''2'' to enter Australia or to be available to young people. We, the undersigned 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 Humphreys. 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, whereas the 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance will make fairly freely available video tapes and discs depicting hard-core pornography and gratuitous violence and publications inciting the use of hard drugs, thus making it virtually impossible for parents to exercise any control over what their children may view on video equipment outside their own home, we the undersigned 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 Lindsay. 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: (1) That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. (2) That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. (3) That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. (4) That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. 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 70km from Mackay and over 300km 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 advantage 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That 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 Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned petitioners do humbly pray, that you know of our deep concern for the safety of airline passengers flying the Qantas direct S.P. flights between Sydney and Los Angeles. The imposition of a tour of duty of up to 20 hours for Flight Attendants operating this flight, appears not only unreasonable but possibly unsafe. Passengers need the critical measure of safety that alert Flight Attendants provide in emergencies. We need you to assure that Qantas will not take any action that will lessen the effectiveness of its Flight Attendants in an emergency. Thank you for ensuring that OUR airline maintains its Safety First approach. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. 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: (1) No jet aircraft use the 32' 14' crosswind runway, (2) The Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a. m. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth 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: (a) 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: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our wish to have the traditional place of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of State retained in our national and constitutional and democratic affairs and institutions and also strongly advocate the retention of our present Australian National Flag, standing for historic and loyal links with the United Kingdom, the nation which founded our Australian way of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That as enrolment in Medicare is compulsory, we find it unforgiveable in our democratic society that no gap insurance in Medical cover is allowed. If individuals and families believe that they would benefit from taking out gap insurance to recover the 15% of medical fees not covered by Medicare, then it is their democratic right to do so. Your petitioners therefore pray that private medical insurance funds be allowed to offer insurance to cover the 15% gap in doctor's fees not covered by Medicare . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemization in 1983. That at no time in the last year did the Department of Health liaison officer or investigator approach Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Franklin respectfully showeth: 1. Although Australia is endowed with vast quantities of natural gas, Tasmanians are denied reasonably priced access to those resources. It should be shared equally between all Australians. 2. The Tasmanian householder using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pays $35.40 for an average household cylinder. In Melbourne, the same cylinder can be purchased for as little as $23.77. 3. A Tasmanian family on reticulated gas supply pays double the price paid by a Melbourne family on natural gas. 4. Tasmanian commercial and industrial users, paying high prices for their gas, are penalised. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government gas subsidy of $20.31 per tonne should be increased to Tasmania to compensate for Bass Strait freight charges. The subsidy should be raised so that Tasmanian users pay no more than the average of Australian users. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Whyalla South Australia electors of the division of Grey, respectfully showeth: That an operation was introduced to Australia for 'Downs Syndrome' children. This operation consists of reducing the size of the tongue of the children which helps them to breathe through their nasal passages, and also enables them to speak much more clearly. There are certain setbacks. 1. The operation can only be performed in Melbourne at present. 2. The operation which in our opinion is a necessity for the well being of these children is not covered by Medicare. 3. The operation costs approximately two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) . We hope to change all this by producing this petition to the Federal Parliament . We are signing this petition so that 'Downs Syndrome children' do not have to be denied this treatment and can live their lives to the best of their ability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government take steps to make this operation available under Medicare and the appropriate action to ensure that any loss incurred travelling to and from the service centre for such operation are fully recoverable. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The illusory and deceptive nature of the Government's proposed tax cut in the forthcoming Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Deputy Leader of the Opposition)(1.57) —Tax will rise in the next Budget- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.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. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jones, Barry Willis, R.Keating, P. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. I. Katter, R. C.Bowen, Lionel McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 Mr SPEAKER —I present a report of the Standing Orders Committee, incorporating a dissenting report, on possible changes to the Standing Orders in respect of the declaration and registration of private interests of members (Part 1). Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Mr SPEAKER —I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House on the Future Use of the Provisional Parliament House, together with the minutes of proceedings and the minutes of evidence. The decision of the Parliament to ask the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House to consider and report on proposals for the future use of this building was taken for two reasons. The first was a 1982 report by the National Capital Development Commission on its Parliamentary Zone Development Plan which noted that in the absence of any decision about the future use of the provisional Parliament House after it is vacated in 1988 it has been assumed that the building will remain in its present form. The second was that the detailed planning of the interior of the new Parliament House will be affected by decisions on the use of materials from this building. These decisions are difficult to take until such time as the future of this building is determined. The Committee's principal recommendations are: That the building should not be demolished; That it should remain basically as it is with modifications to the roof and the southern facade, and That is should be used as a museum related to the Australian Constitution, Federation and the Australian Parliament. In making these recommendations the Committee took account of the fact that a major part of Australia's contemporary political history has been enacted in this building and that it would be an act of desecration either to destroy the scene of that history or to devote the building to a use that did not have strong political or historical connotations. It was also recognised that the new Parliament House will not be able to house all the memorabilia and material from this building of historical consequence or to have an educative role in relation to Federation or the political history of the country. The principal criteria used by the Committee in determining the post-1988 uses of the provisional House were: that only nationally rather than locally oriented uses should be considered, that regular use by the public including visitors and tourists should be encouraged, rather than a static use such as general office accommodation or intermittent occupation such as a conference centre, and that in view of its history and close relationship with the new Parliament House, future use should have a parliamentary bias. The Committee believes that the provisional House will provide suitable accommodation for such a museum. It has the range of large spaces which would be required for displays, lectures and similar functions with sufficient office type accommodation for the administration, curatorial, stores, workshop and other activities which are an essential part of a large active museum operation. It is clear that a necessary preliminary to a closer study of how the museum function can be accommodated in the provisional House is the completion of a conservation analysis and plan. The aim of this examination would be to provide a detailed understanding of the building's structural history, present condition , its architectural and historical significance and how the uses proposed might be achieved in a way which is consistent with its proper conservation, both internally and externally. The Committee therefore recommends that funds should be provided in the 1984-85 financial year for a conservation analysis and plan to be carried out on the provisional Parliament House. The Committee hopes that this inquiry and report will provide the basis for early decisions by the Parliament and the Government on the future of what is one of Australia's most significant and historical buildings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —In order to facilitate debate on this report when we come back, I move: That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I present an interim report of the Committee on Motorcycle and Bicycle Helmet Safety. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —Mr Speaker, I shall seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report at a later hour this day. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Until very recently few people in Australia were aware of the existence and spread of organised crime in this country. Today, however, warned by a succession of reports by royal commissions and other inquiries, the great majority of Australians are conscious of the threat that organised crime represents to the economy, the amount of revenue available for spending on necessary and desirable forms of community activity and indeed to our whole way of life. At the same time these Australians are conscious of the need, if a new institution is to be established to deal with this threat, for the new institution itself not to endanger the rights and liberties of individuals. For those reasons most Australians will welcome the establishment of the National Crime Authority. Designed to effectively co-ordinate and lead on a national basis the attack against organised crime, the Authority will nonetheless be constructed in such a way, and with such checks and balances and limitations on its powers, that prejudice to the rights and liberties of individuals will be avoided. The Authority will be established by Commonwealth legislation, but with provision for extensive State participation in its operations. When the present Government assumed office in March, it set about immediately reviewing the National Crimes Commission Act enacted in 1982 under the previous Government. This Act has aroused considerable disquiet and concern in many sections of the community and any form of participation had been rejected by the States. The reasons were obvious: It gave no role to and lacked the support of the States; had ill-defined functions; had insufficiently defined and limited powers; and lacked safeguards. In the course of that review, the Government published a Green Paper prepared by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) which raised and discussed the very serious issues involved in a proposal to establish a body of this nature. On 28 and 29 July in the Senate chamber a national conference was held, attended by more than 100 representatives of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, police, the legal profession, civil liberties organisations, royal commissioners and other highly qualified and interested individuals. The Conference was remarkable for the informed, lively and constructive debate which occurred. While many diverse views were expressed, and while I would not suggest that complete unanimity was reached, or ever could be reached in an area as sensitive as this, there was evident by the end of the Conference broadly based support for the establishment of some kind of national crime authority provided that it remedied the deficiencies perceived in both the traditional royal commission model, and the 1982 National Crimes Commission Act. Subsequently, a series of discussions were held with the States and the Northern Territory culminating in a meeting of Attorney-General and police Ministers in Melbourne on 9 September. This meeting reached substantial agreement on a model for the Crime Authority which is now embodied in the present Bill. The Bill was introduced into the Senate on 10 November 1983. On 17 November 1983 on an Opposition motion, the Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Government, through the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State, made submissions to the Committee. The Committee's report was tabled in the Senate on 1 May 1984. The report made 49 recommendations relating to the Bill. Following consultations with the States, the Attorney-General moved amendments in the Senate to give effect to 39 of the Committee's recommendations which the Government, after careful consideration, was able to accept. Most of those amendments were accepted by the Senate. In particular, the Bill now makes a clear distinction between the special and general levels of operation of the Authority, coercive powers being exerciseable only in relation to special investigations upon a reference to the Authority. The Bill also makes special provisions for review by the Federal Court of decisions of the Authority at the instance of persons aggrieved. There is also now provision for a joint parliamentary committee to monitor performance of the Authority. Among other important improvements to the Bill the function of granting indemnities to witnesses is now vested by clause 30 in the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the immunity provided has been widened to include not only the direct use of evidence but also 'derivative' use. The Government believes that the proposed Authority will meet the major objectives and concerns that have emerged during the public debate on the Crimes Commission issue, namely: the need to avoid the fragmentation of effort in the previous series of ad hoc royal commissions, and to ensure coordination and continuity in the fight against organised crime; the need to maintain intact the resources and expertise of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and to ensure the continuation of its work; the need to take account of the many fears and concerns expressed about a permanent criminal investigation body with unlimited terms of reference and uncontrolled investigative powers; and the need to secure the active involvement and cooperation of the States. The question that is most frequently asked in relation to the proposal is why is there a need for a new body and how will its operation differ from police investigations as they are now conducted. Police investigations are concerned essentially with particular offences known or reasonably believed to have been committed, with the starting point usually being the complaint of a victim or discovery by the police of the results of a crime. By and large, the police forces of Australia do an excellent job and there is no question of the Crime Authority supplanting those organisations. However, it is of the nature of organised and sophisticated crime that particular manifestations of that crime, particularly in the areas of drug importation, corporate fraud and tax evasion, may not come to the attention of the police forces. Activities of this kind may be so intricately interwoven, may involve so many jurisdictions and may be so well camouflaged under apparently legitimate ways of doing business that they may well not cause any one police force to take notice. The Costigan Royal Commission has shown that, by following a series of financial leads in a determined exploratory fashion, widespread and serious conspiracies can be uncovered. The techniques involved, and the need for them to be deployed, by a national authority specially designed for the purpose, have been clearly described by Mr Costigan in a passage of his Sir John Barry Memorial Lecture delivered on 13 October 1983. He stated: The first thing to remember is that the organisation of crime is directed towards the accumulation of money and with it power. The possession of the power that flows with great wealth is to some people an important matter in itself, but this is secondary to the prime aim of accumulating money. Two conclusions flow from this fact. The first is that the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organised criminals is to follow the money trail. The second is that once you have identified and convicted them you take away their money; that is, the money which is the product of their criminal activities. Both these conclusions have now been accepted in both the United States and the United Kingdom and other western countries. Tracing the flow of money, of course, is the first step. Once this is recognised as the appropriate course it is necessary to identify the techniques necessary to enable an investigator to follow this trail. Bear in mind that the amounts involved are large and the frequency of transactions great. Accordingly, in most cases use is made by the criminals of the existing facilities of the community. The banking system is used, as are solicitors' trust accounts, building societies and merchant banks, monies are transmitted overseas, property is bought and sold, shares are acquired, investments are made, credit cards are used, joint ventures are entered into, passports are applied for, immigration cards are filled in at every port of entry and exit, telephone calls are made, hotel bills are paid and so on. All these transactions are to be found recorded in public and private documents or on computer tapes. The ultimate dilemma facing the criminal who wishes to acquire wealth so that he can enjoy the pleasures and facilities provided by our society is that the enjoyment of those pleasures and facilities results in a recording of his activities. No matter how careful he may believe himself to be in covering or disguising his tracks, the tracks are there to be found and followed. But the tracking can be done successfully only if the person making it is equipped with the appropriate powers. There are many bodies in this community which have been given power by Government in their own discrete area; examples can be found under the Companies legislation, Income Tax Act, Immigration Act, Customs Act and so forth. Some of these powers are far greater than I would wish invested in a permanent investigative agency. But because these bodies are limited to the area of their particular interest, they cannot see the whole picture. The Reserve Bank is concerned with possible breaches of its regulations relating to the movement of money in and out of the country, but is not concerned with breaches of law within the boundaries of Australia. The Customs Department is concerned with goods coming into and leaving Australia but is not concerned with domestic transactions. A State Police Force is concerned with the activities of a person within the State boundaries but has no jurisdiction over any activities in another State or Territory. The Treasury is concerned with monitoring the activities of the banking industry and the insurance industry but cannot look at solicitors' trust accounts. State legal authorities are concerned with solicitors' trust accounts but not with banking transactions outside their State. In the result, those who wish to do so can hide their activities from any concerted investigation by adopting techniques well known to white collar crime and which are on the whole very successful. My experience over the last three years has left me in no doubt that the problem of organised crime cannot be tackled unless you vest in the one body, with all suitable protections, the power to monitor the activities I have described and to follow in detail all the steps taken. One of the most difficult policy questions with which the Government has had to wrestle is whether it is necessary or desirable for the kind of body to which Mr Costigan refers to be established with full traditional royal commission powers. After considering carefully the contrary viewpoints, the Government has taken the position, as did the Fraser Government before it with the National Crimes Commission Act 1982, that there are basic differences between the role of a royal commission and that of an ongoing Crime Authority, and that this should be reflected in the make-up of that Authority. The basic task of a royal commission is and has been to establish publicly the truth of a particular matter given to it to investigate and report upon: A royal commission is frequently called upon to clear the air where there is apparent public scandal or considerable public disquite. On the other hand, the basic role of the proposed Crime Authority-although there are others as well-will be to operate as another arm of the criminal investigation process, gathering and assembling evidence for transmission to other law enforcement agencies and for use ultimately in conducting prosecutions: To this end it needs to be a standing rather than ad hoc body, accumulating expertise and becoming the repository of necessary skills and knowledge and the technical equipment to go with them. Because of their different roles, the powers appropriate to be given to a standing crime authority differ from those appropriate for a royal commission. Given the traditional 'expose true facts' role of the royal commission, it has always been thought justifiable to deny the excuse of self-incrimination to witnesses before a royal commission, provided that this denial is balanced by a provision making the evidence inadmissible in proceedings other than for perjury . But where the gathering of admissible evidence is essential, as is the case with the proposed Crime Authority, it would be wrong in principle for this to be extracted over claims of self-incrimination. A different kind of balance between powers and limitations on power is required, because what is involved is a very different kind of investigative body. A number of deficiencies in the 1982 Act that have come to notice in the course of the Government's review have been made good in the present Bill. In the first place, there is now satisfactory provision for participation by the States and the Northern Territory. The National Crime Authority will consist of a chairman, and two other members selected respectively by the unanimous decision of the Attorneys-General and police Ministers of the Commonwealth and participating States. An input by the States in the selection of members of the Authority is thus clearly provided for. There is further provision for an inter- governmental committee to generally monitor the work of the Authority. Each State and the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth will be able to be represented on this committee, which should give the States a clear window into its operations. Secondly, the concern-widely expressed in relation to the proposed 1982 crimes commission-that the body would be able to roam at will over the whole field of its jurisdiction, without having to justify its investigations to those politically accountable, has been specifically addressed by the requirement in the present Bill that the Authority only exercise coercive investigative powers in the context of specific references initiated by the appropriate government. Thirdly, the 1982 Act lacked a precise statement as to the outer limits of the commission's jurisdiction, giving it a general jurisdiction to inquire into, of its own initiative or at the request of the Attorney-General, any circumstance suggesting that an offence had been committed against any law of the Commonwealth or a Territory. The outer limits of the National Crime Authority's jurisdiction are now precisely defined by the description of 'relevant criminal activity' and 'relevant offence' in clause 4 of the Bill. The combination of the precisely limited jurisdiction and the requirement for a specific reference or references will ensure that the area of lawful inquiry by the Authority in any one case is readily ascertainable. If the Authority should stray beyond that area, it can be restrained by judicial order. A fourth perceived defect in the 1982 legislation was the absence of clear or precise ministerial responsibility in respect of the body. There should be a clear and unmistakable line of responsibility to, and control by, one Commonwealth Minister: divided or shared control means no control. The present Bill does provide a clear line of responsibility for, and control of the Authority. Thus, under clause 18, the Commonwealth Minister may give published directions or guidelines to the Authority with respect to the performance of its functions. Directions or guidelines with respect to the performance of State functions will require the agreement of the relevant State Minister. Under clause 59, the Authority is required to keep the relevant Minister informed as to the performance of its general functions and its operation in respect of references. A proper balance is thus maintained between the need for a clear line of responsibility to and control by the Commonwealth Minister generally and the proper interests of participating States in the operations of the Authority, particularly under references given by State governments. Fifthly, under the 1982 Act, excessively wide powers were given to the Commission to deal with alleged contempt of the Commission. These have been pared in the present Bill-clause 35-to what is really necessary and justifiable having regard to the special role of the Crime Authority. Similarly, the draconian powers intended to be given to the crimes commission to deal with witnesses who decline to attend or answer questions have been reduced to what is strictly necessary and justifiable for the purposes of the Authority. Sixthly, whereas the 1982 Bill vested only a discretion in the commission to order hearings to be held in private, or the publication of evidence to be prohibited, clause 25 of the present Bill provides that all hearings of the Authority shall be in private. Clause 60 provides for public sittings and bulletins by the Authority to inform the public as to the general conduct of its operations, but not so as to prejudice the safety, reputation or fair trial of persons. Finally, the present Bill contains in clause 59 an additional layer of protection, quite lacking in the 1982 Act, in the requirement that any report made by the Authority that sets out a finding that an offence has been committed , or makes any recommendation for prosecution, is not to be made public unless the finding or recommendation in question is expressed to be based on admissible evidence. As a result of the extensive recasting of the legislation following the Government's review and the report of the Senate Standing Committee, we have, I believe, a much better Bill. We have legislation that will ensure that States will participate and play a proper and effective role having regard to their legitimate interests; legislation that will remove any vagueness as to the limits of jurisdiction of the Authority and will spell out a clear and unmistakable line of ministerial responsibility and control; legislation moreover that will give the Authority a proper balance of powers adequate, but no more than adequate, for its functions and responsibilities. Whilst the Government would have preferred that such provisions as the regular judicial audit and the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman had remained, and whilst, as the Attorney-General indicated at the third reading stage in the Senate, there are some provisions which the Government will keep under review, we see the Authority under this Bill as workable. The fundamental structure of the Authority remains largely as it was. The Bill will, I repeat, enable the Authority to discharge effectively its role in dealing with organised crime offences within its jurisdiction, but without prejudicing the rights and liberties of individuals. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. To be fully effective, that National Crime Authority to be established by the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 will require access, in appropriate circumstances and subject to necessary safeguards, to information held by the Australian Taxation Office and royal commissions. The present Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to this end. In the Senate, the Government moved amendments to this Bill relating to the secrecy provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in order to give effect to recommendations relating to access to taxation information made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Bill first amends section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as follows: To enable the Commissioner of Taxation to communicate taxation information to the National Crime Authority for the purpose of tax-related investigations; to enable certain royal commissions, including the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions, to communicate to the National Crime Authority taxation information received by such commissions pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Act and which, in the opinion of the royal commission, relates to a tax-related investigation by the Authority; and to remove any doubt that clause 56 of the National Crime Authority Bill will authorise the Costigan Royal Commission to pass over tax-derived information in its possession to the National Crime Authority. Next, by way of further variation to the general rule that information held by the Australian Taxation Office may not be divulged, provision is made to enable a member of the National Crime Authority to apply to a judge of the Federal Court for an order that taxation information specified in the order and relevant to a special investigation by the Authority be disclosed by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Authority. The Bill contains safeguards in this respect. An order for access is not to be made unless the judge is satisfied that the information is relevant to the investigation and is not readily obtainable from other sources. The judge may impose restrictions as to communication of the information by the Authority to other persons. The Bill prohibits the Authority or any of its staff from divulging or communicating taxation information received by it. This is subject to certain exceptions including communication in the course of a hearing of the Authority; or within the Authority for the purposes of tax-related or special investigations by the Authority; or to the person to whose affairs the information relates; or the person who furnished the information to the Commissioner. Other specific exceptions are made. Thus the Authority is to be permitted to communicate taxation information to the inter-governmental committee in a report by the Authority on a reference , provided the identity of the person is not revealed; to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or the Commanding Officer of the relevant State police force-for use as intelligence only, not as evidence for prosecution-where the information indicates the commission of an offence punishable by 6 months imprisonment or more. The Bill also places limits on further communication of taxation information by the Authority's staff and counsel assisting it. Further communication is appropriately limited to communication for the purposes of a tax-related investigation, where the information was received under the exception to the general taxation secrecy provision, or for the purposes of a special investigation, where the information was received under judicial review. Information received by the Authority from the Costigan Royal Commission under clause 56 of the principal Bill may be communicated to the IGC, or relevant police commissioners as mentioned earlier, but communication of such information within the Authority is to be permitted only in connection with ordinary investigations, special investigations under a reference, or Task Force investigations co-ordinated by the Authority. Finally, the Bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to permit a Royal Commission to communicate to the National Crime Authority information or evidence in the possession of the Commission relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Authority. The amendments to be made by this Bill will make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority. They give the Authority the means of access to taxation information necessary to assist its investigations and at the same time incorporate appropriate safeguards against misuse of information and unjustifiable intrusion upon the privacy of individuals. The amendments permitting royal commissions to communicate to the National Crime Authority information previously obtained by them from the Taxation Office as well as from other sources will assist in the smooth transition from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 as they are related matters? Separate questions will, of course, be put for 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. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.34) —The National Crime Authority Bill 1983 which is before the House is an important measure. It has taken the Government 15 months to get it to this House. It went to the Senate in the last day or so and today for the first time we have the Bill in its final form. Indeed, we did not receive the Bill in its final form until this morning, for the very good reason that amendments were being made to it yesterday in the Senate. Our chances, therefore, carefully to examine what is in the Bill are not as great as they might otherwise have been. But let me say that the Opposition's response, in short, is that, while the Bill is defective in a number of major and important areas, we support it as being better than nothing. We do not say that there are not effective and useful provisions to be found in the Bill. Crime, like any other industry, evolves. Its techniques and its directions change according to the developments and the dynamics of the times in which we live. It is in its development affected by the health, attitudes, strengths, beliefs and mores of our society, the extent of the acceptance of laws, the administration of justice and the honesty and effectiveness of the police force. It is affected by levels of prosperity, by how effective crime prevention and detection is and, of course, by money and the availability of money. It is the availability of money in great measure which has led to the increase in organised crime which all of us know has taken place in this country over the last few years. One of the consequences of the dynamics of our society and changes within those dynamics is to bring to the surface a different facet of crime for exploitation. I suppose all members of this House will have heard of the experiment in the United States some years ago when it was decided, by an amendment which was passed by the Congress and by the necessary number of States, to prohibit the drinking of alcohol. That, as we all know, was a failure. I suppose we can look back on those days as a curiosity. But the major social consequence of prohibition in the United States was to spawn the gangs of organised criminals which have been an affliction on and a blight to that country. One might say that that was the beginning of organised and sophisticated crime on a national scale in that country. In this country we are faced with other changes in our social dynamics. We have the widespread use of soft drugs; we have the cultivation of thousands of acres of marihuana; we have the proliferation of hard core pornography. These are areas from which money in very large amounts is to be gained. So criminals gather around and organise the drug traffic and, of course, there has been in the past, as well, the organised sale of pornography against the laws of the country. What does this Bill propose? It is effectively a replacement for the 1982 Act which was passed by the Fraser Government. I am glad to see that one or two amendments I have proposed to that Act are to be found in this Bill. The purpose of the Bill has been pointed out by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). But in short it amounts to a realisation that new mechanisms are necessary in the fight against organised crime. When we think how much we need those mechanisms, it is well to reflect that the cost of organised crime to this country-the profits available from organised crime-has been estimated by Mr Costigan as being somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion a year. The Opposition would like to see a highly effective Bill, one which forms a real complement to the ordinary mechanisms for the policing and the investigation of crime. But I am sorry to say that in a number of important respects this Bill is highly deficient. First of all, effective investigations-that is to say, investigations which allow the Authority to use its coercive powers-must come to the inter- governmental committee. That Committee contains within it a representative from each State, a representative from the Northern Territory-and I assume that the States and the Northern Territory will be participating-and a representative from the Commonwealth Government. It does not take much imagination to understand that a lot of highly delicate, highly sensitive information will be going to that committee. It does not take very much imagination to understand that the possibility of leaks from that Committee or from officers serving it must be regarded as a serious risk. We all know that in the kind of situation in which information is put to a committee for the purposes of a recommendation or reference being made, one needs only one rotten apple, only one leak, and the consequences may be to frustrate the whole course of an investigation. Next, there is the kind of criminal conduct that may be investigated. I suppose that many people think that it is a very good thing to seek to define in some fairly precise manner the sort of criminal conduct one should be looking at. It rather assumes that one knows what one will find at the end of the trail before one starts out. But are the restrictions necessary? I spent about three years of my professional life investigating some failed public companies. I spent at least 12 months investigating a company called Gollin Holdings. My charter was, effectively, to investigate the whole of the affairs of that company within certain dates, and I did so. As I went along, I found that things which I had thought were important at the outset became quite unimportant, and that things of which I knew nothing suddenly came my way. Information would suddenly bob up, as it were, sometimes from a malicious source, and that would lead one down a trail which one had never even contemplated at the outset of the investigation. It taught me, as well, something about the truly coercive powers of a special investigation under the Companies Act, which in some ways is not too dissimilar to what is proposed here. The point that needs to be made is that the more one seeks to be particular about the kinds of offences that can be examined the more likely it is that one provides the opportunity for legal challenge. What is the task of the lawyer who appears for someone who is being investigated, who has been called in under the coercive powers of the Committee? His task is to do the best job he possibly can for his client, and, so far as he can, to make sure that his client is not asked embarrassing questions. This is where a problem in the way in which this Act is constructed very clearly arises, since we have a definition of what is a 'relevant offence'. In the Committee stage we shall be moving to amend that definition because, effectively, it sets out certain tests that need to be met. Each of those tests needs to be met for the purposes of the conduct in question being considered a relevant offence. It is relevant offences which are examinable under the proposed Act. By this means-that is, by the process of seeking to put together various segments for the purposes of, as the Government would say, seeking to define more precisely what will be the subject of an investigation under this legislation-one provides the opportunity for frustration, because, as I say, a lawyer appearing for someone who is being examined or whose advice is sought will seek to find a means of suggesting and of establishing that what has been done is beyond the charter of the Authority. That provision would be very much better if, instead of seeking to be an exhaustive definition, it was an illustrative definition. For example, one of the elements which must be satisfied is that the matter which is examined must relate to an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for a period of not less than three years. I suppose that in many States prostitution would not fall under that heading, and perhaps, therefore, organised prostitution. Illegal gambling activities would not fall under that heading, and consequently, perhaps , organised illegal gambling activities as well. It is wrong so to circumscribe the activities of this Authority. It is, indeed, recognised, as it must be recognised, that, where there is a hearing under the coercive provisions and objection is made to the production of documents or to the answering of questions, this can be done on the basis that there is a good ground of objection. What does one do? If one is being investigated, one instructs one's lawyer to apply to the Authority, which the lawyer can do. It is then bound to decide as soon as practicable whether the claim is justified. But, if the claim is not upheld, there is a further right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. As this is a Bill of great public importance, one would assume that at least once, if not more times, we shall have special leave application to the High Court of Australia. Recalling that the kind of supposed criminals whose conduct is going to be examined under this Authority will in many cases be rich men, I believe it does not take much thought to lead to the conclusion that they would far rather spend their money on legal challenges than face up to examinations under the coercive powers. So of that provision-that is, the attempt to define the relevant offences in the way in which the Bill attempts-we would say that in doing so it is setting up a barrier to the effective exploitation of the Bill's provisions. Next, and on the same subject, we see that there is an exemption. It relates to trade union activities, because in specific terms it is stated that a 'relevant offence' for the purposes of the Bill does not include an offence committed in the course of a genuine dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employees and employers by a party to the dispute, unless the offence is committed in connection with or as part of a course of activity involving the commission of a relevant offence other than the offence so committed. So, in short, if an act would otherwise be a relevant offence and if that act would otherwise be examinable, if it is committed in the course of a genuine dispute in relation to employment matters, it cannot be looked into. I should have thought that we would have learnt at least something from the painters and dockers, as well as the truth of what I said earlier-that when one starts off a trail, one does not always know where it will end. As regards trade unions-I do not suggest a great number, but some of them, such as the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Builders Labourers Federation; I instance those two unions acknowledging that the great majority of unionists and union leaders would not be involved in criminal conduct of the kind with which we are concerned-in those sorts of organisations, what is a genuine industrial dispute? One goes on strike. One refuses to pour concrete. One employs guerrilla tactics so beloved of the BLF. One says: 'You can get us back to work. Sure, we will call the boys back to work but there are one or two things we would like you to do, such as the payment of some money into a Swiss bank account'. One would think that that apparently that would be an offence committed in the course of a genuine dispute. If that is not an offence one can think of many examples where it could be argued that the offence was quite outside the provisions of the Bill . Once again we provide the lawyers with great opportunities by the parameters of this legislation. One might ask the fundamental question: Why should there be any exemption at all in relation to crimes committed in the course of genuine employment disputes ? What is the rationale for that? What is the fundamental justification for it? Why are some members and elements of our society to be treated on a basis different from others? It does not need too much imagination to understand that the reason is that this is a pay-off-a pay-off that the union movement does not really need, for the reasons I have put, but a pay-off which will protect those limited elements within the union movement who regard crime as a way of life. Here again I deal with objections to the Bill as it is presently drafted. I refer to the limitations on the general power to investigate. In effect, the coercive powers, as the Minister has pointed out, are limited to special investigations under the Bill. In those cases witnesses can be examined compulsorily and documents can be called for and obtained. But all of those cases depend on a reference first being made. Why is it that this Authority should not have its own capacity to initiate its own inquiries and to have, in aid of those inquiries, the ability to use the coercive powers? Why must application first go to the inter-governmental committee? And what is perfectly absurd: Why should this be the case in respect of offences or suspected offences under the Commonwealth laws? If we look to the provisions relating to investigations by reference from the Commonwealth we find: The Minister may- that is, the Commonwealth Minister- after consulting the Inter-governmental Committee- that is, the Committee set up by representatives of the various States and the Northern Territory, and of which the Commonwealth Minister is a member- by notice in writing to the Authority, refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity . . . That is, in short terms, he may initiate an investigation. What is the rationale for the Commonwealth Minister having to consult his State brethren for the purposes of initiating an investigation in relation to a breach of the Commonwealth laws? We all know that the Authority's time could be spent entirely in the investigation of breaches of the Commonwealth laws. We all know how wide the constitutional powers are. There is a great variety of areas, for example, Customs, the Crimes Act and drug smuggling, to instance but a few, which could occupy a very great amount of time. Why is it necessary for the States to be consulted? Does that not raise the kind of danger I referred to before which is simply this: The more people who know about what is being done the more likely it is that one's intentions will get out. Investigations under this Bill should be conducted swiftly and with as much confidentiality and secrecy as is necessary. If advance warning is given, if a Minister, by inadvertance, reveals the nature of a proposed investigation-I hope this will never happen but one can only look back on history to realise that Ministers are not necessarily by definition lacking in corruption-or if a Minister were to advise criminal elements or somebody representing them that an inquiry was to take place, would that not frustrate the whole inquiry? Would it not result in people leaving the country, in money getting out of the country and in evidence being destroyed? Of course, there are also the officers who would be serving the inter-governmental committee, who would have to prepare papers for it. In short, as I have said, the more people who know what is going on the more likely it is that inquiries will not be kept as they should be, and that is, secret and confidential so that results can be obtained, and obtained swiftly. What we have is a cumbersome and an inflexible body. It provides great opportunities for legal guerrilla warfare. It gives to the rich criminal-through the complexities of the Bill-the opportunity to seek to escape the coercive arm of the Authority. As I have said, it prevents the Authority initiating its own investigations. Just pause for a moment and consider why the Authority should not do so. Under this Bill it is provided that the members of the Authority are to be appointed by unanimous agreement between the States and the Commonwealth Government. That should ensure that the persons who are appointed are regarded as being of the highest probity and expertise. I note a concern that I feel in this respect which is that it is always possible for a State to exercise a right of veto to make sure that the persons who get to be members of the Authority, the people who constitute the Authority, do not in fact represent the best and brightest that we have. The whole assumption is that this Authority will be run by men and women of probity and expertise. Why should the Authority not be self-initiating? Why for example do we have the kinds of restrictions which are contained in clause 12 (4) of the Bill? In relation to general inquiries the Bill provides that the functions shall not be taken to confer on a member of the Authority, that is, these people of high probity, or a member of the staff of the Authority, other than a member of the police force-but let us concentrate on a member of the Authority itself-the power to interview a person in relation to the offence that the person is suspected of having committed, except where there has been a summons served and the person so served has not appeared as a witness at a hearing. Leaving aside that qualification the short point is that the members of the Authority are precluded, in the exercise of their own initiative, from going out to interview people whom they think should be interviewed about suspected criminal activity. They have to go back to the inter-governmental committee and get a reference, even when it is a Commonwealth law that they suspect has been broken. Is not that very procedure unnecessarily cumbersome? After all, there are inbuilt protections in relation to civil rights in this legislation. Allowing for those protections, the whole emphasis should be on speed, secrecy, confidentiality and securing results in the shortest possible time. At the end of the day we have a Bill which, whilst the Opposition supports it in the sense that it certainly has merit, has, we believe, significant deficiencies. In relation to all matters that fall under Commonwealth power, we think it would be a far better exercise for the Commonwealth to exercise its powers and not be concerned with consultation with representatives from the States. The more one concentrates upon that one issue, the more difficult it is to understand why such a need for consultation should exist. An expectation has been built up in the minds of members of the public that this Authority will be new, different and more effective. We grant that it is new and that it is different. We hope that it may be more effective, but it most certainly will not match public expectations as to the need for action to be taken against organised crime. In contrast with the definition included in this legislation which controls the activities of the Authority, I remind the House that the definition of organised crime which was included in the National Crimes Commission Bill 1982 was brief yet expansive. It provided that the Commission should direct its activities so far as is practicable to organised criminal activities, that is to say, offences that appear to be connected with one another and involve several offenders and substantial planning and organisation, offences involving the use of sophisticated methods, planning or techniques and bribery or corruption involving Commonwealth officers. We propose an amendment which is somewhat different from that definition. Here again the point needs to be made that too much technicality can frustrate good intentions. That is what we fear may result from this Bill. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.03) —Having listened very carefully to the arguments of my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I must say that his was almost an unfortunate, albeit churlish response from the Opposition. Time and again this Government is attacked for being a centralist government, for not conferring with the States and for not embodying State capacities, expertise and awareness. I spent some considerable time in a State parliament. I think that all honourable members would concede that the area of law enforcement involves a very considerable amount of the manpower, knowledge and expertise that operates in every State. We may all have our criticism of individual State law enforcement agencies, but the fact is that that body of knowledge, capacity and experience has to be harnessed by the Commonwealth if it is serious in attacking the problems of organised crime in this country. The Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Stewart Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union have already established, I think beyond any argument, not only that organised crime exists but also the fact that it does not recognise State boundaries. Mr Steele Hall —You are kidding. It recognises New South Wales; that is for sure . Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member wants to try, on an occasion such as this, to make the kind of cheap political points which never did him much credit in South Australia and do him even less credit in this Parliament on this issue, he is free to do so. But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot be a States righter in South Australia and an unabridged centralist for the purposes of scoring a political point in this debate. The logic that is being argued by the honourable gentleman opposite is that, if we involve the body of knowledge, expertise and capacity that exists within the States in the National Crime Authority, somehow or other we make it cumbersome. The first argument that was advanced by the honourable member for North Sydney concerned the possibility of a leak. I am not an unabridged, unqualified admirer of all State Ministers, but I am prepared to assume regularity. There are many State Ministers with whom I do not agree, but I am not prepared to ask this House or the people of Australia to say that, if a Commonwealth Minister sits on a very exclusive committee with State Ministers to consider the attacks that are being made upon the very basis of our society by organised crime, the presumption we will make is a presumption of irregularity, that we will presume that, because State Ministers are present, there is the possibility of a leak. The implication of that, of course, is that the leak will not just be for the purpose of some correspondent or journalist putting it in the newspaper. The implication is that it will be a leak directed to the benefit and advantage of those who represent organised crime in this community. That is the imputation. Has a more serious imputation against State Ministers ever been launched in this Parliament? Honourable members should think of the enormity of it. I invite any honourable gentleman opposite who invites the House to draw that conclusion to name the State Minister who he or she believes would, in the execution of the high responsibilities that go with their office, be some kind of leak, some kind of valve into organised crime in this community. I am aware of the kind of internecine political warfare that is currently being waged by some puerile political leaders who, in the absence of any conceived policy, are prepared to use smear and slander as a kind of weapon of political advantage. I think that is rejected by the Australian people. On an issue as important as how we put together the capacity and how we join a national and cohesive structure to formulate a methodology capable of meeting the forces of organised crime in this country, I do not claim, and the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) does not claim, that this legislation is perfect. But it has come from the Senate with amendments proposed by members of the Senate whose sincerity and commitment to the fight against organised crime in Australia I accept. Irrespective of political differences, I believe that their perceptions are as valid as mine and as valid as the perceptions of the honourable member for North Sydney. No, it is not perfect legislation. Given the nature of our political processes, it is indeed difficult to enjoin the structures of the Commonwealth with the structures of the States. Given the partisan and political loyalties that exist in those structures, to try to produce a co-ordinated response is an extremely difficult and irksome task. I am aware of the jealousies and the rivalries that exist between State police forces. I am equally aware of the very real areas of co-operation that exist on the ground on a daily basis. How churlish and irresponsible it is for the Opposition to say: 'This legislation has taken 15 months'. I suggest that honourable members opposite look at the political differences that exist between the States and between some States and the Commonwealth and imagine the task that confronted the Attorney- General in producing a framework which would be accepted by the Government of Queensland on the one hand and the governments of New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia on the other, and which involves Commonwealth co-ordination and resources. What timetable would have been acceptable to this Opposition-three months, six months? I believe that to have achieved what has been achieved by the Attorney- General and his advisers is to his credit. Having regard to the traditional differences and rivalries and to the attitudes of the States and the Commonwealth, to produce the level of co-ordination and co-operation behind this piece of legislation, which does not just have to pull together all the resources that are available to the States and the Commonwealth to combat organised crime, but has to do so having regard to the traditions that exist in our community as to the rights and liberties of the individual citizen, requires a fine balance. I believe that the difference in our judicial system, with all its imperfections, is that in the final analysis the processes of our law as between the powers of the state and the powers of the individual ultimately involve a presumption in respect of the liberty of the individual. I would not have it any other way and I do not believe the honourable member for North Sydney would have it any other way. But those considerations have to be encompassed when we are talking about creating a national structure which can investigate, which can call for records. It is easy to say that when we are dealing with an organised crime figure anything goes but if we say that we must have regard for the consequences and recognise that from time to time errors may well be made and the innocent citizen may well be a victim. In order to overcome that difficulty the traditional safeguards have been written into this legislation. I think, with respect to the honourable member, that to say that where an offence involves just a breach of Commonwealth law the Commonwealth should go it alone exposes this community to the very results that he is seeking to avoid. Mr Steele Hall —You have not wanted to go it anywhere. That is your record. Mr HOLDING —I will trade my record with the record of the honourable gentleman any day he likes. The Government is trying to get a structure in place. We are not trying to score political points. Mr Steele Hall —You are trying to bury any effort. That is what you are trying to do. Mr HOLDING —I do not know what efforts the honourable gentleman claims to have been made, but let us look at his view that where there is a breach of Commonwealth law the Commonwealth should go it alone and should not be involved with the States. What a novel concept that is! In my electorate there is a problem in the sale and the use of illicit narcotics. That problem bedevils every member of the community. It is the largest single factor involved in drug related crimes. But the power of the Commonwealth in dealing with the dealers in death, the people who are prepared to bring drugs into this country, to destroy our young people, to wreak havoc within our community, stops at the border. We can seize the drugs on their way in. I believe that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) can take real pride in the recent achievements of Commonwealth officers in their apprehension of the importation of those drugs. But what of those drugs that come on to the market? The Victoria Police estimate that in one street in my electorate $300,000 worth of illicit drugs is sold every day. Let us think of that not merely in terms of the human tragedy but in terms of the cost to the individual and to the community. But what can the Commonwealth do about that? What can the Special Minister of State do? It is not within his jurisdiction; it is a matter for the jurisdiction of the State. That is the constitutional situation in which we find ourselves. But the honourable gentlemen opposite would have us say: 'So long as it is coming in on an aeroplane or a boat and we can stop it before it gets here, that is our responsibility and we go it alone. But once it is on the streets, destroying and depraving young people in our society, that is not a matter of constitutional responsibility for the Commonwealth; that is a matter for the States'. What lamentable nonsense that is! Are these honourable gentlemen opposite serious when they argue that the attempts that are now being made to combine the intelligence and law enforcement capacities of the Commonwealth with those of the States to deal with those problems not merely before the narcotics get to the shore but also on the streets are something that we should turn our backs on? That is the putrid logic of the honourable gentlemen opposite who are State righters when it suits them, who are centralists when it suits them, who will cling to any political point-no matter how discredited-to effect some narrow political advantage. I take the example used by the honourable gentleman when he talked about exempt trade union activities. Even when we combine the resources of the States and the Commonwealth we do not want to be involving those resources in the problems that relate to industrial disputes. The honourable gentleman asked: 'But what about the situation of the ship painters and dockers?' He talked about the payment of money into a Swiss bank account by virtue of an industrial stoppage. If he looks at the section- Mr Spender —I did not say that. Mr HOLDING —That is what I thought the honourable member said. Mr Spender —No, not in relation to industrial stoppages. I was talking generally . Mr Steele Hall —It is part of the accord, I suppose. Hands off the unions. Mr HOLDING —What a miserable creature you are. The honourable gentleman is so ignorant and stupid he is positively dangerous. If ever there was a front for organised crime it is the stupidity embodied by the honourable gentleman. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister should address the Chair. The crossfire between the honourable member for Boothby and the Minister is out of order. Mr HOLDING —The subject is simply this: The asinine interjection of the honourable gentleman makes him a dangerous front for organised crime, not because I think he is involved in it but because that kind of stupid comment plays precisely into the hands of those who would demean, and by demeaning destroy, public confidence in this legislation. This legislation is not the very best that the Commonwealth or this Government wanted. It represents a compromise and an input from members of the Senate. Its effectiveness will be tried in terms of its application and use. I commend the long hours of work, the endurance and the fortitude of the Attorney-General and his officers because without that tenacity, without that determination, this legislation would not have seen the light of day. He has had to steer a tremendously difficult course between traditional attitudes to State rights and the involvement of the Commonwealth to the creation of a structure which, whatever its imperfections, is designed to deal with one of the most serious problems facing our community. I believe he has done that, albeit not completely to his satisfaction. It is in the nature of our political system that amendments made by the Senate can be accepted or rejected but the Attorney- General has taken the view that we will live with this legislation and we will make it work. I commend him for his work. I commend his officers for their endurance. I regret the mean-spirited attitude of the Opposition. I commend the legislation and the amendments to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.24) —We have just listened to one of the most pathetic and twisted excuses for the Government's soft attitude on crime that this House has ever heard. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is sitting at the table, said that this legislation is not the best. Mr Duffy —It is not, you know. Mr STEELE HALL —I will deal with the Minister for Communications directly and describe to the House how he misled it in response to a matter of public importance raised here this week; but I will come to him in a minute. At the moment I am dealing with the Minister who is sitting at the table and who said that this is not the best legislation. Let me remind the House that it was only because of the amendments of the Opposition in the Senate that the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 has any meaning in it at all. The Minister and the Australian Labor Party tried to utterly destroy any sensible working of this Bill by demanding that the States have a veto on references about the investigation of offences against Commonwealth law. That is what honourable members opposite did. If that provision had been left in this legislation it would have been at the whim of governments such as that of New South Wales that the Commonwealth could proceed through this Bill to investigate offences against its own laws. That is how stupid the Government has been in response to the challenge of organised crime in this community and how twisted has been the logic of the Minister at the table in adopting the attitude that he has. My colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who spoke in regard to the Opposition's view about this Bill said, in relation to the Commonwealth's investigation of crime against its own laws, that the Commonwealth should be able to proceed according to its own whim without reference to the State. He was not referring to areas of investigation into offences against State laws. Yet the Minister at the table twisted what he said to make it seem so. The imputations that the Minister said the Opposition is making are not imputations; they are references to State governments which have been unable to track down crime in their own areas. Mr Holding —Tell us which Ministers you think will leak. Mr STEELE HALL —I can tell the Minister. He has a colleague who is a famous leak in this community; perhaps the most famous leak Australia has had. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) came from a meeting of the National and International Security Committee and informed a mate that he had something to tell him in a car park. He sought him out in the evening and told him a matter of national security. He is a Minister! No wonder the Minister who was sitting at the table has run from the chamber. I remind him of the Minister in New South Wales who was sacked from the New South Wales Government for his alleged involvement in matters associated with crime. If the Minister wants names, he has them. His colleague to whom this legislation will be entrusted for its administration is not here to answer these matters. Some very real criticisms are to be levelled at the Government about its tardiness in fighting crime. Along with the assets test which the Government mentioned last August and has let go until this month, June, before it has got half way to announcing the details, it also announced last year that it would proceed with the legislation passed by the previous Government. One of the strange events is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on 19 May last year, in answer to a question from the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony, said this: . . . at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over . . . This is not a national crimes commission; this is the National Crime Authority. The Prime Minister was referring specifically to the legislation passed by the previous Fraser Government. But interestingly, on that same day in the Senate, the garrulous Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) gave a different answer. He stated: There are, no doubt as Senator Durack is aware-- he was replying to the shadow Attorney- General- basically two competing models . . . He was referring to a crimes authority. He went on to say: The Government is not wanting to rush into either the enactment or proclamation of legislation in this area without making sure that it has those basic principles right. So on the same day that the Prime Minister said here that he would proclaim the Fraser Act, the Attorney-General said in the Senate that the Government was considering two models. That was the sort of indeterminate attitude that the Government had then to the National Crime Authority and as he has done with many other of his promises the Prime Minister simply threw it away. He called it a dud cheque. It was another broken promise he can line up with dozens of others and not proceed with. There is nothing unusual about that but it needs to be put on record that he did run away from the matter. I want to say something with regard to the Minister for Communications who is sitting on the front bench at the moment. In reply to a matter of public importance which I raised this week, saying that we should pay attention to the fact that the Government is not taking adequate steps to suppress the drug trade in Australia, I referred to the National Crime Authority. The Minister said: Drug offences are specifically referred to in the Bill and in amendments circulated by the Government in response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. He went on to state: The amendments make it perfectly clear that the failure of one State to join in a reference to the Authority does not affect that reference except in relation to offences against the laws of that State. There is nothing to prevent the Authority from investigating Commonwealth offences such as drug importation within any State. It is, therefore, not true to suggest that that will stop the investigation of drug importation within any State. On Tuesday night in the Senate an amendment was proposed by Senator Durack to take out the States' power of veto. The Attorney-General spoke against that amendment. He said: . . . the Federal Minister can refer a matter or enable special powers to be exercised only with the approval of the inter-governmental committee. Senator Durack, in support of his amendment, said: The object of my amendment is to leave out those words and simply provide for consultation with the inter-governmental committee. The Attorney-General said: We regard both amendments as equally destructive to the concept of the National Crime Authority- He was referring to a similar amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. He went on to say: . . . we understand and accept the States' view that where the Commonwealth proposes to give a reference to the body, the Commonwealth equally should be prepared to run the gauntlet of a majority decision of the inter-governmental committee. I say quite clearly to the House that earlier this week the Minister for Communications misled this House in saying that there was no capacity under the legislation-that is, the legislation that was introduced into the Senate by Senator Evans on behalf of his Party-for the inter-governmental committee to veto references proposed in relation to offences against Commonwealth law. I find it a matter of some regret that the Minister so late in the day should deny that there existed in the Bill something that the Senate took out last night. Therefore, his statement falls down to being simply a nonsense regarding any criticism of the Opposition's case that the Government has been soft on crime. The Government has said all along that it believes States such as New South Wales should have a say on what the Commonwealth can proceed on in relation to offences against its own laws. There is, however, a very serious matter concerning this Authority, and that is , it will be put under the charge of the Special Minister of State. I have looked for reasons for this. Why should responsibility for the Authority be taken away from the Attorney-General and put under another Minister? It appears that the Attorney-General has allowed to develop between himself and Commissioner Costigan of the famous Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union very bad relations indeed. Honourable members might remember that in the last few days it has been claimed in one report that the Attorney-General had offered Mr Costigan a bribe. That has been denied, and I am pleased to see that it has been. In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald it is reported that the Commissioner himself, Mr Costigan, has said that there was no bribe. Mr Griffiths —Why do you raise it? Mr STEELE HALL —I am raising it to put the matter in its proper light. Mr Griffiths —It is a bloody disgrace. Mr STEELE HALL —It is not a disgrace. It is very pertinent to this question. The Attorney-General has allowed to develop an extreme breach between-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Boothby that imputations of improper conduct by Ministers or members must be the subject of substantive motion. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just said that I am pleased to see that there has been a denial of any bribe being offered. The denial was made in this form: The Painters and Dockers Royal Commissioner, Mr Frank Costigan, said yesterday he had called a suggestion from the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, early last year, that he be made a Federal judge 'outrageous' because it could have been seen to influence his reports to the Government on corruption. The article continues: This claim was rejected, but Mr Costigan said he had written to Mr Hawke saying the suggestion of a judicial appointment to the Federal Court was 'outrageous'. 'Outrageous' was Mr Costigan's reply to the approach by the Attorney-General. The report goes on: It is well known that since that time their relationship has all but broken down, with Mr Costigan now 'speaking' to the Government through the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. It may be that this breakdown in relationship between the Attorney-General and Commissioner Costigan is a reason why the Prime Minister has decided that the Attorney-General is not responsible enough in his portfolio to take over the oversight of the National Crime Authority. That may be the case, but it would seem to be a very deliberate decision by the Prime Minister that he should take this action because, as I said earlier, perhaps the most notable leak in Australian Cabinet history was that perpetrated by the Special Minister of State . You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the circumstances which have been well ventilated here. If the Minister has rehabilitated himself to the degree that he is able, by his good humour for which he is notable, to overcome what would be perhaps a defect in others-a defect which would drive them out of Cabinet for life-that may be to his own personal good fortune, but it is not a good beginning for a Minister within his first year in that office to have leaked a most secret matter from the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security, to be placed at the head of this new Authority. The transfer of responsibility to Mr Young is not something which I view with a great deal of confidence. There is another reason and that is-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Boothby that he is getting perilously close to the requirements of standing order 76 which states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I suggest that the honourable member try to get back to the strict terms of the legislation that is before us at the moment. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister who is to administer this Authority is occupying a most crucial position in the fight against crime in this community. It is not perhaps as important as the National and International Security Committee, but it is important. I draw that parallel. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to say that the Minister has also demonstrated that he is slothful in relation to the administration of his portfolio. This last week I asked a question of him about the revelations regarding newly publicised cocaine drug smuggling in Queensland. My question was prompted by an article of almost two full pages-one of them being a front page-published that day in the Age newspaper. The Age newspaper is conducting something of a crusade against crime and especially drug smuggling and the drug trade in this country. I thought it would be quite notable to the Minister or someone on his staff-apparently he has many-in his responsibility in relation to the Australian Federal Police and obviously his prospective responsibility of administering this National Crime Authority and that he would interest himself in it. That newspaper came out on the stalls that morning. Obviously a copy would have been in his office if he arrived at 8.30 or 9 o' clock in the morning. I asked the question at 2.30 in the afternoon and the Minister knew nothing about it. He could not answer. He said: 'I will get a report; I do not know'. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you: What sort of an administration is that? Number one, what on earth is wrong with his Department? Who on earth is responsible for seeing that the Minister is informed? Secondly, what is wrong with the Minister that he did not become aware, either through his colleagues or his staff, of the reporting of one of the major new crimes in this country, about a newly popularised drug in this country. I call that sloth; absolute sloth. On that alone the Minister is not, in my opinion, suitable to administer this Authority, which will require very intricate and constant attention. As I said, I can remind honourable members of other matters that the Minister has failed in, but I will not do so now. Mr Griffiths —Why don't you tell us about the legislation? Mr STEELE HALL —I have already referred to my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who dealt with this legislation. He said that he is frightened-that by bringing the States into an inter-governmental committee it might mean that there is less secrecy involved in the administration of this Authority than is required in following through the enormous criminal syndicates in this country and overseas. He said that many of the prescriptions of the Bill will lead to legal challenge and will make far more difficult the prosecution of criminals than ought to be the case because there is not the initiative available to this Authority to go out on its own. He pointed out that there are exemptions to crime that may seem to be committed in the matter of industrial disputes. This could lead to artificiality in the application of that exemption and to a very cumbersome set of prosecutions. If the honourable member wants to pursue that, he can. There is a great deal of it around. The whole general path the Government has taken towards the establishment of this Authority has been less than creditable. As I said, it started last May in relation to a promise by the Prime Minister that he would proclaim the Fraser legislation. The next significant thing was the National Crimes Commission Conference held in the Senate chamber which really provided a platform for the Attorney-General to slide out of that commitment by having the States put up all their protests and by having quite a few criminal lawyers use the theme of civil liberties as the reason why one should not pursue organised criminals beyond the normal application of State laws as they now apply. So there is this slide-out platform. Then we had the bringing into Parliament of the Bill in November last year. It was so deficient in any real attack on crime that when referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, half of which comprised members of the Labor Party, the Committee reported that it ought to be substantially strengthened. The Committee having so reported, the Government then proceeded to oppose a significant amendment of the Committee that the veto that could apply from the States should be removed. In response to a debate this week, the Minister for Communications, who is in the chamber, said that the suggested amendment did not apply. That is the general path being taken. Today, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who fled when he had spoken, said that the Bill is not as good as it could be. His own members last night were trying to weaken it. At that late hour, within the last 24 hours, the Labor Party was still trying to weaken the Bill that the Minister says today is not so bad. I would like to know what it is all about and why the Government is weak on crime. Why does it want to put the States in a pre-eminent position? Why does it have to be dragged by the scruff of the neck into any real fight against crime by the Senate? What are the motives? We have never been able to get answers from the Government. We have debated the issue and the Government should answer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.44) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), as is becoming his habit, was very long on rhetoric and short on substance. In fact, I find it quite a disgrace that he took 20 minutes of this House's time when government members are circumscribed to a greater extent in the interests of getting very important legislation passed. He spent only a couple of minutes of that time addressing the substance of the National Crime Authority Bill. In the context of his ambition to be a Minister in a government one day-an ambition that obviously will be frustrated for quite some time-I think it is particularly inappropriate to engage in the sort of disgraceful imputation that he did in his speech. He put up a straw man in terms of some allegations about the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). He implied that the Attorney-General had attempted a bribe on Mr Costigan. He raised the matter. Some of the mud will, of course, stick. He went on to say that Mr Costigan had denied those allegations. So he raises the matter to have it knocked down but of course leaves a little bit of the smear there. He should have spent some time reading the Bill because it is a very important Bill. He raised the fact that many of the amendments that are currently before the House would considerably strengthen the Bill. Of course they will. The present position is no different from the Government's attitude to other pieces of legislation. I know the honourable member for Boothby was heavily involved in the electoral legislation. Of course, the final Bill was somewhat different from its original drafting because various amendments were accepted by the Government. That is how it ought to be. There ought to be a place for the Senate to make valid suggestions on appropriate amendments to the legislation. So there is no conspiracy theory about the original Bill not being as strong as it now is. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between some members of the Government and members of the Opposition and essentially they relate to the importance, and the priority that the Government gives to matters touching upon civil liberties. That is to be expected. The two parties are quite fundamentally different in terms of their approach to matters of civil liberties. That is why there has been a long debate in the Government about precisely what the National Crime Authority ought to encompass. Honourable members will all be aware that the debate has not been a short one. It was in its generic phase under the previous Government's legislation and it was widely canvassed at that time. But why was it not accepted by this Government? Let me give honourable members a couple of points as to why it was not accepted by this Government as originally proposed by the present Opposition : The former legislation was not supported by the States. For a Party that professed to attach so much importance to federalism, to our federal structure, it amazes me that honourable members opposite use as a major component of their attack on this legislation the fact that the Government has taken into account the views of the States. As it happens, the States have most of the resources in terms of police powers and police resources that are brought to bear in terms of attacking the areas that we are now talking about. It would be silly in the extreme not to embrace those resources. If one concedes that we ought to embrace those resources it then becomes an absolute absurdity to imply that one ought not to take into account the views of the States regarding how their contribution to fighting crime might be enhanced. It is just a stupid argument and one that will not get much support out in the community. There are other more fundamental problems in terms of the previous Government's original legislation. For example, those realities were: The failure to provide for an ombudsman which is of fundamental importance where one is legislating to create a very powerful body. It will have to be watched in the future because the legislation we are enacting makes it so powerful. There was no provision for judicial audits. I would have thought that this would have been of fundamental importance in terms of a body of this kind. I refer also to the imprecise definition of the Opposition's model, the role they proposed for the Commission, the functions of that body and the imprecise limits on its powers. All these things are simply not matters that I raise to score points. They are fundamental to the proper discharge of this Parliament's duties to ensure that we adequately attack the massive problems of organised crime whilst taking into account the need to ensure that the civil liberties of individual Australians are protected. After the Green Paper was issued there was a very long debate not only in the other place but also in the community. The Attorney-General ensured in the National Crimes Commission Conference he organised that most of those people who can claim expertise and knowledge in this area had an adequate opportunity to contribute to the final model as put before this House. I commend, particularly to the honourable member for Boothby, a detailed reading of the papers coming out of that National Conference. It is quite clear from the honourable member's contribution that he was unwilling to address the concept. He spent a lot of time attacking the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), he talked about New South Wales and he even got on to the assets test of all things. There is so much material around on the subject of this debate and this debate provides a golden opportunity for members of the Opposition to put forward for once a constructive analysis but they have failed to do so. At the National Conference there was a consensus view that some form of National Crime Authority was required. It then became a matter of delineating the role of the National Crime Authority, marking out its powers and ensuring that there was some compromise between those fundamental and competing objectives, firstly, to protect civil liberties of individual Australians, and, secondly, to ensure that we address the problems of organised crime in Australia . Those problems have been adequately indicated by numerous royal commissions. Any basic reading of any newspaper during the week would confirm that we have a major problem in Australia with organised crime. Mr Hodgman —Particularly in New South Wales. Mr GRIFFITHS —We have problems with organised crime everywhere in Australia. For example, in my own electorate in the western region of Melbourne there have been numerous murders in the last couple of years that the police believe are related to drug use. Mr McGauran —But politically it is New South Wales. Mr GRIFFITHS —My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland raises the New South Wales question again. I do not have to go back too far in my memory of the State of Victoria under a Liberal government to recall a quite pervasive view of that government in its latter days that it was a corrupt government. That was canvassed everywhere. Of course, one need only go back and read some of the stories in the National Times about Sir Robert Askin's Government in New South Wales. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This is a most disgraceful attempt to smear the memory of a deceased member of the parliament of a State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —Say it outside the House. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Denison displays his ignorance in terms of the law of this land when he says: 'Say it outside the House'. A man who professes to be a Queen's Counsel should know that if I repeated my comments outside the House there could be no proceedings. Mr Hodgman —Try it in the State of Tasmania. Mr GRIFFITHS —There could be no proceedings outside this House. I just give the honourable member that bit of free legal advice. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member again misrepresents the position. I remind him that one does not have to sue in New South Wales; one can sue in other parts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison knows that there is no point of order. I suggest that he desist from taking frivolous points of order. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Denison's knowledge of the Standing Orders of this House appears to be as limited as his knowledge of the laws of defamation. In any event, in terms of my comments on Sir Robert Askin, I was simply making the point that if one uses newspaper articles written by journalists one should bear in mind, as every politician and every honourable member in this chamber knows, that journalists are so often wrong in how they report particular facts. I am certainly not saying that-- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I suggest that the honourable member come back to the subject. He knows full well that there are copious records of royal commissions and committees of inquiry in recent years in New South Wales which give very strong reason to question the veracity of the law in that State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GRIFFITHS —We require a National Crime Authority essentially because whilst the royal commissions that I have adverted to have done a very great job indeed in terms of alerting this Parliament and various governments to the major problems that we have, they simply are not the appropriate vehicle to conduct the sorts of investigations that we need to address adequately the real problems that we have. There are fundamental reasons why one ought not to rely on royal commissions in terms of an organised and effective approach to organised crime. Why are royal commissions not acceptable in terms of that role? The major problem that I see with royal commissions is the threat posed to the rights of individuals. They fail, of course, in most cases to provide admissible evidence that can subsequently be acted upon by other courts of law. The knowledge and expertise that they build up in terms of any investigation is often dissipated at the end of their statutory lives and lost for all time. One of the major concerns of the National Crime Authority is to ensure that it can take over from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which, I might add, has done a very great deal indeed and has more than justified its existence in terms of attacking organised crime in Australia. I add that, because of the extent of its inquiries, it had a significant impact on the loss by the present Opposition of government in 1983. The end results of those inquiries were obviously good but I must say that I still harbour some real doubts about the ability of royal commissions simply to go out into the community in an open-ended way and, in the process of doing that , severely, in my view, attack the civil liberties of many people who really ought to have the opportunity of due process. Unfortunately my time has almost expired. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr GRIFFITHS —I note that my colleague the honourable member for Denison says: ' Hear, hear'. He inspires me to go on and make a couple of other comments but they would probably be of a more personal nature. I shall not embrace his attitude to these matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.57) —I enter this debate because I am concerned about the whole thrust of this Government's activity in regard to organised crime. I am concerned on five bases about the legislation before the House to establish a National Crime Authority. Firstly, I am concerned that this Authority will not be an adequate authority to follow the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which is currently drawing to a close. Secondly, I oppose the powers currently proposed for the Authority because one investigation cannot lead to another in any effective and comprehensive approach to investigating a series of interlinked crime matters. Thirdly, I object to the Authority because it is not to be an independent authority. It is not to be independent from the affairs of Ministers of state. Fourthly, I object to the proposals before the House for the Crime Authority because the proposals for the obtaining of evidence and information are not widely enough cast so that the Authority can go into great detail and acquire the information it needs to examine matters of serious crime. Fifthly, I am concerned about how the appointments of the senior officers of the Authority are to be made. This Authority will not be an adequate authority to follow the Costigan Royal Commission. One has only to read the second reading speech of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to find out where the areas of grave concern are. For the sake of honourable members I would like to quote the words of the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, who went forward to establish a proper crimes commission, one that would have a basis to investigate serious criminal activity in Australia. Senator Durack, in the other place, said: We believe that this Authority will not be as effective or as independent as we would like. However, we believe that the urgency and the magnitude of the problem and the threat to our security of organised crime and official corruption is such that a national authority is required to tackle it. We believe that this Authority is better than nothing. I believe that that is the attitude of the Australian people. The Australian people have been subjected to many reports. I hold up but a few of them for members of the House to see. In all they must be eight inches thick and there are many others that I have not bothered to bring into the House. The House will be aware of the activities of the Costigan Royal Commission. By touching the tip of the iceberg, Commissioner Costigan has been able to investigate not only problems relating to the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers but also matters relating to the importation and distribution of drugs, the importation and distribution of other things that are illegal and the exporting of fauna and flora. He has been able to investigate tax matters-a matter which this side of the House, along with the Government, welcomes. Once Mr Costigan commenced an inquiry, which appeared to be on a narrow field, he found that he had touched the tip of an iceberg. The limitations on the current Authority are such that it will not be able to develop a theme unless it gets certain approvals. It will not be able to follow a trail, follow every hare or rabbit down the burrow and assure the community that it has adequately completed its task. It must go back to a Minister or a committee of Ministers, who may exercise a veto against it pursuing certain matters. Why should that be so? Why should not an authority such as this, which the Government purports to be an authority capable of investigating organised crime, have effective powers, as has Mr Costigan? One of the deplorable things that we have noted in the last few days is that Mr Costigan's inquiry will be brought to a conclusion in a way that is not proper. He has not been able to complete his work, his investigations. Mr Griffiths —He agreed to the timetable. Mr CADMAN —The claim that the honourable member makes that he agreed to the time - table does not offer any consolation. When did he agree to that timetable? Mr Griffiths —He agreed before he left. Mr CADMAN —Before he became ill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Mitchell that he should address the Chair, not other honourable members. I remind the honourable member for Maribyrnong that interjections are out of order. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member opposite was encouraging me to pursue the matter because he did not understand why Mr Costigan has been brought up short. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, knows why Mr Costigan has been brought up short. He has been brought up short because of the pressure that has been brought to bear on members of the Australian Labor Party from people outside this place to short cut him. If members of the Government can demonstrate to me that the exact matters investigated by Mr Costigan will be pursued in detail with the same strength, ability and expertise, I will accept that. But they have not done so in this place. A series of questions asked of members of the Government has not allayed to any extent our fear that Mr Costigan has been brought up short. The revelation that Mr Costigan in his early days may have been encouraged by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to leave his post gives us further fears and further concern. Is the Government serious about this matter, or is it seeking to shift concern by establishing a second class poor persons' authority? It is not an effective authority and there are no aspects of it with which anyone can be completely confident. It is, as the former Attorney-General said, better than nothing; but it is not good enough. The activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers were substantial and were reported at length, along with other matters, by Mr Costigan. We remember the activities within the Bureau of Customs and the inquiries that took place in order to clean up some of the difficulties in Customs. We remember the comments of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, and the way in which he expressed his concern, which was consistent with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Costigan. Of course it is proper that we should have a single authority. No one is saying that we should not. It was, after all, a proposal of the previous Government and it had the support of members on this side of the House. Of course the Government has our support in establishing a full and single authority. We are objecting to the inadequate way in which it is establishing a proper authority. I have already mentioned that I object to the Authority on the ground that one investigation cannot lead to another. Under the terms of the current crimes authority legislation, it will not be possible for a Costigan-type exercise to be entered into unless there is reference to a committee of Ministers. That committee of Ministers, if State matters are involved, will have to agree that the Authority will follow a different but related line of questioning and inquiry. We have seen the Costigan Commission start to inquire into the affairs of that group of people whose motto is 'We catch and kill our own'-the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-and move into other areas of drug running and major crime activity linked with senior people in all fields, be they political or business fields. Mr Costigan established that process. That process of change and follow on is not possible unless there is a reference back to a further committee of Ministers. I object to that because there need only be one objection raised by States and it will not be pursued. Can the Government override that matter? Can it give us a guarantee that, having started a Costigan -type inquiry, it will be pursued? We need to have those assurances. We need to have the assurance that there will be no inhibition to a full pursuit of those matters. I think that the Minister is aware that I am concerned that the Authority will not be truly independent of Ministers. We are talking about the obtaining of evidence. Claims have been made by members on the other side of the House of their civil libertarian attitudes and how the rights of the individual must be protected. I refer them to the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill which was passed by this House earlier this year. Clause 8(2) which amended section 16 of the Act, reads: A person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document when required to do so under this Act on the ground that the answer to the question or the . . . document might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty, but his answer to any such question, or . . . any such document, is not admissible against him in proceedings other than proceedings for . . . (a) an offence against this section. There we have an Inter-State Commission Bill relating to transport. The Government is prepared to pursue truckies and railway workers, but it will not tackle big criminals. It will not require them to appear before the Authority to give evidence and it will not follow up that evidence. The Government even goes further. I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) which states: Among other important . . . indemnities to witnesses is now vested by clause 30 in the Director of Public Prosecutions and the immunity provided has been widened to include not only the direct use of evidence but also 'derivative' use . If somebody tells a story, the Authority cannot even follow up that story. What is this all about? The Government will chase truckies and semi-trailer drivers into the ground by way of the Inter-State Commission and inquiries such as the inquiry being conducted at the moment into the interstate road transport system. It will pursue them under the Inter-State Commission Act, but it will not pursue criminals under the Crime Authority. Why does the Government do these things? Why is there a feeling within the Labor Party that it needs to protect criminals but it does not need to protect truckies from the consequences of evidence and statements that they make? It is similar to this week. A Minister came into the House with a little plastic toy that might be dangerous to children. He said that he would ban it. But the Attorney-General and the Government will not pay attention to the serious matter of pornography and the classification of hard core pornography throughout Australia. That has been rejected in every instance by this House because the Government will not attend to it. What are the priorities of this Government? It pursues truckies but not criminals. It is worried about plastic toys but not about pornography. It is incredible. The Government has been supportive of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act through the Special Minister of State, but it is not worried about his breach of national security. Where are the priorities of this Government? It will deal with little, ineffective issues, but it will not deal with the big issues or the big problems . This Government has also raised fears and concerns in the community because the Attorney-General, who will not fight pornography, who gave a decision which pre- empted the inquiry into the affairs of the Special Minister of State, has now watered down the National Crime Authority. That is a consistent series of actions that would worry any independent objective observer. Why is that so? It further worries me that one of the strongest supporters of this legislation, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), made an impassioned plea to the House today. That is the Minister who, an inquiry into the affairs of Richmond Council said, owed more loyalty to his own Party than he did to the truth. Why would any objective observer not be concerned when we see a whole series of government actions dealing with little insignificant matters firmly, when the Government is not prepared to tackle big and significant matters? We see the influence on the current Government being expressed from New South Wales and its organisation within that State. It worries us. At a Federal level, I do not believe that we have problems of crime, within this Parliament or within the attendant departments or government instrumentalities. However, I believe that there are attendant criminal activities attached to parliaments and members of parliament in other States. I believe that there are matters of criminal activity attendant to the affairs of business in States. Williams and Stewart have said time and again what they consider to be the situation-major, massive, multi-million dollar rings and organisations. Costigan has referred to them time and time again. I wish to raise my last point with the Special Minister of State. I am very pleased to see him in the chamber, because he is the Minister who will be responsible for the Authority. I am very concerned about the appointments that he will be making to the Authority and about the nominees that he will gain, the sorts of people who will come forward from the States. I do not believe that he has a capacity to say to the States: 'We need some discussion about that person before we approve him'. What is the will and the commitment from the States to this? Is the Minister assured that they and their organisation of police and supporting organisations are committed to seeing that we are successful with the National Crime Authority? I heard last night that the Minister had decided whom he will appoint. It will certainly not be Williams. Mr Ruddock —What? Is that right? Who is it? Mr CADMAN —That is my understanding; it will certainly not be Williams. I understand that it is to be Mr Justice Stewart and that that decision has been taken. Where does Costigan end out of all this? He has expressed personal views. But, despite all the carry-on that has occurred in this place, be it on tax avoidance or whatever, that man has fearlessly and single-mindedly pursued a line of questioning and probing which has performed an invaluable service to our community and the people of Australia. That is the only way in which a crime authority can operate-fearlessly and without influence from outside. The Minister's appointments to this Authority are crucial and critical. I hope that he will make the right decisions. The closing down of the Costigan Royal Commission and its replacement by a weaker authority are a prime concern of the Opposition. The Opposition needs to feel that we can go out into the community and publicly support what the Government is doing. We need to be able to say to our constituents and to those concerned: 'We are confident that the Government has done the right thing'. If we cannot say that-I have expressed the fears as to why we cannot-there will be continuing restiveness on the streets. People are worried about their kids and the teenagers, and the drugs available to them. They are worried about people in high places taking more than their share, over and above what should be their rightful reward. Rex Jackson is a deplorable example of that. I think that people are worried also whether within police forces and political structures there can be a proper trust and respect which will allow them to give endorsement and to be able to say to a member of parliament or to a member of any police force in Australia: 'This information has come into our possession. It is most worrying. Will you investigate it?'. They should be confident that the answer would be 'Yes, and we shall pursue it until we have verified whether there are problems'-problems with drugs, crime, pornography, prostitution and all those myriad activities that are so interlaced in this web of organised crime within Australia. Unless the Minister can give that assurance, I believe that he will have ongoing problems in this area. I have read most of the reports. I was fortunate, in government, to be able to do so. I know what the Minister is trying to deal with and the seriousness of what he is trying to tackle. But I do not believe that he has the mechanisms to do so. I do not believe that this Authority will be strong enough to follow what Costigan is doing. I do not feel that the powers of investigation are adequate. I do not feel that one investigation can successfully follow another one, because there are checks built into the system that could deny that process. I am concerned that the Minister is about to make appointments which may not be the best appointments that are available. I commend to the House the process of ensuring the one check that there may be for us-the parliamentary committee-to examine this matter. It has a membership of people who have the talents and the ability to be able to ensure that the Crime Authority does its job. Those assurances need to be given today; otherwise we shall go from this place with uncertainty and lack of confidence in the Government's National Crime Authority. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(4.17) —My Government has been determined since coming to office to combat the growing problem of organised crime which has been so alarmingly revealed, particularly in the findings of certain royal commissions such as the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions over the past few years. It is a regrettable feature of this society, as of all societies, that there is within it a certain element which exists by preying on fellow citizens. The ruthlessness and callousness of this criminal element are demonstrated by a willingness to peddle misery and destruction, particularly in the form of illegal narcotic dealings which so often involve the younger and more defenceless sections of society. I believe there is no more tragic feature of our country today than the way in which so many of our young people are having their existence, and indeed the very possibility of life, endangered by these activities. It has been a striking finding of royal commissions and other agencies which have looked into aspects of organised crime that the vast profits to be derived from illegal drug dealing continually attract the attention of organised crime figures. The Government is determined to do all that is within its power to stop this heinous trade. A further element of concern has been the warnings that the organised crime problem in Australia is growing worse. Some have suggested that, if the problem is not solved soon, organised crime will achieve an unshakeable hold within our society through its ability to corrupt and to intimidate. It is against this background that the Government on taking office examined the proposal that organised crime in this country required new methods of law enforcement. The problem was that the legislation introduced by the previous Government to establish a National Crimes Commission did not provide a suitable or acceptable model. This legislation set up a body with far-reaching and far-ranging powers that raise considerable civil liberties concerns. Any body aimed at combating crime requires broad public support. It is clear that this support will not be readily forthcoming if the body concerned is seen as posing a threat to established civil liberties. The National Crimes Commission proposed by the previous Government also had the conspicuous deficiency of not providing for State participation. In this way it would also have failed to win support for its activities. We find it strange that those parties on the other side of the House, who in other respects are always so forthcoming on the question of the rights of States, should have been so delinquent in that respect in regard to this important issue. Despite the failings of the previous Government's legislation the problem of organised crime seemed to require some sort of permanent national crime authority. However, there remained a good deal of uncertainty about the form the body should take. Accordingly, the Government decided that a further process of consultation and review was necessary. Consequently, a conference was called at which all those with an interest in the proposal to establish a crime authority could put forward their views. At the conference held in July 1983-within this Parliament-were representatives of State governments, police forces, police unions, civil liberties groups and the legal profession, and others interested in the question of law enforcement. In other words, there was a broad cross- representation of views and interests represented at that conference. The purpose of this conference was to establish a consensus, as far as that was possible, concerning the powers and functions which the new crime authority should possess. The consensus which had been arrived at was reflected in the legislation introduced into the Senate last year by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). There then occurred a further process of consideration and comment when the legislative proposals put forward by the Government were referred to a Senate committee for further detailed examination. Mr Speaker, I depart from my prepared notes in the face of these observations from those honourable members on the other side of the House to make the relevant and irrefutably correct observation that they should recall that for the previous seven years they were in government in this country. They had it within their power to take action legislatively to deal with this problem. Mr Ruddock —And we did. Mr HAWKE —And we hear the interjection: 'And we did'. In other words, the people of this country are now entitled to judge the success of that Government's efforts by the state of organised crime in this country. In other words, honourable members opposite want to say that they were successful in what they did but indeed every day in this country there is vivid testimony to the fact that they failed, and failed miserably. The National Crime Authority as established by the Bill before the House is directed at not just one but three objectives. It is the Bill's major strength that it achieves these three objectives. The first objective in the Bill is to create a crime authority which will possess effective investigative powers for dealing with organised crime. The Authority has considerable capacity to subpoena individuals and records and to perform other functions which will enable it to follow the paper trail which organised crime leaves behind it. The second objective met by the Bill is that these investigative powers have been balanced, as they should be, by safeguards to ensure that civil liberties are maintained. It has been a fundamental objection to royal commissions that they lack such safeguards and that their proceedings are able to prejudice reputations of those against whom criminal charges have not been laid, much less convictions obtained. The third objective of this legislation is to enable the States to participate in the workings of the Authority. It is often said that organised crime does not recognise State boundaries. It is also true to say that organised crime does not recognise the distinction between Commonwealth and State laws. Any approach to organised crime which does not involve close co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States is bound to be unsuccessful. The Bill establishes a framework for participation by the States in the working of the Authority. The importance of a national strategy involving the States is basic to the question of whether or not the Authority will be effective. For the first time in Australia we now have the opportunity to attack organised crime on a truly national basis. I urge the States to participate in the workings of the Authority and I urge honourable members to give the Bill their support here today. I repeat: Those on the other side of the House should be ashamed of the neglect of their fundamental duty to the people, particularly the young people, of this country, in that after seven years in office we still remain the country without a national crime authority, properly equipped and with the full co-operation of the States, to deal with this problem. The fact that we came to office without such an authority in place is a telling indictment of their seven years of neglect in dealing with this fundamental problem. I ask that members of the Opposition now put behind them the evidence of their incompetence and their neglect and get behind this Government in supporting this Bill. Under this Government we will have an effective national crime authority which will start the fundamentally important task of trying to rid this country of organised crime, particularly in the area of the narcotic trade. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(4.27) —I join this debate on the National Crime Authority Bill and cognate Bill because they are extremely important Bills. I believe that the experience and knowledge that I gained as a police Minister will enable me to contribute to some of the issues which should be debated in this House on the legislation. As the police Minister I had the benefit of speaking not only to people such as the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police but also his counterparts in the States, as well as their officers, concerning the sorts of problems and issues which were confronting them and which they were having problems dealing with. When I talk about the benefit of talking to a police commissioner I single out particularly the Victorian Police Commissioner, Mr Miller, who was of particular help in enabling me to understand the problems that were facing that police force and the police forces right around Australia. As well, I had the benefit of talking to all the royal commissioners who have reported to this country over the last decade. I include Justice Moffitt, Justice Stewart, Justice Williams and, not least of course, Mr Costigan, with whom I had a very close working relationship. Of course, as well as those commissioners who reported there was also Justice Woodward with whom I did not have the benefit of speaking. All these commissioners and police forces over the last 10 years have demonstrated that there is an enormous problem with crime, and organised crime at that. Although it is easy for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to score political points it is unfortunate that he did this in what I hoped would be a serious debate. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister does not recognise that many of the problems we are now confronted with resulted not because a Federal government failed to act but because many State governments, who, although very aware of the problems their police forces were facing and very aware of what royal commissions were reporting to them, simply did nothing about it. Until only a couple of years ago it was very unfashionable for anybody in this place to talk about organised crime or to do anything about it. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), to his credit, knows that well because he was one who called for this sort of body to be established. He suffered the criticism and ridicule of people, some of them on his side of politics. The same thing happened to me. When calling for stringent measures such as a crime commission, members of my Party then in government also took me to task publicly for having the temerity to accuse officials and other eminent people in our society, including politicians. They were very upset that I may have suggested that they could have been involved in issues that surround organised crime. Now, thank goodness, we have a fair degree of-I hate to use the word-consensus on both sides of the House and between State governments and State officials that we have a problem. I am glad that we now almost have a crime authority. It has limitations, and I shall come to them in a moment. But I am glad that at least the Government has finally moved-albeit slowly-to establish the National Crime Authority. Two people who must be congratulated for their part in finally bringing the community to its senses and recognising that something should be done are Mr Costigan and the person who assists him in such an essential way, Mr Meagher. It is through the dedication of those two gentlemen and the ability of their Commission to organise and to enunciate what the problem was that we at last reached the stage of doing something about it. Costigan and Meagher came under great critical pressure, not only from the community but also from politicians- again, politicians of both hues, Labor and Liberal. To their credit they kept going. It is also to their credit that they ploughed on, despite the fact that many people holding important positions in the Commonwealth Public Service also would have been happy to see Costigan disappear. However, he kept going. I am certain that it is for that reason that we have the National Crime Authority Bill before us today. There has been a lot of talk backwards and forwards today but nobody has tried to define organised crime. It has been described many times now, particularly by Costigan. But I think it is worthwhile making sure that the debate is on the right course by defining it once more. What does organised crime embrace? We have learnt now that it embraces practically all sorts of criminal activity. It is taxation evasion, starting price bookmaking, fraud-and that includes fraud against Commonwealth law such as fraud against the Department of Social Security -money laundering, pornography, prostitution, drug dealing and armed robbery. It is the whole gamut of the crime scene. It involves not only crimes against State laws but also crimes against Commonwealth statutes. Costigan described how crime is organised-and I will not go into the detail-in chapter 10 of the volume of the report he made to the Government. He identified that, although organised crime is a loose combination that comes together from time to time, it is highly organised and includes people who want to invest money and those who can fix the sorts of schemes in which those people want to invest. It involves solicitors, accountants and other management advisers who can ensure that such schemes are properly mounted. Of course, right at the very bottom it involves the spear carriers, the people who do the coshing and the standing over. That includes, of course, the painters and dockers. Organised crime has been well insulated because the people involved have managed to build business shells around themselves so that the law enforcement agencies of the country cannot get at them. I know of one case, of which the police are well aware, in which one organised crime figure now has something like 250 well established, legitimate business organisations in which he manages to keep investing his money and, more importantly, to insulate himself from the courts and the police. Of course, organised crime is characterised by including amongst its numbers well known people who, every day of the week, appear in the social columns or on the sporting pages of our newspapers and who have been involved in such activities for years. They remain untouched. Mr Hand —Name them. Mr NEWMAN —The honourable member opposite asks me to name them. I am not prepared to do so because I think that to do so would be to do a disservice to this Parliament. However, I hope the people involved, whom I know about, are now brought to justice by the Crime Authority. Organised crime involves the corruption of officials and of law enforcement officers. It probably involves the corruption of politicians and officials in our courts. Again, I hope that those people will be identified and brought to justice. As the Prime Minister said, organised crime knows no State boundaries. In fact, those involved probably make use of the different jurisdictions to further their activities and to remain insulated from the law. Finally, organised crime has been proved to have links overseas. As Costigan said, if nothing is done about it, in five years this country may well only know the law of the jungle. What is required to be done about organised crime? It is a special challenge. It requires special measures. One of the things that we have all now agreed on- although we on this side of the House have not agreed that the Government has gone far enough-is that a crime authority should be established to investigate organised crime. It must have special powers. It would be wrong of me not to stress that that now should be the focus of our attention. But two other things should be enlisted in this fight apart from the Crime Authority. First, we need strong State police forces. Those police forces should be following a strong, well organised, common policing effort. We are going some way towards improving the efficiency and the ability of the State police forces and towards ensuring that they all work in the one direction with common objectives and in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police, all other law enforcement agencies and the new National Crime Authority. The things that we are doing along that line should be pursued and enlarged upon, things such as common education through a common police college. I hope that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will continue to pursue the objective of setting up in this country a decent, well constructed, well staffed , well financed police college to which all senior policemen can go to be taught better methods of combating this problem. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence was set up, with some fighting I might add. I know that the Special Minister of State will be getting reports that the State police forces still are not contributing to that Institute in a proper way. However, it is improving and I hope that it continues to improve. Efforts are being made to co-ordinate the research of the police forces in regard to the way they are buying equipment and so forth. I hope that that initiative will continue to grow and prosper as with the police forces themselves. The move towards establishing joint task forces was important and remains so. The Special Minister of State has been talking about his joint task force and its success with the Queensland police force. I hope that he will be able to report on its problems in regard to cocaine. Let that continue. It should not be disrupted because we now have the Crime Authority. Finally, efforts are being made to improve on a common front the forensic effort for the police forces. Such efforts must continue. They are all aimed at improving the common police effort through our State police forces. The second thing that we must have is a strong Australian Federal Police. Whatever politics we may play in this place and whatever we may say about what each one of us did or did not do, the fact remains that we must have an Australian Federal Police that is strong, well organised and well supported. I know that the Special Minister of State is going to pursue that. But his problems are not simple ones and it would be simplistic to say that we did not do enough in government or that when we were out of office and on the other side of the House honourable members opposite did not do enough. The fact remains that the Australian Federal Police is a very young police force and it will take five to 10 years to get it into a position where it can play a full and proper part. There are several elements that I hope we will see continued on both sides, whoever is sitting on the Treasury bench. Firstly, I hope that the Government keeps at the top of the AFP a strong leader who is not bound by the old shibboleths of policemen. Maybe there is a suitable policeman coming up somewhere, but that is why General Grey is there now. I am glad that the Government finds that he is what it wants there. I hope that continues to be the way. I hope the Government will continue to appoint strong leadership to the AFP . Secondly, we should continue to improve the structure of the Australian Federal Police. I am glad that the Special Minister of State has taken steps to get rid of the Protective Services Division of the AFP so that we will have a pure police force not hindered by other considerations. Thirdly, I hope that the training and education of policemen will continue to be studied very carefully. Some effort has been made. The police colleges and curriculums are not bad but they could be better. Do not let us be led down a track that might curtail the requirements that we want there. For heaven's sake, let us get over the union objections to recruitment of the people we want, not necessarily at the bottom but right through, to suit the requirements of the various positions of the police force. Let us continue to improve particularly the intelligence methods of the AFP with proper computer techniques-the foundations are well and truly laid-and with people who can use those computers. Last, but not least, I hope that we will continue to ensure that the overseas liaison efforts made by the Australian Federal Police and the development of such things as good computer facilities in co-operation with countries such as Thailand are pursued. I come to the Crime Authority itself, the third leg of this fight against organised crime. Let me relate to this House that when it was first mooted three or four years ago-perhaps the honourable member for Hawker will be able to corroborate what I say-many people, including police commissioners, said to me: 'Your crime authority might be a good idea, but, by God, you will take years to get it because every vested interest with a stake in organised crime will do every single thing it can to frustrate the authority and to delay it'. That, of course, is exactly what has happened. I am not saying that those people who have legitimately criticised the legislation, for example on a civil rights basis, are involved in organised crime; they are not at all. But people behind the scenes have stoked up the debate, undoubtedly with the aim of delaying it. It is sad to say that the Government's delay of 15 months in bringing the legislation to this House has undoubtedly allowed people out there who know they are under investigation to prepare their affairs so that they can avoid what this Crime Authority will set out to do, and that is a pity. The Prime Minister talks about consensus and how it was all put together by his having people brought together in this place and all the rest of it. That is baloney and garbage. He also is guilty of taking cheap political points. Of course the last Government sat down with the State governments and every other person involved in all of this and tried to get everyone together. We had the same frustrations as this Government-exactly the same. But that did not stop the last Government at least putting in place something which it believed was better than this Government has produced and which had more teeth. On a case like this, and perhaps on other major issues too, it is not a matter of a Prime Minister gathering everybody around him and saying 'Let's get together and talk about it' , and then ending up with the lowest common denominator because everybody is happy. That avoids the issue of what we really need. Whilst I welcome most of the things in the Government's Crime Authority, I believe that it has missed the boat on some important issues. The first characteristic that I believe the Crime Authority should have is that it should be above anything else, well above any political interference at all. That is so that justice can be seen to be done as well as being a very important imperative of what the Authority should represent. Secondly, I think the Authority should have the power to decide, certainly in regard to Commonwealth responsibilities, its own initiatives and investigations. Thirdly, it should have the powers to carry out effective investigations without being impeded. It should respond to references from the States and should, of course, work in co-operation with the States. That last point is, of course, a very important one. They are what I believe to be the important essentials of the Authority. I believe that the Government has watered down the legislation by not meeting all those criteria that I think are essential. First of all, it has restricted the ability of the Authority to act on its own initiative when it feels it would like to do so. Secondly, the Government has prescribed the ambit of the Authority's activity by confining the offences which it can investigate. It has exempted trade unions. For heaven's sake, as honourable members opposite are so often willing to tell us, Commissioner Costigan got to where he is only because he started off investigating a trade union. I cannot see why the Government put in that exemption. Thirdly, I think the method of appointment of members to the Authority could be better. I would have preferred to see the final decisions in the hands of the Commonwealth although I understand why the Government had to succumb to the procedure that it finally adopted. Finally, the limitation on investigations using coercive powers now has to be approved by the Inter- Governmental Committee. It boils down to this: Thank God the Government has the Crime Authority legislation here. It has wasted valuable time. Perhaps it has some excuses for that, but it should have been here much earlier. I am sorry that the Government has watered down the Authority in the way that it has. Perhaps I have to acknowledge the reasons why it has done so but I think the Government should have stood up to the States a little more. It should have insisted on some of the States' powers being put into the Bill and carried the consequences. Despite what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) say, there are things which relate only to the Commonwealth under its own powers that could have been very effective in getting not to the fellows who are running round the streets of the electorate of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs flogging dope but to the fellows who are bringing it into the country, right to the top. By using the Commonwealth's powers at that level, through the banking power or the Customs authority, or whatever it may have been, they could have been investigated and the States finally would have come along. Let us also realise that not only do we need to have a strong Authority and to give it all the support it can get but also we must continue to maintain a good common policing effort with the States through the AFP. Certainly, we must continue to build up a strong and effective Australian Federal Police that can bridge the gaps that exist between the Authority and the State police forces. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.48) —I am very pleased to follow the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) who was prior to me the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. I understand that while I was absent from the debate at a meeting the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), as is his wont, decided not to talk about the Bill but to talk about me. I think I get sufficient publicity; I do not think he adds very much to it. I think people who compare the speech of the honourable member for Boothby, from what I have heard about it, with the speech of the honourable member for Bass will readily recognise and understand that the person who ought to be the shadow Special Minister of State with shadow responsibility for the Australian Federal Police is the honourable member for Bass, not the honourable member for Boothby. The honourable member for Bass obviously has some understanding of and sympathy for the portfolio, whereas the honourable member for Boothby continues to bewilder everybody as to why a person who has spent so much time in Parliament still lacks any ability to deal with the problems that come before this House. His ranting and raving today does nothing to add to the discussion before the House. Let me deal quickly with some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Bass. I recognise that, outside of the matter we are debating today, the National Crime Authority legislation, a number of steps were taken by the Fraser Government within the honourable member's portfolio which ought to be acknowledged as constructive moves in terms of the police forces. The Fraser Government took the attitude that one of the things that had to be achieved was some sort of co-operation in the general police activities in Australia. One of the things that we had to accept with that proposal was that the Commonwealth would have to fund more of those activities. As honourable members know, it is not just a question of getting State co-operation through words; the States seem to be more co-operative when we start talking about funding. I acknowledge that the proposed National Institute of Forensic Science, the setting up of the National Police Research Unit in Adelaide, the funding of the police college at Manly and the discussion and decisions regarding the police academy in Perth were all well in the pipeline prior to the Australian Labor Party coming to office. Unfortunately they have not all been settled. We have regular police Ministers meetings at which all the Ministers and police commissioners turn up. We have not settled all of these matters; nevertheless we are a step forward. In terms of the resources which can be made available, the police are no different from people in any other department. They can always do with more. Ultimately the Government has to make a decision about what resources can be made available to the police. However, I think that in view of all the added tasks that have been given to the Australian Federal Police since all of these matters came to the surface over the past few years they have dealt with them admirably. I understand that, with the various task forces, royal commissions and so forth investigating drug matters, there are no fewer than something like 170 Federal Police detectives now working on these matters. Of course, the establishment of the Authority will give them added tasks. I will deal with a couple of matters raised by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He talked about the appointments to the Authority and the lack of power of the Commonwealth. As honourable members know, the Commonwealth will appoint the chairman and the other two appointees must have the unanimous support in one case of the Attorneys-General around Australia and, in the other, of the police Ministers. If unanimity cannot be reached within three months the Commonwealth will make the appointments. As the decision must be unanimous, the Commonwealth also has the right of veto, so it will have power in terms of who will be appointed. I turn to the question of the transition from Mr Costigan's Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the Authority . Honourable members will find in the Bill a clause which states that everything Mr Costigan dealt with will be handed to the Authority. There will not be bits and pieces missing relating to taxation or other inquiries or investigations which have been held by Mr Costigan. The transition from Mr Costigan to the Authority means a total and complete transfer of all the material used by Mr Costigan to the Authority. So there will be no lack of power as far as the Authority is concerned in continuing the investigations that Mr Costigan has already undertaken. The other point-perhaps this will bring a bit more sense into the parliamentary debate in future-is that the Government has accepted, among the amendments from the Senate, that a parliamentary committee must be set up almost as soon as we come back for the Budget session. That means that there will be a relationship between the Authority and the Parliament, directly, through this committee. That again will mean that people will be much better informed. One would hope that this will not be the end of the matter; that in the enlarged Parliament that we will have in the future there will be a greater role, and a more influential role, for back benchers, particularly in terms of some of these things that have to be looked at and discussed within the Parliament. Those matters also give us a greater role. The honourable member for Bass raised the question of who is for or against the Authority and who is for or against greater or lesser powers. Honourable members will recall from the publicity, even if they were not at the seminar last year on the Green Paper when the Authority was discussed, that some very eminent legal people in Australia are totally opposed to the setting up of the Authority . We cannot accuse them of being criminals; it is just that for some vested reason they do not happen to believe in it. They believe that to a very large extent the matters we are discussing should be dealt with by the various jurisdictions within the States. That is how they see it. Mr Ruddock —I don't suppose they are being briefed by criminals either. Mr YOUNG —I would not say that. Look at the names of the people who came into the Senate chamber and put their views warning against that course. I am not a member of the legal fraternity. The honourable member is, is he not? Mr Ruddock —Yes. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member may know more about it than I do. I am saying that there are people who hold some very genuine views about the role of this National Crime Authority. I do not intend to read their names but they are available because the record of proceedings of that seminar is available to honourable members. It is hardly likely that a leading criminal will come out and say he is against the Crime Authority and be pinned for it. But we have to take notice of the impact of what was said by a number of leading legal people in this country. This was the case and the Labor Party has done nothing to hide it. Our party has been shouldering what it considered to be an additional responsibility in terms of the civil liberties of people. One of the things that have occurred in Australia and which we have been concerned about-I think we must all acknowledge this-is that as more and more has been exposed by the various royal commissions there has been a tendency to bandy around this country the names of people we think may be associated with or in some way referred to in reports. This unfortunate feature has led a lot of people in Australia into believing that if a person's name appears in a commission report, or if the newspapers report that a person has been asked to appear before a commission, in some way that person is automatically guilty of some major crime. I think that to a very large extent a lot of that feeling prompted a rethinking in Australia about the powers of commissions vis-a-vis the powers of an authority. Of course, that was not what held up the Bill. The Government presented the Bill with its views intact. What held up the Bill was the fact that the Senate believed that it should establish a Senate committee to look into the matter. It then took all the evidence again. The Government today has accepted a Bill it did not draft. It is very much a mixture of views that comes from the Senate where the Government does not have a majority. If honourable members read the debate in the Senate they may still see things in the Bill with which the Government does not necessarily agree. Nonetheless the Government is accepting the Bill because, as we have said, the Crime Authority should be established so as to continue the work of the earlier commissions. Hopefully, as a result of this debate, everybody in Australia will not believe that now the Parliament has agreed to the setting up of the National Crime Authority all crime will disappear in six months time. I hope we do not raise the level of expectation of the community to such a stage that it thinks that this is just a simple matter which can be dealt with by the establishment of this Authority. The experience of other countries shows us that this measure may be effective-I certainly think it will be effective-in limiting the activities of people that may have gone unhindered over the past few years. I do not necessarily blame the former Government for what occurred. There is no doubt that crime was growing in the other Western countries. It is much easier for it to grow in a democracy than it is in a totalitarian state. We just happen to be one of the lucky countries that have a democracy; so crime was able to flourish here. The drug trade did flourish here, and is flourishing here to a very large extent. Our law enforcement agencies have been effective in combating a lot of the crime. It is very difficult to answer people who ask why we are doing so much to co-operate with the States. Just a few weeks ago, when the decision was taken that coastal surveillance should be handed over to the Austalian Federal Police, I did a tour of north Queensland. I went to Cairns, Townsville and Thursday Island. Next week I tour the north of Western Australia. When dealing with coastal surveillance in Australia, and jurisdiction in respect of law enforcement, one must sit down in the north of Australia with the Bureau of Customs, the fisheries people, the State police, the Federal Police, the defence forces, the Department of Health-- Mr Hodgman —Immigration. Mr YOUNG —And the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. A whole host is involved. One cannot have a meeting about coastal surveillance with less than about 15 representatives present, State and Federal. When one talks about breaches of the law in the case of the Crime Authority, to a very large extent we may be talking about breaches of State laws. When we call together the States , as we have done twice, to discuss this matter, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to hold a meeting of State representatives who are all of one political persuasion. There is a mixture of political views. As honourable members opposite have found out, and as the Government well understands, when people come to a State Ministers meeting carrying the cap Labor or Liberal, they do not necessarily agree with their colleagues from the Federal capital. They do express other views about what they think should happen. The States, unanimously, were very concerned about what they thought the Commonwealth may be imposing on them. Some of the States were concerned that the establishment of the Authority may mean the end of the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Some of them were concerned that we were setting up another police force-a ninth police force-in the operations of the Authority. All of those matters were discussed. If the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) asks his colleague in Tasmania about the views that he expressed, he will find that many of the views that were expressed by Tasmania and Queensland-just as they were expressed by Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia-are now contained in the Bill. We think that we will achieve a much better result in the operations of this Authority with that State co-operation. It has been said that perhaps Costigan was doing all sorts of things without having to worry about the States. That is not altogether true. Commissioner Costigan would speak in glowing terms of the co-operation he has received from the States. I do not believe he could have continued his operation without the co-operation of the States. He received the co-operation of every State in his investigations. Whether Commissioner Costigan was dealing with Cec Abbott, the Police Commissioner in New South Wales, Mick Miller, the Commissioner in Victoria, or Mr Giles who was then the Commissioner in South Australia, the fact is that he was doing so with the co-operation of the States, both at a political level with the governments and at a police level with the various police forces. What we have done, after our discussions, is formalise the continuation of those operations. We have been able to do it with the endorsement of the States. I say to the honourable member for Mitchell that I do not think it weakens the Authority; I think it gives the Authority an added strength. We will know the result in a very short period, by comparing the operations of the Authority with the operations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Regarding the Costigan Royal Commission, a couple of honourable members have raised the question of the Government cutting off the Costigan Royal Commission, which seems to be a charge laid against us by several honourable members opposite. I have obtained from my office a copy of a Press release which I put out on 12 March following discussions with Commissioner Costigan about the future of the Royal Commission. After a very long discussion between Mr Costigan , Mr Meagher and me, it was said that we hoped the Authority would be established by 1 July; Mr Costigan would spend a month with the Authority; he would hand over the material in that transition period; and he would require a further eight weeks in which to complete his final report which would be handed to us and tabled in the Parliament. There is nothing extraneous about the relationship between the Government and Commissioner Costigan in terms of the final report which he will give and the timing of it. That was agreed a long time ago. Regarding what Australia may owe Mr Costigan, in no one's wildest dreams was it dreamt that when the then Government asked Commissioner Costigan to look at the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, we would have before us, some years later, a library of information about criminal activity at a State, national and international level, material which we were able to look at and act upon. So we do owe Commissioner Costigan a great deal of gratitude; there is no doubt about it. But I think he would be reluctant to take on the exercise permanently, as some sort of permanent royal commission. He has been in the position for some years when he expected to be in it for some months, as honourable members know. The arrangements that were made with him were obviously aimed at a very short type investigation into the activities of the Federal Ship Painters and Dockers Union. What has led on has given him a mountain of information which, if it is useful, may lead to prosecutions. Those matters would then be handed to the Authority for it to act upon. I think that the establishment of the Authority, the relationship between the Authority and the Parliament and the relationship between the Authority and the Minister have been put in place in the best possible way that we have been able to judge in the 15 months that this discussion has gone on-longer if one includes the period from when the Fraser Government introduced the National Crimes Commission Bill; perhaps closer to two years. We will have to wait to judge the operations of the Authority. I know that the honourable member for Mitchell says that we have to keep out any political interference with the Authority, but there has to be a relationship between the setting up of an authority, especially an authority of this nature, and the Parliament. If a mistake is made it is not too long before the Opposition asks the responsible Minister what he has done about it. If a Minister is asked in the Parliament, ' The Australian Federal Police Force has made a major mistake. Do you know anything about it? If so, what are you going to do about it?', he cannot say: 'I have no power to do anything. I am the Minister for Police, but I cannot do anything about it'. A special relationship between these people and these bodies is established in the various Acts. I think that the honourable member for Bass would remind the House that there is a very special relationship between a police commissioner and a police Minister. The police Minister does not-I wish everybody in the world would understand it-interfere with the day to day operations of the Federal Police. From the telephone calls and telegrams which I receive, people must think that I am stationed at the police headquarters directing everything and making sure that everything works out all right. That is not the role of the police Minister. Nevertheless, there is a responsibility to the Parliament which has to be channelled through the Minister. I think the way it has now been established, in terms of clauses 9, 14, 15, 18, 21, 48 and 61 of the Bill, the relationship-- Mr Cadman —It is the veto powers on an investigation that worry me. Mr YOUNG —These things are public items. Any government which thinks it is going to escape responsibility by pushing matters under the carpet has another think coming in terms of the operations of this Authority. Looking at the publicity that has been given to all the criminal activities over the past year or so, and at what may have happened or what allegations may have been made, I do not think it is a positive claim that somehow, some way, a State will be able to avoid any proper investigation by the Authority should that be warranted and considered as a reference by the Inter-Governmental Committee. Whilst the Government may have had some reservations about the way in which the Bill finally came to us from the Senate, I certainly believe the effort has been worth while. I thank the people in the Senate who put it together so quickly and the Opposition for facilitating the debate so quickly today. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.08) —I welcome the opportunity to be able to speak on the National Crime Authority Bill 1984 and the National Crime Authority ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. The National Crime Authority Bill is an important piece of legislation, not least because it is to put in place a proposal which was initiated by the former Government some two years ago. This is not the first time that I have had to participate in a debate on this subject . I spoke in the debate on the National Crimes Commission Bill of the former Government. The Bill was dealt with in this House in November 1982. The problems with which we are now dealing are not new problems. As has been mentioned, they have been with us for some time. It may well be that some of the speeches appear to have turned around somewhat. I was very pleased with the speech by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who has just spoken, for its very measured tones. I compare it with some of the speeches that were delivered on the previous occasion. I was interested that the Minister put such emphasis on protecting the rights of people against being unjustly named in reports or in this Parliament as a result of reports. Yet, having sat on the other side of the House, I remember well how reports that emanated from commissions that were established by the previous Government were used by members of the then Opposition. I do not recall any apology to Mr John Reid for the way in which he was inveigled into these matters. I do not recall any apology from the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) in relation to his involvement in naming people in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia and the frequent identification of them as a result of particular reports. It appears that some rules are appropriate when one is in opposition that are not appropriate when one is in government. I simply point that out because I think it is of some import when considering this legislation. I will come to that in some greater detail shortly. I am concerned that this legislation has been modified in such a way as to put what I would politely describe as road blocks in the way of some inquiries that might otherwise be made. I will elaborate on that later in detail. I am sorry that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is not here at the moment because I do wish to commend him for what I regard as one of the most outstanding speeches in this debate. As a result of his experience as the Minister in charge of the Australian Federal Police, he was able, in a way which nobody else has to date-particularly not the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-to highlight the need for this Commission, the areas in which one would expect it to operate and the sorts of problems that would have to be dealt with. He highlighted, I think more effectively than most, the sorts of problems that he thought might be put in his path in trying to put legislation for a National Crime Authority in place. While I have mentioned the Prime Minister in this context, let me say his speech certainly highlighted the problems of organised crime and the tragedy of drugs. He stressed that the Government will do all in its power to alleviate this problem. He spoke about the extent of the problem, which I think everybody in this Parliament would acknowledge, but really when he then came to defend the sorts of road blocks that this legislation puts in the way of effective investigation, I wondered what his speech really was all about. We have before us a mass of evidence about the nature of the problem. We have the reports of the initial inquiry of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and all that came out of that inquiry. We heard from Mr Costigan, QC, in chapter 10 of his interim report No. 4 to the Government on organised crime, of the difficulty in dealing with the problems of organised crime across State boundaries. In paragraph 10.02 he stated: At this stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that the union-- that is the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union- at least in Victoria, Newcastle, Queensland and South Australia if not in Sydney as well, is an organised criminal group following criminal pursuits. At least in Victoria those in charge of the union recruit exclusively those who have serious criminal convictions. He went on to talk about the particular areas in which the union was involved. Paragraph 10.03 states: In this report I have referred to crimes of violence, theft, extortion, intimidation, fraud, illegal gambling and trafficking in drugs. I have not dealt with some other major areas of activity. There is before me evidence of wide scale racketeering, loan sharking and active participation in organised prostitution. Interestingly enough, as he went through and detailed the murders that were unsolved-something of the order of 35 in number-involving this particular union, the magnitude of the problem that we are dealing with and are confronted with I think became clear. But he went on to make other links that I think are more important, because he was not just dealing with the union, he was dealing with the financiers. In paragraph 10.07, he stated: The financiers well know the nature of the venture in which they are investing, and the high risk involved. There is risk that the scheme will be detected by the authorities and those executing the scheme will be prosecuted and the capital lost. The investors take active steps to conceal the source of the capital, and so avoid detection and apprehension. We are dealing with people whose business crosses State boundaries; we are dealing with people whose possible loss is enormous; we are dealing with people whose reputation is often intact but who invest capital and conceal their involvement. This is a problem of enormous dimension and an urgent problem, a pressing problem. That is what I think the honourable member for Bass was trying to highlight and why he was concerned, as I am concerned, that while legislation for a National Crimes Commission passed this House almost two years ago, we still do not have in place an active commission to deal with these sorts of problems. The National Crimes Commission was a major initiative of the Fraser Government. It followed a great deal of evidence from not only Mr Costigan but also from the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking by the Clark drug syndicate and related matters and, of course, the joint task forces that have been established to combat the menace of organised crime and corruption. The weight of evidence from all of those bodies was that there was an urgent need for action. The traditional methods of a law enforcement commission had failed. Of course, the traditional way of investigating these matters was largely within the limits of one State by one State police force and, in another State, by another State police force and of course the Federal Police operating in the area in which Federal crimes were involved. There was severe failure notwithstanding the attempts to link people together through organisations for the exchange of information and so on. It was not as a result of lack of diligence in most cases or competence. It was a result of the limited role where crime is involved that pays no heed whatsoever to State boundaries, State jurisdictions or laws of the States. Special prosecutor Redlich said that what is needed 'is a national response to a national issue, a robust independent national authority unfettered by jurisdiction or bureaucratic constraints'. The former Federal Government was able to have in place a commission, a chairman designate in the form of Mr Justice Sir Edward Williams, a proven crusader, and staff was in the process of selection. These matters are only dealt with over time. I do not think it was right for the Prime Minister to draw any inference from the fact that that legislation was not fully operational by the time he came into office and was able to put the stopper on that particular exercise. Since the Hawke Government came to office in my view there has been something of the order of 12 months of backtracking, qualification, conferences and, as a result of inadequate legislation produced in the Senate, further inquiries and, at the best, a most inadequate compromise. The consensus model, the lowest common denominator model-the one which we can get the majority of people to agree with-is being put in place. It is not necessarily the best, not necessarily the most effective, not necessarily the one organised crime would fear, but the consensus model. There is, for example, consensus with the Labor Party organisation in New South Wales which has been linked with organised crime in ways which I think anybody who looks at these matters would regard as less than satisfactory. Corruption in official places has been an issue in New South Wales. The Opposition in New South Wales has been jawboned, there has been a great deal of bluster and the establishment of a number of inquiries. The fact of the matter is that like this body we have seen the establishment of a number of bodies in New South Wales to investigate allegations which have been hampered by legal constraints and legal obstacles. At this very time we have a Special Commission of Inquiry into the Prisoner Early Release Scheme taking place in New South Wales. The Jackson inquiry that is being conducted by Mr Justice Slattery is under probable challenge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales because of the way in which the legislation in that State has been so carefully constructed as to ensure that challenge is possible. What the Opposition is endeavouring to do in the debate today is to ensure the removal of the fetters being placed upon this National Crime Authority; to ensure that the definition of what is a relevant offence is widened so that the Authority will have as wide a scope as possible to investigate organised crime; to deal with the functions of the Authority and ensure that there are no bases upon which some spurious legal challenge can be mounted, as is occurring in New South Wales in relation to the inquiry of Mr Justice Slattery; and to ensure that the matters that ought to be brought out and the public ought to be aware of are there to be seen. It is a question of balance; I am the first to accept that. What we have seen is a change in balance. The balance that has traditionally constrained investigation needs to be shifted so that the bodies that carry out these tasks to protect our community will be free from the sorts of objections that are being taken in relation to the inquiries in New South Wales. I said that what we have here is the consensus model. I want to draw to the attention of honourable members what I mean when I criticise consensus in this place and the way in which I feel we are being asked to accept consensus by the Government on the lowest common denominator model. In the January edition of the Parliamentarian, the journal of the parliaments of the Commonwealth, Mr Justice Kirby wrote about consensus. He is a person who is in no way being characterised as a supporter of the former Government or of the Opposition. If he were ever characterised as being a supporter of anybody-I am not suggesting he is-it would surely be the Government. He is a judge who was appointed by the former Whitlam Labor Government, a man who has served with great distinction as a judge but in an unusual position as head of the Australian Law Reform Commission. I think it is pertinent that every honourable member reads what he has to say so that everybody understands that, when people argue for consensus, they are arguing to restrain criticism, to restrain people from articulating an alternative point of view and to restrict what Mr Justice Kirby himself calls 'robust debate', which is so important for the development of our society. I will quote from what Mr Justice Kirby had to say because I think it is something that we all ought to take on board and understand exactly what he was saying. He said: I am by no means convinced, with the editorialists, that countries would do better in a system of bland consensus and permanent reconciliation. The parliamentary Chambers, by providing a forum for the important points of difference, permit a country to articulate creatively the vital philosophical, social, economic and other differences that exist in every free society. He went on to say, and I think this is worth heeding: The search for consensus should not take us to Orwell's world of 'double speak' where difference of opinion is hidden in obfuscating language and where bland talk replaces the competition for ideas and for the mind of the people. Hailsham , the politician, not the judge, put it in this way: Politics is, or at least ought to be, an honourable calling and politics is about significant choices, that is, about the things concerning which people are divided. A free society must have argument in order to progress. It is based on decisions and significant decisions are always controversial and political parties are the preferred method of conducting controversy and promoting decisions. I think those points are very important and well worth considering. One of the areas upon which there has been significant debate over time in this country and about which there has been debate in regard to this very legislation is the role of State governments, the role of our federation. It is important that we recognise that there is a proper role for the States in the areas in which they have responsibility but there is also a proper role for the Commonwealth in the areas in which it has responsibility. I admit that I am a federalist but I never accept the label of 'States' righter'. I am one who believes that there is a proper role for the States. I am not a centralist, but in this matter there are clearly important national issues which pervade all others. I consider this issue to be more important than the saving of the Franklin River upon which the Government put great store, on which the Government was prepared to override the rights of a State government. When I hear honourable members opposite talking about federalism in this debate and recognise that what they are about is really giving the States a veto and protecting States' rights in a situation in which I do not acknowledge them, I say: Humbug. Quite frankly this is an area in which the Commonwealth, having regard to its own areas of legislative competence-questions of taxation, questions of drugs and questions of Customs-has a clear responsibility. I believe it is important that we, as the Commonwealth, put in place the sort of National Crime Authority that will be able to be effective, not one that will be able to be hampered by the States exercising a veto. I commend to all honourable members one other person's involvement in this debate; that is, the involvement of my friend and colleague Senator Missen. Nobody could ever accuse Senator Missen of being one who lacks concern for political rights. He is involved, as I am, in the organisation Amnesty International. He is concerned about political prisoners and the lack of due process when people are charged. When Senator Missen says that there is a need for a robust National Crime Authority and when he puts out the sort of minority statement that he did in relation to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, it is well worth reading. I commend his dissenting report and his views to all honourable members. I think they articulate, in a way that many of us have not, the need for this body to be given the maximum authority and power. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(5.28) —With a slight rephrasing of the opening statement of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), I am concerned about the whole thrust of the Opposition in the debate on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. In order to understand the debate that has occurred today in this House and in the last few days in the other place it is important to go back to the genesis of the National Crime Authority. In 1974-75 and in subsequent years we saw a fairly massive campaign by the conservative forces in Australia in the guise of law and order. The phrases became well known and well established but the application of them was not quite so well known. At the same time the conservative forces in this country put forward a new deal for federalism. I can well recall their policy documents of those days. The new deal involved a handing back to the States of every possible responsibility they could find-responsibility for women's refuges, child care and a whole range of welfare organisations, removing from the Commonwealth any real involvement in the health care delivery system and unloading as many difficult things as possible. In fact, federalism involved passing the buck to the States. In that way the blame could not be attached to the previous Government. That system progressed fairly well for a number of years. But, of course, under that system organised crime flourished massively. The one organisation that had a national responsibility was saying: 'We do not want the responsibility. We will give it back to the States because they have police forces on the ground involved in fighting crime'. That is what happened during the six most fertile years of the development of organised crime. It is ironic to read the debates in the Senate. Senator Lewis referred to the Queensland cocaine ring after a story which had appeared in the Age last week. The fact is that the Age made it very clear that those events occurred in the late 1970s. Members of the Opposition had the audacity to question the current Ministry about what they knew of it, when it was their Ministers who should know -and I do not doubt did know, and I do not doubt know now-what that was about. If one looks at the commissions that they established, such as the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, when organised crime was raging, what reference was the Commission given? It was established to investigate the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, not to investigate organised crime. It was not established for the benefit of Australia but for the benefit of the political party in power at that time. The backfiring of that Commission had quite fascinating consequences. The Costigan report in the latter part of 1982 clearly deferred the Federal election which was scheduled for September or October 1982. In the words of a member of the previous Government, 'something had to be done'. But what had to be done was not the obtaining of results; what had to be done was something political, something that looked good and something that was overstated. The previous Government did not care whether it worked; it did not matter whether it worked. But it had to be in place before the end of 1982. So we had instant action. Suddenly, by November 1982, the Crimes Commission legislation was passed by both Houses. The pace then slowed quite dramatically. It was fascinating to watch the speed of events as they accelerated towards the possibility of an election and decelerated when the public had been reassured that the Government had the matter under control. Honourable members should look at what was involved in that Crimes Commission. It was clearly an unworkable operation. Workability does not matter when we are talking about the Opposition's politics; results do not count. It is perceptions that count and the perception was that it could be seen to be doing something about organised crime. It had done something for six years: It had let it flourish; it had walked away from it and ignored it. How hard was it to get the Nugan Hand matter referred to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking? Where was the previous Government during the years when the Nugan Hand organisation was flourishing, and almost certainly transgressing Commonwealth laws? Those events occurred in late 1982 and early 1983. This Government came into power and found in place a crimes commission that was clearly a political stunt, just as so many other things were clearly political stunts. The Costigan Commission clearly began as a political stunt and many other actions were clearly the work of ringmasters of a circus, not of serious politicians, and not of a government accepting responsibility. We recognised the unworkability and the excessively draconian nature of the Crimes Commission. The fact was that it did not matter how draconian it was because it would never work; it would never be operable because none of the States would accept the constraints that were placed on them. To reinforce that point, in the Senate on 5 June Senator Crichton-Browne stated: One weakness of Australia-wide crime detection in areas to which the Authority will be expected to address itself has been lack of co-operation and goodwill between law enforcement agencies of the States and Commonwealth. How could there be goodwill from the State police forces when they were to be made the bunnies? What the Commonwealth was doing in regard to the Crimes Commission was passing the buck to somebody else by saying: 'It is all the fault of the State police forces'. The State police forces were being made to look like fools. But who were the real fools? On 5 June Senator Chipp, in speaking about Senator Durack's role as Attorney-General, stated: Senator Durack . . . has made errors of judgment in this area in the past. I remind him that probably one of the most serious errors of judgment in his whole political career was to be a party to the sudden disbandonment, on Melbourne Cup Day, of the former Federal Narcotics Bureau, which in one fell swoop removed the most efficient, the most honest and the most incorruptible law enforcement agency against federal organised crime in this country. Why was that agency removed? It was removed because of a lack of co-operation, a lack of real concern, a lack of real effectiveness. That was one more political stunt. The events since this Government came into power and recognised the need to come to grips with the issue-not with the politics, but with the problem-led us to bring forward last year the legislation for the National Crime Authority. In reading the debates that took place in the Senate-certainly after listening to the debates of last year-it became very clear that the judgments about the combating of organised crime in this nation would be difficult. For every point held by one person, another person held an alternative point of view. But workability had to be the major criteria. It had to be effective because we could not betray this country, as did the previous Government, by pretending that we were doing something about it, if we did not believe that what we were doing would work and would be effective. The fact that the legislation was referred to a Senate committee slowed down the whole procedure. But in some ways it was productive because it gave an opportunity for further discussion, further consideration and further balance between the judgments of all those involved. When it returned to the Senate in recent weeks, Senator Chipp, in his initial comments, stated: . . . there have been intense negotiations between the three political parties represented in this Parliament. He paid great tribute to Senator Durack and to the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, regarding that discussion. If one thinks that consensus is namby pamby, Senator Chipp did not suggest that that was so, when on 4 June he stated: . . . intense negotiations have been taking place sincerely with barriers down, behind closed doors. I think my two colleagues and I believe that the best consensus can be produced in this way. He indicated that as well as a public debate, a series of private discussions had been taking place among people genuinely attempting to find a workable solution. The question in the public's mind must be: Why has the debate been kept going? Members of the Opposition are attempting to suggest that this legislation is not effective, that there is something funny about it. I suggest that their memories are good enough to remember the Costigan Commission and what it uncovered. They are good enough to remember the embarrassment and the mad rush of the Fraser Government to answer the questions posed by the Costigan Commission. The fact is that the debate has been kept going for precisely the same reason that the Crimes Commission was established in the first place-as a political stunt. In doing so, the motives of honourable members opposite must be seen to be very suspect. They are attempting to undermine the future effectiveness of the Crime Authority. The Crime Authority can and will work, but only if it receives the support and the active involvement of all Houses of parliament in Australia, and not half of the Houses of parliament. Whether one likes it or not, States' rights are part of our Constitution. But States' rights are not critical in this legislation so much as States' responsibility. The comparison with the Franklin Dam is an absolute travesty. The States have police forces which are very clearly part of the machinery that must be mobilised and co-ordinated. They cannot be mobilised and co-ordinated by government saying: 'We don't care what you think. We think you are pretty hopeless because that is why we are doing this'. That is what happened in regard to the Crimes Commission. It was trumpeted so loudly and strongly as to abort completely the potential for the Crimes Commission to function. The intense discussions over the last 15 months have, if anything, accelerated the workability of this legislation and of the Crime Authority's effectiveness. I deplore the way in which the debate has continued in this House, and I deplore the fraud and sham that we have been hearing. However, I compliment the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) on his contribution. In general, I should like this debate to be about the workability, effectiveness and future of the National Crime Authority, and not some attempt by the Opposition to pretend that what happened in 1982 did not happen. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.40) —After a considerable time, the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 creates the National Crime Authority to combat organised crime throughout Australia. For that, we are grateful. But, as we well know, this is a replacement Bill for the legislation brought to this Parliament by the Fraser Government, and the investigatory capacity provided by that Bill could have been in operation for quite a period had it been commenced immediately upon the installation of this Government. Consequently, the delay that has occurred is a matter of concern to me. Nevertheless, now that it is here, it is my job this evening to speak to some of my concerns relating to the Bill. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), representing the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), took some time to quote from an address that was made by Mr Costigan, a man whose name has been mentioned on many occasions in this debate, when he gave the Sir John Barry Memorial Lecture. This is a quotation, in the second reading speech, from Mr Costigan: The second is that once you have identified and convicted them you take away their money; that is, the money which is the product of their criminal activities. Both these conclusions have now been accepted in both the United States and the United Kingdom and other Western countries. Tracing the flow of money, of course, is the first step. That is clearly the type of role and the type of expertise that the Authority must have. I guess that one could wonder about the various examples which could be put to people of why this Authority may be able to do that better than a State police force or even the Australian Federal Police. Clearly, it will be because it will consist of specialists in that field. It is a known fact that the police forces of Australia have had a tendency to grow from the bottom up, to grow up from the beat, and, of course, tracing crime in Australia today requires much better detection ability than is provided by that. Mr Costigan went on to draw examples of how that might be done. I ask the House to think of the concern that this legislation creates when one considers an interesting example of someone who was for 15 years a prominent union official with a salary insufficient to support a family in anything but a modest way. I do not think that there would be many honourable members of the Australian Labor Party with experience of union employment who would say that they were well paid when they were employed in those undertakings. Yet, during his career, that person obtains property of considerable value, supports an alcoholic and a gambling habit, and, in addition, maintains a very high living style. No doubt that sort of person would attract some interest from this Authority; but, of course, he will not attract it, because we now have to consider relevant criminal activity. As to the meaning of that phrase, the Bill tells us that it relates to a 'relevant offence'. Both of these terms are mentioned in the Bill. We find that a relevant offence means an offence: that involves more than one offender and substantial planning and organisation. Maybe that person I have just described is not to be chased by this Bill. But that person will be one of the decision-makers as to who will be investigated by the Authority that this Bill creates. We might think of that a little later, if we have not decided who that person is already. My concern with this legislation relates to who will have the final say. In my time in local government, in a very simple way, I quickly learnt not to make the council table a secondary court of judgment or a primary court of judgment. I found it necessary to be able to stand above those things, to rely on the actions and decisions of the officers of the council. Sometimes with hindsight I regretted that position, because I saw them make some blunders. Fortunately, at that level they are not too significant. Nevertheless, it was my role then to advise them of their blunders and, hopefully, if I saw that it was something which was just too bad, to exercise the role of politician and come to the rescue of the person who was being persecuted; but not to set myself up as a preliminary court. Unfortunately, although it might be denied, I have some feelings that this is the type of situation that the Bill sets out to create. We can have people protected in relation to their sins, and people persecuted. It was only the other day that I drew the House's attention to another Minister of this Government who admitted to the Nicholson Inquiry that he felt completely unconstrained in telling the truth to a Minister of a State government because he thought of him as a political enemy. There again, this man is still in this Ministry, and although he may not have a direct role, he has chosen to speak on the Bill today and clearly will be in a position to influence the various people who will make these sorts of decisions. It is interesting to note what the Minister tells us in his second reading speech when he says that the Authority will consist of a chairman and two other members selected respectively by the unanimous decision of the Attorneys-General and Police Ministers of the Commonwealth and participating States. He did not bother to add in his speech what is to happen if unanimity cannot be achieved. If that is the case, presumably we shall not have an Authority. Mr Cadman —He has the final decision. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry; I was just reading the speech. I withdraw that comment. I am pleased to think that there is a mechanism; I could see some problems in getting the Authority together. But then the Minister says that there is further provision for the Inter-Governmental Committee generally to monitor the work of the Authority. He stated: Each State and the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth will be able to be represented on this Committee, which should give the States a clear window into its operations. I hope that that window is not big enough to drive a truck through, because I am a little concerned, again, as to who some of the people might be, and about the control. Firstly, we shall have these people and it will not matter very much whether they are Attorneys-General, because we are well aware in the political arena that Attorneys-General take notice of Premiers, if only for the simple reason that they will not hold their jobs very long if they do not do so. So we must then say that there will be major control in the hands of a Premier. One of those Premiers, recently elected, has been mentioned in dispatches on so many occasions in recent times that it is inconceivable that he would have a dedication to the tracing, conviction and investigation of organised crime and its participants. As I pick up little pieces of paper that float around, I was interested to look at a transcript of proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. It refers to the inquiries into Mr James McCarteney Anderson. Here I am drawing attention to the people who will control this Authority. Some questions are asked, and the name of Mr Morgan Ryan was mentioned to the person being inquired into. Mr Anderson was asked: Was he Mr Saffron's solicitor at that stage to your knowledge? This is in a transcript and has been sworn to. His answer was: My belief at the time was that he was Mr Saffron's partner and solicitor, and he also, according to Mr Saffron, held a watching brief for Mr Neville Wran. We do not know whether that is exactly true, but it is certainly true as far as that gentleman is concerned. He gave that evidence on oath and he has attested to the transcript. That is what one James McCarteney Anderson said at an inquiry into his own bankruptcy, under, I think, section 69 of the Bankruptcy Act. It appears on page 17. Of course, we can look again at some of the other activities on which this Opposition has had to drag the New South Wales Government-a participant to this arrangement. It is now placed between the law officers of the States and the Commonwealth and this Authority. That is what we have-the States in between, either peeking on what the Authority is doing and knowing when to put the brakes on or otherwise, of course, never letting it happen. The National Times of 5 March 1984 went on and on about this. We know that when many of these matters that I will refer to here were raised in this place, we discovered that there had been no official communication of the information available to that Minister for over two weeks after the information became available to him. Nobody was prepared to enlighten us as to what went on in the meantime. Quite clearly there was no dereliction of duty or loyalty to one's political colleagues and mates. Mr Young —Which incident are you talking about? Mr TUCKEY —I am talking about the Rex Jackson incident when the Australian Federal Police taped evidence and made it available to the Minister here. For two weeks there was a blank on the whole thing. The Special Minister of State ( Mr Young) and later the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), in his capacity as Acting Special Minister of State, came in here and tried to explain that away. I am a perceptive person and it was never explained satisfactorily to me. All these situations are my reason for concern about what otherwise would be a great initiative of this Government. I am prepared to commend the Government for establishing a committee to inquire into this matter although, as I recall, that was forced on it in the Senate. That committee of inquiry when it settled down apparently became a very good bipartisan effort. At this time I say, before going back to the points I was making, that I too will always stand up here and support the rights of the individual. Of course, I am recognised and generally heard as a protector of State rights. But the one point I always make when I talk about State rights is that I am not a supporter of the rights of the institution of State governments; I am for the rights of the individuals resident in the States. I think on this occasion those States would all have a clear understanding of the necessity to have a national crimes authority because they, at least, recognise the fact that crime-particularly high level organised crime-has no respect whatsoever for State borders. Therefore, it is quite clear that there needs to be this co- ordinating authority. I sincerely hope that over the years the State law enforcement authorities will see this body as a major assistance to them in what they are doing. I sincerely hope-and I believe-that as time goes by the law officers will find the body more and more advantageous. I am not one who will defend his own Party above any other. If anybody can put to me evidence of substantial criminal activity by anyone on my side of the House such a person would get no more support from me than anyone of any other political party. I take honourable members back to the National Times. I do not want to say too much about Mr Rex Jackson because of the circumstances he is in at the moment. However, it was the Opposition that had to drag the Federal Government and the Wran Government screaming to the barriers to get an investigation of the matter. In fact, it was only when Mr Jackson eventually tripped himself up that he was forced to resign. I evidence a circumstance in this Parliament concerning an honourable member- the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-about whom substantial allegations have been made and about whom document after document has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). These documents were offered to the Prime Minister privately in the first instance to put down his scandalous statements of political opportunism. That offer was not taken up and that honourable member is still here. Every now and again he gets enough courage up to suggest that there are other people like himself in the world who are tax avoiders and tax evaders. Of course, it is interesting to note that this legislation, amongst its definitions of relevant offences, refers to that which involves 'theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations'. The National Crime Authority Bill is prepared to deal with currency violations but what activity will the Government give us on that? This House has been aware , and had a prima facie case put to it, of a currency violation. Nothing whatsoever is being done about it. The simple statement that is required to reassure the House that the honourable member to whom I have directed this remark has got evidence of how he obtained that money-and currency violations are all about obtaining money-is not forthcoming. The Prime Minister should explain how he did at that time obtain foreign currency within Australia in a legal fashion. If the Government cannot confront us on that simple matter, when the Government cannot explain how the honourable member whom I described a little earlier had $5,600 in his briefcase, in all sorts of jumbled up currencies, and when it cannot react on the issues which the Opposition brings before it, then what faith can we have in that Government administering this legislation which denies an initiative to the National Crime Authority and puts all the initiatives in the hands of the politicians? I can tell honourable members that when I found myself in a minor political role confronted with that opportunity, I denied myself the opportunity. I learned by experience that it was not my role to conduct a kangaroo court prior to the conduct of the proper processes that were available. These are the processes we have in the Bill. That is the major difference between this legislation and the legislation presented to and passed by the Parliament during the term of the Fraser Government. I accept that although the Parliament has an absolute right and responsibility to protect the individual, and that our laws are designed for that purpose, there are other ways, including of course secret inquiry. That was something which strangely enough this Government when in opposition never worried too much about. Quite clearly secret inquiry is to our benefit. Quite clearly we need a situation where the person accused of a thing which is not proved against that person should have the right of secrecy. That is excellent. When the Minister for Finance, as he is today, the honourable member for Fremantle, and other honourable members came into this Parliament day after day on account of the McCabe-Lafranchi report, a report which was purely a list of directors and names of companies that had ceased to function, and which had probably gone to the bottom of the harbour, honourable members then were none too worried about secrecy. They were prepared to drag people down on the basis of that flimsy evidence. Now because they are a bit concerned for their mates in New South Wales, what are they doing? They are saying that secrecy is paramount and that a politician must take precedence over law enforcement authorities. My time is drawing to an end but these are the issues: What right has Neville Wran to be involved in deciding who in New South Wales will be prosecuted? Invariably, they will be his mates. I have thought of another union official who , as far as I can discover, has never had a source of income bar that obtained from four or five years as an industrial advocate and about 15 years as a back bench member of parliament. Again most people would agree with me that such people do not accumulate much spare cash. However, that man is extremely wealthy . Now, of course, he is a member of the Government front bench. These are the people who have got some explaining to do. These are the people who will find it extremely hard to give the necessary directions to the Authority. There are two reasons for that. One is that they might turn up there one day themselves. But, more importantly, they will be constrained by what others know about them, and blackmail is not a problem for the people whom this legislation sets out to catch. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to clarify one of the points made by the honourable member for O 'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the Minister seek to make a personal explanation? Mr YOUNG —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for O'Connor raised the question of something that was printed in the National Times about the handing over of material to the New South Wales Minister for Police. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that all the Commissioner of the Australian Federal police does is let the Minister know. It is the task of the Police Commissioner to hand over the material which, in this case, he did as quickly as he possibly could. It was not the job of the Minister. The Minister could have decided not to hand over the material at all. Again, I remind the honourable member that, at the time, the then New South Wales Premier had stepped down and the Acting Premier was overseas. The material was handed to the Acting Premier on the first day he arrived back in Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(6.03) —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has placed before the House what purports to be the transcript of a bankruptcy hearing which again appears to link the Premier of New South Wales to that notorious solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan, whose involvement with organised crime is well documented. I do not intend to address myself to that matter except to say that it again highlights the problem which this House faces, that is, that a belief in the correlation between organised crime and politics is widespread in the community. There is an assumption, perhaps, that organised crime, which is a cancer eating away at the most treasured institutions in our society, has even involved itself in politics. For that reason, it is absolutely essential that both Houses of Parliament pass legislation which will enable the proposed National Crime Authority to deal properly with these matters. It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) 1983 which are before the House this evening and which will establish the National Crime Authority. Organised crime is enormously widespread in our society. It has been revealed largely by a number of royal commissions over the past few years. I refer specifically to the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, 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. Those royal commissions as well as other information and material available to governments have revealed that organised crime has some influence or appears to reflect upon some of the State parliaments-I refer to New South Wales in particular-and also, perhaps, on the judiciary, the police forces and government departments. Wherever organised crime has infiltrated there is cynicism on the part of a great many members of the public. It is therefore incumbent on this House to pass legislation which will give real teeth to the proposed National Crime Authority. To simply make it a paper tiger without real effective power to investigate and to accumulate evidence which will put organised crime participants in gaol, for long terms hopefully, is simply surrendering our responsibilities. It is obvious to every member of this chamber that members of the public are crying out for tough legislation. They are calling out for a fearless National Crime Authority. They do not want and do not expect their legislators to produce legislation which will not bring about such a body. I suggest that the legislation before the House does not achieve what is required. The National Crimes Commission legislation, which the Fraser Government introduced and which passed both Houses of Parliament and was ready for proclamation would have achieved the objective of a fearless, powerful inquiry into organised crime which will bring offenders to justice. I suggest that two clauses in the legislation will greatly hinder the effectiveness of the body. I refer specifically to clause 4 of the Bill which deals with relevant offences. Unless a suspected crime falls within the definition of what is a relevant offence, the National Crime Authority cannot investigate. I believe that 'relevant offence' is defined very restrictively. If the Government insists on having some sort of definition of relevant offence, I argue strongly that it ought to be of an illustrative nature, rather than a restrictive definition which is contained in this legislation. In other words, if the crime does not fall within that definition the Authority cannot investigate. It does not take a knowledge of law to deduce that a smart criminal will get a lawyer to make application to the Federal Court of Australia, then to the full Federal Court and then to the High Court of Australia seeking an injunction restricting the Authority on the basis that its reference is not in relation to a relevant offence. That will have the effect of slowing up an investigation-in fact, of stopping an investigation in the short term. For that reason, I regard the definition of relevant offence to be a very dangerous part of this legislation and one which will almost certainly restrict the activities of the National Crime Authority in the future. Why define relevant offence at all? There is no need to define a relevant offence. The Attorney-General and the State Attorneys-General will not request the Authority to investigate something minor. It stands to reason. It is quite obvious that the Attorney-General will not request the Authority to investigate starting price bookmaking at some inner city pub. Obviously, the Attorney- General will refer to the Authority an investigation into a large operating network of SP bookmaking, to take an example. So I am at a loss to know why the Government would restrict the Authority and open the way for criminals to delay investigations by due process of law by defining relevant offences. My other concern relates to clause 11 of the legislation. The Authority has no power to investigate, using its coercive powers-by coercive powers I refer, of course, to the ability to compel witnesses to appear, to issue search warrants and even to tap phones-unless there is a reference from the Commonwealth Attorney-General or from a State Government via the Inter-Governmental Committee which is, of course, made up of State Police Ministers. I do not believe that the Authority will be sufficiently strong. I have already mentioned that there is already a widespread perception that there is a correlation between crime and politics. To avoid the situation which the honourable member for O'Connor properly raised in this House whereby a State Premier or a State police Minister may be under some cloud, why not let the Authority investigate crimes off its own bat? Why is it necessary for the Authority to get its riding instructions-to use a colloquialism-from a Minister? Again, I fail to see the logic in that and again, I conclude that it will restrict the activities and investigatory powers of the Authority. We require a fearless and independent authority. That is the key word. If we are to avoid the cynicism in the community regarding the link between politics and organised crime, which I believe is in most cases unfounded , we must have an independent authority. I cite as an analogy the Australian Federal Police. The Federal Police does not require instructions from the Attorney-General. Certainly, the Federal Attorney- General can refer an investigation to the Federal Police but if the Federal Police detects or suspects a criminal activity it investigates. That is the way it ought to be. There is no suggestion that it is riding roughshod over State rights or civil liberties. The Federal Police can also handle a matter which a State government invites it to handle. If a State government does not believe that its police force is equipped or able to investigate a matter it can refer the matter to the Federal Police. Using that analogy, the Government should set up the Crime Authority in the same fashion as the Federal Police. If the Government does that it will not be taking away from the Authority any of its effectiveness and it will not alter the fact that the Federal Attorney-General or State police Ministers can refer matters to the Authority. It could simply be structured in the same form as the Federal Police. The Government has never made any objection to the character and setup of the Federal Police. It has never said that there is a weakness in the way in which it operates. For that reason, I fail to see how the Government could criticise the setting up of the Authority in the same fashion as the Federal Police is set up. By that I mean that I fail to see how the Government can criticise the referral of the power to investigate which I suggest the Authority ought to have , because it already resides within the Federal Police. If the Government told a police commissioner that he could investigate a crime only if it was referred to him by the Federal Attorney-General or one of the State Attorneys-General, he would say: 'I cannot do my job. I must be able to investigate matters completely independent of instructions from Attorneys-General'. I agree with that. I totally support it. In the same fashion, I believe that the National Crime Authority ought to be independent of political direction. Before leaving that matter, I ask: What will happen if someone wishes to volunteer information to the National Crime Authority? It would have to get permission from the Attorney-General to follow through that investigation. There is provision in the legislation for the Authority to seek approval from the Attorney-General to conduct an investigation. But, again, this takes time and in the meantime, to use cops and robbers talk, the trail could have gone cold. Again, that is an unnecessary and, unless the Minister can enlighten us, almost illogical restraining of the Authority's effectiveness. In conclusion, I simply say to this House and to the people of Australia that I believe the Government has betrayed the public's expectations. There is a demand , almost a plea, following the terrible revelations of successions of royal commissions, that government acts strongly. I do not believe, given the matters to which I have previously addressed myself, that the National Crime Authority will be sufficiently powerful, sufficiently independent or sufficiently effective to carry out the duties which we would expect it to carry out and which the people of Australia beg it to carry out. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(6.14) —in reply-Today's debate has indicated that, with some reservations from various people, honourable members opposite agree that the legislation is reasonably acceptable. Nobody has pretended that the National Crime Authority Bill is perfect. A few specific exceptions caused the Opposition concern and they have been raised. Two such matters were raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Both honourable members also raised two other matters separately. One thing that should be indicated is that there have been some more general contributions to the debate from honourable members such as the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) indicated, that contribution was appreciated by the Government. There was some content in what the honourable member for Bass had to say. The first of the matters raised by both the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Gippsland related to the question of the effectiveness of investigations, particularly the coercive power, and the reference to the Inter-Governmental Committee. That and the other matter raised by both honourable members related to the type of criminal conduct involved and the definition of 'relevant offence'. In respect of the first matter-the Authority acting on its own volition-the point at issue was really whether the Authority should require a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee, the IGC, before being able to exercise coercive powers; that is, the powers to go to the stage of being able to summon witnesses and documents. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended that there should be a more explicit distinction between the ordinary power of the Authority and special powers involving coercion. The Government accepted this and the Opposition rejected it. The Government's attitude was stated clearly by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate. That was that the coercive powers should be available only in the context of a shaped up reference which had been explicitly made on the subject of decisions and with endorsement by the IGC. Also, the Authority needs, in the view of the Government, to concentrate on organised crime and on matters referred to it by governments. If not limited it might trespass into the problems of police forces and that could, in our view, result in costly duplication. The Authority will be able under the provisions of this legislation to operate at ordinary level without a reference. It will be able to summon government departments to produce documents but otherwise it will, as indicated, lack coercive powers in those circumstances. The second matter to which the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Gippsland adverted-the honourable member for North Sydney gave an analysis of the legislation on which he spent some time and into which he had obviously put some effort-was the question of the relevant offence. This definition, which determines the jurisdiction of the Authority, was amended in the course of the debate in the other place. Dissatisfaction was indicated with the ultimate form of the definition on the basis that it was too rigid and that the offences listed in paragraph (d) should be illustrative rather than specific requirements. Another criticism was that there should be no reference to a minimum term of imprisonment in paragraph (g). The other criticism made by the honourable member for North Sydney was that there should be no exclusion for offences committed in the course of an industrial dispute. I will deal with that in a moment. The Government's attitude to those matters is that the redrafting of the definition of 'relevant offence' and the insertion of clause 4(2) would give the Authority what we would describe as sufficient elbow room. Clause 4(2) gives the Authority a window; that is, it could commence looking into a general criminal activity which on the surface revealed an offence such as, for example, SP bookmaking, which was one of the examples given by the honourable member for Gippsland. If the Authority revealed an offence such as SP bookmaking, provided it had a suspicion that a more serious offence, which did not have to be identified initially, lay underneath-for example, that through that SP operation the laundering of drug money was taking place-the Authority would be able to undertake that investigation. In relation to that matter honourable members should first look quite clearly at clause 4(2). It enables the Authority to examine a criminal activity that, on the surface, does not involve a relevant offence. However, if one looks a bit further it may and the Authority is then in a position, if there is a suspicion of a more serious offence being involved, to examine that activity. The industrial disputes exclusion in paragraph (e) of clause 4(1) is modified considerably by looking at the words from 'commencing' down to 'committed'. It is certainly the intention of that limitation that if an offence is committed concurrently with, or even in some way related to, an industrial dispute, but not in the course of the industrial dispute-this is a narrow description and I think it indicates a difficulty that may not have been picked up-the 'unless' provision will make that exclusion inoperative. I think it is probably worth while giving an example of my view and the Government's view of that section. An example is this: If there were an assault in the course of a picket line incident, coupled with an offer to take a bribe to withhold industrial action, because the offer would not arise in the course of the dispute the exclusion would not operate. That may or may not overcome some of the concerns that have been expressed by, particularly, the honourable member for North Sydney. The other matter that the honourable member for North Sydney had some concern about was the restriction on interviewing. That again is a matter which was debated at some length in the Senate. Arising from the concern of State Ministers that the staff of the Authority should not become or be seen by the public as a ninth police force-I think that was how the Special Minister of State referred to it-nor exercise a police role at street level, restrictions were placed in the Bill on the ability of staff, other than police forces, to interview persons. These restrictions were amended during the debate and clause 12(4) now limits the power of staff of the Authority, other than police officers , to interview persons suspected of having committed offences to circumstances where a summons has been served on the person but otherwise does not interfere with the power of staff to interview persons. The amended provision was criticised by the Opposition on the grounds of uncertainty. For example, there could be uncertainty whether, at a particular point in time, the member suspected a particular person. It must be admitted that the Attorney-General said that he had some reservations as to the provision and he undertook to keep that matter under review. The matter was raised in the Senate and the Attorney- General indicated that at this stage he had some reservations and would keep it under review. I will deal quickly with the allegations made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) during the debate. He alleged that I had misled the House on Tuesday, 5 June when a matter of public importance proposed by him was debated. I think this issue indicates that there is some difficulty, certainly in the honourable member for Boothby's mind, in understanding what some of this Bill is about. The honourable member for Boothby referred to this statement by me: The amendments make it perfectly clear that the failure by one State to join in a reference to the Authority does not affect that reference except in relation to offences against the laws of that State. There is nothing to prevent the Authority from investigating Commonwealth offences such as drug importation within any State. It is, therefore, not true to suggest that that will stop the investigation of drug importation within any State. It is about time the honourable member understood that position. That statement of mine appeared on page 2891 of Hansard on 5 June. As the honourable member for Boothby should be aware, the State veto has now been removed from the legislation but that was not the position when I made the statement referred to. What I said on 5 June was correct; that is, the failure of one State to join in a reference to the Authority did not affect the reference except in relation to offences against the law of that State. There was nothing to prevent the Authority from investigating Commonwealth offences, for example drug importation, within any State simply because one State failed to join in the reference. At that time, when the State veto still applied-that was on 5 June-the requirement was that the Authority could investigate Commonwealth offences in any State provided it had the approval of the majority of the Inter-Governmental Committee. Therefore an objection by one of the six States could not prevent the investigation by the Authority of a Commonwealth offence. One out of six, even on the calculation of the honourable member for Boothby, would not be a majority. It is unfortunate that he prefers to make the unfounded allegation of the Parliament being misled rather than attempting to understand the correct position. One other matter which has been raised apart from the paranoia about the New South Wales Government, which seems to obsess those opposite, and which cropped up continually, is the question of the delay. I think that in fairness to the Attorney-General it ought to be indicated that there was a very difficult situation in relation to the consultation that was needed to get this Bill before us today. The Attorney-General ought to be complimented, rather than criticised, in relation to that. In April 1983 the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State announced the Government review of the National Crimes Commission Bill. In June it announced the publication of a Green Paper. On 28 and 29 July the National Crimes Commission Conference was held in the Senate chamber. There were meetings of Commonwealth and State officials on 4, 18 and 19 August to further redefine the model for the Authority. In September 1983 a joint meeting of Attorneys-General and police Ministers was held to discuss the model. On 25 October 1983 the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State advised their State counterparts of the Commonwealth draft Bill and forwarded copies. In November 1983 the Attorney-General telexed State and Northern Territory Attorneys advising the introduction of the Bill on 10 November 1983. It was introduced into the Senate. On 17 November it was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. On 23 January 1984 there was a joint submission to the Standing Committee by the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State. In February 1984 the Attorney-General and Special Minister of State appeared before the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee 's report was tabled on 1 May. A joint ministerial statement by the Attorney- General and police Ministers was made on 4 May. On 10 May the Attorney-General made a statement on the Government's response. A summary list was incorporated in the Senate Hansard and draft amendments were circulated. On 11 May a copy of the draft amendments was sent to all States and the Northern Territory. I think that those details ought to be spelt out pretty clearly. Criticism is totally unjustified. I think it ought to be put on the record that the Attorney- General had a difficulty. It was said here today-I do not want to reopen the matter-that people are very conscious of State rights when they want to be, and sometimes when they do not want to be they are not. But the fact is that in this instance it would have been impossible for the Authority to work properly without co-operation from the States. If honourable members went through what the Attorney-General had been through to bring about that co-operation they would acknowledge that he ought to be commended rather than criticised. As honourable members are aware, there was a fair amount of difficulty in getting this Bill into the House today. The Special Minister of State has already indicated that he was appreciative of the way in which the Opposition allowed the matter to proceed today. However, I think there are people involved in this Parliament and outside it who ought to be mentioned. They assisted in getting a very complex Bill to us today from the Senate where it was debated last night. I mention particularly Mr Wharton; the Clerk of the Senate and his staff; Mr Andrew Menzies and Mr Doug Hassell of the Attorney-General's Department; Mr Warren McCann of the Department of the Special Minister of State- I have probably left out somebody-and all the other people who were associated with it. In addition to the Attorney-General I mention my colleague the Special Minister of State for whom this matter has also been a considerable problem. A lot of work had to go into the Bill to bring it into this Parliament today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.02) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 3, lines 34-44, and page 4, lines 1-18, omit the definition of 'relevant offence', substitute the following definition: '' 'relevant offence' means an offence- (a) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, 2 or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; (b) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; and (c) that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes such offences that involve theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, or bribery or corruption of or by an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory, or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing;''. (2) Clause 4, page 4, lines 19 and 20, omit the definition of ''special investigation''. (3) Clause 11, page 9, lines 7-44, and page 10, lines 1-3, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Functions of Authority ''11. The functions of the Authority are- (a) to investigate, of its own motion, relevant criminal activities insofar as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory; (b) where a reference to the Authority made under section 13 is in force in respect of a matter relating to relevant criminal activity-to investigate the matter insofar as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory; (c) where a reference to the Authority made in accordance with section 14 by a Minister of the Crown of a State is in force in respect of a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity-subject to sub-section 14 (1), to investigate the matter insofar as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the State; (d) to collect and analyse criminal information and intelligence relating to relevant criminal activities and disseminate that information and intelligence to- (i) law enforcement agencies; and (ii) any person authorized by the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, a Minister of State of the Commonwealth or a Minister of the Crown of a State to hold an inquiry to which the information or intelligence is relevant; (e) where the Authority considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of investigating matters relating to relevant criminal activities- (i) to arrange for the establishment of Commonwealth Task Forces; (ii) to seek the establishment by a State, or the joint establishment by 2 or more States, of State Task Forces; and (f) to co-ordinate investigations by Commonwealth Task Force, and, with the concurrence of the States concerned, to co-ordinate investigations by State Task Forces and by Joint Commonwealth and State Task Forces, being investigations into matters relating to relevant criminal activities, but not so as to preclude the making of separate bilateral or multilateral arrangements between such Task Forces.''. (4) Clause 12, page 10, lines 6 and 7, omit ''paragraph 11 (1) (b) and in sub- section 11 (2)'', substitute ''paragraphs 11 (a), (b) and (c)''. (5) Clause 12, page 10, line 14, omit ''paragraph 11 (1) (d)'', substitute '' paragraph 11 (f)''. (6) Clause 18, page 13, line 25, omit ''paragraph 11 (2) (b)'', substitute '' paragraph 11 (c)''. (7) Clause 19, page 13, lines 38 and 39, omit ''general functions or of its special''. (8) Clause 20, page 14, line 11, omit ''a prescribed investigation'', substitute ''an investigation''. (9) Clause 20, page 14, line 20, omit ''a prescribed investigation'', substitute ''an investigation''. (10) Clause 20, page 14, after the definition of ''agency'', insert the following definition: '' 'investigation' means an investigation that the Authority, in the performance of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs 11 (a), (b), (c) and (f) is conducting or co-ordinating;''. (11) Clause 20, page 15, lines 2-5, omit the definition of ''prescribed investigation''. (12) Clause 22, pages 15 and 16, omit ''special investigation'' (wherever occurring), substitute ''an investigation under this Act''. (13) Clause 25, page 20, omit ''special investigation'' (wherever occurring), substitute ''an investigation''. (14) Clause 28, page 22, lines 29 and 30, omit ''by which'', substitute ''if''. (15) Clause 28, pages 22 and 23, omit ''special investigation'' (wherever occurring), substitute ''an investigation''. (16) Clause 29, page 23, omit ''special investigation'' (wherever occurring), substitute ''an investigation''. The Opposition proposes two substantial amendments and other consequential amendments to the National Crime Authority Bill which is before the Committee. The first of those amendments relates to the definition of the term 'relevant offence'. The Bill, it will be recalled, contains a clause which states the terms of 'relevant offence', in what the Opposition says are somewhat narrow terms, and which has the effect of imposing the need to look at the various elements and to add up those elements for the purposes of determining whether or not there has been or there is a relevant offence that may be inquired into. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in his reply to the second reading of the Bill, drew attention to the provisions of clause 4 (2). Clause 4 (2) has the effect, in certain circumstances, I acknowledge, of widening the effect of the definition of relevant offence, but if one goes back to that definition one sees that 'relevant offence' means an offence which has four elements. The first is two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation. The second is involvement: . . . of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques. I place some emphasis upon 'sophisticated methods and techniques'. The third is that it should involve: . . . theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, bribery or corruption of, or by, an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory, bankruptcy and company violations, harbouring of criminals, forging of passports, armament dealings or illegal exportation or importation of fauna into or out of Australia , or that involves matter of the same general . . . kind. One sees that the intent is to seek to define with relative precision the content of the offences which are to be examinable under the Bill. It then goes on to exclude certain matters. It excludes certain industrial disputes. As well it excludes: . . . an offence that is not punishable by imprisonment or is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than 3 years. I did point out in passing in my reply to the second reading speech that there are problems when we seek to define the kind of offence that the National Crime Authority is to be concerned with. They are real problems. I do not suggest that there is only one way to go about the establishment of an authority, or that there is only one way to go about determining what kinds of matters the Authority should look at. But we do say, and say very strongly, that what is proposed is far too narrow. I will just take one of the elements. If the matter that is to be examined does not involve an offence that is punishable by three years or more of imprisonment, that matter is not examinable by the Authority. There is a proviso to this which the Minister has pointed out, and that is to be found in sub-clause (2), which I believe was included as a result of an amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. But the real effect of sub-clause ( 2) is this: It depends on the Authority having a suspicion that a less important matter is connected with one of the matters which is included within the definition of relevant offence. The difficulty about that is that one is therefore dependent entirely on that suspicion being harboured by the National Crime Authority. If it is not, one is driven back to the rather narrow definition of a relevant offence. As I put it before: What of prostitution? What of illegal gambling? What of soft drug distribution? These matters, on the face of it, are not caught and we think that it is very much better that there should be a wide categorisation or a wide statement of the offences which does not seek to impose on the Authority an exclusive statement of what it can or cannot examine. I said then-the point has been made by others on my side of the House-that there are opportunities for those who would be appearing for or advising people who are to be examined, investigated and interrogated under the Bill, to raise the question that what is put is outside the terms of reference. Anyone who has the slightest experience of company investigations knows that if the terms of reference are narrowly stated, certain questions that may be put will be challenged as being outside those terms of reference. What then happens, as I said, is that one has a right of appeal to the Authority. If that appeal is not upheld one can go to the Federal Court of Australia. That has been done in a quite different case. I say nothing about the merits of it. But we understand from newspaper reports that counsel for Mr Jackson will contend that certain of the questions which are being put to him, certain of the lines of inquiry, are beyond Mr Justice Slattery's terms of reference. What does that mean? It means that an application is to be made to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not certain matters are within or outside the parameters of the terms of reference. No doubt if the Supreme Court determines that they are within the terms of reference, a further appeal is possible. What we must seek to avoid is inflexibility in the administration of the National Crime Authority, inflexibility in the investigative procedures which may be engaged in and the minimum possibility for legal contention as to what the Authority can or cannot do. We do not for a moment say that the Authority should have a blank cheque to investigate any matter that occurs to it, but we do say that the definition should be very much wider than it is. We therefore propose that a relevant offence should be stated in the terms of the amendments which have been circulated to mean certain kinds of offences, but to make it perfectly plain that those offences do not limit the terms of reference of the Authority and the kinds of inquiry that it can make. At this stage I will confine myself simply to that proposition. We believe that there should be a very much wider ambit for the Authority. So far as the position of trade unions are concerned, we point out that the Minister's explanation is, we think, quite misconceived because effectively trade union disputes are excluded and the exclusion operates unless it can be said that the matter which has arisen in the course of a trade union dispute in an industrial context is connected with another offence which would be a relevant offence. There is no reason why that connection should, in fact, exist. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.13) —The Opposition has moved a number of amendments to the legislation. In Committee we are looking at the precise details of those amendments. I wish to take up the point expressed by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in regard to some of the qualifying clauses that apply to clause 4, in particular the riders that prevent the National Crime Authority from examining offences committed in the course of a genuine dispute. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has sought to cover this situation by saying that sub-clause (2) of clause 4 allows the Authority, if it is concerned, to investigate areas if there is no prior offence. We say from this side of the House that we do not regard sub-clause (2) as a sufficient overriding of the qualifications already applied by the Minister to the role of the Authority. I remind the House that we must not forget that the investigation of Mr Costigan started with union affairs. The Authority started investigating not a genuine dispute, but the relationship between employers and employees. The tip of the iceberg on which Costigan touched and which led to a massive and widespread investigation of criminal matters and organised crime portrayed for the whole Australian community that to be able to look into the affairs of a union was of significance, particularly a union of the type that he was investigating. It would seem to me that there are a lot of opportunities within the industrial relations area in Australia for criminal or organised crime to conduct itself both within the union movement and in the relationships between employers and employees. One would be aware of the disputes in the building industry in New South Wales in the early 1970s. It was commonly known that money changed hands to have sites stopped. Competitors were paying into union funds to see that their competing company's job did not proceed. One can only speculate whether there were other matters attached to those activities, but it is interesting that some of the names from those days have been mentioned in reports. Some of those names are names of union officials, employees and proprietors of some of the companies that were involved in those days. How much strength there is in the mention of those names I will not pursue. But to exclude in this one area the prospect for investigation is, I think, shortsighted. The Opposition seeks to overcome that problem. The exclusion of investigations into matters which have expired through lapse of time and in which there cannot be further prosecutions I think is also a shortcoming. Let us not forget that the House of Representatives has had this Bill in its final form for a few short hours. We heard the Minister thanking people for being so good as to rush it into this place and through this place. I do not agree with those comments. A piece of legislation such as this needs more careful attention. The Senate made a number of amendments to the Bill. Nobody has read the Bill afresh or with a new eye and fresh thoughts after the benefit of rest and further speculation and examination of matters attendant on the Bill . We have not done that. Nobody has done that. Nobody can really assess what the Senate's amendments are or how they interlock. That is a very serious matter. However, I come to the investigation of Mr Costigan and the way in which, with the benefit of hindsight, he had the opportunity to show up the many years of activity within the union and the many years of activity within other organisations, including the Department of the Attorney-General. I do not know whether the offences that were identified by Costigan, some of which have been brought before the courts and others which have not, have expired through the passage of time and whether there were individuals with criminal records who had committed offences which had expired over a short period. I do not think that that restriction is good enough. I am not naturally of a suspicious nature. I see no real value in having that matter there. Why does the Government wish to exclude from examination an offence 'the time for the commencement of a prosecution for which has expired', to use the words of the Bill? Why does the Government wish to do that with criminal matter? There is no good reason for it. These matters have since moved into bigger matters or have been added to by a different group or different criminal interests. Why should that be excluded? I believe it is an unnecessary exclusion. I do not believe, despite the Minister's lengthy and involved explanation earlier in the evening, that sub-clause (2) allows the Authority to look into those matters. That is an exclusion that I find objectionable. I completely endorse the Opposition's proposals in regard to clause 11 to allow a further expansion of the functions of the Authority. The Opposition has circulated extensive and comprehensive amendments about which we feel strongly. We feel that they are fair and proper. But the Government has chosen not to accept them. That is a great shame. It is a great shame because the Opposition has sought, by these amendments, to ensure that the regular reporting process, the keeping of the Minister informed as to the affairs of the Authority, is something that must be approached with a great deal of caution. A Minister being informed by an authority in these circumstances has the right at any time, because of his knowledge, to redirect an inquiry, to have a fresh inquiry opened and to have State Ministers called together. I think the Government has to be beyond question in these matters. The Government is not beyond question. The way in which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has conducted himself since he has been a Minister is a matter of grave concern. He rushes in hot-headed to reform. He makes big statements about the reforms that he is going to carry out and then comes forward with a half-baked proposition that the Senate has to spend hours trying to rectify. This legislation is no exception. We are now trying to rectify, after the Senate, the propositions of a hot-headed , reforming Attorney-General who is impractical in his approaches to the real world. This legislation has finished up in this chamber. Honourable members have been given a few hours to discuss it and have had no opportunity to address themselves properly to the changes and the total parameters of what has been put before them. The role of the Minister in this regard is a matter that the Opposition has sought to change and modify in a sensible and moderate way, but in a way that strengthens the role of the Authority in clause 11. The only other matter that concerns me is the safeguarding of the professional integrity of those appearing before the Authority. I suppose that if this chamber had not heard of the affairs of Mr Morgan Ryan and his contacts, that would not worry me. But Mr Morgan Ryan's association with criminal elements in New South Wales is widely known in that State. It would worry me greatly if some criminal chose to nominate an individual such as that as his representative before the Authority and to pass all his information through someone of that sort. It would be really distressing to find that his knowledge of his clients, their contacts, the network of their operations and the way in which he may have assisted them to promote their cause, was not a matter that could be questioned by the Authority. The Opposition is concerned in all these areas. The Opposition has proposed many amendments but these two are the most significant. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.23) —I wish to make it quite clear that the amendments which we have moved-I refer to the substantial amendments, not the consequential amendments-are aimed at widening the powers of the National Crime Authority, both in respect of the definition of 'relevant offence' and in respect of the powers which may be exercised by the Authority to investigate, of its own motion, matters which it thinks should be investigated. We do not believe that there is any reason why any matter which concerns a breach or suspected breach of the Commonwealth laws should be referred to the States for consultation. This is not a matter for any consideration of the States' rights argument. It is really the purest nonsense to say that there is some division of view on this side of the chamber when it comes to States' rights in certain areas but not in this area. We are dealing with the question of the prosecution, the enforcement, of Commonwealth laws. It is perfectly competent for the Commonwealth police to investigate Commonwealth laws or breaches of Commonwealth laws. The Commonwealth police are not asked to go and seek the advice of anyone else if they wish to investigate breaches or supposed breaches of Commonwealth laws. It is the merest nonsense that an Act emanating from this Parliament should impose on the Authority the obligation that, where it is thought by the Minister that there are matters that should be investigated relating to breaches or supposed breaches of the Commonwealth laws, he should then have to consult. I said earlier, and repeat, that the more people who know, the more likely there are to be leaks. I do not attribute ill motives to State counterparts, but anyone who lives in this country knows that things happen in some States that we do not very much like. People become involved in transactions, or appear to become involved in transactions, which are, to say the least, disturbing. The wider the consultative process, the greater the number of people who will know that a particular investigation has been authorised. That applies not only to the members of the intergovernmental committee, but to their support staff, as must be the case; the people who prepare the briefs, as must be the case; and the people who type out the briefs, as must be the case. We all know that since the advent of the photocopier it is very hard to keep a secret. Therefore, we propose in our amendment to clause 11 that insofar as matters arise which are Commonwealth matters or Territory matters it should be entirely a matter for the Authority itself and that it should of its own motion be able to investigate relevant criminal activities which are, or may be, an offence or offences against the law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. No argument has been advanced to controvert that proposition. Let us examine it in terms of principle. Why should there be any restrictions on the commonwealth? There are no restrictions on the Commonwealth police. Why should there be any restriction on the Authority? We are setting up the Authority by an Act of this Parliament. Is it not competent for us to say that the Authority of its own motion should have the powers to investigate matters falling within the Commonwealth criminal law or territory criminal law that it thinks should be investigated? Why should it consult with the States? Is there any principal reason why it should consult with the States? As I have said, one would never suggest that the Commonwealth police force should in any regard consult with the States when it came to investigation of a breach of the Commonwealth law. One may seek their co-operation for various reasons, but that does not arise here. I add one comment which I pick up from the Minister's second reading speech. He said that each State and the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth will be able to be represented on this Committee and that this would give the States a clear window into its operations. One may in principle have no objection to windows into operations, but how wide will the window be, and for what purpose will that window be used? I would ask the Government to look again at this amendment to clause 11 which in effect provides an opportunity, and gives the power to the Authority of its own motion, to investigate matters falling within the Commonwealth or territory criminal law. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.29) —The matters raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) were dealt with to some extent in the second reading debate , and I do not want to go over the whole of that ground again. However, there are a couple of matters which have been raised by both members to which a response should be made. The first was the amendment in relation to relevant offence where it was indicated by both honourable members that the terms were too narrow. They both conceded that I had drawn attention in the second reading speech to clause 4 (2) which has the effect, as was acknowledged by the honourable member for North Sydney, of widening the definition. However, the honourable member for Mitchell was concerned about one matter particularly, and that was paragraph (f) which, in regard to one of the exclusions, states: (f) does not include an offence the time for the commencement of a prosecution for which has expired; Paragraph (g) states: (g) does not include an offence that is not punishable by imprisonment or is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than three years; In particular, the honourable member drew attention to the time limitation. It is really a question of using the best resources of this Authority. Because of the amount of work that it will have to do, the question of the statute of limitations applying in civil actions, and the fact that in criminal matters, such as the ones that this Authority will be examining, it does seem to the Government that there would be a considerable waste of time in the Authority going back too far. Unfortunately, the one thing that seems to be agreed upon by both sides of the chamber is that this Authority will have plenty to do in cleaning up the problems in Australia when one looks at organised crime and, particularly, the explosion of it in recent years. It is only on that basis that we consider that the time of the Authority will be better used by looking at more current matters. The other point, of course, is that a lot of time can be wasted in attempting to collect evidence, in going back too far. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), in the second reading debate, mentioned that the trail can grow cold. This is a completely new concept in Australia. It may be that at some stage in the future that aspect must be looked at. Mr Cadman —I feel the Authority should decide that. Mr DUFFY —I take account of what the honourable member for Mitchell has said. It was put forward on the basis of genuine concern. But at this stage it is not a matter to which the Government would accede. The other point that the honourable member for Mitchell raised concerned the issue of the industrial dispute. It was also raised by the honourable member for North Sydney. As I indicated in my second reading speech, there is, of course, an exclusion there. But nevertheless as I indicated then, if an offence is committed concurrently with or even in some way related to an industrial dispute, but not in the course of the industrial dispute-which is, of course, a narrow description-the 'unless' provision will make that exclusion inoperative. An interesting point about that, particularly in relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Mitchell, is simply that the inquiry which has ranged over the past couple of years-the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-is a good example of what I was trying to put in the second reading debate. The tax evasion activities of the members of the Painters and Dockers Union, or their connection with tax evasion, would not, of course, be in any way related to an industrial dispute. Therefore, that clause would not have in any way inhibited the inquiry which took place under the Costigan Commission. That point relates, of course, to the concern expressed by the Opposition that it does not consider the relevant offence definition to be wide enough. Again, I can only repeat what I said earlier. The definition of relevant offence is the key definition because it determines the jurisdiction of the Authority and was significantly amended in the Senate. The Opposition in the Senate professed continued dissatisfaction with the form of the definition on the basis that it was too rigid. That argument has been repeated in the second reading debate in this House and again now in the Committee stage. It was argued that the offences listed in that paragraph should be illustrative rather than specific, and that there should be no reference to the minimum term of imprisonment. The point was also raised here tonight that there should be no exclusion for offences committed in the course of an industrial dispute. The additional matter which the honourable member for Mitchell raised was that the limitation in paragraph (f) does not include an offence, the time for commencement of prosecution of which has expired. As I indicated earlier, the Government's attitude is that given the redrafting of that definition, as indicated by the honourable member for North Sydney, to which I referred in the second reading debate, the Authority has adequate room to manoeuvre in relation to the definition in sub-clause (2). We talked about that window provision that in fact allows the Authority to look at other matters. The Authority could commence looking into a general criminal activity which, on the surface, revealed an offence which in itself was not spectacularly horrendous provided it had a suspicion that a more serious offence which did not have to be identified initially had been committed. I gave the example of the laundering of drug money through starting price bookmaking operations. There is nothing then to prevent the Authority from going on with that investigation. In relation to this matter, I think the honourable member for Mitchell used the example of SP betting. I think it would be conceded by everyone that the role of SP bookmaking today is very different from that of 10 or 15 years ago, or even a bit less. In those days SP bookmaking might have been conducted in a fairly small way in the local pub, the barber shop or up a back lane. The State police, of course, had control over that offence. Prosecutions in relation to that sort of activity should have been the province and should remain the province of the State police. But tragically, as we all admit, the operation of SP bookmaking is very different now. The same thing probably applies to prostitution. Of course, SP bookmaking is a method which, it appears, is used extensively to launder money gained from other outrageous criminal activity such as the drug trade. To some degree, a lot of that drug money is also used in sophisticated prostitution operations. The point to be made is that if it is only a small time, or to put in more in context, an old time SP operator, we probably would not want an Authority of this enormous significance looking at it. But if the Authority has a suspicion that the SP operation is being used, as it is in so many cases, for a bigger operation, as today, unfortunately, it would be in the vast majority of cases, the Authority can investigate it. I would have thought that we would not want an Authority of that significance, and one which has taken a long time to come to fruition in the sense that a tremendous amount of consultation was required, looking at some small time SP operator operating from the local pub. If, however, the Authority had any suspicion that that was not what was going on and that the SP operation which was being examined had a much wider context in the areas mentioned by the honourable member for Mitchell-I concede that that is where it would be in the vast majority of cases-then the Authority could go on and investigate it. I come to the point that the powers of the Authority are not wide enough. Despite the rhetoric in this place from time to time, the question of action against organised crime has attracted bipartisan support, as has the fact that there is a big job to be done by the Authority. In our view, it needs to concentrate on organised crime in the real sense, and not the sort of petty crime about which we were talking earlier. If the Authority were not limited in this way, it is the Government's view that the province of the police force could well be duplicated and intruded upon by the Authority. That would have two effects. Firstly, the State police ought to be able to conduct their affairs themselves in the matters not within the province of the Authority; also, it would cause costly duplication. In any event, we always have the other point that we do not need a reference at the first level. The Authority can act on its own volition. But the restriction there, which has been pointed out, is that the special powers are not available. On the matter of the States, the honourable member for North Sydney referred to the second reading speech, in which it was indicated that satisfactory arrangements have now been made for participation by the States and the Northern Territory. The speech stated: The National Crime Authority will consist of a Chairman, and two other members selected respectively by the unanimous decision of the Attorneys-General and Police Ministers of the Commonwealth and participating States. The honourable member then referred critically to the fact that each State and the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth would be represented and would have a clear window into the Authority's operations. Certain rhetoric occurs in this place from time to time, but I think it is probably true that it is not a question of States' rights and federalism or centralism; but it is the Government's view that unless that arrangement is in place and the States are involved in that way, this Authority will not work as well as it should work with the States being involved in that way. There may be some confusion about that. I think that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was confused about it; I do not know whether other honourable members opposite are confused. I refer again to what I said about it previously. The interference of the States, which seems to be the inference of what has been put, is not something which ought to be dwelt upon in looking at this legislation, because it is clear that the States' involvement is required for the Authority to work. It is pretty reasonable to say that parties on both sides want the Authority to work. However, we are prepared to concede-I think that honourable members on the Government side have said this-that the Bill is not exactly as we wanted it. However, in the opening of the debate, I think that the honourable member for North Sydney said that it was better than nothing. That is right. To get the Authority up and going is certainly a big step forward . Many of the matters that have been put to us may have to be reconsidered in the future; but at this stage, on the basis of the second reading speech and what has been said tonight, the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. We all make mistakes from time to time, and I am very pleased that the amendment in relation to clause 56 which was circulated has been withdrawn. I was at a loss to understand what I would have said about that. I had no doubt that there was something wrong there, and that is why I mentioned it to the honourable member for North Sydney. Obviously, honourable members opposite would want that continuity in the handing over of the Costigan material to the Authority. I am pleased that that was an error. On that basis, I say on behalf of the Government that following the contributions made not only in the second reading debate but more particularly tonight in Committee we take account of what has been said. It was, in the time available, a thoughtful analysis of the Bill. We appreciate that, and that the matters put forward were matters of genuine concern. Maybe at some time in the future it will be necessary to look at some of these matters again but at this stage the amendments are not acceptable. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Morrison, W. L.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.Katter, R. C. Chynoweth, R. L.Lusher, S. A. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —I have received the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to- (a) examine the extent to which video tapes and discs containing pornographic, violent, or obscene material are available; (b) examine the extent to which children under the age of 18 years obtain access and are exposed to such material; (c) investigate the effectiveness of legislative controls upon the availability of such material; (d) examine the likely effects upon people of exposure to such material and particularly upon children and emotionally disturbed persons; and (e) examine the extent to which advances in technology might affect consideration of public policy in relation to such material. (2) that the provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings be contained in a subsequent Resolution. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this Resolution. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.58) —I move: That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. In moving this motion I point out that, in addition to what was expressed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) this morning in terms of monitoring developments under the legislation in regard to this matter, the Government is very sympathetic to the proposal now that we have a joint committee to look at these matters. It is not a question of mud-slinging across the chamber. It is very much a concern of every member of this Parliament to make sure that there are proper laws concerning these matters. It is not something, obviously, that we can deal with at the moment. But I suggest to honourable members opposite, and I do not make the commitment lightly, that the matter will be looked at very seriously by the Government. I am very sympathetic to the proposal that we have members of the Parliament sitting together. It seems to me that on occasions like this, and on matters like this, sometimes committees can be far more sensible than the Parliament itself. The matter will be treated with some urgency by the Government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.59) —We welcome what has been said by the Leader of the House. As I understand him, he indicated that not only will this be given urgent and sympathetic consideration but also we can expect that this motion will be brought on early in the business of the next Budget sittings. Mr Young —I give that undertaking. Question resolved in the affirmative. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolution of the House relating to a reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolution of the House relating to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(9.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Copyright Amendment Bill I am introducing today is to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to protect computer software as a literary work and to clarify the nature and scope of that protection. These measures were foreshadowed in a joint Press statement which was issued by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) and me on 15 May 1984. We announced then that the Government had decided that the state of uncertainty regarding the legal protection of computer software should not be allowed to continue beyond the current sittings of Parliament and that legislation was being prepared to clarify the protection of software under the Copyright Act. The Government has decided that the legislation should proceed, notwithstanding the decision of 29 May 1984 by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia relating to copyright protection for computer software. I shall say more about that decision shortly. For the benefit of honourable members I shall outline the background to the need for these amendments and their main features. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Background On 7 December 1983, Mr Justice Beaumont of the Federal Court held in the Apple Computer v. Computer Edge case that certain categories of computer software were not protected as literary works under the Copyright Act. An appeal was lodged against that decision and there was therefore uncertainty regarding the correct legal position. This situation created significant problems for the Australian software industry and on 21 December 1983 it was announced that the Government would undertake such legislative action as was necessary to ensure that software was adequately protected. That decision of the Full Federal Court, to which I have already referred, reversed by a majority of two to one the decision at first instance of Mr Justice Beaumont. On that face of it, therefore, the Full Federal Court has ruled that computer software is subject to the Copyright Act. We have been advised that an appeal to the High Court of Australia has been lodged. The dissenting judgment related to the important issue of whether object code is subject to copyright protection. I should explain that object code is expressed in machine language which will contain the actual bit patterns, binary numbers or codes able to control the operation of the computer when the program is executed. The distinction between source code, which is able to be read out and printed in an ordinary way and read by human beings, and object code should be borne in mind. It is quite different from the distinction between what is visible-that is, paper-and what is computer readable, such as magnetic disk forms of representation. Source code needs to be keyed into the computer before it can be compiled into object code. Conversely, object code can be printed out. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that explanation satisfies you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —It is very satisfactory. Mr BARRY JONES —So object code is machine language which can be read and transmitted from machine to machine but not readily understood by humans. Although the majority decision provides in its terms substantial protection for software, it seems clear that a degree of uncertainty would remain, at least for a time. There was considerable discussion by the Federal Court of the concept of a computer program; however, the Bill will introduce a comprehensive definition. All three judges held that source code-that is programming language and examples of languages such as Assembler, Fortran or Cobol-was protected as an original literary work. However, two of the judges did not decide whether object code was of itself as a literary work, while the third found that it was not so protected . The majority held that object code was protected as an adaptation of source code. The Bill will include computer programs in the category of literary works, whether originally created in source or object form and whether on paper or in a computer readable form. It will expressly treat as adaptations, programs derived by translation from one language to another-for example, by a process of compilation of source code into object code. Other matters included in the Bill not dealt with in the judgments include the removal of the requirement for visible form in respect of tables and compilations in the definition of ' literary work' and certain changes in the definition of 'infringing copy'. The Bill would also introduce two important new provisions-not just new to the House , I might add-firstly, to strengthen the offence provisions of the Act relating to advertising the supply of infringing copies of computer programs and, secondly, to include a presumption that a back-up copy of a program may be made without infringing copyright. The purpose of the Bill I am now introducing is to reduce that uncertainty and to enable the continued development of the software industry against the background of copyright protection provided expressly by the Copyright Act. I should emphasise, however, that this Bill will operate only as a short term measure to enable a comprehensive review to be conducted of the long term policy . Public Consultation The announcement of 21 December 1984 made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Attorney-General and me that the Government would legislate to protect computer software property rights recognised that the decision of Mr Justice Beaumont had broad implications for intellectual and industrial property in Australia. The Attorney-General's Department had already consulted with industry regarding international developments on the legal status of computer software, computerised data banks and computer-created works, and some issues had been raised in the current review of audiovisual copyright laws. Officers had also participated in studies of these matters at the international level. Regarding legislative protection of software, a major issue to be resolved in the long term is whether a copyright style of protection is to be preferred or a form of protection more analogous to patents. International consensus on that issue still seems some way off. It is also necessary to ensure that proposed solutions were consistent with existing copyright, patent and design laws and with Australia's obligations under the relevant international conventions. Government announcements stressed that legislative action would be taken in the short term if necessary. A first step might be amendment of the Copyright Act to confer copyright protection on computer software. Interested parties would be consulted. In early January the Attorney-General's Department wrote to interest groups, including industry and user representatives, inviting them to make submissions on the manner in which the Copyright Act might be amended to provide protection in the short term. To facilitate consideration of the issues a short options paper set out two possible alternatives, namely, inclusion of computer software in the category of copyright literary works or creation of a special new category of copyright computer software. The paper mentioned some of the arguments for and against these options. Almost one hundred organisations and individuals responded and copies of these submissions were made available for public inspection at Patent Office libraries in the capital cities. Further, a National Symposium on Legal Protection of Computer Software was held on 15-16 March 1984 in Canberra to consider both domestic and international policies for Australia and also to cover other computer-related copyright issues , such as the protection to be accorded to works stored in, or created with the aid of, computers. Although intended primarily to promote consideration of long term policy, the Government made it clear that it would take into account the views expressed at the symposium when considering short term measures. The symposium was attended by over 200 persons including computer industry representatives, educators, librarians, academics, lawyers, patent attorneys and representatives of professional societies, consumer groups, the Press and several government departments. Proceedings included statements by industry and user representatives, papers on possible legal solutions and forum discussion led by a panel of experts. Independently of these formal processes, many submissions have been received from interested persons and organisations. These have been carefully considered. Finally, in April, at the invitation of the Government, the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO convened in Canberra a working group to consider technical questions related to the legal protection of computer software. Officers participating in that meeting had the fortunate opportunity to bring themselves fully up to date with technical and legal developments around the world. At a public seminar within that meeting, experts from four leading industrialised countries-Japan, United States of America, Britain and Germany- spoke of developments in their countries. Honourable members will thus appreciate that, notwithstanding the urgency of the situation and the short term nature of the present legislative proposals, there has been extensive consultation with affected interests. The proposals in this Bill take into account the overwhelming majority of these consultations and discussions. The Nature of Copyright The laws relating to intellectual and industrial property-that is, the copyright , patent, trade marks and design laws-have as their purpose the legal protection of creations and inventions from unauthorised use so that the creators and inventors will be able to profit by having for a time certain exclusive rights. This is seen as being in the overall interest of the public as we would not have the benefit of inventions or creations, or the industries upon which they are based, without the incentive of the certain economic return which the legal protection permits. Of course, details of the protection mechanism depend on the subject matter itself and on the legal system within which it is provided. However, most countries have for many decades reached a similar result by one route or another and there is a broad measure of international consensus on intellectual and industrial property laws. The form of intellectual property with which we are concerned here-copyright- has had a legislative basis since the United Kingdom Copyright Act 1709, 8 Ann. C. 19. Unlike patents, which evolved to encourage the publication of novel inventions in return for a broad monopoly for a certain period, copyright was directed towards encouraging creativity by giving a limited monopoly which protected an author's investment of skill and labour against unathorised copying , performance and other specified uses of his work. The monopoly was less absolute than for patents-reflecting the lower standard of originality required- since it did not protect against individual development. In other words it protected not ideas but only their expression in particular forms. Thus, in the particular case of computer software, copyright protection would not prevent third parties independently developing their own software based on a particularly successful idea, such as spreadsheet calculating for financial management. Initially concerned with the rights of printing and publishing books , copyright was soon extended to other literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Further, with technical development of new ways of using works, the basic rights were extended and copyright was also applied to new forms of creation such as sound recordings, films and broadcasts. Past extensions were seen merely as new applications of the established public policy underlying legal protections conferred on the products of intellectual endeavour. That extension may not have been needed initially because copyright was a generic right but, sooner or later, in each case legislative provisions specifically directed to the new technology were necessary. Balancing of Interests Of course, this policy has always been tempered by a balancing consideration- that there was little point in encouraging creativity if its results were not readily available for use. The copyright monopoly might be limited in the public interest. Thus, existing copyright laws contain a variety of exemptions, statutory licences and other mechanisms to ensure availability of protected materials to certain classes of user. In practice, the relative economic importance of the different rights comprising a copyright depends very much on the nature of the protected material and on the technology available for its exploitation. Thus, in achieving an optimum balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright materials, it is necessary to have regard to technological factors. This is the reason for the Attorney-General's Department' s review of audiovisual copyright laws which was initiated because it appeared that the 1968 legislation was no longer adequate to meet new technological uses of copyright materials. Of course, such a review involving extensive consultation requires a substantial period of time. While appropriate where fine tuning is required, this may not be appropriate where protection of an entire industry such as the computer software industry may be at stake. The Importance of Computer Software in Australia We are all aware of the rapidity with which computer technology has spread. First used for complex research projects, computers rapidly found applications in commerce and government and are now entering the education, entertainment and domestic spheres. The availability of software well suited to the requirements of organisations or individuals is critical to the efficient functioning of their computer systems. It follows that the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian industry and commerce are in part dependent upon the availability of appropriate computer systems. Australia can best ensure this by fostering a strong capability for systems development. This capability needs to be able effectively to integrate locally developed, as well as imported, hardware and software to provide systems best suited to our requirements and which have the potential to be marketed overseas. A strong local software industry is an integral part of this capability. We are fortunate to have such an industry. Indeed the Australian computer software industry is internationally competitive and there are a growing number of organisations in this country-more than 900 at last count; they are spawning like the amoeba-whose main activities are software research and development. The industry is important in its own right and is capable of making a valuable contribution to the Government's industrial development objectives and, of course, notoriously is one of the sunrise industries. Need for Protection From the consultations it was clear that the absence of legal protection and continued uncertainty as to the state of the law would jeopardise the local software industry and that it was urgently necessary for there to be some legal protection. Computer software is, of its nature, at once expensive and time consuming to develop, but cheap and easy to replicate exactly. This is the situation copyright protection is designed to meet and it was not surprising that most computer interests urged immediate copyright protection. A large number of submissions was also received from educational and research interests. These largely acknowledged that some protection of software is necessary, both as a matter of justice and to ensure its continued creation. However, those interests wanted to participate in consultations to determine appropriate provision to facilitate education and research. Teachers were also anxious that provision be made for the use of electronic means of storing, retrieving and transmitting copyright works for educational purposes. There were also submissions, particularly from consumer groups, which argued that there should be no legislative protection for computer software. As the Attorney-General said when opening the National Symposium, the onus lay heavily upon those so contending to demonstrate why software should be treated differently from other technological developments and, indeed, from other forms of intellectual property. The Government has concluded that that onus was not met, at least in relation to the need for short term protection while the long term position is examined. Submission in favour of protection differed as to whether this should be achieved simply by including computer software in the category of literary works or by the definition of a new Copyright subject matter with its own set of exclusive rights. In inviting comment, the Government pointed out that if legislative protection were to be accorded it might be necessary to think in terms both of short term and long term legislative action. It has concluded that what is required is a measure which provides immediate protection, without prejudice to development of the most appropriate long term solution. Short term measures must be capable of rapid and simple implementation. In all the circumstances the Government has decided that the best solution is amendment of the definition of 'literary work' in the Copyright Act to cover computer software, together with clarification of the nature and scope of the protection conferred, having regard to the distinctive nature of software. To have created a new category of copyright subject matter would be a substantial change in the law which could prejudice the long term consideration of the issue of protection . The adopted solution will preserve what was believed by many to be the status quo before the first Apple decision, namely that software was protected as literary work. Copyright protection will stimulate innovation and further growth of Australia' s software industry and, to the extent that international copyright conventions apply, ensure protection for exported software. Protection also has important consequences for users. There are risks of a withdrawal or limitation on the availability of imported software in the absence of copyright protection. Such a limitation would seriously jeopardise the viability of most local computer manufacturers since many obtain their systems' software under licence from overseas suppliers. The majority of software packages used throughout manufacturing, mining and commerce are imported under licence, and limitations on the availability of such packages would be a major setback to productivity and to modernisation of Australian industries. Although some micro-computer software could be available on a 'pirated' basis, the bulk of systems and applications software packages are not available through this route. Likewise, where pirated systems were obtained in some way, technical support and updating could not be expected from the software authors. So that in itself constitutes a reasonable degree of protection. I refer honourable members to the very helpful explanatory memorandum, which I notice honourable members are poring over at the moment, and I will make some general comments about the legislation. General Comments There are three other matters on which I will briefly comment. It has been asserted that a consequence of having copyright protection for computer programs is that virtually all of the royalties will go abroad. I am not aware of any firm basis for this assertion. Certainly, some royalties will go to other countries and these will reflect deliberate decisions to buy foreign software. Presumably, the royalties will reflect the value of the software to purchasers. The statement also ignores the potential flow into Australia of royalties from foreign purchases of Australian programs. I can summarise it by saying that, if we take an optimistic view that we have a chance of really penetrating the world market, there is a strong case for enforcability of copyright laws. If, on the other hand, we take a defensive and negative view and feels that we will be swamped then we take a defensive reaction. There have been suggestions that public funding would be preferable to copyright as a means of securing a supply of software. This is properly an issue for long term policy consideration but at this point I note merely that copyright protection is certainly not incompatible with public funding and that the Commonwealth already funds much software development directly or indirectly through research and education grants. Beyond that I doubt that many users would think that government officials could better anticipate their needs than they could themselves or entrepreneurs at large. That is a strongly held view in the bureaucracy. In addition, there is, of course, a limit to the extent to which users of computer software should be entitled to benefit from access to public funding at the inevitable expense of other applications of these funds. It has been suggested that education will suffer more than any other sector from copyright protection of software. I note simply that existing provisions facilitating use of printed materials for education and reference purposes will apply to printed copies of the programs and that the existing fair dealing provisions will apply to all forms of software. As mentioned earlier, the new back-up copy provision will give insurance against a common practical problem for educators and other users-that is damage to working copies of programs. Review of Long Term Policy As earlier stated, this Bill is concerned only to ensure some legal protection of software in the short term. It is clearly understood that the Government will now proceed as a matter of high priority to a consideration of policy for the long term through an appropriate form of inquiry. It might well be that the nature of the protection of software will be substantially altered as a consequence of implementation of that policy. Without wishing to pre-empt that review I wish to note here four important matters to be taken into account. The first concerns international developments. Because of the highly international nature of intellectual property laws, Australia would probably not wish to adopt a system of protection which was out of accord with international consensus-blessed word-as to the appropriate form for protection. To do so might leave Australia in a position where its software products were inadequately protected in other countries, thus limiting export opportunities. However, as international agreement on the best form of protection is far from settled, Australia can seek to influence the nature of any eventual concensus. Second, the Government is well aware of, and shares, the concern of educators and researchers that, whatever laws may eventually be adopted to protect software, those laws should encourage, not inhibit, the use of new technologies for education and research. Third, the Government does not blindly accept that detailed copyright principles appropriate to encouragement of the fine arts are necessarily also appropriate to industrial production. This has long been recognised in the area of design copyright where registration is required and limitations are placed on the nature and duration of the rights. In such mundane areas as the manufacture of spare parts, anti-competitive practices based on copyright in drawings have emerged which are causing some concern. The possibility of industrial monopoly abuse also underlies the existing statutory copyright licence for manufacture of recordings of musical works. Of course, there are several possible measures which might be adopted to meet abuses of monopolies. One is a short term of protection: Indeed the recent Canadian White Paper on reform of copyright law proposes a five-year term for protection of object code. Dr Harry Edwards —It will be out of date before then. Mr BARRY JONES —Very likely. Another is compulsory licensing, also familiar in the patents area and recently suggested by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry as a means of dealing with monopolistic practices in relation to computer software. Yet another is trade practices legislation, which could readily be applied to attempts to bundle software and hardware packages or to onerous conditions regarding third party maintenance, spare parts supply or connection of compatible equipment. Others could be envisaged but I hope with a healthy, competitive and innovative industry, such problems will not emerge. The fourth, and most important, matter concerns consultation and here I begin the speech proper. As I have emphasised earlier, copyright law involves a careful balance between interests. Such a law is most likely to be successful if it is broadly accepted by those whom it most affects. The Government therefore welcomes the expressed desires of the various creator and user interests to co- operate in the formulation of Australia's long term policies for legal protection of-and access to-computer software and, of course, I would think intellectual property generally. We are presently considering in what way that policy can best be reviewed and look forward to the active co-operation of all interests. Financial Impact Statement The Bill is concerned with conforming hitherto largely accepted private legal rights. The Commonwealth will only be affected in the same way as other copyright owners and users. There will be no direct gain or loss of Commonwealth revenues and no administrative responsibilities will be created or abolished. The Bill will therefore have no identifiable impact on Government revenues. I commend the Copyright Amendment Bill 1984 to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I understand that it will suit the convenience of the House for the debate on the Bill to continue forthwith. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.30) —The Opposition has no hesitation in supporting the Copyright Amendment Bill, but what an 11.99th hour business it is. Mr Barry Jones —We are sitting until 6 a.m.; we have no problems. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —In that case I am glad we are getting this one done right now. The origin of this matter was a judgment delivered on 7 December last year by Mr Justice Beaumont of the Federal Court that computer software was not protected by law from being copied. It was in respect of that case-I will say a few more words about it later-Apple Computer v. Computer Edge-that this matter arose. That posed a real threat to the software industry. The software is the musical composition, so to speak; the hardware being more akin to a piano and the pianist. It is the software, the creative work of writing a program, the composition, with which this legislation is concerned. The decision of Mr Justice Beaumont posed a real threat to the software industry in this country. It is a burgeoning high technology so-called sunrise industry if ever there was one. At present it is worth in the order of $150m per annum and it is growing at the rate of 33 per cent per annum. The decision was a threat not only to that sector of the industry directly, a sector particularly suited to Australia because the vital ingredient for developing the industry is one which Australia has in abundance-that is, intellectual skills-but also to installed computer property embodying unique software worth millions, nay, billions of dollars. In the face of that threat the Government, supported by this Opposition, reacted quickly, to its credit, with a joint statement by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) dated 21 December 1983. The Attorney-General, in his speech in the other place last Monday-I am not sure whether it is in the speech made by the Minister for Science and Technology-referred to the Government foreshadowing this legislation on 15 May last. That is the half-statement of the year, because it was foreshadowed in the statement dated 21 December 1983. Now, at the eleventh hour plus it comes before the House. The December statement says: The recent decision of the Federal Court that Australian copyright laws do not protect certain computer software has created significant problems for the Australian software industry. This is an important industry in its own right and is capable of making a real contribution to the Government's industrial development objectives. Further on the statement recognises: . . . A major issue to be resolved in the long-term is whether a copyright style of protection is to be preferred, or a form of protection more analogous to patents. International consensus on this issue still seems some way off. The statement continues: Ministers stressed however that prompt legislative action would be taken in the short term, if necessary. That statement was made back on 21 December 1983. As far as the Government is concerned the word 'prompt' is obviously a fairly elastic word. In a number of Press statements and in a notice of motion which I put down in the House on 5 April 1984 and which is printed in today's Notice Paper at page 6607, I urged the Government to get on with this 'prompt legislative action', but we have seen nothing until just this week and nothing in this House until now. Well, better late than never, although it is almost too late-like the tax legislation to actually confer the 100 per cent deduction for venture capital which passed through this House last Tuesday with only 25 days of the financial year left for the management and investment companies involved to raise the $40m-worth of capital so urgently needed. Mr Barry Jones —That is not worrying me, by the way. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is not worrying the Minister. I hope his optimism is justified and that the $40m capital, which is so urgently needed by the many small but potentially large businesses which want to get on with their innovative products and processes, will be raised. As I said, the Opposition is pleased that the legislation has surfaced, and will afford it speedy passage. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into further detail, except to say that it began with the judgment of Mr Justice Beaumont, which was overturned in a recent decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia. It found two to one for Apply Computers, which had taken Computer Edge Pty Ltd to court for selling machines embodying copies of Apple's key software, and selling them along with an actual Apple hand book. It was a pretty straightforward case in breach not only of the Copyright Act but also of the Trade Practices Act. Mr Barry Jones —The book is protected by copyright, though. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It may be, but the company's advertising was found to be at issue under the Trade Practices Act. However, the difficulty was that Computer Edge had given notice of appeal to the High Court of Australia. That could well not have been heard until September and a decision not given until some months after that. It was in view of that unconscionable further delay that the Government decided to bring forward this legislation, and not before time. A variety of companies in different areas of the economy are involved. At the retail level, a company called Imagineering, one of the largest package software suppliers, in fact had had its sales eroded by as much as 30 per cent following the Beaumont decision. The Minister referred to opposition to this Bill. We have probably all heard of the anti-protections campaigner, Mr Albert Langer, and the organisation Software Liberation. I am sure they will not be happy with this decision. One can concede that there are difficulties in the area. Just as private persons can make illegal copies of, say, sheet music on a copying machine or copy tape recordings of musical performances by running them through the appropriate machine that many people own and so produce a duplicate tape- Mr Shipton —All you need is a double disk drive. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, that is so. So it would be possible for private persons to copy computer software programs on tapes or disks. That is not denied, but an appropriate restraining law such as the legislation now before the House is still, I believe, the only available approach to this matter and it does hold the line sufficiently. In other spheres musical records, tapes and sheet music can be produced at a sufficient profit to enable the payment of appropriate royalties to artists and to meet the other substantial costs of producing the original record or tape of a performance, or to provide an adequate reward for the creative mind that can come up with a musical composition, subsequently produced as sheet music. Mr Milton —A lifetime of plus 50 years seems a long time. Dr EDWARDS —In this area we are talking about computer software which gets outdated in a matter of years with the progress of modern technology and will not ever require 50 years of protection. I repeat that software does fall into this category. The Minister elaborated on a distinction that is drawn between source code, which is a program written in a high level computer language, and object code, the program machined into the zero and one's input for a computer. But it is interesting that involved in this case were some six programs at issue, and just one of those written out even in a high level computer language would have to run to about 10,000 handwritten pages. I think that underlines the extent of the creative work and creative input that has to go into the development of these sorts of programs. So the reward, so to speak, for putting up the money for that creative work and for that research and development does come to be built into the product price. What would the so-called software liberationists substitute for that process? Their solution would be a so-called public domain, socialist procedure. A fund would be established by the Government by a sales tax and other levies on software sales to the public and then persons proposing to develop software programs, specialist authors and manufacturers, would apply to the Government for grants from the fund to finance the work. Mr Milton —Sounds like a good idea to me. Dr EDWARDS —The honourable member might think it is a good idea to proceed in that way, but I do not think it would be a good idea. It would be a situation where the Government would be at the centre of the action. The Government would be picking who would get support and who would not. In other words, the Government would be picking the winners and losers in this sphere-a proposal in the best traditions of a socialist 'government-do-all', but not appropriate to the capitalist free enterprise economy in which we live, which gets things done and which provides the jobs for the majority of Australians. I see it as simply not on. It is not feasible. That sort of approach is a mirage and, thankfully, the Government has recognised that. So, belatedly, the prompt legislative action which was promised in December has seen the light of day in these closing and dying hours of the Parliament. As I said earlier, the Opposition supports the speedy passage of this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(9.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. I will just make a brief comment in response to the remarks made by the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). I think there are two factors that should be mentioned. The honourable member is perhaps slightly ungenerous when he talks about the slow response to the Press release of 21 December 1983 and now, some months later, we have the legislation. It should be noted though that it was stated that there would be consultation with the affected interests. The speech made clear that there was a great deal of consultation achieved in the intervening period. There was also, I may say, the question of judicial propriety that had to be taken into account. There were difficulties involved in appearing to be interfering with a judgment of a court in a particular area by appearing to say, in effect, to the judges: 'Whatever you do will pre-empt your decision legislatively'. I am conscious that that situation may still be said to obtain now. After all, one judge decided against the application of the present law and , on appeal, there was a 2 : 1 split. It means that there is a two-all vote by the judges involved in this very contentious matter. Now it is going on to the High Court of Australia. But we recognise that, in the circumstances, it might be many months before the High Court is in a position to make a determination. We simply could not let the matter wait. We would, in some ways, have preferred to let the matter be settled by way of the judicial process, but because time ran on, we could not let it run any longer. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.46) —In commenting on that I do not wish to appear churlish. The appeal to the judicial process is no substantial argument. After all, it was clear that it would take a long time for that decision to come out. I think anyone could have judged that it would, whichever way it had gone, have been appealed to the High Court of Australia. So no result could have been anticipated within a year. I think that was precisely why, in December, the Government saw it as so necessary to take 'prompt legislative action'. However, I do not want to labour the point. In the meantime, as I have already said, some interests, particularly a major software retailer to whom I referred, has had an erosion of the order of 30 per cent in his activity, largely attributed to uncertainty surrounding this situation. There are other issues of greater depth than that, of the potential for Australian manufacturers to enter into agreements with persons overseas who were unwilling to accede to those agreements because of the possibility that the material would be copied. However , I repeat, that I do not want to labour the point. We support the measure and offer it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —by leave-I am pleased to make this report and speak on behalf of the enthusiastic and able members of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, namely, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Perth (Mr Charlesworth). The interim report I have tabled resulted from allegations made to the Committee that certain motorcycle helmets carrying the Standards Association of Australia certification mark did not comply with the standard. Regrettably the Committee must report that that particular allegation is substantially correct. The wearing of helmets by motorcycle riders and the use of seat belts in cars are amongst the most important road safety measures in Australia today and Australia has been a world leader in making both of them mandatory. The Australian regulatory package for the protection of motorcycle riders through the wearing of helmets is regarded as one of the best in the world, if not the best, if it works as intended. The package comprises a relatively high standard for helmets, drawn up by the Standards Association of Australia, which is the basis on which the SAA certifies helmets. This is backed up by the mandatory requirement that helmets sold conform with the standard as declared. Traffic legislation in the States and Territories makes the wearing of helmets compulsory. I must emphasise on the evidence received, the Committee is unable to assess the safety implications of departures from the published standards. Additional costs accrue to manufacturers and suppliers in conforming to the demands of the Australian system, but if it operates as intended, the assurance of greater safety justifies the additional cost of the scheme. If the intended effectiveness of the scheme is diminished, the additional costs are less justified and the scheme falls into disrepute. The Committee is firmly of the view that the additional costs involved of having the scheme operate fully and effectively are more than justified in the light of both the economic cost to the community of a much lower standard of safety as well as the personal suffering involved. The Standards Association of Australia is a body incorporated by royal charter. It prides itself on its independence from governments, manufacturers and other identifiable interests. It is a non-profit organisation with the bulk of its income coming from sales of its publications and from a Commonwealth grant. The Standards Association receives an annual grant-in-aid of approximately $2.5m through the Department of Science and Technology. This grant is intended to assist in the maintenance of the basic infrastructure for Australian technology. We do note, however, that on one contested point, that is, the measurement of projections on helmets, the inclusion of any limitation on the size of the projections in the Australian standard must have been based on a concern for safety, either on the part of the SAA or of overseas standards authorities who originally included this aspect in their standard. The SAA standard AS1698 for motorcycle helmets is established by the SAA Committee AU12. The members of this Committee represent a diverse set of interests including manufacturers, police departments, user groups and government departments. Members serve on the Committee in a voluntary capacity, although many attend as part of their normal paid employment. The secretary is a fulltime SAA staff member. The AU12 Committee has the role of drawing up and reviewing the standard. The standard, when published by SAA, is a voluntary standard. It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that there was inadequate research information available to the AU12 Committee and that, unlike many other SAA technical committees, few of its members have extensive technical expertise. The Committee understands that the lack of an adequate research base is not confined to Australia. Where the Standard Association's certification mark is to be applied to goods, these goods must first be assessed and passed by the Quality Assurance and Certification section-QAC-of SAA. The QAC section, in considering an application for the use by a manufacturer of the SAA certification mark, relies on the test report of an independent test laboratory as to whether the helmet complies with the standard. Testing is of two kinds: Initial type testing and routine testing. If a helmet fails on any one item of the type test then it fails the type test as a whole and cannot receive the certification mark until all requirements of the type test are met. Much of the evidence given to the Committee was on a particular helmet, and the clearest evidence that SAA had ignored the provisions of its own standard in its certification of a helmet was in relation to the BMW systems helmet. However, I must stress that the evidence indicates that this is not the only helmet involved and it is only due to the urgency attached by this Committee to the resolution of the certification problem that it has not pursued evidence on other helmets. For this reason, the Committee is not able at this stage to comment on the extent of the problem. Other helmets in the market place which do not comply with the mandatory standard should be dealt with by the Trade Practices Commission. The Committee chose to examine the approval of one particular helmet, the BMW systems helmet, to see how faithfully the standard is observed in certification. The Committee has no reason to believe that the BMW helmet was dealt with differently from other helmets. In the original type test of the BMW carried out by the British Standards Institution in the United Kingdom a number of aspects failed in terms of the published standard. Some of these were corrected by modification. However, other failed aspects were authorised for approval by SAA. The helmet was passed on these items by BSI only after instructions from SAA on whose behalf the tests are conducted. The internal projection of the visor housing pivot nut, which was modified to pass the type test, is outside the standard on the helmets sold in Australia. Routine testing of the helmet has failed to identify this. The standard specifically prohibits the addition of a hard or brittle plastic edging yet SAA proceeded to approve this edging despite BSI failing it in the type test. The Committee examined the edging of a helmet involved in an accident in which the hard plastic had fractured in a way typical of brittle fractures, leaving a sharp jagged edge. Both BMW and SAA claimed that adjacent padding would protect the neck but the brochure accompanying the BMW helmet describes this padding as 'removable'. The Committee concludes that the Standards Association of Australia is not adequately observing the published standard in its certification of helmets and in its routine testing. The Committee is not convinced from the evidence that the approval by SAA of sub-standard helmets has been a deliberate attempt to mislead. Rather, it appears in part related to the problems associated with interpreting a standard, particularly one in need of review, and the lack of a clear line of authorisation of interpretations. The Committee believes, however, that the aspects just referred to are clearly set out in the standard. In addition to the voluntary standard drawn up and administered by SAA, there is a mandatory standard declared under the Trade Practices Act. Responsibility for the declaration and revision of the mandatory standard rests with the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. The Trade Practices Commission is responsible for enforcing the mandatory standard. A mandatory standard has been declared under section 63AA of the Trade Practices Act for motorcycle helmets for on-road use. All helmets sold in Australia must comply with this standard. The standard was declared in November 1978 and is the 1974 standard as amended. The Committee is concerned that the mandatory standard for motorcycle helmets in June 1984 is the 1974 published standard, as amended, despite SAA having issued a revision in 1980. While the revisions that occurred in issuing the 1980 version are not major and the Trade Practices Commission has stated that it will not prosecute the supplier of a helmet if the helmet complies with the 1980 standard, as published, the mandatory standard should not be allowed to fall behind in this way. I would like to comment at this point that the recommendation of the Committee that the Trade Practices Commission enforce the provisions of the mandatory standard on the condition that it will not prosecute suppliers of a helmet which satisfies the published provisions of the 1980 standard AS1698 has now been backed up by the declaration yesterday by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) of that 1980 standard which has now, the Committee is delighted to note, been declared as mandatory. The concern of the Committee about the observance of the standards is twofold. On the one hand, it is concerned about the observance of the SAA standard by the Quality Assurance Certification Section of SAA in its certification of helmets and, on the other hand, it is concerned about the observance of the mandatory standard by importers, manufacturers and other suppliers in Australia. The mandatory standard calls up an SAA standard with certain qualifications. These are set out in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice. The standard as called up becomes a separate legal entity from the SAA standard. It is not subject to interpretation by SAA. It is legally binding and enforced by the Trade Practices Commission. Interpretations of the provisions of the mandatory standard, unless gazetted by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, will be made by the Trade Practices Commission and be subject to the decisions of the Federal Court. The object of a standard is to guarantee certain minimum criteria are met, and where this has been made a legal requirement it is essential for these provisions to be applied literally. An interpretation which nullifies a provision cannot really be called an interpretation as it materially alters the standard. If such interpretations occur, then the reliability and efficiency of the standard system is jeopardised. The mandatory standard was introduced as a compulsory consumer product safety measure. The Committee is unable from the evidence it has taken to assess beyond question the safety implications of the breaches of the mandatory standard. However, the Committee believes that the mandatory standard is not capable of unofficial amendment on the basis of interpretations allegedly in the name of safety. These amendments would need to be gazetted amendments to the mandatory standard. The SAA has failed to admit to inadequacies in its own certification procedures and continues to maintain that the BMW Systems helmet is in accordance with the standard, despite the type test report from BSI, the reports of Technisearch and the Traffic Accident Research Unit to the Trade Practices Commission and the admission by BMW itself that the helmet does not comply. The Committee cannot accept that everyone else but SAA is out of step. The Committee is concerned about the lack of clear operating guidelines for the panel of the AU/12 committee. It is not clear that when aspects of particular helmets were considered by the panel it was aware either that these aspects had been failed in the type tests or that its favourable comment would be used to pass non-complying helmets. The separation of the quality assurance and the standard setting process is a deliberate attempt to ensure the mutual independence of the two areas, yet the panel seems to be increasingly involved in the clearance of individual helmets. There appears no charter as to how the panel represents AU/12 in its work, nor on how its decisions are confirmed by AU /12. The looseness of these arrangements has undoubtedly contributed to the current problems. The Committee is concerned that the overall good reputation and standing of SAA in the standard setting process, and through its certification process in the assurance of the quality and uniformity of products , be maintained and not be damaged by the serious inadequacies of one section of its certification office. The Committee is also concerned that the administration of the AU/12 committee is not as proficient as it might be. The mid-May 1984 meeting of AU/12 was the first meeting of that committee for 18 months. The standard has been known to be in need of a total revision for some time and substantial reinterpretations of provisions in the standard are being made. The revision of the 1980 standard is not expected to be completed before mid-1985. This is too slow. The Committee is mindful of the difficulties of calling frequent meetings of voluntary committees but, in the circumstances, meetings should have been more frequent. The Committee therefore recommends that a review task force, consisting of a representative each from the Standards Association, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, the Trade Practices Commission and the Department of Science and Technology, be formed to review urgently, firstly, the certification and testing procedures for motorcycle helmets, particularly those aspects where the interpretation of standards is involved, and, secondly, the administrative procedures of the AU/12 committee, particularly its meeting timetables and accountability; that the SAA be required to demonstrate its capacity to meet its objectives in motor cycle helmet certification; and that Commonwealth funding of SAA be reviewed in terms of its capacity to meet those objectives and that this review be undertaken as soon as possible and thereafter SAA be required to report to the funding authority annually. The Committee would also refer the Government to previous reports of the Committee, particularly those recommendations which have been made previously and have not been implemented. The Committee directs the Government's attention to this serious failure. It is pointless to have inquiries if important recommendations are accepted but not acted upon. Most witnesses have agreed that the present standard is in need of a major review but that the lack of expertise available to the AU12 committee, together with a lack of research data to allow evaluation of some provisions of the present or future standards, is hindering this review. The Road Safety Committee is concerned that this important road safety measure is not backed up by sufficient technical and research resources. In addition to carrying out, as a priority, the recommendation of the previous report of the Committee for a system of post-accident analysis of motorcyclists' helmets, the Committee recommends that the Minister for Transport fund a continuing program of motorcycle helmet research. This funding should be done in co-operation with the Australian Transport Advisory Council and should be related to the evaluation of safety provisions of the standard. The advice of the AU12 technical committee of SAA should be sought in establishing priority areas for research. The Committee cannot over-emphasise its concern that the observance of the standard should result in a demonstrably safe helmet. The mandatory standard has been in existence for some time and it is well known in the industry. The Committee cannot accept the claim of ignorance of this long existing law. Given the seriousness of breaching the mandatory standards, with maximum penalties for breaches of $50,000 for a corporation for each offence and $10,000 for individuals and its long existence, the Committee recommends that the Standards Association of Australia, different branches of the industry and the Federal Government should note its recommendations in the interests of the consumer. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), has outlined in detail the problems that were associated with this inquiry. At the begining, I would like to say that it was most enjoyable to work in a bipartisan way with the members of the Committee who have been named by the Chairman. But we found this particular inquiry very complex and very difficult to unravel. Rather than talk about the recommendations, I would like to talk generally. I hope that I have the agreement of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who is the only honourable member present tonight on this side of the House. I do not mean that remark in a political sense. The Chairman has already talked generally about the recommendations. A lot of adverse publicity has been generated by this inquiry. That is only natural, because we are talking about the second most important road safety device-that is, the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists. After seat belts, it is the second most important device. Of course, we had a very important mission-to determine whether the imported helmets available in Australia and those manufactured in Australia, were safe. With a most enthusiastic Chairman, the Committee attacked that problem at every opportunity, but we were unable to come to a conclusion. It is very easy to determine whether a seat belt is safe, but to determine the safety of a helmet is most complicated. A lot was said about one particular helmet. To be fair to the manufacturer, although what was said about the helmet was adverse, the case is similar to that of the Commodore motor vehicle today. Much is said and determination of the facts is very difficult. We found it most difficult to determine whether or not the BMW helmets were safe. Many Australians have taken for granted that a Standards Association of Australia certification affixed to a particular product-whether a helmet, a motor car jack or a seat belt-attests to the safety of that product. But we were unable to determine whether, when affixed to a motor cycle helmet, that certification attested to its safety. We called expert witnesses before the Committee. We called SAA witnesses and others. After the inquiry, I was of the opinion that the Government probably needs to allocate more funds to SAA to give it the opportunity to do more research into the safety aspects of helmets and to call more people together in a determined effort to make absolutely certain that if in Australia a helmet is certified as being safe, it is safe and people will be able to say that it is safe. There was a heck of a lot of equivocating by people involved in road safety in Australia, particularly SAA and others. They were unable to tell the Committee very much. We are only lay people; we are not technical experts. We have to take the advice of other people in determining whether something is safe. At the conclusion of our inquiry, the theme running through our minds was that we were unable really to say whether something was safe or not. The recommendations that were outlined by the Chairman of the Committee can go a long way, if acted upon. In 1978 there was an inquiry into helmets. It took a long time for those recommendations to be acted upon. I am not trying to be political, but we have a new Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). It is a new ball game. As a Committee we worked long hours and heard a lot of evidence. We need to have the confidence of the Minister in acting upon our recommendations. If he does not the Committee should reconvene in one year or some time in the future and say: ' Look, it is a very important problem. We are trying to save the lives of young motorcyclists in Australia'. From memory, I think one in 10 of the road fatalities in Australia is usually a young motorcyclist. Ten per cent of the people dying on the roads in Australia today are young motorcyclists. So the research in this area needs to be developed to make sure that helmets in Australia, if certified by SAA, will be safe. Technological changes are occurring every day. If helmet safety can be developed, we as a Committee will have acted in this regard to the betterment of Australia. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Mission of Investigation into Australian Servicemen Missing in Vietnam. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. Leave granted. Mr HAYDEN —During my visit to Vietnam in June and July 1983, I raised with the Vietnamese Government the question of the six Australian servicemen who were believed to have been killed in Vietnam but whose bodies had not been recovered. I again raised the matter with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr Nguyen Co Thach, during his visit to Canberra in March 1984. As a result of these discussions the Government despatched a five-man joint Foreign Affairs and Defence team of investigation to Vietnam from 9 to 23 May. The team has now made its report to the Government and I herewith table the document for the information of Parliament. The task of the Mission was to make the fullest possible accounting into the last known circumstances of the six missing Australian servicemen. This involved a thorough check of Australian and United States military records, discussions with people who remembered the incidents in question, and a request to the Vietnamese Government to conduct similar investigations and to check the information provided by the Australian Government. When in Vietnam the Mission held discussions with appropriate central and provincial authorities, as well as relevant local inhabitants. It also travelled to the site of each incident in rural southern and central Vietnam. In the case of two sites the Mission was unable to reach the exact requested destination because of extensive minefields which had not yet been cleared. From the outset the Mission faced a number of problems, namely, the time lapse involved since the incidents; the uncertain nature of some of the information available; the inaccessibility of some of the sites; and the movements of population during and since the war. Despite the best efforts of the Australian and Vietnamese governments to make the fullest possible investigation, no new information has come to light on the last known circumstances surrounding the deaths of Flying Officer Herbert, Pilot Officer Carver, Lance Corporals Parker and Gillespie, and Privates Gillson and Fisher. I endorse the finding of the Mission that this Government should not initiate any further action on the matter, although we are ready to react to the receipt of any further significant information. I also believe that the question of our missing servicemen should no longer be an issue in the developing bilateral relationship between Australia and Vietnam. The Mission's report, which I recommend to the House, clearly shows the great degree of co-operation shown by the Vietnamese Government at all levels and demonstrates the gains made by this Government in developing a mature co- operative relationship with Vietnam. I do not believe that this Mission would have been possible were it not for the initiatives taken by this Government over the past year. In conclusion, I should like to compliment the members of this mission: Mr J. S . Holloway, Assistant Secretary, South-East Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs; Lieutenant-Colonel B. Bradshaw, Australian Army; Squadron Leader M. J. M. Walker , Royal Australian Air Force; Mr A. H. Longhurst, Indo-China Section, Department of Foreign Affairs; and Sergeant W. F. Bowser, Australian Army. They attended to their task with great diligence and explored all opportunities available to them in an effort to fulfil the charge which had been put before them. Their efforts were commendable, and I convey the appreciation of the Government for the way in which they fulfilled their task. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-The Opposition would wish to extend to the relatives of those missing, who must be presumed as having died in action in Vietnam, our profoundest sympathy. We are sad, however, that a climate of expectation was generated that out of this inquiry it might have been possible that the bodies of their relatives could be found. In reading the report and the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) it becomes apparent that, regrettably, the relationship that this Government, and in particular this Foreign Minister, has sought to develop with Vietnam has apparently been the vehicle or the lever which has been said to be the reason for this study to have been made. The study having failed, one can only regret that Australia is now seemingly in a position of alienation from our friends in the Association of South East Asian Nations for the sake of what can only be seen to have been a very sad mission, without it having had any productive result. Whilst the Opposition commends the efforts of the investigatory team and has no doubt that those who pursued their task, grisly and unpleasant though it was, did it with the very best of endeavour, if one peruses the contents of the report and sees the hurdles that were put in their way, I am afraid that one can only be cynical about the extent to which the visit by Mr Thach was really anything more than a sham and one used by the Government of Vietnam to try to delude the members of this Government. The special relationship which they have been suggesting has been no more than a vehicle by which the Vietnamese Government can use the relationship for other purposes. For example, if one looks at the transcripts and sees the conclusions of the report, one finds that the conclusions are, sadly, firstly, that further details of Australian servicemen believed killed in Vietnam but whose bodies have not been recovered were not available to the Mission of Investigation; secondly, that there is no point in initiating further investigation of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of those who were lost in action, whose disappearance has led to the generation of so much concern here and whose names have been mentioned by the Minister; and thirdly, that the question of missing Australian servicemen should not be an issue in the bilateral relationship between Australia and Vietnam. It is on that point that I particularly want to address the House. For example, we find in the report that on Wednesday, 16 May 1984, the Mission visited Dong Nai Province in search of the remains of Lance Corporal Gillespie or some evidence of his whereabouts. We read, as in so many other instances, of suggestions by the Vietnamese authorities that owing to the presence of bandits in the area it was not possible for the investigatory team to move close to the site in order to pursue proper investigations. That is, sadly, repeated in a number of instances. We then find on Tuesday, 22 May 1984, reference to comments made in Hanoi by Mr Nguyen Co Thach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Vietnam : . . . the co-operation extended to the Mission was in large part due to the state of relations between Australia and Vietnam, and in particular to the rapport which he had established with Mr Hayden, whose policies were admired in Vietnam. One needs to examine two things. Firstly it should not for a civilised country be necessary for there to be that sort of relationship in order to provide what regrettably seems to be only half-hearted co-operation to enable this Mission to succeed and, secondly, we all need to realise that the same Government of Vietnam is pursuing actions in Cambodia-or Kampuchea, whichever name we choose- and in Laos which are still leading to threats to the lives and limbs of many thousands of men and women. Indeed, many have now visited the refugee camps on the border of Thailand and Kampuchea and seen the circumstances of those who are refugees from the intrusion of Vietnam, and on our side of politics we regret that one of the front line states of the Association of South East Asian Nations , Thailand, has her future security threatened simply by actions of the Vietnamese Government. For our part, we wish that the Australian Government had maintained a relationship which ensured that we went along with the countries of ASEAN in moving towards any closer rapport with Vietnam instead of moving in the independent way which sadly, as in this instance, has produced no more than further sorrow and little further advice to the next of kin of those who were lost in action. While the Opposition is very sad that the Mission has not been able to reveal any further information about those missing in Vietnam, I am afraid the result is one which we blame on the Government and the fact that there was a suggestion that as a result of this inquiry it might have been possible to find information. Sadly, we believe that the circumstances are such that until the Government of Vietnam was prepared to act in a civilised way and until the countries of ASEAN were able to live comfortably with that nation, Australia would have been better to have remained in a position of accord with the countries of ASEAN instead of stepping out of line as the present Foreign Minister has done. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, I present an exposure report from the Committee, together with the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence and minutes of proceedings of the Committee from the 32nd Parliament. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SPENDER —by leave-The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was appointed by the Parliament to review and to report on whether changes are desirable in the law and practice of parliamentary privilege, in the procedures by which alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege may be raised, investigated and determined, and in the penalties that may be imposed for breach of parliamentary privilege. The powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses, their members and the committees of each House-the privileges of Parliament as they are commonly called-were inherited by the Australian Parliament from the House of Commons. The Constitution provides that Parliament may determine what its privileges shall be, but until it does so, the privileges of the Australian Parliament shall be those of the House of Commons at the time of the establishment of the Australian Federation-more than 80 years ago. It seems to me distinctly odd that, to determine the privileges of this Parliament, we must look back to a moment frozen in the time of the constitutional history of another country. It is even more curious when we remember that there have been no changes in the privileges of the House of Commons since the end of the seventeenth century so that, in all essential respects, the privileges of our two Houses, their members, and their committees are those of the House of Commons of around three centuries ago. The changes over the last three centuries to the political, social and economic fabric of England have been immense; the gap between Australia's Parliament of the 1980s and the House of Commons at the time of the eighteenth century is immeasurable. The question needs to be asked: Firstly, do the privileges of this Parliament, grounded as they are on such ancient precedents, and the means by which those privileges are enforced, truly reflect the needs of this Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of so much of Australian political life. Secondly, how can one strike a just balance between the essential and legitimate rights of Parliament, and other equally essential and legitimate rights, such as the right of individuals not to be unjustly damaged by what is said in Parliament, the right of the media and the public at large to criticise in the most trenchant terms the conduct of parliament and how honourable members go about their Parliamentary work, and the right of individuals who find that their actions attract parliament's contempt power-which includes the power to punish for contempt of parliament by commitment to prison-to a just hearing? Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the special rights that belong to parliament and its members. Parliament and its members have those rights for one prime and fundamental purpose: To safeguard in the interests of the nation the efficient, independent and fearless working of parliament. Honourable members possess privileges solely because without special privileges, such as the privilege of free speech and the absolute protection it gives a member for anything said in debate in parliament, parliament cannot function. Indeed, without the privilege of freedom of speech, a privilege which may be greatly abused by honourable members at the cost of great damage to outsiders, parliament would be nothing more than an empty and sterile debating forum, devoid of meaning or purpose. It was understandable, easy and convenient to adopt in 1901 the privileges of the House of Commons and to leave to future generations the task of judging their continuing relevance, whether changes were desirable and what they should be. That was the task given to the Committee, which was first established by the Fraser Government and re-established by the Hawke Government. I have been Chairman of the Committee since its inception. In the exposure report which we now place before the Parliament we examine the matters within our terms of reference and, where we think change is necessary to reflect better the needs of today's parliament and the basic consideration of justice, we make recommendations for change. We hope that honourable members will take time to consider with the greatest of care what we say and recommend, as ultimately it is for the members and only the members, to decide what parliament should do. We now wish to get the views of honourable members on our exposure report so that we can consider those views, meet over the recess and present a report to the Parliament at the beginning of the Budget sittings for full debate on our final recommendations. But let me make clear to the House that for my part, I unequivocally support the recommendations made in the report now tabled. I do not advocate change for the sake of change, but I do believe there are some fundamental reforms we must make to the law and practice of parliamentary privilege, to the procedures by which those privileges are enforced and to the penalties that may be imposed on those who breach parliament's privileges. In advocating reform I do not propose that anything should be done to diminish parliament's standing, quite to the contrary, nor to erode the necessary powers it must have to protect itself. What I do propose is that its privileges should reflect the needs and realities of parliamentary life in the 1980s and that we should seek, above all, in the protection of those privileges to protect the rights of others and to strike a fair balance between the protection of the rights of parliament and the protection of other rights fundamental to our community. Let me give one or two instances. If, as I believe, sanctions of a penal kind must be retained for parliament's protection, remembering that those sanctions must always be regarded as a weapon of ultimate recourse and not of first use, must we not do whatever we can to ensure that when any question involving the possible use of sanction arises justice is both done and seen to be done? As the law and practice now stands, a person who commits a contempt of parliament may be imprisoned. He has no right to confront witnesses, to cross-examine, to present evidence on his own behalf, or to be represented by lawyers skilled in these matters. When the issue at stake may be an individual's liberty, the question must be asked: These days, can the proposition be sustained that a person may be gaoled without first being given a hearing and being accorded the basic rights of natural justice? I think there can be only one answer to that question. A quite different subject is the vexed question of reflections on parliament or on its members. Effectively, it is open to the Houses to treat a reflection on the Houses, or their members, as a contempt and to punish the person who made the reflection. My personal view is that it is startling that on a question so basic to the workings of an informed democracy, public criticism of the actions of the Houses and their members, no matter how trenchant, ill-informed, discourteous or malicious, should be capable of being treated as a contempt. I do not think we should maintain this power. Parliament and its members should be robust enough to withstand any form of public attack and we are especially well placed to reply. An equally difficult question is raised by the situation of someone who has been the subject of an unfair, groundless and damaging parliamentary attack. Allowing for the difficulties and sensitivities of this area, should we not try to construct a mechanism which will permit some kind of a limited right of reply -and I stress the word 'limited'-to a person who has been so injured? I believe we should. There is one other particular matter I wish to refer to. Many of us are concerned about the position of witnesses before parliamentary committees. In this area I believe special concern is needed to protect them against damage or retribution exacted against them because of their appearance before parliamentary committees, and that they should have a civil right of damages for damage witnesses may suffer. This matter is covered by one of the recommendations which proposes both criminal sanctions and civil remedies. Our work has been testing. We have examined not only the law and practice of the Australian Parliament but also the law and practice of other legislatures, in Australia and overseas. We have benefited greatly from submissions and evidence from a variety of sources and witnesses. For this help I and the Committee are most grateful. The recommendations in our report cover, I believe, all of the important issues within our terms of reference. I do not pretend that they will all receive instant acceptance by honourable members since at least some represent major changes to the existing law and practice of privilege. I deeply believe that the time has come for action in this most important area. If we fail to act, if we acknowledge the futility of any reconsideration of the privileges of parliament, we have effectively consigned this report and our deliberations to the dustbin of history. I do not wish it to be thought that members of the Committee have taken a unanimous view on all matters. In an area that throws up such difficult questions, it would be astonishing if unanimity could be achieved on all points. I should like to express my deep appreciation to all members of the Committee. The approach of all members to the work of the Committee has been constructive and bipartisan-evidenced, I may add, by the gracious re-appointment of myself as Chairman, at a time when the numbers had distinctly changed. I should also like to express-and here I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee- the Committee's appreciation of the work of our secretary, Mr Bernard Wright, who has slept very little in the last three days so that we can have this report before the House and the Senate and so that it can be considered over the recess . The recommendations in the report now before honourable members are for honourable members to determine. They are the determinants of the ultimate fate of those recommendations. I stress again that the Committee is anxious to receive their views on this exposure report. I conclude with an expression of my own views. This inquiry marks a watershed in parliamentary privilege. We can stand still or move to make reforms which, with all humility towards those who have been here far longer than I, I believe are not only desirable but also essential in the interests of parliament and its standing among the Australian people. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —by leave-Firstly, may I say on behalf of the Government that we owe the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and its Chairman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), a vote of thanks for the work they have done. It was not a terribly difficult decision for the Government to make to allow that Committee to continue after the election last year because the matter was of such enormous importance. I have always felt that, in regard to parliamentary privilege, the Parliament was dealing with archaic laws which it looked ridiculous if it did not use and ridiculous if it did. Sometimes politicians tend to have a sort of knee-jerk reaction to criticisms made of them, either singularly or collectively and, once the process is in train, there is no mechanism to stop it. We find ourselves in a rather unfortunate situation, as was described on the television program Sunday a couple of weeks ago on which the honourable member for North Sydney appeared. I agreed with what he had to say in that politicians, who are supposed to be the lawmakers, who are supposed to set the standards and lead the community, find themselves upholding standards which most people in the community find absolutely abhorrent. I for one have always felt that the comfort of the privilege of parliament was sufficient power to reply to anybody. On one occasion, a very good friend of most members of parliament, Mr Laurie Oakes, said that we were all drinking too much and so forth, and the Parliament reacted rather violently. I was absent from Australia at the time but I felt that perhaps the matter had been taken too far, and the Parliament had to extricate itself from that situation. I know that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) does not agree. I think he was one of the honourable members who reacted rather strongly to the accusation. I think Mr Oakes was very wrong in his accusation. I do not know what happened in parliaments a long time ago but I would have thought that these days such an accusation is very misplaced. Such accusations do a grave injustice to parliamentarians and the work they do, both inside the Parliament and in their surgeries, the electorate, where they are dealing with all the human problems that come to them. Nonetheless, I believe that a change was necessary following that incident and following the problems we had in the early 1950s, when people had to come before the House without legal representation when accusations were made, and they were gaoled. Perhaps the late Sir Robert Menzies was trying to even the score. I do know whether that is historically correct. Nevertheless, it is a very bad charge to make against a person in here, but it holds sway with the community. The fact is that the person has to appear without anybody being able to give him advice on what he should be saying or the way he should be able to protect himself. As I say, we have a very privileged position in the Parliament. We may all be guilty sometimes of using it a little recklessly. Nevertheless, we do have this great privilege to be able to reply to our critics. We are not held in the highest regard by the community, so when we tend to step over the line in these situations, people tend to feel that we are the ones who are making the mistake. Obviously, I have not read the report. However, I think it is very important. I hope the Committee has been able to deal with the sorts of contemporary problems that are presented to us, the way in which the relationship between the Parliament, parliamentarians and the community is dealt with and the way in which parliamentary privilege may be preserved. I am not a believer in the abolition of parliamentary privilege. I think we all individually, even in our combat within the Parliament, have to withstand the combat of parliamentary privilege. I think that to some extent the community, although it may not understand it, is protected by the fact that we have parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege can be abused and sometimes parliamentarians overreact to situations. I look forward to reading the report and perhaps being able to make some input into it in terms of the way in which the Parliament is headed. I conclude by again thanking the honourable member for North Sydney and the Committee for the enormous amount of work they have done on this subject. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendment- Page 8, clause 11, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ''(4) The Commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to- (a) the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in this section, or the preparation and distribution of translations into other languages of material contained in those pamphlets; (b) the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law; or (c) the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament, of members of the staff of members of the Parliament or of persons who are officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.37) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. I take this opportunity to use very briefly the time of the Committee, although I realise that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has a slightly different amendment to move, which he will be pleased to know the Government does not accept. The Senate has sent back to us an amendment, which includes the provision of proposed new sub-clause 4 (b) relating to the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating, to or relating to the effect of, the proposed law in terms of the referendum. As honourable members know, we had a very long discussion when the Bill was before the House about finding some formula in which the Government may be involved. The Senate has excluded Government activity in terms of expenditure by saying to the independent Electoral Commission that it can provide information in terms of relevancy and the impact of the proposed changes that may take place. We have no opposition to that. In fact, as honourable members know, the Electoral Commission, being independent as it is, may find an opportunity to provide information which is demanded of it. It is not something in which the Government would have an input in terms of the activities of the Electoral Commission. Whilst I do not resile from the position on funding that I held when this debate took place, nevertheless that is the sort of debate that may go on for some years. For the time being, the Government accepts the amendment that has been proposed by the Senate. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.39) —On behalf of the Opposition I respond in relation to this amendment. The amendment that the Senate has placed in the Referendum ( Machinery Provisions) Bill is in part the amendment that was proposed by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) when this Bill was before the House. The purpose of the amendment was to add to the Bill before us the following clause: '(4) No moneys shall be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law other than in respect of- (a) the publication of the pamphlet referred to in this section and any translation into other languages which may be authorised and advertised by the Electoral Commissioner; or (b) meeting travelling, accommodation or other ordinary expenses of Members of the Parliament, including Ministers, that are lawfully payable by the Commonwealth.' In putting that amendment strongly to this chamber, we put the argument that it was improper of the Government to be spending taxpayers' funds in favour of one side of a referendum proposition that was being put to the people of Australia for decision. We argued in the context of a proposal that was advanced previously by the Government in relation to referenda that were to be considered at the beginning of this year that it was improper for $1.25m of taxpayers' funds to be used for one side of the case. We hold that view very strongly and we are pleased that the Senate has seen fit to amend the legislation to include a provision that picks up those parts of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. I am equally pleased that in picking them up the Government has now said that it is prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the Senate. In the spirit in which the Government is accepting this proposition I wish to advance strongly one other matter that needs to be dealt with. The Minister has already foreshadowed my amendment. He drew to the attention of the House an additional paragraph that the Senate has added to the amendment that we proposed in this place. That is now paragraph (b), our former paragraph being renumbered (c), to this effect: . . . the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to , or relating to the effect of, the proposed law . . . The effect of that, as the Minister has said, is to enable the independent Electoral Commission to spend public moneys providing other information relating to the referendum proposal. The Minister has made it clear-after the recent amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act I certainly hope a court would take judicial notice of what he has said tonight-that he sees the independent Electoral Commission as being independent in this instance, that its responsibility would be exercised only in respect of providing information of a factual nature to people who are seeking information about what effect the referendum law might have. The Minister has indicated that the information would be provided by the Electoral Commission and not by the Government and, presumably, that he would not ask the Commission to provide certain information on the part of the Government. We feel, having regard to the information that the Minister has given us, that this would be the Government's view and, that being the case, that the Government would have no objection to what I like to call the more abundant precaution of amending that paragraph in the form of the amendment circulated by me. That proposed alteration is to ensure that the Independent Electoral Commission will provide factual information relating to the proposed law which is not aimed at advancing either the argument in favour of the proposed law or the argument against the proposed law. We think it would be quite improper for an independent agency to offer comments about a law that was either in favour or against, designed to influence the way in which the people would come to their own judgment. That is the reason that we are putting this amendment to the Government. Having regard to what the Minister has said, I certainly do not think the Government would have much difficulty with that proposition. Having regard to what he has said in this debate and my understanding of the import of the Acts Interpretation Act, I suppose that even if this amendment is not carried we can rely upon what he said to qualify the general import of the word 'other', which one might imagine could have some connotation other than that the Commission would provide factual information that advanced neither the cause of the Government nor the cause of the Opposition if it were opposed to a particular proposition. I move: Proposed sub-clause 11 (4), paragraph (b), omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: '(b) the provision by the Electoral Commission of factual information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law which is not aimed at advancing either the argument in favour of the proposed law or the argument against the proposed law; or'. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.45) —I do not think that anyone else would want to speak at this time of night. As someone who is very closely involved with the establishment of the independent Electoral Commission, I emphasise the aspect of independence. I think that that is enormously important, not just for the period that I am in Parliament but for a long time to come. On that basis I do not consider that this is an appropriate amendment in respect of Professor Colin Hughes and his colleagues who have been appointed to the Electoral Commission. Even a person like myself can be a little nervous about what will happen in the redistribution. Independent electoral commissions can be funny things. Mr Ruddock —You are surrounded by water, aren't you? Mr YOUNG —I am surrounded by water and working class people. Nevertheless, I can assure the honourable member that I interpret the amendment of the Senate as giving the power to the independent Electoral Commission and not to the Government. There is a very big difference and I do not think that it is necessary to attempt to spell out further what was moved in the amendment. The Government rejects it. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.47) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Commonwealth Government Centre, Currie Street, Adelaide, South Australia. The proposal is for the construction of a major office building in the city of Adelaide, to be known as the Commonwealth Government Centre, which will provide a single, readily identifiable point of contact for the public for parliamentary offices and for a range of Commonwealth services. The proposed building will provide some 26,000 square metres net of office space in a building with considerable aesthetic merit and good functional efficiency. The building can be best described as a double wing design with a nine-storey front section and a 12 -storey rear wing. These two sections will be joined by an atrium which will increase the amount of natural light, allow more public access and community space and reduce air-conditioning costs. The building site is at the corner of Currie and Topham Streets in the Adelaide central business district. The proposal is the first in the Hawke Government's major office construction program to be referred to the Committee. Of course, as the member for Adelaide, I am delighted to request the House to refer such an exciting project in my own electorate to the Public Works Committee. I have seen some models of this design . It is an exciting one. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $38m at April 1984 prices, which includes fitting out. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the proposal to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(10.49) —The Opposition warmly supports the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). As the Minister indicated, this particular project is long overdue in Adelaide. When completed, it will be a focal point for Commonwealth Government activity in that centre. As vice- chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I say on behalf of that Committee that we look forward to receiving the reference and it will be dealt with without delay. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.50) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of facilities at Darwin International Airport, Northern Territory. The proposal referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works is for major upgrading of domestic, international and general aviation services following the decision to home base the Royal Australian Air Force tactical fighter squadron at Tindal. The major components making up the proposed work are: New terminal building for domestic and international services; aircraft movement area pavements and a new apron to accommodate heavy domestic and international aircraft; parallel taxiway, access roads, carparks and associated services; administration building workshops, powerhouse and navigation aids; and general aviation facilities including terminal, operational and flight service centre, apron, taxiway receiver station and radio maintenance building. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee concluded that revised health check procedures for international transit passengers should be implemented forthwith at the existing Darwin terminal by the Department of Health on a trial basis. In respect of this matter the Committee's comments are noted and appreciated. Affecting as it does the health portfolio, I have arranged for it to be referred to my colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who I am sure will take it into consideration in the context of a review of passenger clearance procedures at Australian ports of entry which he currently has in motion. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $95m at October 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(10.53) —The Opposition is delighted that this work is at last to proceed. On 24 November 1982, when I was in Darwin as Minister for Aviation, I indicated that the then Government had decided to proceed with the redevelopment and upgrading of Darwin International Airport. Had the then Government remained in office, I indicated that it expected that the work would proceed in the latter part of 1983 and that it would be completed by late 1986. The project has been delayed. I understand that this is due to the fact that the new Government wanted time to reassess the airport program. I am pleased, as are other members of the Opposition, that this Government has confirmed the Darwin Airport program of the former Government. When moving the motion the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) drew attention to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Public Works that the health check procedures for international transit passengers at Darwin Airport should be revised. Honourable members will be interested to know that the Public Works Committee had in mind overcoming some discomfort caused to overseas passengers coming through Darwin when they are required to leave an aircraft, go through the health checks and then board the aircraft again to go to Sydney or other destinations. We are pleased, of course, that the Minister has referred this matter to his colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). On behalf of the Public Works Committee I thank him for that but at the same time I indicate through him to the Minister for Health that the members of the Public Works Committee feel very strongly about this matter. They feel that these measures could be implemented without delay and that they would have been of tremendous assistance to transit passengers. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.54) —I fully support this long overdue project . When the Joint Committee on Public Works sat in Darwin I was able to inform the Committee that plans for the development of the Darwin International Airport were first discussed in the early 1950s. In over three decades since then the people of Darwin have been presented with plan after plan, model after model and talk after talk. Indeed, aviation Ministers with Darwin Airport plans tucked under their arms, were as common a sight in Darwin as are visiting parliamentarians during the dry season. But, until about 10 months ago, no government, including the Government of the former Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) had actually put its money where its mouth is. It is all right to say that they have decided to proceed with the development but it is the money that counts when one is going to construct a $ 96m airport. In the August 1983 Budget the Hawke Labor Government did put its money where its mouth is. It put up the money for this $96m airport development with a clear Budget commitment. As a result of the election of the Hawke Labor Government, Darwin will now get the airport it deserves. It is a matter of notorious fact that the current Darwin Airport terminal is no more than a wartime hangar which still bears the marks of damage from the Second World War. This $96m project will mean jobs, investment and business growth in the Northern Territory. It is the first of two major capital works projects proposed by the Hawke Labor Government for the Northern Territory that will be discussed tonight. The other is the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base development. The two projects involve a capital injection in the Northern Territory economy of about $265m. That is the direct expenditure. The flow-on effect to the Territory's economy will mean an investment in excess of $0.5 billion. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors in its May 1984 report on construction industry prospects bears startling evidence to the effect that projects like these major undertakings will have on the Territory's construction industry over the next four years. It should be remembered that the Northern Territory is very heavily dependent on Federal Government expenditure, particularly in the heavy construction areas, such as this development. The report clearly shows that the previous Government had totally neglected the Northern Territory over the four years before the election of the Hawke Labor Government. Let me outline briefly from the report what happened to the Territory's construction industry under the Fraser Government in the period from 1979-80 until 1982-83. The value of construction commencements over those four years fell by 51.5 per cent. The value of construction work done fell by 33.3 per cent. Let me outline what the report predicts will happen over the first four years of the Hawke Labor Government-that is the financial years 1983-84 to 1986-87. In that four-year period commencements are predicted to increase by 188 per cent compared with a fall of 51.5 per cent under the Fraser Government. Work done is expected to increase by 121 per cent compared with a 33.4 per cent fall under the previous Government. The Federation expects $1,352m worth of work to be commenced in the Northern Territory in the first five years of the Hawke Labor Government-I stress 'five years'. It also expects $723m worth of work to be done in the first four years of the Hawke Labor Government-and again I stress 'four years'. Indeed, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory agrees fully with that statement. All these figures indicate that the Territory construction industry will do extremely well under the Hawke Labor Government. By contrast, it was dying under the previous regime. Moreover, these figures and the $96m project are a clear indication of the Hawke Labor Government's real commitment, not talk, and real money, not plans, to do something for the Northern Territory construction industry, for Northern Territory unemployed, for northern development, for the Northern Territory tourist industry and for the Territory travelling public. I fully support this excellent project. Mr Fife —I take a point of order. It should be recorded that the first Budget cash commitment to this project was in the Budget of 1982-83. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.00) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory. The proposal referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works was developed in accordance with a long term redevelopment strategy for living, working and training facilities at the Royal Military College. It covers those initial works necessary for the effective transition of the college to its new role in centralised officer training following the opening in 1986 of the Australian Defence Force Academy. The major elements of the proposed work are: A new 36-bed hospital; extensions to and renovating of the existing cadets' mess; refurbishment of existing instruction blocks and conversion of buildings to cadet accommodation; a new physical fitness centre; and associated siteworks, demolition, engineering services and landscaping. There are a number of comments included in the Committee's recommendations on which I wish to address the House. The Committee recommends that the cadets' mess should be provided with evaporative cooling. This is being included in the design documents. The Committee believes that the proposed siting of the physical fitness centre should be re-examined in an attempt to prevent the demolition of at least one of the existing 1911 vintage houses. The physical fitness centre has been sited in the physical fitness zone in accordance with the total approved redevelopment strategy and is in close proximity to other closely associated facilities such as cadet accommodation, instructional facilities and the parade ground zone. It is the only site available in the Duntroon area which provides this essential relationship to other cadet facilities within the total redevelopment strategy. The siting was cleared by the planning authority in the Australian Capital Territory, the National Capital Development Commission. The demolition of the 1911 houses was the subject of negotiation with and clearance by the Australian Heritage Commission. I am advised that the Commission does not consider these houses worthy of preservation. Finally, the Committee, in accepting proposals to refurbish the existing ANZAC block, sought further advice from the Department of Defence in relation to its intentions, and appropriate costs, on accommodation standards Australia wide. This matter will be taken up with the Committee as a separate issue by this Department of Defence. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $11,100,000 at August 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.02) —The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has pointed out that the work to be carried out at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, covers those initial works necessary for the effective transition of the college to its new role in centralised officer training which, of course, follows the opening in 1986 of the Australian Defence Force Academy, which was commenced during the period of the former Government. The Opposition warmly supports this move and commends the Government for proceeding with work that we on this side of the House believe needs to be undertaken. On behalf of the members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works, I thank the Minister and the Government for giving serious consideration to the recommendations made by the Committee. I thank the Minister for his comments this evening in relation to those recommendations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.03) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of RAAF Base, Tindal, Northern Territory. The proposal referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works was for the development of RAAF Tindal from its present bare base status to a home base for No. 75 Squadron presently based in Darwin. The squadron is to be re- equipped with FA18 fighter aircraft commencing in 1988. The main elements of the proposal are: Taxiways, aprons and aircraft pads; aircraft technical support facilities; base administration facilities; ordnance storage and preparation areas; married and single quarters, messes and community and recreation areas; sites for navigational aids; off-base housing; and bombing range. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposed work and has recommended its construction. The report includes several recommendations and conclusions on which I wish to address the House. In reporting on residential accommodation proposals the Committee has recommended 'that designs should allow for greater than current scales and standards provision for both living areas and storage space'. For the married quarters, the proposal is for housing to current temperate climate scales with the addition of air conditioning. Further, it is proposed to provide external covered areas for outdoor living facilities. For single accommodation, account also has been taken of the special conditions at Tindal and provision is being made for increases above current scales and standards for both the living and storage areas. These quarters will be air- conditioned. With regard to the officers and non-commissioned officer's messes, the Committee noted that the design concept was under consideration. Subsequent to the hearing, the Department of Defence has decided to provide physically separate messes for the two rank groups rather than a facility sharing a common kitchen. The Committee also asks that the measures proposed in the environmental impact statement to protect the physical environment be adopted. I have had a similar approach from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). I assure the House that the Department's actions, tender documents and supervisory measures during construction will fully accord with the recommendations of the environmental impact statement and no problems are foreseen in complying with the Committee's requirements. During the development of the environmental impact statement, an Aboriginal awareness program was instituted to address the social, economic, cultural and environmental effects of the proposal on the traditional land owners. Since the Committee conducted its public hearing of evidence into the proposal in March, several issues which were then canvassed have been attended to. The joint consultative committee, comprising representatives of the Federal, the Northern Territory and local governments, will be joined by two Aboriginal community representatives to address areas of special community and Aboriginal concern. The departments of Defence and Housing and Construction have established means for direct liaison and discussion with Katherine region communities and the traditional owners of the land in the base area. I am confident that these measures will provide appropriate and effective vehicles for consultation with the Aboriginal people and the Katherine community during the construction phase and beyond. In regard to welfare services for military personnel and their dependants, Defence has advised that the Royal Australian Air Force intends to provide services which are appropriate to the needs of these personnel. The estimated cost of the proposed work as referred to the Public Works Committee is $167m at December 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.07) —On behalf of the Opposition I indicate our very strong support for this motion. When I was in Darwin on 24 November 1982 I indicated publicly that the then Commonwealth Government had decided to redeploy No. 75 Mirage Squadron from Butterworth to the Northern Territory during 1983. I indicated this to reinforce the public announcement that had already been made by the then Minister for Defence. I stated, of course, that this squadron would be based at Darwin. Importantly, I indicated during that visit that funds had been provided for an examination which the Government was pursuing regarding the future development of Tindal airfield, and I said that it was expected that Tindal would be developed as a major air base subject to the result of this examination. Obviously the examination has been completed during the period of this Government. The Opposition is pleased that the Government is proceeding with the project, which is very important from a defence point of view, and also important from the point of view of the development of that part of northern Australia. On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I again extend the Committee's thanks to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and the Government for the very careful considerations that have been given to its recommendations and the comments he has made this evening. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(11.09) —I fully support this expediency motion. Mr Hodgman —It is election year. Mr REEVES —The honourable member for Denison will get his turn later. I see he is going to get some goodies later on; he is going to get a pro- ject in his electorate. I fully support this expediency motion because it will allow the development of this very important project to proceed while we are in recess. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) and I have crossed swords on a number of occasions in the past few months about the commitment of the previous Government to the two projects at Tindal and Darwin. Of course the previous Government talked a lot about it, planned a lot about it, spent a lot of money on talks and plans but did not get to spending money on the actual construction. The only additional comment I make about the statement the honourable member has just made is that for an Opposition member to be able to go to Darwin and announce that the Government had decided to proceed with this project defies logic, in my assessment. This will be the first major Royal Australian Air Force base established since the Second World War. Its construction will be a clear indication of the Hawke Labor Government's commitment to the defence of northern Australia. The completion of the base will almost double the size of the town of Katherine by the end of the decade. While this will cause some growing pains, I am confident that the locals can handle it. This $176m project will mean jobs, investment and population growth in the Northern Territory. Darwin is one of the few areas of Australia that has suffered the direct, destructive impact of war. Darwin was destroyed by bombing in the Second World War. The establishment of Tindal Air Force base will give the people of northern Australia an additional level of security. Indeed, I cannot understand why the RAAF forces, the Royal Australian Navy forces and the Army forces continue to be sited in the south of Australia and the south east of Australia where, on anybody's assessment, the threat to Australia, if there ever is one in the future, is highly unlikely to occur. Mr Newman —What a stupid thing to say. Mr REEVES —That is what all the reports indicate. I am very happy to have the Central Tablelands proposal in the Northern Territory if the Army wants to establish its artillery range up there. We would like the population growth and the investment. It is pleasing to see that the local Aboriginal community will be getting away a say in the planning and development process. There was some concern in the earlier stages that they were not properly consulted, but I am pleased to see that that has apparently been sorted out. I am aware that there is a degree of concern and perhaps even opposition within the RAAF ranks in Darwin about the move to Katherine. Much of this I think arises out of concern about the standard of housing and community facilities that will be supplied at Katherine. It is up to the Northern Territory Government to ensure that the necessary community facilities will be provided; that is, schools, health facilities and recreation facilities. I am pleased to see that the report of the Public Works Committee recommends that improvements be made to the original housing designs. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has just outlined some of the changes that have been proposed. If the Northern Territory Government constructs the necessary community facilities and when the improved housing is constructed, I think the RAAF personnel will find Katherine a very pleasant place indeed to live in. I have always found Katherine a very pleasant town to visit on the regular occasions I visit it when I am away from the Parliament. As I said earlier today, this project is part of $265m worth of developments which are coming on stream in the Northern Territory under the first term of the Hawke Labor Government. This compares with the virtual death of public construction in the Northern Territory under the seven years of the Liberal Government as the figures I cited earlier on the Darwin airport development will demonstrate. It appears that even the Northern Territory Government admits in a covert way the great benefit the Territory will receive in capital works projects in the coming decades of the Hawke Labor Government. I have a very glossy publication which I am sure all honourable members have received. It is put out by the Department of the Chief Minister as part of his promotional and propaganda campaign in his doomed attempt to win the Northern Territory Federal seat. Mr Dawkins —Who paid for it? Mr REEVES —The Northern Territory taxpayer and indirectly, the Australian taxpayer paid for it. I imagine it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to circulate that magazine to the people throughout Australia to whom it seems to have been circulated. If I could just get one per cent in public funding of the amount the Chief Minister spends on propaganda and promotion in his doomed attempt to win the Northern Territory seat, I would be a millionaire. The map on the last page of this document shows, although it does not spell it out in direct terms, the massive commitment to be made by the Hawke Labor Government to capital works in the Northern Territory. Mr Cadman —It does not show a railway. Mr REEVES —I will come to the railway in a minute. This map nominates eight projects, including the Tindal Air Force development and the Darwin Airport that we have discussed tonight, which will receive support from the Federal Government. Surprisingly, the map does not mention three other very significant projects. They are the famous Mount Isa to Darwin railway which is to be funded by the Queensland Government and supported by the Northern Territory Government at a cost of $700m, the upgrading of the Stuart Highway at a cost of $110m and the Kakadu tourist plan at a cost of $70m. Those three projects involve a total expenditure of $870m. It is very surprising that they are not included. If the three projects are included, the Hawke Labor Government is involved in funding- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory has proved his point. He has wandered far away from the discussion. I invite him to wind up. Mr REEVES —I am just coming back to the importance to the Northern Territory of this $176m project in the overall expenditure of the Hawke Labor Government in its first term of office. This project involves $176m of expenditure. The projects nominated here involve $1,000m worth of expenditure. We can see that this project, along with the other projects I have mentioned, involve a very substantial commitment by the Hawke Labor Government to capital development in the Northern Territory. The real story is that the Northern Territory is being developed directly as a result of a commitment of the Hawke Labor Government. I therefore wholeheartedly support this project and the money-where-its-mouth-is approach of the Hawke Labor Government to northern defence and northern development. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FIFE —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr FIFE —The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) was so anxious to make comment about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway that he did not listen carefully to what I said. He made a reference to a visit by me to Darwin as a member of the Opposition and announcing the go-ahead for Tindal. Obviously he was referring to the visit I made as Vice-Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works. But in my remarks I referred to the visit I made on 28 November 1982 when I was Minister for Aviation. It was during that visit that I indicated publicly that an investigation was taking place in relation to Tindal and that the Government had made funds available for that investigation. It was that visit and not the more recent visit as a member of the Public Works Commitee to which I referred. Question resolved in the affirmative. MR HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.18) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to the Parliament: Redevelopment of surgical and support facilities at the Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland. The proposal referred to the Committee is for the replacement of obsolete surgical and support facilities at the hospital in order to overcome functional and operational inadequacies. The main elements of the proposal are: A suite of six new operating theatres; an intensive therapy unit; a gastroenterology unit; a clinical sciences unit; and an admissions centre. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the work in the reference. The Committee's report includes several recommendations and conclusions on which I wish to comment. The Committee recommended that a multi-disciplinary study team be established to evaluate an operating theatre concept put forward by Email Ltd, at the public hearing of the Committee. This is a complex technical area which I agree warrants further examination. My Department will initiate this action in consultation with the Departments of Veterans' Affairs and Health and other relevant authorities. The Committee also recommended that a senior level Commonwealth and State standing committee be established in each State to consider long term planning of repatriation hospitals. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has noted the Committee's recommendations and has asked me to inform the House that he proposes to refer this particular recommendation to the current review into the repatriation hospital system for consideration. The Committee concluded that the parking arrangements in the vicinity of the hospital are unsatisfactory and that construction of a proposed multistorey carpark should proceed at the same time as the works in this reference. An outlay of some $3m to $4m on such a facility is significant in the context of other high priority proposals being considered in the Budget context. It is receiving consideration and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has advised me that he will explore this matter with the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The estimated cost of the proposed work is $13,200,000 at December 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. I visited the hospital recently in company with my colleague the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). It was interesting to see the model of this development. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.22) —This work is of the utmost urgency. The Opposition warmly supports the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Hurford). The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), in whose electorate this project is situated, is a member of the Public Works Committee and visited the hospital during the period of the Public Works Committee was investigating this matter. He will speak on behalf of the Public Works Committee in this debate. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(11.23) —I take this opportunity briefly to say just a few words about this proposal to redevelop the existing facilities at Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, that are part of the motion the House is considering this evening. I wish to highlight some of the remarks made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). He said: 'The existing facilities are obsolete'. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) said: 'This work is of the utmost urgency'. In order to illustrate those points in more detail might I say that, during the inspection of the hospital at Greenslopes, the Public Works Committee found, as it has found on many occasions when it has conducted inspections since I have been a member of it, that facilities had passed far beyond the stage at which anything other than replacement could be considered. We have seen some appalling conditions in the facilities we have examined. I am not saying that I could accuse the former Government of being totally responsible for a situation that regularly faces the Public Works Committee when it inspects facilities in that it is hardly possible for it to make any decision other than to recommend that the proposed work proceed. As I have stated in this House, that is now fact. On occasion after occasion, almost without exception, members of the Committee have found that the need is so obvious there is no alternative for us other than to recommend that the work proceed. To illustrate that in more detail, the Committee inspected the existing gastroenterology unit in the hospital at Greenslopes. Member of the Committee were given information by the Department of Health which highlighted the deficiencies of the existing facilities. They were: Lack of patient privacy in recovery areas, a cramped waiting room and inadequate patient toilet facilities and office area. In the clinical sciences unit there are antiquated buildings, lack of storage space, cramped research facilities and poor student accommodation. In the existing operating suites there were cramped changing facilities; absence of anaesthetic rooms; inadequate work flow and congested entrance; restricted access in recovery area; and lack of relatives' waiting area. In the intensive therapy unit there were generally cramped facilities; overcrowding of equipment and administrative areas; location of new admission centre and clinical sciences unit were unsatisfactory. I compliment the Minister on his proposal to proceed with these very necessary and urgently needed facilities at Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital. In respect of car parking facilities, there was a proposal for an additional 20 car spaces. I and other members of the Committee questioned departmental witnesses about this proposal, and I took the opportunity to highlight the fact that it was about time the Commonwealth faced up to its responsibilities and provided the car parking facilities that any private developer in similar circumstances would be required to provide. Evidence was given to the Committee and on the admission of sworn testimony departmental representatives said such things as this: I think in general it could be said that in Australia insufficient attention has been given to parking facilities . . . My personal view is that we ought to be trying to do something to alleviate it. That was said by a representative of the Department appearing before the Committee. Again, it was said of the lack of car parking facilities: It is cropping up far too often . . . I think there is scope for plenty of other people to be thinking about it, too, and doing something about it. I am pleased to see that on our recommendations the Government will think about it and, hopefully, will do something about it. It is certainly a fact that the residents in quite a number of streets adjacent to the Greenslopes Hospital are not being treated fairly. They are being denied ready access to their homes and the provision of additional car parking facilities on the hospital site will overcome this problem. I readily admit that it was the Government's intention at a later stage in the redevelopment of Greenslopes to do something about car parking, but it is high time that something was done. I made the point to the departmental representatives at the time the Veterans' Affairs Department gave the Committee a copy of what was termed the 'RDH Greenslopes Corporate Strategy'. That corporate strategy referred to, among other things, the objective of the Department in respect of that hospital. It was said that one of the objectives was to be a good neighbour in the community. I suggest to the Minister that to carry that into effect it is very much warranted that the Department of Veterans ' Affairs should do its utmost to convince the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) , who is present in the chamber this evening, on this matter. I am glad to be able to make this point strongly to him in the interests of the people in my electorate, and particularly the residents in the Greenslopes area, who have been inconvenienced for far too long. I trust that, out of the goodness of his heart, he will make funds available to our colleague Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, to see that the necessary car parking facilities are made available at the Greenslopes Hospital during the time this current proposal is in the construction stage. I compliment the Government on proceeding with this project and look forward in 12 months time to seeing tenders called and work under way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.30) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of surgical and diagnostic facilities at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales. The proposal referred to the Committee is to provide new accommodation to overcome inadequacies in existing surgical and diagnostic facilities and other services. The main elements of the proposal are: A suite of six new operating theatres; a new central sterilising and supply facility; pathology laboratory; expanded organ imaging facilities; and centralised stores facility. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the work in the reference. As was the case in the Public Works Committee report on Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital, with which I have already dealt, the Committee's report includes recommendations and conclusions about an Email operating theatre concept and the establishment of a Commonwealth and State standing committee to consider long term planning of repatriation hospitals. I have covered these points in my comments on the Greenslopes Hospital proposal. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $12,100,000, at December 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.31) —The project covered by this motion also has the strong support of the Opposition. Much of what has been said about the Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital can also be said of the Concord Repatriation General Hospital project. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I was present when the Committee visited Concord and considered the submissions that were placed before it by the relevant departments. So both on behalf of the Opposition and personally, I indicate strong support for the work that the Government has in mind. On behalf of the Public Works Committee, I again thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for the consideration he has given to the Committee's reports. I believe that the Public Works Committee's examination of these projects is important and it is important for the Parliament to note the weight that the Government places on the recommendations that are provided. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to comments made by the Minister that refer to both projects, when he said that he had noted that the Committee had recommended that a senior level Commonwealth and State standing committee be established in each State to consider long term planning of repatriation hospitals. When dealing with Greenslopes, the Minister indicated to the House that his colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) had noted these recommendations and that he intended to refer this particular recommendation to the current review into the repatriation hospital system for consideration. My purpose in mentioning this is so that the House will be aware of the recommendation and also to impress upon the Minister the view of the Committee that such a committee is essential. We believe that there are some longer term considerations that need to be addressed at this stage and also addressed progressively from this point. I hope that the Government will ultimately adopt the recommendation of the Committee in this respect. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.33) —The question often put to me is: What is the difference between being in a State parliament and a Federal parliament? I find the difference is that in the Federal Parliament one does sometimes achieve something that is essential. When I first went to the Concord Repatriation General Hospital, the nursing sisters told me that in the operating theatres the dirty linen went out of the same door used to bring in the clean linen. That is very serious and it showed me how antiquated the operating theatres were. I did not think that anybody took any notice of it when I raised that fact in this House on almost the first occasion on which I spoke. Tonight we have the opportunity to support the Public Works Committee's recommendation that six operating rooms, as they are now called-they are no longer called theatres; there is nobody looking down, as there is in this place, at the poor person under the anaesthetic-be placed at the site and that the laboratory space will be expanded. There will be a new central operating room/ sterilising area. The hospital has the largest work force in the electorate of Lowe, which I am very fortunate to represent. There are 2,500 people employed there, nearly 50 per cent of whom are females. I congratulate the Opposition for supporting this proposal. The Government has also upgraded the laundry which reminded me very much of a laundry which I saw in an East German movie. It was in a prison camp during the war. The laundry at the Repatriation Hospital was so bad that it had to be closed and the staff sent home early on hot days. There was no ventilation . The working conditions were appalling and a lot of money still needs to be spent there. I trust that the Government will press ahead and upgrade ward accommodation at the hospital. Not only the veterans, but also the 20 per cent of community patients should not have to share bathrooms with 20 or 30 other people. We do not expect such conditions any more in a public hospital. People have higher community expectations these days and they expect more privacy. The hospital authorities feel that there is a great need for more single room accommodation for people who are very ill, people who are dying and people who are very upset by the presence of others. This approval is an important step forward and I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford ) for getting the funds to launch this project. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and all the staff at the hospital. The hospital is sited in a glorious position on the Parramatta River. It is part of the Thomas Walker Estate and it really has outstanding potential. These developments approved in the House today only go to enhance this very important and splendid medical centre within the electorate of Lowe. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.37) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of accommodation for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Stage 1), Hobart, Tasmania. The proposal is for the construction of a building for the first stage of an integrated broadcasting and television complex for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Hobart to replace current unsatisfactory facilities in five separate locations throughout the city. The first stage will provide accommodation for all radio activities, including program transmission, production and recording, associated technical services and also for management and administrative services. Engineering workshops and stores facilities will also be provided. The site for the proposed complex is the old Hobart railway station, well known to all honourable members as they drive from the airport into the city. It comprises some 2.6 hectares and the buildings have been designed to blend into this historic environment. The Committee noted that there will soon be a need to redevelop television facilities in Hobart. This need has already been recognised by the ABC and the building design makes provision for a second stage, which will provide the television facilities. The timing of this additional work will depend on the availability of funds and the priority afforded by the ABC in view of its need to upgrade substantially accommodation in other locations such as Sydney and Melbourne. The Committee also concluded that application of Department of Administrative Services accommodations guidelines appears to have been generous, with excessive allocations in some cases and asked that individual office allocations be reviewed. The Committee then noted, however, that taking proposed stage 2 into account, the overall space allocation is not excessive. I have been advised that the allocations were determined by the ABC in conjunction with the Department of Administrative Services. Nevertheless, the ABC will review the allocations for individual offices as suggested by the Committee during the detailed design phase, which will follow approval of this work. I suggest they might take as their model the space that Ministers and and members have in this Parliament House. The Committee has also asked that additional provision be made for toilets for the disabled. This will be done. The estimated cost of the work in the reference is $7.7m at September 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.39) —I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Opposition strongly supports the motion and the work that is proposed to be carried out as a result of it. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I visited Hobart and took part in the inquiry. I had the opportunity, along with my colleagues who were members of the Committee, to cross-examine a number of witnesses. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was one of those witnesses. I understand that he wishes to make a few comments on the motion. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.40) —It is with very great pleasure that I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), on the speed with which they have moved the expediency motion for this project. Mr Steedman —The Hawke socialist Government. Mr HODGMAN —In answer to my friend, the honourable member for Casey, I state that I always knew that somewhere in the deep dark depths of the Hawke socialist Government I would find someone with a heart of gold, and I congratulate the Minister. In passing, I also congratulate his colleague, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The hour is late, Mr Speaker, but this is a project which has been very close to the hearts of many people in Hobart and Tasmania generally for many years. So, when I inform the House that Broadcast House, out of which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation operates, has been utilised for 50 years-that is older than me, Mr Speaker, and only one or two years younger than you-that that building was declared inadequate in 1936, that the ABC has operated in recent years out of no fewer than 13 separate buildings on 4 separate sites, it will be appreciated that the matter is one which the Committee very readily accepted warranted the immediate approval of stage 1, radio, costing $7.7m. stage 2, television, at approximately $13m will make this a $20m project-the biggest Commonwealth building project ever in Tasmania. I shall not read the details, but I commend to the Minister paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Committee's report, which appear on pages 11 and 12. Mr Lindsay —What about Townsville television? Mr HODGMAN —I am obliged to the honourable member for Herbert. I urge that stage 2, television, be started, if it can be started, and constructed at the same time as stage 1; but, at the very latest, it should be constructed immediately stage 1 is completed. As to construction, the Minister has the advantage. His Department, which has the best permanent head in the whole of the Commonwealth Public Service, has in its possession a report prepared in December 1982. Those plans are still relevant. The plans can be done quickly, and work can commence well before Christmas or the election, whichever is the sooner. I now want to honour a commitment which the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who is a member of the Committee, will recall. I am grateful for the Government's action in respect to Tasmania, the ABC and Hobart, but I have to say, in fairness, that we should also think of other parts of Australia. I hope that the representations of the honourable member for Herbert and others with respect to ABC facilities in Rockhampton and Townsville will be recognised and acted upon by the Government. That is a matter of Australia-wide importance. I thank the Minister for his expediency motion and I thank the Committee for the magnificent job that it did. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing the Construction)(11.44) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgency related to implementation of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Hobart Airport , Tasmania. Upgrading of aircraft pavements and terminal facilities. The Federal and State governments propose to upgrade Hobart Airport for use by international wide-body jet aircraft on a restricted basis. The works to be undertaken with Commonwealth funds provided to the Tasmanian Government as part of the interim agreement for financial assistance following cessation of the Gordon-below-Franklin project, comprise: provision of runway end turning nodes, taxiway fillet widening and taxiway shoulder widening for use by wide-body aircraft on a restricted basis; extension of the international aircraft apron; upgrading and extension of existing apron floodlighting to international standards; limited expansion of the international terminal building; and roadworks and additional car-parking. The estimated cost of these works is $3m. Failure to proceed immediately with final planning and implementation of the proposed works in the Parliament's winter recess 1984 puts at risk the spirit of the Government's agreement with the State to provide alternative employment opportunities. In view of the urgency related to implementation of this work in providing alternative employment opportunities and the tight construction timetable proposed, it is not practicable for the project to be referred to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. I have written to the Acting Chairman of the Public Works Committee about this and do hope that if the House agrees to support this motion construction can proceed in accordance with the timetable. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.46) —Mr Speaker, the Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Hurford) very kindly brought this matter to my attention yesterday. I thank him for his courtesy in providing the detailed information in advance of moving this motion in the House this evening. Special circumstances surround the project that is the subject of the motion and because of these circumstances the Opposition supports the motion and raises no objection to the course of action proposed by the Minister. However, as a member of the Public Works Committee I wish to say to the Minister that I have not had an opportunity to bring this matter formally to the attention of the Public Works Committee so I am not able to speak on behalf of the Committee, but my view is that all members of the Public Works Committee would recognise the special circumstances and the urgency of the work and so would support the Minister's proposal and the Government's intention in this regard. However, I must not let the opportunity pass without reminding the Minister-I am sure he does not really need to be reminded-that the Public Works Committee believes that projects that exceed the limit set by this House should always be referred unless there are special circumstances. I know he is very well aware of our attitude and I am sure it is also his attitude. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(11.48) —Mr Speaker, the Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Hurford) has described this work at Hobart Airport as being part of the interim agreement for financial assistance following cessation of the Gordon below Franklin project. This raises very important issues for Tasmanians because this is one work at least which indicates that the Government has not kept agreements, not kept solemn promises, as to what would form part of the dam compensation scheme. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave Tasmanians a number of assurances that Tasmania would be fairly and properly compensated for the stopping of the Gordon below Franklin scheme but from the very beginning there has been a great fear that the Prime Minister might not play the game. We were worried, as Tasmanians, that the Prime Minister would produce an economic package that would appear attractive on the surface but which in fact might include the normal ongoing capital works which the Commonwealth undertakes in every State. This issue concerned all the Tasmanian Liberal team, and it met with the Prime Minister in the Cabinet room at the end of May 1983. At that meeting the Prime Minister promised that compensation projects would be kept separate from normal capital works due to Tasmania. I have here minutes taken at that meeting, at which were present the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), Senator Harradine, Senator Watson, Senator Townley, Senator Archer, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), Senator Walters, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), Senator Rae, Senator Coates, Senator Tate, Senator Hearn and Senator Grimes and I. The meeting got to the point of seeking particular information. Mr Speaker, this is very relevant. Mr SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member realises that I have allowed him some latitude. Mr NEWMAN —Yes, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for it. Mr SPEAKER —I hope he will not abuse that latitude. Mr NEWMAN —It is not only important but also very relevant. When the Prime Minister was asked questions about where capital works would fit into the compensation package, he said: . . . Tasmania has particular problems if you put the matter of the dam aside. I understand your point that you don't want to be given something as compensation which you were going to get anyway. We are not going to do that. I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. Mr NEWMAN —In a joint communique of March 1984 between the Premier and the Prime Minister it was announced that a further $5m would be provided to the end of 1984 under the special interim financial agreement on dam compensation. That communique stated: In the course of the discussion the Prime Minister made the following offers to the Premier: $3 million of the latter sum would be allocated by the Commonwealth for the further upgrading of Hobart Airport to limited international operations. The remaining $2 million would be available for projects nominated by the Tasmanian Government. I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. Mr NEWMAN —Some $3m of that sum was to be allocated for the further upgrading of Hobart Airport to limited international airport operations. This was described in detail by Senator Gietzelt in the Senate on 7 May 1984 in answer to a question by Senator Tate. Both senators very carefully described this as being part of the Gordon below Franklin offset package. What is detailed on page 1629 of the Hansard record of 7 May is exactly the same detail as is given by the Minister tonight. The Minister stated that it is to cover: . . . pavement works consisting of runway turning nodes, taxiway fillets and apron extensions, costing $2.4m; and technical capital works consisting of provision of taxiing lights, floodlighting and distance measuring equipment costing $0.2m, which will leave $0.4m for other works. Senator Gietzelt also said: This could be used to enlarge the terminal building to cater for two-way flow of B727 loads. These works are no more than proposals considered to be necessary by the Department of Aviation which were being developed as early as April 1983. The works are detailed in a telex from the Department of Aviation regional office in Victoria to the central office in Canberra. The telex is entitled 'Hobart Airport, programmed and approved works'. It details the works proposals. Lo and behold here are those proposals exactly the same as the so-called special provisions supposed to be specially made for the compensation package. The works proposals in the telex provide for 747 fillets and turning nodes, extensions to the terminal apron, widening of taxiways to take 747 aircraft, extensions to the international terminal building and extensions to the freight apron. I seek leave to table that telex. Leave granted. Mr NEWMAN —We can see that this has been developed into a firm 1984-85 new project proposal to commence in 1984-85 at a cost of $3m. On 5 May that was developed into a firm proposal. I will not go through that as it is getting late . That document is entitled '1984-85 New Policy Proposals'. That and another document entitled 'Acceleration of Capital Works in Tasmania' show the progress of all this work through the Department of Aviation. I seek leave to table those two documents so that the House can see the total process of how the Department of Aviation was developing this as a normal capital works new project proposal through the Department of Aviation. Leave granted. Mr NEWMAN —It is of great concern that whilst the Premier of Tasmania has entered into negotiations with the Hawke Government in a spirit of goodwill and trust it would appear that the Prime Minister has not done so. He has been caught red-handed in the act of repudiating solemn promises made to the Tasmanian people and to all those people I detailed at that meeting that took place in the Cabinet office so early last year. This casts doubt on the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister in general. It certainly casts doubt specifically on the sincerity of the promises he has made to Tasmania. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(11.55) —I have had a chance to read only some of the documentation referred to by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). We are under some constraint as to the extent to which these matters can be discussed by us because of the nature of the agreement that we have with the Tasmanian Government on general comments about the assistance package. There may be some confusion in the mind of the honourable gentleman between a $3m package that was spent at Hobart Airport arising from a process that developed last year and for which expenditure was concluded some time around December of last year, and the $3m Tasmanian assistance package which was subsequently developed earlier this year. The two amounts are identical but they are for different purposes. The initial amount of $3m that was spent was advanced, because it also appeared in an earlier compensation package, by myself from, I will admit, proposals which had been previously considered by the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. At one stage the proposals were rejected by that Committee and the question of when Hobart Airport would be developed was left to some point in the future. The initial $3m was spent in accordance with a desire to provide compensation for Tasmania. The expenditure was advanced by a period of at least 12 months in the light of consideration being given to the Tasmanian aid package. Let us take aside the question of how particular aviation proposals appear in the Budget process. My Department is continually developing proposals for aviation expenditure for points of time when the aviation industry requires it. We will go through the normal budgetary process to obtain it. The present proposals will naturally be developed by the Department bearing in mind the aviation purpose. It was not my intention to submit that in the normal budgetary process for the very simple and very good reason that there is no section of the aviation industry putting forward a request for that $3m worth of expenditure. That is not to say that as a proposal it would proceed through the four categories in which aviation proposals are put before government, concluding with a proposal which ultimately becomes operationally urgent. At some time in the next five to 10 years, as a result of approaches by the airlines, that request could have come up. There is no doubt about that. Three, four or five years down the line Qantas Airways Ltd might, for some reason that it has not hitherto expressed, desire to develop Boeing 767 operations into Hobart, in which case those proposals, which will have already been within the Department at the planning stage, would come forward for the normal budgetary consideration. The fact is that we could not and would not have moved on any of the proposals except in the compensation package. Additional evidence for that is provided by the fact that this is perhaps the only piece of aviation expenditure of this nature at an airport-certainly in the memory of most of the officers who are giving advice to me and certainly in my memory, which is not as long as theirs-at an airport which will not be included when completed in the cost recovery process from the airlines because there is no aviation justification for that decision taken in the terms in which we apply aviation justification. Mr Newman —That is wrong. You are not comprehending what I have said. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member is not comprehending what I am saying to him. In my Department plans are circulating for a parallel runway at Perth Airport. They are in my Department's program. Exactly what we intend to do has been costed. However, we are not proceeding with those plans because at this point there is no justification for doing so. There are plans in my Department for a wide range of aviation changes. They are circulating. If the honourable member decided to put in an application for information on them under the Freedom of Information Act he would find an awful lot of them kicking around, in the same way as he would find proposals kicking around in regard to various airports in Tasmania. What is relevant is the point at which we decide to insert them into the budgetary process. We do not do so until there is a requirement by the airlines for those developments to take place. No such requirement has been put forward in the case of Hobart. No such requirement was anticipated by my Department for any considerable time. That proposal is a part of the aid package and it has attracted the attention of the Tasmanian Government. That Government desired that there be a Commonwealth expenditure in Tasmania associated with the compensation package. Therefore, we included the proposals as part of the package for the Tasmanian Government to consider. As I said, one can find papers on Hobart, on Launceston, and on Perth involving all sorts of expenditure. Despite the criticism that the honourable member is making, these proposals would have gone forward anyway. Maybe that is so. But five to 10 years hence is a fair sort of period when one is talking about the sort of life we are talking about. One is drawing a very long bow indeed. We would not have proceeded with this proposal but for the compensation package. The fact that the honourable member is trying to make a point about the airport which he himself attempts more or less vigorously to defend is a point I note. But in the context of what we are dealing with here it is absolutely irrelevant, and of no significance at all. It is legitimately within the compensation package and legitimately not within the aviation cost recovery program. Indeed, I have had letters from the airlines seeking my assurance that this expenditure is not within the aviation cost recovery program because, as they point out to me, it is not justified in connection with it. Friday, 8 June 1984 Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.03 a.m.) —There seems to be a bit of confusion, but I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been caught red-handed. Let me go back a little in history. Nearly $1m was spent on an international terminal in Hobart. At the moment it is a white elephant because only about one aeroplane comes in a week. But we did it for the future of Tasmania. We worked and fought for that terminal for the future of Tasmania. We do not want it to just sit there and be used by East-West Airlines Ltd. We want other aeroplanes to come into Tasmania to open it up and to make it the tourist centre that we want. We do not want to hear the waffle that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) goes on with about the number of tourists. We planned for that. That is the reason we all knew there was going to be development to the value of $3m to develop the runway, first, to a Boeing 747 standard and then later to allow entry by large wide-bodied jets. I was at the meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We were told that the $3m worth of capital works that we would get one day or another was not to be confused with the dams issue. We have no dam in Tasmania. We had a book being launched today by Lionel Murphy one of the justices of the High Court of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he is getting close to offending against the Standing Orders of the House. He will get on with the motion before the Chair. 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 7 and 8 June 1984 Mr GOODLUCK —The editor of the book talks about a road being constructed in Tasmania that will not be of any benefit. It will be an intrusion into the south west of Tasmania. We lost the dam because of a court decision. We wanted compensation for that, but we do not want to be hoodwinked with confusion about what capital works will be done in Tasmania. The pure and simple fact is that we were promised the $3m. I was promised that a long time ago. The upgrading of the terminal was just the first thing. I am not interested in what the airlines say. I am not interested in what the officers of the Department of Aviation say. We were planning for the development of Hobart Airport. I also get a bit sick of some of the politicians around this country having a tilt at Tasmania and saying: 'You should not have this and you should not have that'. We heard about millions of dollars being spent in the Northern Territory. The Territory does not have the population of Tasmania. We want development too. Anything for Tasmania is regaded as a handout for the poor little apple isle. We appreciate the $3m. The airport proposal is a capital work that we believe is in the best interests of Tasmania. The airport is the gateway to Tasmania. I say to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) 'Bad luck, Kevin', but Hobart is the capital city of Tasmania. We want the $3m to be spent. We want further money spent to improve this airport to make it the gateway to Tasmania. But let us not confuse it-I see my friend the Prime Minister has entered the chamber-with compensation for the dam. I do not wish to say any more. Let us go on with the development. I say to the Prime Minister, 'At the next election, the gloves will be off, Robert'. We will fight him every inch of the way to make certain that he will do what he said in his little meeting-if that can be called a little meeting-and that he will honour his obligations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.08 a.m.) —I move : That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June 1984, namely: The construction of formal seating at the Australian National Gallery amphitheatre. The National Capital Development Commission has proposed the construction of formal seating to the Australian National Gallery amphitheatre. It will be located in the Gallery sculpture gardens within the parliamentary zone. The amphitheatre will accommodate approximately 300 people and is to be constructed within the existing grassed amphitheatre bowl in the north west corner of the gardens. The proposed seating capacity for 300 people was determined in consultation with the Arts Council of Australia and the Canberra Theatre Trust. The amphitheatre was originally proposed as an integral component of the landscaped sculpture garden. However, its construction as a part of the landscape development on the site was deferred to reduce costs. The project was reactivated at the request of the Australian National Gallery. The capacity and detailed requirements for the amphitheatre have been the subject of consultation between the National Capital Development Commission, the Gallery Council and the Australian Capital Territory Division of the Arts Council. The Gallery Council requires a facility which can be used for outdoor gallery related activities such as performance art and education programs. In addition, the Gallery intends that its future activities will encompass the performing arts and proposes that the amphitheatre be used for outdoor musical performances , dramatic presentations and poetry readings. The Australian Capital Territory Arts Council, for example, will use the amphitheatre as a venue for community programs, and it is intended that it will be completed in time for the 1985 Canberra Festival. I commend the motion to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.10 a.m.) —I thank the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) for the additional information he has provided in his address tonight. I sought some of the information yesterday when the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House was considering this proposal for the parliamentary zone and preparing its report. Some of the additional information which was also provided but which the Minister did not mention in his speech includes the fact that this will be one of the three amphitheatres in the Australian Capital Territory. While it will provide a valuable adjunct to the capacity of the Australian National Gallery to house audiences for its own educational programs as well as providing as venue for a wider range of performances by the performing arts in the Australian Capital Territory, this will be an additional facility to the internal theatre that the Gallery already has. The Committee heard that evidence and the matters that were mentioned by the Minister and supported this project fully. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.11 a.m.) —I move : That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June, namely: The construction of a two-storey prefabricated modular building in the House of Representatives' gardens and linked to the existing building by a covered walkway at the first floor level. The passage of the Representation Act 1983 will result in the election of an additional 12 senators and 23 members at the next election for the Senate and the House of Representatives. These expanded numbers will need to be accommodated while the Parliament continues to sit in the provisional Parliament House. It is the intention of the Presiding Officers that all senators and members in the enlarged Parliament have their own rooms in areas adjacent to the present building. In response to the brief, accommodation must be found for 35 members and senators in separate rooms, each with a single staff member and the essential facilities and services needed to enable these parliamentarians and their staff to operate. Against this background the proposal for construction of a two-storey prefabricated modular building has been developed. The building will be sited in the House of Representatives gardens and linked to the existing building by a covered walkway at the first floor level. This new annex will provide air conditioned accommodation for 12 of the 17 members currently occupying offices in the Senate side of the House. The vacated rooms will then be available for allocation to the 12 additional senators. Twenty-four other members of the House of Representatives will be accommodated in the annex building, as will the support staff for the private members. There will also be facilities for the attendants, together with toilet facilities and plant rooms. A ministerial suite will be lost in providing the link to the existing building. This will be replaced by re-allocating accommodation. The balance of the ministerial suite will provide offices for two members. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $1,300,000. If the proposal is approved in the current period of sitting completion will be achieved by February 1985. When the Parliament is relocated in the new and permanent Parliament House these prefabricated demountable units will be removed and disposed of for re-use to the best advantage. I commend the motion to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.15 a.m.) —This is an important matter and therefore my comments will be a little longer. Liberal members of the Committee made it clear yesterday that a natural consequence of the Government's decision to increase the size of the Parliament was that consideration would have to be given to the provision of additional accommodation. The support that was given to this proposal was in no way to be interpreted as support for the proposition that the size of the Parliament should be increased, but in fact it needed to be understood clearly that as a consequence of the decision to increase the size of the Parliament, to increase the number of politicians in Canberra, there would be additional expenditure of this order. I should remind the Parliament that members of the Liberal Party opposed Labor's legislation to increase the numbers of politicians. Seven months ago we opposed the Representation Bill for three fundamental reasons. More politicians mean more-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that we are dealing with accommodation for additional members and senators. We are not re-debating a decision of the House. Mr RUDDOCK —I am not seeking to re-debate that decision. What I am seeking to do is to ensure that members are aware of the consequences of the decision that was taken earlier. The consequence was that additional expenditure of $1.3m has to be incurred. That is a consequence of a very significant order. The very reason that people had doubts about the increase in the size of the Parliament was that additional costs were likely to be involved. There are other costs flowing from that same decision. We will need additional people to service the additional members and provision for them will need to be incorporated in this development. We will need additional space for attendants and for the staff who will be employed for the additional members. It is argued that this is a natural consequence, but it needs to be understood that 35 more parliamentarians will mean a large amount of additional expenditure in terms of bureaucracy, additional services and the like. The Liberal Party does not believe that there has been a demonstrable need for a reduction in the size of electorates, as has been argued, and for that reason we opposed the previous proposal. The third matter is that not only is $1.3m involved in the provision of additional premises in this building by the mechanism outlined by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), but also an additional $10m of taxpayers' money is already being spent in the provision of additional members. This matter should have been referred to the people, but that was not to be. That decision has already been taken. There are consequences from the decision that was taken earlier. Something of the order of $1.3m plus $10m in salaries is being incurred for what in fact are temporary extensions for the extra number of members who have to be accommodated. That means that there will be a two-storey temporary building next to this building in the House of Representatives gardens and, as the Minister has pointed out, that will be there for a mere three years. Then it may well be that the premises will be removed. It is only a matter of three years until 1988 when the Parliament will move to its new House. I do not think there is any need for this additional expense. It is being incurred only because of the decision taken by this Government, opposed by the Liberal Party, to increase the numbers of parliamentarians-senators and members-and as a consequence there are very significant additional costs to be borne by the Australian people. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.19 a.m.) —in reply-There will be a savings in the resale of the buildings after the three years, so that will be a reduction in the $1.3m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.20 a.m.) —I move : That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June 1984, namely: The temporary enclosure of the verandahs at the main floor level of the Provisional Parliament House on the northern facade of the building. There is considerable pressure on accommodation in this building and the temporary enclosure of the verandahs at the main floor level of Parliament House has been proposed. It is a cost effective and relatively straightforward way of providing some much needed additional space. I stress that the work will be removed when this Parliament vacates the provisional Parliament House to move into the new Parliament House. This will be a simple alteration in which the verandahs will be enclosed by glass, recessed behind the existing masonary pillars in such a way that the frames will not be visible from the exterior. The glass will be tinted so that the visual depth of the verandahs remains apparent. To control sun penetration, the present external glass walls and doors between the verandah and the adjoining rooms will be kept. A false ceiling will be constructed through which air-conditioning and other services will be extended to the enclosed space. The floor will be carpeted but the existing step down to the balconies will remain. Dividing walls along the enclosed space will be erected, but only behind the masonary pillars. The existing wrought iron balustrade will, of course, remain, and below the level of the balustrade natural ventilation could be incorporated if necessary. During design, arrangements will be made to ensure that office furniture and materials are kept well behind the new glass wall and the view of the front facade from Parkes Place will not be adversely affected either by the enclosure of the space or by the sight of furniture, fittings or activity within the office. No poster or similar material will be permitted to be displayed on the glass. The estimated cost of the work is $90,000. The proposal is an aesthetically satisfactory and economical solution to a very difficult space problem. I stress that the working conditions of the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) are particularly trying. I believe this is a good solution to that problem. I understand that officers of the National Capital Development Commission have had consultations with the people on the Senate side of the building who will be affected and that some arrangements have been made to make their accommodation comfortable. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.23 a.m.) —The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, whilst giving earnest consideration to this proposal, was not able to give unanimous support to it. In fact, there was a dissenting report from Senator Teague, Senator Reid and me in relation to the proposal to enclose the upper verandahs on the front of this building. One of the reasons advanced in that dissenting report was this: the proposal has been hastily and inadequately prepared and no detailed breakdown of cost is available and no breakdown of materials to be used is available. In support of that proposition let me say that the $90,000 was clearly an estimate, and the proposal is one that I think has been developed very quickly. I have no doubt, as the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) mentioned, that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in particular is working in a situation in which his staff are probably as crowded as most back benchers are in sharing one room with a staff member. Mr Uren —That is not so. Mr RUDDOCK —I suggest that it is crowded in comparison with other ministerial accommodation, but in relation to a member sharing one of the cell block offices on the House of Representatives side of the building-- Mr Young —Ministers are much worse off. Mr RUDDOCK —There is certainly crowded accommodation. But the fact of the matter is that there are, as is later identified in the dissenting report, alternative proposals being considered at the moment for temporarily altering this building. There could easily have been alternative proposals considered to this one of closing in the verandahs which are such an important feature of this building. The second point made in the dissent is this: The alteration to the front of Parliament House, even if temporary, seriously compromises the aesthetics and traditional design of the building as presented to the Australian public and visitors over very many years. The third matter is this: The proposed glazing will face strong sunlight by day and glaring floodlights by night, leading to serious visual and heating problems and denying access to adequate fresh air. The Minister has mentioned that he may try to cope with that. I am not sure how he is going to cope with it in terms of the existing air conditioning. Be that as it may, we are going to get fresh air as well as air conditioning. The fourth point is: There is no specific determination of the type of glass to be installed and there is no guarantee that a suitable glass will be found which will not offend for either its visual or heating or aesthetic effects. Mr Uren —It will be tinted. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister says that it will be tinted. That was discussed. But it is not known what tinting will be used. It is surmised that suitable glass will be able to be found. To this point in time, that has not been the case. Comparison was made with the Sydney and Melbourne buildings in Civic where a similar exercise has been carried out. If that is the case, the glass there is of a very dark brown shade and does seriously change the visual impact of the buildings. That would be a consequence of the way in which these verandahs are to be closed. The fifth point is: It is likely but as yet unresearched whether the additional air conditioning load to serve these extensions will seriously deny adequate air conditioning to existing areas of the building. Finally, the sixth point is: The alternative of providing additional Ministerial space elsewhere in the building or in the proposed temporary extension approved by the Committee does not appear to have been adequately considered. This is particularly so in terms of what the financial impact might have been of that particular proposal and whether or not it was reasonable, in order to get the extra space, for the Minister perhaps to move a little further away from the chamber. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.28 a.m.) -Like the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who has just spoken on behalf of the dissenting minority, I oppose this proposal. I do so not peculiarly because of the reasons that have been set out in the dissenting report but because I believe that for a government that sets itself out as having concern for our heritage and for the beauty of this building and the preservation of what it represents, to deface the front northern aspects of Parliament House in the way it is proposed is nothing less than scandalous. True , the accommodation is inadequate. It has been inadequate I think ever since Ministers were first permitted to have some increase in their staff. True it is, as my colleague the honourable member for Dundas explained, many members in this place face extreme pressures in terms of accommodation. I well recognise that a motion has been passed today to provide additional accommodation for members in the House of Representatives gardens and I commend you, Mr Speaker, and those responsible, for accepting that proposal. But to put glass across the face of a building which, since 1927 has been a temporary building, and which, since 1927, has provided a symbol of the Parliament I regard as nothing less than disgraceful. We all know the circumstances of that front verandah that we are going to close because we have another child or the side verandah that we think we are going to close in and make the house more liveable. The result is that we totally spoil the architecture and the concept. We deface the building. As far as I am concerned I think this proposition is one that comes from a government sadly lacking in propriety and certainly lacking in an understanding of the aesthetics of what should be the prime part of our parliamentary institution. I very much regret that in the circumstances of the dying hours of this session, after the House is off the air as was the case with the debate on video-tapes the other night, we are being told that the front of this Parliament is to be closed in and no longer will we have the beauty of the present facade. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), who prides himself on his concern for the environment and who has a fine record in that respect, puts forward a proposal which will see that part of his life which has been so important for so long being defaced in this way. Shame on you, Minister. I feel it is a very sad day indeed for this Parliament to have a proposal of this nature put before us. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.30 a.m.) —I wish to speak very briefly. This matter is of interest to me because I followed the right honourable member for New England and the former Minister for Defence (Mr Sinclair) into his office. He had the great privilege of having access to the verandah. He may be interested to know that since then the security people have made recommendations- Mr Sinclair —They didn't think you were so secure. Mr YOUNG —Let me explain this. The security officers said: 'The ex-Minister for Defence used to come in through the side door'. I said: 'Well, that seems a very civilised way to treat our office, that we can pull up at the front of Parliament House, walk up the verandah and enter our office'. The security people then said that that was not on; that all the doors- Mr Sinclair —That wasn't my fault. I opposed that, too. Mr YOUNG —I know, and so do I. I hope that Mr Speaker is listening. The verandah is now absolutely useless. One cannot get in or out; it just sits there. It is a funny thing. The former Government- Mr Sinclair —They probably didn't trust you. They trusted me. Mr YOUNG —I know they trusted the right honourable member. I am not suggesting that the security people did not trust him, but everyone kept asking why he used the side door. I could not explain that. I said that as a member of parliament, someone who is very privileged to serve in the national Parliament, I had great pride in it. Clyde Cameron told me that when he was first elected as a member of parliament in 1949 a car picked him up at the airport. The driver said to him: ' I will drop you off at the House of Representatives side door'. He said: 'No, I have been waiting nearly 40 years to get here. You will pull up at the front door and I will walk up the front steps because I want everyone to see that I am now a member of the House of Representatives of Australia'. He had great pride in it. We all share that pride. Except the right honourable member used to come in through the side door and I could not understand it. Now it appears that greater forces than even he and I-as the right honourable member knows, we both play an influential part in this Parliament-have closed off the verandah. I can look out the door at this verandah but, unless I were Tarzan and could break through a big iron door, I cannot get out to enjoy the fresh air, the sights or all the things that the verandah may offer to us. The other thing I want to say is in relation to our State colleagues. Normally a ministerial staff in the Federal Parliament is five, six or seven; it depends on what is happening with consultants. We all cower under a great burden that someone will say: 'You have too many staff. You do not need all those people'. We are supposed to be running Australia in this national Parliament, but we keep drawing back from someone who will be critical of us because we have one too many on our staff. The position in this Parliament House is nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. The right honourable member for New England has been very fortunate. For most of his career-although it has not been dotted with stars and glitter-he has been fortunate in that he has been a Minister. When I first became a member of parliament-like most other people when they first came here-I shared an office. I shared an office with the late very honourable, Laurie Wallis who was a very great person. Most of us had to share an office. In the days when the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Tom Uren, became a member- Mr Uren —There were four of us in one room. Mr YOUNG —There were four people in one room. The Opposition talks about pornography. That was almost pornographic. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Could we get back to the debate on the closing in of the verandah? Mr YOUNG —I sometimes think about the fortunate position that the Opposition has played in the Parliament. The right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) have spent their parliamentary career over the last 10 years basically in government. It is a real culture shock to find oneself in Opposition, with a little room with a couple of staff members treading on each other's toes. They cannot move. By Malcolm Fraser's standards, we are the most generous government in the world in terms of the provision of staff and facilities. Mr Howard —Mick, you are all heart. Mr YOUNG —I know. It is my Irish mother coming out in me. I do not love Opposition members all the time, but I do treat them as equals, as parliamentarians, and I do not intend to take a backward step in terms of the way parliamentarians ought to be treated. I think that the way in which we have treated ourselves, and particularly the way in which Opposition members submitted themselves to the whim of Malcolm by saying: 'We can stay in power longer if we treat the Opposition badly' were very incorrect as far as the Australian people were concerned. So all we are asking is that the space which is not being used and which cannot be used because of the security recommendations be used. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has an office which is too small. I ask him who had it before him. Mr Dawkins —Tony Street. Mr YOUNG —No one is as small as Tony Street. Mr Howard —I used to have a drink with Tony every night. Mr YOUNG —I know, but we do not have anybody as small as Tony to fit into that office. I invite honourable members opposite, after this debate, to go and have a drink with the Minister for Finance and have a look at his office. If he does not need another few squares, in order just to exist until the new Parliament House is built, no one does. I am only suggesting to honourable members that they should not overestimate what we are doing. All we are trying to do is give people a little more room. Mr Hunt —You close it in, Mick. We need the space. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr YOUNG —Now there is a split. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the matter before the Chair. Mr YOUNG —All I ask is this: What position would John Hyde take on this if he were here now? Would he close it in or would he not? I am suggesting to the Opposition that we do not need this extra bit of space. It is not going to be a catastrophe. The building will be restored, as it ought to be. We should not underestimate the facilities we need to carry out our duties. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(12.39 a.m.) —I am glad that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has sat down. He almost convinced me to change my vote. I support the Government and inform the House that I was not part of the dissenting group on the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I believe that the conditions for the building are such that this temporary measure should be taken . I believe the conditions applying to the Ministers involved are such that they should be changed. I had some hesitation, as was outlined in the dissenting report, with the exception that I believe the National Capital Development Commission's officers gave us their assurance. We have the assurance of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) tonight that great care will be taken to see that aesthetically all skill will be applied to see that the appearance of the building from Parkes Place will not be adversely affected. I have more confidence in the NCDC's capacity to bring forward a formula that will be satisfactory. I oppose the suggestion of deferring this matter. We are talking of such a short term application of this space that the work should proceed during the winter recess and should be finished by Christmas. If the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) goes ahead with his election we could well have members of our Party sitting in that space at Christmas time. I take the responsibility of accepting the majority decision in contradiction of my Party colleagues on that Committee. I speak as a one time Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, I do not take the business of allotting money for this function lightly. The amount of $90,000 is a fair amount. I believe the role of the Minister in this matter, along with the departmental officers, has been exemplary. In these circumstances he should be totally supported. However, I would add a caution-something I have discovered only this afternoon-that the Senate sides plans that were shown to us on the Committee are not correct. One of the senators' rooms is shown as a corridor instead of a room . I ask that greater care be taken by the National Capital Development Commission to see that the thought that this is a corridor does not continue and this matter is taken care of. Despite the eloquence of the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and the sincerity of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), I have great pleasure on this occasion in supporting the Government in this proposal. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.43 a.m.) —First of all, I thank the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) for his support. I inform the honourable member that at 3.30 this afternoon the National Capital Development Commission had discussions with members on the Senate side and that matter was rectified. I am sorry that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has left. I think he knew what the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was going to say. But when I mentioned the appalling conditions that the staff of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) work in, he nodded in agreement. So I think members of the Opposition realise the appalling conditions the staff are working under. I want to make a few comments to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) regarding the preservation and enhancement of the National Estate. As Minister responsible between 1972 and 1975 for bringing the term 'National Estate' into the Federal arena, I carried out an inquiry into the National Estate. It was found that due to the bulldozer mentality, the growth mentality and the exploitation by the former Government many beautiful buildings and areas were destroyed by its policies. Arising out of the National Estate inquiry we set up the Australian Heritage Commission. I say with great pride that I was able to introduce into this Parliament the legislation for the Australian Heritage Commission which now protects and also makes a national register of our heritage . I assure this House that the alteration of the verandah and the facade of this building will be a temporary one so that for three years the ministerial and Senate staff will have accommodation that is comfortable. I think that is a progressive and sensible decision to make. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.44 a.m.) —Mr Speaker, very briefly, I am concerned about your accommodation. I wonder whether the stories I hear that your chair will not move to the new Parliament House are right. That matter is of concern to me. Mr SPEAKER —That is not relevant to the matter before the House. Mr Sinclair —It is pretty important. Mr SPEAKER —I agree; it is very important. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(12.45 a.m.) —It is my great pleasure to present the eighth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. On this final day of the session let me thank all the members of the Publications Committee and all the members of the other committees of the Parliament who have performed excellent work this session. It has been a very hard working session for everyone concerned. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.46 a.m.) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 21 August 1984, unless otherwise called together by Mr Speaker or, in the event of Mr Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. This is the first experience we have had, certainly in my time in Parliament, of trying the new period of sittings of a four-day week. I know that lots of comments are coming in about whether it is good or bad. To some of the older members, such as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), whose families have grown up, perhaps it does not mean so much. Mr Sinclair —For the young ones like you and me it is just as bad. Mr YOUNG —I am probably a little bit after the right honourable member for New England, actually. For a number of the younger members of parliament with young families it is true that the four-day sitting weeks have meant that they have been able to spend a little more time at home. Some people travel from a long way away and that is something that the Parliament has to take into consideration. The lifestyles of members are important. This is something we will have to look at. The other problem we have is the way in which the business comes before the House and the preparation of that business by the parliamentary draftsmen and having that material available to us. The four-day sittings present difficulties for Ministers at Cabinet meetings and Cabinet committees. There are other matters that have to be looked at. By and large, rather vigorous debates have taken place between February and now over some matters. Obviously they will always take place in the Parliament. That is what we are here for. Some people are critical that sometimes we are a bit more vocal than we ought to be. I have always said that in my view the Parliament represents the people. No matter what generation the people who are elected to this Parliament come from, they behave in exactly the same manner. I think that is a replica of the community. The community debates matters rather vigorously. It does not matter where we come from, whether it be Port Adelaide, Hobart, the western suburbs of Sydney, Moree or Cobar. I do not think we have done anything in this session that we have to be ashamed of in terms of our performance on behalf of the Australian people. We may argue, as we will, about legislation and about what governments do and what governments do not do. We may argue about some of the more outrageous statements that people make in the Parliament from time to time. We have to carry that responsibility to the public. It will make its judgment of how we perform, how we conduct ourselves and so forth. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair ) is not a bad survivor. I am not a bad survivor myself. We have both seen the session through and, at the end of the session, we are still sitting at the top of the table. There might be something to learn from that. Mr Hunt —You are both uninsultable and indestructible. Mr YOUNG —As I am from an Irish-Catholic Labor family I am easily insulted. People have been hurling insults at us for 500 years and we have learnt to live with it. By and large the session has been a fruitful one. It has been a good test for the Government. A lot of the shadow Ministers who were perhaps feeling their mettle a bit last year have matured a little bit during this session. Some of them have shown that perhaps they are not up to being shadow Ministers and some of the people sitting behind them are looking to take their places. But that is something that they have to sort out in their own parties. Other people like the new honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is sitting in the House rather splendidly in his three-piece suit. That is something which Doug Anthony would not have done in Richmond but, nevertheless, things change and we have to respect the way that the honourable member ploughs his electorate. He will await his opportunity to play a more prominent part as will the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) as the redistribution takes place. He may find himself down in the southern districts. Mr Howard —Oh! Mr YOUNG —I say to the honourable member for Bennelong that the remark arises very much from a discussion the honourable member for Darling Downs and I had. Mr Howard —Leave Bennelong alone. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Bennelong has survived quite well in spite of his performance. We have tried not to inhibit his performance. It is something that we look forward to from time to time when he is appearing publicly. We take great heart from it. We did not think the new honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) could be further to the Right than Peter Nixon but there we are. We were proved wrong. Mr Sinclair —The ABC loves him. What are you talking about? Mr YOUNG —I know that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation loves him but the right honourable member for New England and leader of his Party gave him up because the National Party of Australia is a party of independent people. It can make up its own mind. The right honourable member for New England said that the honourable member for Gippsland joined the Party after he got preselection for Gippsland. I thought that that was a very good style of party if one could get preselection and then decide to join it. I said that I could not understand why the honourable member for Gippsland was jumping up and down so much about the assets test. Then I was told and I understood. I wish him all the best. Those are not the sorts of circumstances I was born into but I can understand it. I can appreciate it and, in some ways, I am rather jealous of the circumstances in which he finds himself. I know why he jumps up and down about the assets test. It is not as if-- Mr Porter —Have they fixed your Commodore? Mr YOUNG —Yes, they have fixed my Commodore. It is funny that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has asked about my Commodore because-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I wonder whether the Minister could return to the matter of the special adjournment. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, this is very important because the honourable member for Barker has raised the question about my Commodore which is almost four years old now. I had a great deal of trouble with it in the first week. There is a great story in the car industry that one should never buy a car that is manufactured on a Monday or a Friday. When my car broke down in the first four days I sent a telegram to Chuck Chapman, the General Manager of General Motors-Holden's Ltd, in which I said that my car must have been built on Saturday afternoon. In contrast to that I am now 47 years of age and I got my Commodore when I was 43. When the honourable member for Barker turned 21 he was presented with a new Jaguar outside the gates of the University of Adelaide. I have not really experienced some of the joys of life that the honourable member for Barker has enjoyed. Though some people outside the House believe that the Parliament is getting up between now and 21 August and that all of us are about to go into some sort of hibernation and do nothing, I know that most members will work very hard. Some have all sorts of commitments domestically and internationally. Also, parliamentary committees are going away and there is a lot of work to be done. Mr Hunt —I am not going abroad. Mr YOUNG —I sympathise with the Deputy Leader of the National Party in not going away. I shall make provision next year to see that he does. If those of us on this side of the House can enjoy every session of parliament as much as we have enjoyed this one- Mr Porter —You mean you enjoyed it better than the last one? Mr YOUNG —Well, we have enjoyed it better than we did between 1975 and March 1983. Even though the seats are the same colour, there is a great deal of difference between the two sides. Mr Howard —There is something about that side, isn't there? Mr YOUNG —Yes, the honourable member for Bennelong understands. He had to wait only about 18 months before he sat on this side of the House. He was then given the great and privileged job of Treasurer of this country, although he was a Minister before that. We all understand that these things change and no doubt they will change again, I suppose, in 20 or 30 years. In the meantime I thank all honourable members and look forward to seeing them back here on 21 August. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.58 a.m.) -After all that Irish benevolence I can understand why so many of the luncheon guests of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) enjoyed his conversation. I want to introduce a little bit of Celtic cynicism. The first is that I rather hope that the two weeks on and two weeks off sitting pattern is not thought to be supported universally by all members of this place. There are numbers of us who do not necessarily agree with this pattern. Although I understand that we are well and truly divided, I think we need to look fairly carefully at the consequences and how it affects those of us who, in the weekend between the two sitting weeks, rush back to wherever we are going, including the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), and who, because of aircraft flights, find it almost inevitable that they are expected to return to their electorates, with all the consequences that flow. Secondly, it is important that we realise that there are always problems in trying to make sure that a parliament of this nature tries to take account of the problems and circumstances of people, wherever they live. I recognise that there are some advantages for those who live a long way from this place in having a two-week off period. But frankly, from what I have seen of the schedules of members of this House on both sides, I am not too sure that life is any the easier for them because of the change of sitting hours. Indeed, one thing I would commend to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is that when his Party's predecessor as Leader of the House was in his position, he introduced a system of rising at 11 o'clock in the evening. That is a practice I commend to the present Leader of the House. Indeed, the former Leader of the House not only saw to it that the House rose at 11 p.m.; he also introduced a regular practice of having a half-hour adjournment. Both practices might well be reintroduced, whatever our sitting pattern. Thirdly, while I would accept that sitting through the Thursday lunch hour does not seem to have disrupted people's meal times unduly, I think that there are problems if there are inadequate opportunities for people to have their committee meetings, to meet those they wish, and to do as so many have sought to do on the Wednesday night that is supposed to be free, and that is to attend various functions. Indeed, members of this place accept many invitations for functions they are unable to attend. I recommend to the Special Minister of State that, when he is looking at the sitting arrangements, if he intends to preserve free Wednesday nights that should be the case. There are far too many occasions when all of us find that other commitments preclude us accepting invitations. People expect us to turn up when arrangements have been made. We often find that because of our commitments to this place it is not possible to fulfil those functions. For all that the honourable gentleman is enjoying the Government side of the House for the time being, I assure him that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and my other colleagues on this side of the House, do not intend to let him enjoy that luxury for any longer than need be. The only thing I commend to him is that he savour it while he may, for even a week is a long time in politics. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of the next sitting. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.01 a.m.) —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 1.01 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, 21 August 1984, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notice was given: Dr Klugman to move- That this House notes the presence of a number of hunger strikers outside the Polish Embassy, Canberra, and supports their request to the Australian Government to inform the Polish Government that it supports the release of all political prisoners in Poland. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 June 1984: Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 20-Pay of Reserve Force Members. No. 21-Higher Duties Allowance and other Allowances. Public Service Act-Determination 1984-No. 10. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 497) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the needless economic hardship being caused to many couples because the Taxation Office takes a different moral attitude to de facto relationships from that held by other Government departments, most notably the Department of Social Security. (2) Is it a fact that paragraph 159J (3) (c) of the Income Tax Assessment Act defines a 'spouse of the taxpayer' as a person 'married to the taxpayer' and is it by this section the Commissioner of Taxation may penalise individuals who are in receipt of married benefits from the Department of Social Security-a department which pays the unemployment benefit, for example, at the married rate regardless of whether the relationship is a bona fide de facto one or an allegedly married one; if so, will he undertake to remove this anomaly, by amendment of the relevant section of the Act to allow for a spouse rebate for people in de facto relationships. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Income Tax Assessment Act does not define the term 'spouse' for the purposes of the tax rebate in respect of a dependent spouse. However, the term has always been taken to have the meaning of someone to whom the person concerned is legally married. This meaning has been applied by the Commissioner of Taxation in administering the Act and his view of the requirements of the law in this respect has been confirmed by decisions of independent Taxation Boards of Review. The question whether the income tax law should be amended to make the dependent spouse rebate available in the case of de facto marriage relationships is under consideration as part of a review being conducted of all the tax laws in the light of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. (Question No. 845) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) (i) As at 4 April 1984 the Department of Finance participated in the following inter-departmental committees. Inter-Departmental Committee on Statutory Authorities Overseas Visits Committee Permanent Heads Committee on Intelligence and Security Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee Defence (Conditions of Service) Subordinate Committee Inter-Departmental Committee on Accommodation for Married Service Personnel Committee on Location of Australian Government Employment Inter-Departmental Committee on Australian Government Housing Scales and Standards Inter-Departmental Furniture Committee Inter-Departmental Committee on Review of Recommendations of Committee of Review of National Capital Development Commission Overseas Property Committee Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Commonwealth Printing and Publishing Inter-Departmental Committee on Motor Transport Inter-Departmental Committee for Review of Proposals by Commonwealth Departments and Instrumentalities to Own Replace and Lease Aircraft Inter-Departmental Committee on Commonwealth Community Employment Program Committee on Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants Inter-Departmental Committee on Grants to International Conferences Inter-Departmental Committee on Food and Beverage Pricing Policy Inter-Departmental Committee on Grants-in-Aid Food Services Projects Committee Inter-Departmental Committee on Migration Issues Working Group on Custodial Arrangements of Detention Centres Inter-Departmental Committee on Financial Structures and Financial Objectives of Telecom and Australia Post Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Civil Coastal Surveillance Consultative Committee on Water Resources Inter-Departmental Committee on Review of the Atomic Energy Act Inter-Departmental Committee on examining the Implications of the Government's Decision on Uranium, including Compensation Rum Jungle Rehabilitation Liaison Committee Inter-Departmental Committee on South-West Tasmania Inter-Departmental Committee on Restoration of Historic Buildings on Norfolk Island Standing Committee on Northern Territory Constitutional Development Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Rehabilitation Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on the Australian Bicentennial Advisory Committee on National Collections Task Force on the Status of Women Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Fees Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Youth Policies Working Group of Officials on Aboriginal Health Working Party on Aged Care and Policies Inter-Departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes Policy Inter-Departmental Committee on Re-negotiation of the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement Committee of Officials on Agent Orange Inter-Departmental Committee on Commonwealth Purchasing Manual Inter-Departmental Committee on Fees and Allowances Inter-Departmental Committee for Advising Departments on Preference Matters Inter-Departmental Committee on Energy Conservation in Commonwealth Buildings Inter-Departmental Committee on Grants-in-Aid 1. (a) (ii) The Department of Finance chairs the Inter-Departmental Committee on Commonwealth Shipping and Manning Arrangements and the future of 'Cape' Class Vessels. 1. (b) (i) Nil. 1. (b) (ii) Nil. 2. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Commonwealth Shipping and Manning Arrangements and the future of 'Cape' Class Vessels is concerned with the future of a surplus navigational aid vessel belonging to the Department of Transport and the related issue of the future manning and ship management arrangements for vessels engaged in Commonwealth civil maritime tasks. The subject matter dealt with by the remaining Committees in which the Department of Finance participates is to be advised in the answers to questions relating to departments which chair those committees. (Question No. 958) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 7 December 1983: (1) Does the Motor Traffic Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory require that fire appliances and vehicles may only use lights and sirens while on route to a fire in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Is it a fact that a fire must involve flame and smoke and that this definition would exclude fire appliances and vehicles from using lights and sirens travelling to other emergencies not involving fire. (3) Does the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade have an emergency tender which is not a fire appliance or vehicle and is it precluded from using lights and sirens on route to emergencies not involving fire. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The word 'fire' is not defined in the Motor Traffic Ordinance. However there are some emergencies to which fire brigade attendance might be required which could not be called a fire. Fire appliances and vehicles may not use lights and sirens whilst proceeding to such emergencies. (3) The Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade does have an emergency tender which is considered to be a fire appliance or vehicle. I consider the provisions of the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936 which limit the use of lights and sirens on fire vehicle to situations where they are proceeding to a fire to be undesirable. Amendments to the Ordinance are currently being prepared. These will enable lights and sirens to be used by a fire vehicle whilst it is proceeding to an emergency of any kind or to an incident which the driver of the vehicle has reasonable grounds for believing is an emergency. (Question No. 1076) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authority reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Aviation has not directly employed any people under the community employment program during the period December 1983 to February 1984. However, the Department of Housing and Construction has administered employment opportunities under the program in respect of employment on airport development projects. The Department of Housing and Construction is paid by my Department from funds allocated by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the community employment program. Employment on other projects is expected to be initiated by my Department in the near future. The answer provided by the Minister for Housing and Construction on question No. 1077 (see Hansard, 10 May 1984, page 2289) includes people employed under the community employment program on airport development projects. (Question No. 1245) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 4 April 1984: Has he received a letter from Mrs N. Woodward of Kambah, Australian Capital Territory, dated 20 February 1984; if so, (a) has Mrs Woodward outlined a number of proposals to assist in more adequately housing elderly people, (b) do the proposals involve significant additional costs and (c) will the Government be able to respond to her suggestions either in whole or in part. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes, Mrs Woodward has made some suggestions which are primarily aimed at improving the amenities for elderly people in public rental accommodation. (b) Significant additional costs would be involved in some of the suggestions, such as the employment of resident caretakers to provide support services for elderly tenants. (c) Some of Mrs Woodward's suggestions appear to have merit and are being considered. Some other suggestions, such as the installation of call/alarm buttons are not new and propose amenities which are already provided. (Question No. 1306) Mr Peacock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department has followed for many years a policy of equal opportunity in recruitment, promotion, temporary transfer, etc., regardless of sex, race or physical attributes. The Department's selection policy and procedures were reviewed and re-issued recently. As part of that review process a check was made to ensure that the instruction reflected the policy of equal opportunity. The Department receives and distributes material published by the Public Service Board's Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau and has been represented at seminars conducted by the Bureau. A high priority is placed on equal employment matters. (2) Costs associated with the Department's activities in this area are not separately identified or recorded. (Question No. 1322) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the 1983 general election, the following changes have been made to the Department's equal opportunities program: (a) The aims have been expanded to recognise the need for affirmative action management plans and programs in order to make the goals of equal opportunity achievable. (b) The introduction of equal employment opportunity affirmative action plans ( EEO/AA) requires the compilation of detailed staffing statistics from which to assess the needs of EEO client groups. To accommodate these needs, the Department is currently reviewing its methods of collecting staffing data. This includes information on recruitment, promotion, training and development and separation practices. (c) Each affirmative action program will contain goals and targets expressed numerically. These goals and targets will be reviewed and monitored on a continuing basis. The EEO/AA plans will be directed by a steering committee of senior staff, headed by a Deputy Secretary. (d) The chairman of the EEO/AA Steering Committee is also a member of the Department's recently established Consultative Council, a forum for management/ union consultation. (e) The Board's EEO Bureau has provided guidance on a number of program-related matters including; statistical collection; sexual harassment guidelines and procedures; guidelines for developing affirmative action plans. (f) The program has high priority as indicated by the nomination of a Deputy Secretary to chair the EEO Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is expected to hold its inaugural meeting in May this year. (2) The major short-term cost will be the establishment of a full time EEO position at the Clerk (Class 8) level. Longer term costs have not been calculated as yet but would include the involvement of existing staff on various implementation aspects of the program. (Question No. 1339) Mr Peacock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: Has the number of people opting to take lump sum superannuation payments decreased since 30 June 1983: if so, what are the details. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought is not available. The analysis of income tax returns for 1982-83 has not yet been completed while the returns for 1983-84 are not yet due . (Question No. 1369) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May: (1) What arrangements will there be with shared Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial television transmitters and translators in rural Australia when the ABC is able to use HACBSS. (2) Will the shared cost arrangement continue. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) HACBSS will be used to provide ABC programs by direct broadcast to people in remote areas and to existing ground transmitters in many rural areas. In the latter cases, sharing, between the ABC and commercial licensees, of common transmitting sites and support equipment will not be affected by changing the source of ABC program feed from terrestrial bearers to HACBSS. Sharing is not relevant to the direct broadcasting component of HACBSS. (2) Yes. (Question No. 1373) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) Has he considered including the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in the extension of the voluntary retirement scheme to statutory authorities under his responsibility. (2) If so, can he give an indication of when the scheme will come into effect. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill No. 1 1984, introduced into this House on 10 May 1984, contains a provision to amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 to provide for voluntary early retirement at age 55 years for employees of OTC. (Question No. 1386) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 2 May 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union has received $30,000 under the industrial democracy cost subsidisation program. (2) How are the training and pilot programs to be organised by the union in the metal industry. (3) Did the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia receive $19,980 under the same program for research and training in group self-management in the metal industry. (4) Will both organisations link their training programs in the interest of industrial democracy or are they following two completely different courses. (5) Is he able to advise on the published policy on industrial democracy as stated by the AMFSU; if so, does it allow for profit sharing. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The training and pilot programs will be organised as follows: (a) the AMFSU will survey over 5,000 shop stewards employed in the metal industry to assess their interest and willingness to participate in industrial democracy projects; (b) where interest is shown, seminars will be conducted for shop stewards; (c) where shop stewards and employers show further interest, employers will be approached to establish joint pilot projects. (3) Yes. (4) The two projects follow different paths. However, the AMFSU and MTIA are aware of each other's interests and activities and it may be possible to select, jointly, pilot projects in the later stages of the program. (5) AMFSU policy seeks the extension of workers' rights over a range of organisational decision making. It does not, however, refer to profit sharing. (Question No. 1422) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: Further to his answer to question No. 997 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 144 -5), what quantities of (a) lamb, (b) mutton and (c) beef, have been imported from New Zealand since 1 January 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Preliminary data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the period 1 January 1984-30 April 1984 shows that imports from New Zealand have been: (a) 30 tonnes of lamb (b) 1313 tonnes of mutton (c) 760 tonnes of beef. (Question No. 1461) Mr Adermann asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) What are the anticipated dates for the (a) completion and (b) release of the proposed electoral divisions by the redistribution commissions presently engaged in the redistribution of electorates in the various States. (2) What periods will be allowed for (a) comment and objection and (b) consideration of these objections and comment. (3) When will the electoral boundaries be finalised and new rolls prepared. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Electoral Commissioner has advised that a map showing the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions proposed by the redistribution committee for the Australian Capital Territory should be available for public inspection within the next few days. He has also advised that maps showing the proposed redistributions in the States will become available progressively thereafter. The Electoral Commissioner expects that the State maps will become available in the following order-Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, possibly Queensland and Victoria. Because the 30 day period for public suggestions in New South Wales did not close until after the recent State election, the maps for that State will be the last to appear. The Electoral Commissioner expects that all maps should be available by early to mid August. (2) The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that each redistribution committee shall, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and two newspapers circulating throughout the State or Territory, invite public attention to the maps showing the proposed electoral divisions. The Act also provides that any person or organisation may, within 14 days after the publication of the notice in the Gazette, lodge with the Electoral Commission a written objection against any proposed redistribution. The Act then provides that an augmented Electoral Commission for each State and the Australian Capital Territory (that is, the members of the State or Territory redistribution committee sitting with the Chairman of the Australian Electoral Commission and the third Commissioner) shall consider all objections against a proposed redistribution and shall complete its deliberations within six weeks of the close of the period for objections. An augmented Electoral Commission is required to hold a public inquiry into an objection unless it is of the opinion that (a) the matters raised in the objection were raised or are substantially the same as matters that were raised in the suggestions and comments that had been previously lodged with the redistribution committee for the States or the Australian Capital Territory, or (b) that the objection is frivolous or vexatious. (3) The Electoral Commissioner expects the new boundaries to be finalised progressively (probably in the order in which the initial proposals are promulgated) with the New South Wales redistribution being completed towards the end of September or early October. New rolls will also be prepared and printed progressively-with the New South Wales rolls being available by early December. (Question No. 554) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Are British migrants included in the definition of non-citizen in the Migration Amendment Bill 1983. (2) Who is a citizen under the proposed legislation. (3) Does a British migrant have to apply for Australian citizenship before entitlement to become an elector and recipient of Australian social services. (4) Does a non-citizen have to be in Australia for 10 years before being entitled to an age pension, as under current legislation. (5) How long does a refugee have to be in Australia before being entitled to (a ) assistance from social security services, (b) become an elector in State and Federal elections, and (c) receive an age pension. (6) What is the qualifying period for a non-citizen on entering Australia before being entitled to apply for citizenship. (7) If a non-citizen applies for Australian citizenship does this require the relinquishing of any former citizenship. (8) In the event of hostilities, does Australian citizenship supersede all other citizen rights by nationals who are not Australian born. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Migration Amendment Act 1983 applies only to non-citizens. All persons, including British subjects, who have not acquired Australian citizenship are non -citizens. (2) The Migration Amendment Act does not have any effect on citizenship. All persons who were Australian citizens before the passage of the Migration Amendment Act will continue to be Australian citizens. The Australian Citizenship Act determines Australian citizenship. (3) As from 26 January 1984 only Australian citizens are eligible for enrolment . However, British subjects who were on the electoral rolls on that date will remain on the rolls and will not be disenfranchised. Citizenship is not directly relevant to the question of eligibility for social security income support payments, such as pensions and benefits. However, there are specific residence qualifications for most such payments which must be satisfied before eligibility may arise; the residence criteria generally require a claimant to have resided in Australia for some specified period or to be likely to remain permanently in Australia. Citizenship may be relevant to the question of eligibility for other social security payments, such as family allowance. (4) See the answer to (3) above. To qualify for age pension generally a claimant, whether an Australian citizen or non-citizen, is required to be residing in and physically present in Australia on the date the claim is lodged and to have been continuously resident in Australia at some time for at least ten years. Under reciprocal social security agreements with New Zealand and the United Kingdom, residence in these countries generally is accepted as residence in Australia for the purpose of qualifying for pensions payable under those agreements to people who reside permanently in Australia. (5) (a) Refugees may be eligible for social security payments immediately on arrival. Refugees normally receive special benefit during their first four weeks in Australia. Subsequently they may become eligible for unemployment or other benefits or continue to be eligible for special benefit subject to the normal criteria. (b) Refugees, if otherwise qualified, are eligible to vote in State and Federal elections on becoming Australian citizens. (c) As for question (4) above. (6) The general situation is that permanent residents of Australia can apply for Australian citizenship after two and half years residence in Australia. Citizenship cannot however be granted until three years residence has been completed. The following are exceptions to the present three years residence requirement: The husband, wife, widow or widower of an Australian citizen may apply for citizenship at any time after coming to Australia to live permanently. Married couples who have come to Australia at different times and, as a matter of policy, be allowed to apply for citizenship together provided both are settlers and one of them has lived here for two and a half years. In special cases, the Minister may approve the granting of citizenship to a person under 21 who has not completed three years' residence in Australia. Anyone under 18 requires the consent of a responsible parent. Children under 16 who are living in Australia normally become citizens when their parents do. Their names go on the certificate issued to one of the parents . If required separate documentary evidence of their citizenship can be arranged by the regional director of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in their State. Permanent residents who are serving, or have served, in Australia's Permanent Armed Forces may be granted citizenship after three months full time service. (7) Australian citizenship law is based on the precept that dual citizenship is undesirable. For this reason, applicants for Australian citizenship are required to take an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation of allegiance and in so doing renounce all other allegiances. However, some countries do not recognise such renunciations and Australian citizens from these countries may have dual nationality. (8) In the event of hostilities between Australia and another country, a dual national of both countries could legally owe full allegiance to both countries. Depending on the person's place of residence at the relevant time, a dual national would have one of his other nationalities dominant. (Question No. 809) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Part (1) (a) Financial Assistance: Nil. Part (1) (b) Technical Assistance: In regard to radiocommunications, assistance is provided in the regulatory field in terms of investigation of radio interference to private business radio operators. This is more a right to be expected on payment of a licence fee than assistance in the sense of a free service or subsidy. Part (2) (a) Radio Frequency Management Division, Department of Communications (including State offices and district radio inspectors). Part (2) (b) Eligibility requirement: a current radio licence. Part (1) (c) Other assistance: The Department of Communications provides advice to private business on matters relating to Government postal and telecommunications policies, which may affect the manufacture within Australia of telecommunications equipment and the introduction of new services. Part (2) (a) Space, Telecommunications and Postal Policy Division, Department of Communications. Part (2) (b) Available to all businesses. Additionally, the Department, through the Communications Development Division interacts closely with the broadcasting and manufacturing industries in matters relating to the development of standards and techniques for television and sound broadcasting and reception, including exchange of research information and the conduct of joint tests of new technologies. Part (2) (a) Communications Development Division, Department of Communications. Part (2) (b) Available to all businesses. (Question No. 868) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) Is there a policy or guideline in relation to the use of Public Service buildings facilities for political purposes unrelated to work of the Service; if so, does the policy or guideline distinguish between political organisations, pressure groups and special interest groups. (2) Are branches of political parties, pressure groups or special interest groups permitted to meet on the premises of Government departments. (3) Was there a group entitled 'People for Nuclear Disarmament' formed recently in the Victorian branch of the Department of Veterans' Affairs; if so, did the Department take the view that the group was political and its activities unrelated to work matters. (4) Did the Minister for Veterans' Affairs overrule the management decision and accept a position of honorary secretary of the group. (5) Does this decision constitute a precedent in relation to the use of Public Service premises; if so, what guidelines now operate in relation to other requests for the formation of special interest groups and political organisations within Government departments. (6) What approach would be taken in the Public Service generally to requests for the formation of branches, for example, of the National Civic Council. Mr John Brown —the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) the legislation which provides the Commonwealth's widest powers to acquire and use land and buildings (the Lands Acquisition Act 1955) limits those powers to property which is required for a 'public purpose'. Public purpose is defined as one in respect of which Parliament has the power to make laws. The effect of this provision is that buildings owned or leased by the Commonwealth are not generally available to political organisations, pressure groups or special interest groups. (3), (4), (5) and (6) responsibility for the proper use of premises occupied by departments and authorities rests with the permanent heads of departments and the chief executives of statutory corporations. (Question No. 872) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to articles by Geoffrey Smith in New Scientist , 5 May 1983 and Simply Living, volume 2, number 1, wherein it is alleged (a) that accumulation of fluoride ingested is due to use of fluoride compounds in water and the environment and dental prophylaxis, as well as surges of fluoride concentration to toxic levels in blood and (b) that there have been (i) adverse reactions to fluoride gel applications, (ii) an attempted cover-up of excessive dental fluorosis at Proserpine, Queensland, officially blamed on parents and excess intake near an aluminium smelter and (iii) excess fluoride intake in infants using milk reconstituted with fluoridated water; if so, are these contentions refutable. (2) Is he able to say whether the New Zealand Government has advised or directed (a) dental workers or professionals to advocate use of no fluoride supplements during pregnancy and for 6 months after birth, (b) that pre-school children using toothpaste, limit it to the size of a pea at each brushing and (c ) that the fluoride concentration in toothpaste be reduced; if so, (i) why and ( ii) will Australia follow suit. (3) Has he been informed of excess fluoride emissions from Gladstone aluminium smelter, Queensland; if so, what monitoring is made of fluoride intake near the smelter. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Comments on the contentions referred to are as follows: (a) The recommended use of fluoride results in minimal accumulation of fluoride in the body. As reported by health authorities including the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council, this does not adversely affect the health of the community. Most of the fluoride which is ingested is excreted. (b) (i) An adverse short term reaction may occur if a person swallowed a significant quantity of fluoride gel during the topical application of fluorides to the teeth. Professor B. F. Fredholm of Sweden's Karolinska Institute stated that in these circumstances a plasma fluoride peak of one part per million may be reached for a short period, but this would not be toxic although such peaks may cause reversible polyuria. In applying fluoride gels and solutions to the teeth precautions are taken to prevent or limit the ingestion of the material. (ii) The Queensland Department of Health has advised that there was neither a cover-up nor excessive dental fluorosis in Proserpine. Parents were not ' officially blamed' but a timely warning was issued to the effect that parents should know the existing fluoride level of their water supply before embarking on a course of fluoride supplementation. This is in line with the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council that the use of fluoride supplements in fluoridated areas should be discouraged. The level of intake of fluoride by people living near an aluminium smelter would depend on a number of factors including the control of the emissions from the smelting process, local climatic conditions and the degree of dependence on locally grown foodstuffs. (iii) This matter was investigated by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and it was reported (Acta. Paediat. Scand. 1970, vol. 59, pages 424-426) that: An investigation of school children in Uppsala (1.2 ppm F in the drinking water ) showed only an insignificant trend towards increased enamel mottling in typically formula-fed children compared to breast-fed children. No health hazard thus seems to be involved. (2) Yes. The New Zealand Department of Health did issue the advice referred to in (a), (b) and (c). This was announced publicly in clinical services letter no. 222 dated 14 September 1983, which also announced the continued support for the fluoridation of water. (i) Clinical Services letter No. 222 contained the following statement: The increasing use of fluorides, and particularly the use of toothpastes containing fluoride, for the prevention of dental caries, has prompted the review. Fluoridation of water was established as a means of preventing decay in New Zealand in the 1950's. Fluoride tablets were introduced for use in areas where fluoridated water is not available. In addition to these measures, the use of fluoride toothpaste has become widespread in recent years. (ii) The matters referred to by the honourable member will be considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council in a review of the use of fluorides in the control of dental caries. (3) Yes. The Air Pollution Council of Queensland monitors emissions from the smelter. (Question No. 897) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: Can he provide an assurance that all Medicare offices and cash payment centres will operate from locations that will not disadvantage disabled members of the community. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The needs of the disabled persons in the community have been and will continue to be kept in mind when locating or relocating Medicare cash payment outlets. For those persons who are not able to attend a Medicare office it is hoped that their doctors will direct bill the Health Insurance Commission. In other cases, a prompt cheque payment service by mail is available. The Commission is confident of paying claims lodged by post within five working days of receipt of the claim. (Question No. 991) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : (1) What action have the statutory authorities and departments under his control taken to make effective use of their unused properties following his instruction of 30 September 1983. (2) Which properties (a) have been sold or leased, (b) have action pending and (c) have had no action yet taken. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, AUSSAT Pty Ltd, and my department, is as follows: (1) See answers to Question 2. Australian Postal Commission: as at 31 March 1984. (2) (a) New South Wales-Barellan Residence. Victoria-Nil. Queensland-Mary Kathleen Residence. Western Australia-Nil. South Australia-Mt Barker Residence; Mt Gambier Residence; Murray Bridge Residence; Semaphore Post Office and Quarters. Tasmania-St Helens Residence. (2) (b) New South Wales-Balranald Old Post Office and Residence; Carcoar Post Office and Quarters; Cassilis Residence; Chippendale Residences (5); Cowra Residence; Delegate Post Office and Quarters; Parkes Residence; Portland Residence; Taralga Post Office and Quarters. Victoria-Yarram Residence. Queensland-Redcliffe Old Residence; Richmond Residence; Wallangarra residence. Western Australia-Carnarvon Residence; Geraldton Residence; Kulin Residence; Narrogin Residence. South Australia-Largs Bay Post Office and Quarters; Pt Augusta Residence. Tasmania-Nil. Northern Territory-Pine Creek Post Office and Residence. (2) (c) Nil. Australian Telecommunications Commission: as at 2 February 1984. (2) (a) New South Wales-Goulburn, 151 Kinghorne Street; Goulburn, 48 Albert Street. Victoria-South Yarra, 'Bona Vista', Kensington Road; Research, 1550 Main Road; Kew, 100 Denmark Street. Western Australia-Nedlands, 47 Webster Street; Cottesloe, 8 Clive Street; Kondinin, Lot 129 Graham Street; Marble Bar, Lot 219 General Street; Roebourne, Lot 511 Andover Street. South Australia-Glenelg, 35 Brighton Road; Cook, Residence No. 1. (2) (b) New South Wales-Rydalmere, 443/445 Victoria Road; Dural, Old Northern Road; Rooty Hill, 113 Rooty Hill Road; Blakehurst, 3 Dwyer Street; Five Dock, 16 McKinnon Avenue; Newtown, 62 Lennox Street; Orange, 101/103 Moulder Street. Queensland-Cloncurry, 63 Daintree Street; Cloncurry, 45 Gregory Street. Western Australia-Attadale, 23 Holman Street; Roebourne, Lot 437 Fraser Street; Halls Creek, Lot 90 Thomas Street; Halls Creek, Lot 92 Thomas Street; Tom Price, Lot 690 Yarruga Street. South Australia-Naracoorte, 18 Smith Street; Murray Bridge, 6 Clara Street; Murray Bridge, 27 Edmond Terrace; Cook, Residence No. 2; Tarcoola, Residence No. 1; Mount Barker, 5 Fletcher Road. Northern Territory-Newcastle Waters, Residence and Repeater Station; Pine Creek , Residence Lot 154; Alice Springs, Ex Post Master's Residence, Railway Terrace. (2) (c) Nil. Overseas Telecommunications Commission: as at 3 February 1984. (2) (a) 4 Liddiard Street, McLaren Vale, SA. (2) (b) 7 Hillcrest Avenue, Caboolture, Qld; 11 Park Street, Caboolture, Qld; Cnr Bundock and Sheehan Streets, Townsville, Qld; 36 Caffrey Street, McLaren Vale, SA; 51 Tatachilla Road, McLaren Vale, SA. (2) (c) Nil. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: as at 27 January 1984. (2) (a) 171 William Street, Kempsey, NSW; 50 Arinya Street, Tamworth, NSW. (2) (b) 5 Bauhinia Terrace, Rockhampton, Qld; 84 Ainsworth Avenue, Gerladton, WA; 34 MacLachlan Street, Darwin, NT. (2) (c) Nil. Special Broadcasting Service; Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; AUSSAT Pty Ltd; Department of Communications. The above four bodies did not own any unused residential properties during the period to which the question refers, viz. 30 September 1983 to 8 December 1983. (Question No. 1047) Mr Moore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Is the Government severing some ties with the Monarchy, as evident by the proposed abolition of the Queen's Medal and certain military decorations. (2) What is the Government's intention in regard to various bodies incorporated by Royal Charter which, as chartered bodies or institutions, are answerable to the Privy Council and not to the government of Australia. (3) Does the Government intend that chartered bodies should renounce their Royal Charter; if so, when. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government does not propose to sever ties with the Queen. The Minister for Defence announced in the House of Representatives on 6 December 1983 that the Queen's Medal was to be awarded. The Special Minister of State announced on 23 December 1983 that an interdepartmental committee of inquiry would review honours and awards to Defence Force personnel. No other decision has been made by the Government in respect of military decorations. (2) and (3) It is not at all clear to me what is meant by the expression ' answerable to the Privy Council'. The powers of chartered bodies in Australia are constrained only by the terms of their charter and by Australian law; not by the Privy Council. Although the Government does not intend to support new applications for Royal Charters, there is no intention that existing chartered bodies renounce their charters. (Question No. 1066) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were no people employed by my Department, or any statutory authority reporting to me, under the Community Employment Program for the months of December 1983 and January and February 1984. (Question No. 1080) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) and (ii)- Dec. '83 Jan. '84 Feb. '84 Total Capital Territory Health Commission Female . . . . 4 4 Male . . . . 2 2 Department of Health Female . . 30 85 115 Male . . 48 154 202 Total Female . . 30 89 119 Male . . 48 156 204 (Question No. 1125) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant or, if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Columns 1 to 5 of the following table relate to parts (1) to (5). In relation to part (6) detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. All the consultants used by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations were engaged in accordance with these guidelines. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Length of Consultancy Name service Fee Background/experience 1 2 3 4 5 Preparation of Basic Training Manual in Carpentry and Joinery. Title: Stairbuilding Mr D. Cole 3 months 100 pages @ $60 per page: $6000 Curriculum Co-ordinator-Technical and Further Education. Expertise in subject, proven training ability and past record of writing for Carpentry and Joinery series. Preparation of Basic Training Manual in Carpentry and Joinery. Title: Calculations and Plan Reading Mr D. Cole 3 months 115 pages @ $60 per page: $6900 Preparation of Basic Training Manual in Motor Vehicles. Title: Tools and Equipment Mr A. Gregory 4 months 230 pages @ $60.50 per page: $13865 Expertise in the area and practical experience. In addition, his proven ability as a writer shown by past Basic Training Manuals written by him. Preparation of Basic Training Manual in Carpentry and Joinery. Title: Building Projects and Extensions Mr J. D. Williams 4 months 63 pages @ $60 per page: $3780 Expertise in the subject: known writing ability based on his material submitted for a roofing manual produced by this Department. Market Research Survey-To provide comparative and up-dated data to assess the performance of the Commonwealth Employment Service in the business community Messrs J. Dixon and J. Ratnatunga 3 months $5265 Lecturers in Marketing-Canberra College of Advanced Education. Technical Consultant to a major Commonwealth Employment Service Management Information System Review project-estimation of central equipment requirements Mr I. Jay-Logica Pty Ltd 21 days $8400 Considerable involvement in the Job Bank project over past 3 years. Research and written report on Employee Pariticipation Training. Also, journal article for ''Work and People'' as a result of the research project Mr G. Graversen 7 months $15000 Expertise in subject area and training methods. Director for Industrial Psychology, Technical Institute, Denmark. Discussions with senior officers of the Secretariat to the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission on issues relevant to the establishment of the proposed National Commission Mr A. St John Holt 1 day $400 President of the U.K. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Development of Employee Participation Training Module on representative forms of participation Stevens, Goldstein & Latter 6 months $19000 Detailed knowledge and understanding of key concepts and issues relating to representative forms of participation. National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee-Conference on the Employment of Aboriginals for the Private Sector Michels Warren Public Relations 2 months $7500 Previous work performed for National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee . National Training Council Research Program-Engineering Technicians study Kinhill Stearn P/L and the National Institute of Labour Studies 6 months $49 447 Relevant expertise and capacity and grasp of the complexities of the project and how they can be addressed. Compilation of edition of Directory of Training Research and Researchers in Australia-to provide a comprehensive listing of current training research and researchers as a source of information to other researchers, institutions and research funding bodies W. D. Scott Management Consultants 6 months $35 780 Appropriate experience and expertise. Pilot survey conducted for this project in 1981. Executive Officers Training course-negotiation skills workshop Mr C. Richards One day $570 Experience in conducting Negotiation Skills workshops for other Departments. Management Consultant. Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and systems- Conference on the Alternatives to the Present Arbitration System Prof. Niland-Industrial Relations Research Unit-University of NSW Prof. Blandy- National Institute of Labour Studies Inc.-University of SA 6 months $40 000 Both institutes are prominent in industrial relations in Australia. Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-research and analysis work and overview the administration and delivery of labour force programs Mr J. Freeland 4 months $7080 Senior Tutor, Sydney University. Previous relevant experience as consultant to the OECD Review. Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-researching target groups, goals, and methods of providing employment and training programs Mr R. Smith 4 months $1599 Deputy Director and Economist for the US National Commission for Employment Policy. Currently in Australia as a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Economics, ANU. Conference on Aboriginal Employment-evaluation of the effectiveness of the original National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee's employment- promotional programs Michels Warren Public Relations 10 days $6350 Michels Warren had previously been used by National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee and had been found satisfactory. Research into Employer Attitudes to the CES and CES market penetration in the NT Northern Australia Research Unit, Australian National University 6 months $2500 Only known research unit in this field. Marketing Training for CES Managers Mr W. Bowden & Associates 2 days $2000 Commercial consultants. Earlier involvement in marketing research into CES employment programs. Research project involving a survey of State and Federal Unions Dr N. Blain 6 months $3181 Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations at the University of WA. Provide technical expertise with preparation of tender specifications. Provide advice on the method of introduction of office automation facilities for the Department Coopers and Lybrand Services 3 months $38 300 Knowledge of Department through previous work undertaken. Management consultants . The following Consultancies were undertaken for the Bureau of Labour Market Research Asian and Pacific Countries Labour Markets Research Report Dr Withers Dept Economic History, ANU 2 months $769 (part-time) Senior Research Fellow with expertise in this field. Complementary Technical paper of the research report on the wages and labour market adjustment project Dr Withers Dept Economic History, ANU 6 months $935 (part-time) Study of labour markets in rural Australia Phase 1 Dr R. Powell Dept. Agricultural Economics, University of New England 6 months $15 050 Senior Lecturer, with Regional expertise. Study of psychological impact on participants in the wage pause program Dr A. H. Winefield University of Adelaide 12 months $23 940 Reader in Psychology. Only person in Australia to have undertaken a longitudinal study of unemployed persons using sophisticated measures of psychological well- being. Forecasting of long term unemployment Dr P. Tranedi Dept of Economics ANU 5 days $300 Reader in Economics. Highly qualified economist, with a world reputation for research into applied economics. Development of a management system required to implement and monitor the National Longitudinal Survey of the unemployed Prof. M. Borus 15 days $8500 Expertise in this field. Professor of Ohio State University. Provide advice on development of National Longitudinal Study based on USA experience. Prof. M. Borus 13 days $2444 In-house review of BLMR research in 'Progress in Planning', 2 seminars Prof. R. Freeman, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research USA 3 weeks $2000 Recognised as a top economic analyst in the field of occupational analysis and manpower forecasting. Preparation of paper on 'Working Life' tables for Australia Dr L. Ruzicka, Demography Dept, ANU 2 months $900 Professional Fellow with demonstrated expertise in this field. Discussion paper on unemployment flows Dr P. N. Junankar, University of Essex, England 2 days $300 Lecturer in Economics. Widely experienced in trends in British unemployment. Comparative study of youth manpower program Prof. F. L. Jones, Dept of Sociology, ANU 5 days $940 Relevant expertise. Sociologist, specialising in occupational analysis. Develop a proposal for surveying the Aboriginal labour force as a prospect under CEP Dr L. Smith, Dept of Demography, ANU 5 days $645 Research Fellow. Developing research projects which would use National Longitudinal Survey data Mr J. Wielgosz 3 months $500 Recognised expert in this field. Expert on job search and job finding methods relating to National Longitudinal Study. Paper on potential research uses for National Longitudinal Survey data Mr B. Chapman 3 months $500 Recognised expert in this field. Econometrician specialising in econometric analysis of Labour Market Behaviour. The following consultancies were Training and Development exercises for Community Youth Support Scheme Project Officers: CYSS Training-Participants and Aggression Ms J. Brady 2 hours $100 Consulting Psychologist. Previous experience with DEIR. Using the Media Mr A. Knight 1 day $250 Freelance journalist. Recommended by Australian Journalists Association. Submission Writing Mr S. Robertson 2.5 hours $160 Extensive experience with management of and consultancy to community based programs. Legal issues for Local Management Committees Mr B. Lulham 2 hours $60 Solicitor with Tamworth Legal Service. Media Workshop Mr G. Moore 1 day $80 Experienced CYSS project officer. Communication and Motivation Ms S. Langham 1 hour $50 Drama tutor at Goulburn. NSW CYSS Project Association. Marketing of project goods Mr R. Lumley 1 hour $50 Background in private enterprise marketing. Legal Issues for CYSS Marrickville Legal Centre 2 hours $100 Trained legal experts. Tenancy Issues for CYSS Ms J. Maitare 1 hour $50 Worker with Community Tenancy at Wollongong. Advertising/Marketing Mr P. Smiles 2 hours $80 Smiles' Management Services. CYSS Training Ms D. Whitmont 3.5 hours $80 Solicitor working with Redfern Legal Service. Communication Counselling/Assertiveness Skills Training Ms W. Riches 3 hours $153 Specialist consultant/educator. Experience with Youth and Community Services. Counselling Course Warrnambool Institute of Technology-3 consultants Half day $200 Experience with communications and counselling in other Departments. Stress Management-3 consultancies Mr I. Adams 3.5 days $535 Consultant/trainer in youth field. Ethnic Youth Participation in CYSS Mr S. Ubada 2.5 hours $73 Special English teacher-Northcote Technical College. Ethnic Youth Participation in CYSS Mr V. Vuong 2.5 hours $73 Commissioner of Ethnic Affairs, Specialist in Indo-Chinese Youth. Ethnic Youth Participation in CYSS Mr S. La Spina 1 day $15 Ethnic Support Services Unit. Ethnic Youth Participation in CYSS Dr R. Jade 1 day $30 Polish Welfare Association. Ethnic Youth Participation in CYSS Mr H. Overberg half day $73 Senior lecturer, Victoria College. Media Course Ms P. Whitely 1 day $60 Broadcasting-Radio Station 3CC Evaluation course Dr B. Brinkerhoff 1 day $200 Associate Director for Training/Evaluation Centre, Michigan University. Resources Training Human Resource Development Centre 1 day $200 Management Consultant. Stress Management Social Biology Resources Unit 2 x 1.5 hours $90 Specialists in this field. ''Using the Community'' Seminar Mr D. Dickson 2 x 1.5 hours $90 Municipal Officers Association of Victoria. Interviewing-course Mr J. Dalla-Zuanna 2 x 2 hours $45 Expertise in the field. CYSS Project Officer. Induction Training Co-ordinator Mr D. McMillan 4 days $300 Expertise in the field. CYSS Project Officer. Evaluation/Statistics Course Mr H. Van Moorst 2 x 1.5 hours $50 Lecturer-Footscray Institute of Technology. Motivation in an Unstructured Environment Mr G. Dawber 2 days $250 Welfare Studies Lecturer-Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. Evaluation Course Mr J. Winston 2 days $250 Director of Applied Research & Development Unit-Phillip Institute of Technology. Accounting/Management Coopers & Lybrand Services 2 days $428 Previous experience with this type of seminar with the Department. Public Speaking/Media Ms W. Poulis 1 day $150 Trainer in this field. Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA). CYSS, Organisation-State-wide seminar service Mr G. Forster 6 days $520 Previous involvement in organisation seminars. CYSS Project Officer. Program Development Mr J. Sutton 4 hours $236 Senior Lecturer, Community Studies, Carseldine College, Queensland. Motivation course Ms G. Chan 8 hours $400 Student Counsellor, University of Queensland. Stress Management Dr J. Damm 7 hours $236 Lecturer in Psychology, University of Queensland. Interviewing/Counselling Workshop Dr. S. Beavers 6 hours $236 University of Queensland. Senior Lecturer in Education. Time Management Ms J. Howard 5 hours $175 Experience in Training/Development. Assertiveness Training Centre of Personal Encounter 3 x 2 hours $1620 Specialists in community training/organisation. Committee Rules and Dynamics-Training Course Trayna Ltd 3 x 3 hours $540 Business consultant. Youth Needs Seminar Mr S. Biddulph 1 day $400 Psychologist, Adult Education. Approaches to Counselling Mr M. Anns 2.5 hours $89 Psychologist. Youth Needs Seminar Mr R. Snashall 1 day $100 Social Welfare Trainer. Management/Organisation Seminar Mr P. Burgess 1 day $500 Expertise in this area. Recommended by the Institute of Management. The following Consultancies were for training and development exercises of both CYSS Project Officers and Local Management Committees Submission Writing Dr J. Langdon 1 day $60 Expertise in the field. Insurance Training Sedgwick Limited 4 x half days $1200 Department's CYSS insurance broker. 4 x 3 hours $800 5 x 2 hours $1000 Funding/Submission Writing Mr I. Walker 1 day $150 Expertise in this area. CYSS Project Officer. Management Training Program Mr P. McLean 3 hours $100 Lecturer in communication at Queensland Institute of Technology. (Question No. 1156) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) What quantity of slate was imported into Australia during the last 12 months. (2) From which countries was it imported. (3) What quarantine and fumigation procedures are followed with imported slate. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Imports of 'slate not further worked than roughly split, roughly squared or squared by sawing' were 753,071 square metres during the 12 months ended 31 December 1983. Quantity details of imports of 'slate, worked and articles of slate (including articles of agglomerated slate)' are not available; however, the value of such imports during the 12 months ended 31 December 1983 was $564, 067. (2) Details of the countries of origin of slate imported into Australia during the 12 months ended 31 December 1983 are set out in the following table: (1) Unworked slate (a) IMPORTS OF SLATE INTO AUSTRALIA Year ended 31.12.83 Quantity Country of origin (Sq. metres) Value $ China P.R. 224,669 1,032,363 India 329,728 1,706,689 Italy 5,098 23,027 Japan 456 3,773 Mozambique 1,830 34,081 South Africa 189,548 1,965,178 United Kingdom 1,742 26,618 Total 753,071 4,845,729 (2) Worked slate-Articles thereof (b) Quantity (not Country of origin available) Value $ France . . 5,523 Germany . . 97 India . . 141,699 Italy . . 159,789 Mozambique . . 43,587 Portugal . . 251 South Africa . . 92,828 Spain . . 63, 711 Taiwan . . 1 United Kingdom . . 56,581 Total . . 564,067 (a) AICC 273.11.01-'Slate not further worked than rough split, roughly squared or squared by sawing' (b) AICC 661.33.00-'Slate, worked and articles of slate (including articles of agglomerated slate)' Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (3) No special quarantine restrictions apply to imported slate. However, as with most other imported goods, slate is subject to inspection to ensure that it is free from soil. If packaging materials such as cereal straw and timber crates or pallets are used these are also inspected and treated if necessary. (Question No. 1184) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Is he able to say whether some doctors are refusing to itemise the accounts given to their patients after consultations therefore causing the accounts to be non-refundable under Medicare; if so, what avenues of legal action can be taken by the Health Insurance Commission to rectify this situation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It has come to notice that some doctors are not providing patients with specific details of services rendered until the charge has been paid. Without such details the account given to the patient is not acceptable for the payment of Medicare benefits. The Health Insurance Commission is obliged to refuse Medicare benefits when an account/receipt does not contain details of the service. This is the only action open to the Commission in this circumstance. It is regrettable that some doctors have chosen not to provide patients with specific service details until after payment. This approach disadvantages patients, particularly pensioners and the unemployed, who may not have ready cash available. They cannot claim Medicare benefits until they pay the charge at which time the service details are recorded on the account/receipt. The question of the information shown on accounts/receipts is a matter between the patient and the doctor. A patient must rely on the goodwill of the doctor for information to support a claim for benefits. A patient who could not pay for the service would have little recourse but to seek the services of another doctor. (Question No. 1185) Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Are nursing home benefits being paid to nursing homes whose State registration has been withdrawn or refused; if so, what are the names and addresses of the nursing homes involved. (2) Has it been the practice of his Department, in the past, to pay nursing home benefits only to nursing homes registered under State law; if so, when and why was this practice changed. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Commonwealth nursing home benefits are being paid to one nursing home in respect of patients accommodated while the State registration of the home is revoked. That nursing home is Avonmore Nursing Home, 9 Winchester Street, St Peters, South Australia. The Home's Local Board of Health licence was revoked with effect from 9 March 1984. Under State legislation the proprietor has a right of appeal against the licence revocation and that appeal right has been exercised. Pending the resolution of the appeal the State licensing authority allows the Home to remain open. Patients continue to be accommodated and charged daily fees. If the Home's approval had been revoked under the National Health Act with effect from 9 March 1984, the patients would each have been denied either $37.80 a day (ordinary care patient) or $43.80 a day (extensive care patient) in Commonwealth financial assistance towards meeting the daily fees charged by Avonmore Nursing Home while the appeal was proceeding. Patients have in fact continued to receive that assistance. (2) As indicated in (1) above, only one nursing home in the Commonwealth is being paid Commonwealth nursing home benefits in respect of patients, while its state approval is revoked. The normal practice has been, and remains, to pay nursing home benefits in respect of patients only to nursing homes registered under State law. It is not and never has been a requirement of the National Health Act (the Act) that nursing home benefits only be paid to nursing homes with State registration . The Act has enough flexibility so that, in the interests of patients, unusual situations, such as that described in (1) above, can be met. The Act also enables action to be taken by my department to suspend or revoke the approval of a nursing home. The situation of Avonmore Nursing Home, including matters related to the welfare of patients, is being closely monitored by my Department. (Question No. 1213) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) What is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Intertel service. (2) What changes have been made to the service since 1 March 1984, including tariffs, other changes, provision of hard copy and hours of operation. (3) Was this service operated at a profit or loss before 1 March 1984. (4) What were the income and cost figures for the latest 12 month period for which figures are available. (5) What are the estimates for the 12 month period commencing on 1 March 1984. (6) Is it the intention of OTC to continue the service. (7) Did the OTC management consult with users before introducing any changes; if so, what was the consultative mechanism. (8) If there is no consultative mechanism, has OTC considered such a procedure. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) is: INTERTEL is a message bureau service which provides customers with the choice of international communication medium, i.e. Telegram Telex and Facsimile. The service is designed primarily for the small volume telecommunications users ( either business or social) for whom it may not be economic to purchase their own terminal equipment. The service is also designed for businesses which have their own telex or facsimile terminals, but need a back-up service after hours or during periods of machine breakdown or machine overload. The term 'INTERTEL' has, however, become commonly used for the INTERTEL Bureau Telex service. OTC has INTERTEL bureaux in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. For customers outside these metropolitan areas (including Thursday Island and Christmas Island ) the INTERTEL service can be accessed via the inward wide area telephone service (INWATS), whereby customers are charged only the price of a local telephone call. 2.- Tariff Variations for INTERTEL Bureau Telex Service Prior to Effective 1 March 1984 1 March 1984 Outgoing messages Zone 1 (South Pacific) $2.65 per minute $3.15 per minute Zone 2 (Rest of World) $3.30 per minute $3.70 per minute Confirmation copy $0.50 per message $1.00 per message Service fee . . $2.00 per message Incoming messages Basic service fee for mail delivery or counter pick-up $1.50 per message $1.75 per message Optional telephone delivery No additional charge Additional $3.50 per message Delivery of Incoming Messages Prior to 1 March 1984, a flat fee was applicable for the delivery of incomimg messages by mail or counter pick-up. No additional charge was made for dictation of the message content by telephone. Effective 1 March 1984, a basic service fee covers only the acceptance of incoming messages and subsequent mailing or counter pick-up. Telephone delivery is now offered as an optional service and attracts an additional tariff. Hours of Operation Prior to 1 October 1983, all bureaux were operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The hours of INTERTEL operation had to be adjusted in the light of operating experience and changing demand pattern. Traffic levels during the overnight period proved inadequate to justify the considerable additional costs of providing a 24-hour-a-day service. A schedule of current operating hours is attached. 3. Prior to 1 March 1984, the INTERTEL Telex Bureau service was operating at a loss. 4 and 5.- 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ Total Annual Revenue 1.1m 2.1m Operating Expenses and General and Administrative Overheads 4.1m 4.3m 6. Under the Overseas Telecommunications Act, OTC is required to operate its services on an efficient and profitable basis. To this end and to ensure the continuity of the INTERTEL Bureau Telex service, OTC has implemented a program designed to improve its operating efficiency and in the long-term to obtain an acceptable level of profitability. The October 1983 variations in operating hours and the March 1984 tariff and procedural changes are a part of this program. As mentioned above, INTERTEL Bureau Telex provides telex access to smaller businesses for which their own telex installation would not be economic. Before the introduction of INTERTEL, these business would have communicated by telegram (or post). OTC seeks to attract small business traffic away from its Telegram service to INTERTEL Bureau Telex. Even with the new charges, INTERTEL Telex offers substantial savings over the use of the telegram service. For example, transmission of 50 words to the USA via INTERTEL Telex would cost around $5.70. By telegram the charge for the same message would be in the order of $20. 7 and 8. OTC has an extensive customer services program under which INTERTEL customers are visited regularly by OTC's customer services staff who monitor customer problems and needs and provide guidance on the use of OTC's services. All INTERTEL Telex users were formally advised in early February 1984 of the tariff variations to take effect from 1 March. Although OTC recognises that increases in tariffs or variations in operational arrangements may meet with resistance from some customers, such changes are necessary to ultimately improve the operating efficiency and profitability of the INTERTEL Bureau Telex service. INTERTEL BUREAU-OPERATING HOURS 7 days a week including public holidays Deliveries Telephone Counter Mon-Fri excluding Location lodgements lodgements public holidays New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania 7.00 a.m.-9. 00 p.m. 7.00 a.m.-9.00 p.m. 8.00 a.m.-8.00 p.m. South Australia 6.30 a.m.-8.30 p.m. . . 7.30 a.m.-7.30 p.m. Western Australia 5.00 a.m.-7.00 p.m. . . 6.00 a.m .-6.00 p.m. Northern Territory- March-October 6.30 a.m.-8.30 p.m. . . 7.30 a.m.-7.30 p.m. November-February 5 .30 a.m.-7.30 p.m. . . 6.30 a.m.-6.30 p.m. Queensland- Monday-Friday 7.00 a.m.-9.00 p.m. 7.00 a.m.-9.00 p.m. 8.00 a.m.-8.00 p.m. Saturdays- March-October 7.00 a.m.-9.00 p.m. 9.00 a.m.-3.00 p.m. . . November-February 6 .00 a.m.-8.00 p.m. 9.00 a.m.-3.00 p.m. . . Sundays- March-October 7.00 a.m.-9.00 p.m. . . . . November-February 6.00 a.m.-8.00 p .m. . . . . No changes have been made to these operating hours since 1 March 1984. (Question No. 1236) Mr Morrison asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) an application has been made to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) to approve a proposal for the takeover of Amoco Australia Ltd by BP Australia Ltd, (b) there is an estimated $15m surplus in the Amoco Retirement Plan after meeting potential liabilities and (c) the surplus is being used as a consideration in the purchase transaction. (2) Is the FIRB required under its guidelines to take into account the interests of Australian shareholders, employees, creditors and policy holders affected by the proposals. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the Prime Minister's statement that the costs of rationalisation of industry should not be borne by workers at the face of change. (4) Will he seek to ensure that (a) the FIRB will not approve the sale of Amoco to BP unless satisfactory arrangements are made to distribute in full the surplus of the Amoco Australia retirement plan to its members and (b) adequate and fair redundancy payments are made to retrenched employees. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes, I announced on 18 May the Government's decision under the foreign investment policy on the proposed acquisition. (b) and (c) I understand that the agreement between BP and Amoco specifies that any actuarial deficiency or surplus in the Amoco retirement plan be taken into account in the determination of the purchase price of the proposed acquisition. The primary purpose of having independent actuaries determine the value of members' interests in the plan is to ensure that the plan has sufficient assets to meet the accrued liabilities under its prescribed benefits. If there is a surplus in the plan, the consideration for the acquisition would be increased, but this would not result in any diminution in the right of members of the plan to the prescribed benefits from it. (2) Yes. (3) I am aware of the Prime Minister's speech in Osaka on 3 February 1984 in which he said that, where change is justified and in the community's interest, we should ensure that those at the face of change are not asked to bear its costs alone. The Prime Minister also noted that those resisting change may condemn themselves and their children to lower relative living standards and lost opportunities. (4) I understand that it is BP's intention to continue the Amoco retirement plan for the benefit of Amoco employees who join BP if the acquisition is consummated and to add to the plan a new retrenchment benefit the cost of which would significantly reduce the surplus in the plan. I further understand that the company is also making arrangements with respect to a new superannuation fund which will be open to all BP employees (including Amoco employees who transfer to BP) and which will have benefits not at present included in the Amoco plan. When implemented, all employees would have the option to remain in their current plan or join the new fund. BP has given an undertaking that both Amoco and BP employees retrenched as a result of the merger will receive retrenchment and redundancy payments based on identical formulae. The BP retrenchment and redundancy payments package is currently being renegotiated with the relevant unions. The arrangements proposed by BP and Amoco to protect the interests of employees who may be affected by the proposed acquisition were carefully examined by the Government when it came to consider the recommendation of the Foreign Investment Review Board on the acquisition. The Government was satisfied that, having regard to the level and nature of employees' entitlements that were understood to have been offered by BP and to the fact that the companies and the unions concerned were proceeding with negotiations on these entitlements, the interests of the employees were being provided for. (Question No. 1307) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the 1983 general election the following measures have been taken within my Department: (a) all officers involved in staff selections have been advised of the need to ensure that a greater proportion of traditionally disadvantaged groups are represented throughout the Department, (b) as a general rule where members of disadvantaged groups apply for positions that group is represented on the selection committee, (c) and (d) appropriate methods and procedures are currently being developed but there is already a reasonable degree of consultation with union representatives on all relevant issues, (e) preliminary discussions have been held with the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau, (f) the program has been rated amongst the high priorities of the Department. (2) Achievements to date have been absorbed as part of the ongoing cost of management and administration within the Department and are not able to be separately identified. (Question No. 1312) Mr Peacock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department was created after the 1983 general election out of elements of the Department of Administrative Services and from its inception has adhered to the official equal employment policy of that Department, published in December 1982. The Department is moving towards development and publication of its own official policy and programs. The EEO Bureau of the Public Service Board and the relevant staff associations will be consulted on this and on other EEO matters. (2) To date there has been no cost associated with the Department's EEO strategies. (Question No. 1340) Mr Peacock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) How many times since 1 April 1983 were domestic aircraft chartered by all government instrumentalities, including the Navy, Army and Air Force. (2) On how many occasions were aircraft from the fleets of (a) Ansett Airlines of Australia and (b) Trans Australia Airlines used on these charter operations. (3) What was the total cost of all charter aircraft, and what were the amounts paid to (a) Ansett and (b) TAA. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The responsibility for aircraft charter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities, but rather with each instrumentality concerned. As my Department does not have the necessary resources available to seek this information from all instrumentalities, the answer set out in the table below is in respect of my portfolio only. (i) (ii) (iii) Number of occasions Total cost of all Number of times fleets of chartered aircraft domestic aircraft (a) Ansett and amounts paid Organisation within the Special chartered since and (b) to (a) Ansett Minister of State's portfolio April 1983 TAA used and (b) TAA 1. Australian Federal Police AFP has chartered domestic aircraft six times Nil Total: $100,925.33. Ansett and TAA: Nil 2. Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies RCASIA has chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $773.75. Ansett and TAA: Nil 3. National Road Freight Industry Inquiry NRFI inquiry has chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $1,321.00. Ansett and TAA: Nil 4. Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories The inquiry chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $239.00. Ansett and TAA: Nil (Question No. 1355) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Has consideration been given to the levying of petroleum products excise at a differential rate between premium and standard grade petrol as an energy conservation measure, in view of the fact that production of a given volume of premium grade petrol requires 10 per cent more energy than the equivalent volume of standard petrol. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I have been advised that no consideration has been given to applying differential excise rates on premium and standard grades of automotive gasoline as an energy conservation measure. Premium grade automotive gasoline already attracts a higher price before excise, largely reflecting its relative energy content. Any conservation gains induced by increasing this differential through the excise mechanism would be small as only a small proportion of the motor vehicle fleet is designed to use standard grade automotive gasoline. (Question No. 1375) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) How many private health fund offices were there in the electoral division of Wakefield before Medicare came into operation on 1 February 1984 and where were they located. (2) How many Medicare offices are there in the electoral division now and where are they located. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. However, I understand there were 29 chemist agencies involved in the collection of contributions and receipt of claims for benefits, which were then forwarded to the respective private health funds for processing. (2) None. However, I am advised by the Health Insurance Commission that it intends to open a Medicare office in Berri during August 1984. (Question No. 1395) Mr Maher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: (1) Why are Australian nationals prohibited from taking more than $250 cash when travelling overseas. (2) When was the limit of $250 established. (3) Is consideration being given to increasing the present entitlement of cash which may be taken overseas to allow for inflation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The limit of $250 on the amount of Australian notes which travellers are currently permitted to take overseas on departure from Australia has existed primarily to ensure the effectiveness of other restrictions implemented through exchange control. Although the major part of these restrictions was abolished when the Government decided to float the Australian dollar with effect from 12 December 1983, the maintenance of a limit on the export of Australian notes continues to assist the Government's policies in relation to taxation evasion and other illegal activities. (2) The limit on Australian notes and coin was increased from $100 (of which not more than $4 could be in coin) to $250 in notes and $5 in coin on 13 February 1975. (3) The limits are kept under review. (Question No. 1414) Mr McVeigh asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: Has his attention been drawn to the disquiet in the Department of Primary Industry caused by animal and vegetable quarantine being under the control of the Department of Health; if so, will he give consideration to the transfer of this responsibility to the Department of Primary Industry. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of the arguments that have been advanced for the transfer of responsibility for plant and animal quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. Allocation of responsibility in this area is under consideration. Should it be decided to vary the present arrangement of responsibilities, the decision will be the subject of an appropriate announcement. (Question No. 1440) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: Is any land being considered for acquisition by the Army on the north coast of New South Wales, and specifically, near Lismore, for the establishment of a firing range or any other military facility; if so, (a) for what purpose is the land being considered and (b) what were the details and recommendations of the suitability study. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No land is being considered for acquisition for the Army on the north coast of New South Wales, specifically near Lismore, for the establishment of a firing range or any other military facility. (Question No. 1449) Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 May 1984 : (1) Is he able to say whether the European Economic Community has 400,000 tonnes of beef in store; if so, is this causing great concern to our beef industry. (2) Have talks been held by the Government with industry leaders and European Economic Community representatives as to the effect this huge surplus could have on the Australian industry if placed on world beef markets. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) European Economic Community stocks of beef and veal fall into two categories-intervention stocks and stocks held under the private storage aid scheme. Intervention stocks approached the 400,000 tonnes mark at the end of December but have since declined to 294,700 tonnes at end of April. This figure is 99,500 tonnes-50 per cent-higher than a year earlier. An increase in European Economic Community intervention stocks in the coming months is forecast with the introduction of forequarter buying-in from 14 May 1984. I am advised that approximately 23,600 tonnes were stored in 1983 under the European Economic Community private storage aid scheme compared to around 25,600 tonnes in 1982. The level of European Economic Community beef and veal stocks is of grave concern to our beef industry because of the depressing price effect and the unfair competition which result from their subsidised disposal on world markets. The industry is particularly concerned at the possible extension of European Economic Community export subsidies which would further encroach on Australia's traditional markets, and further disrupt Australia's beef trade. (2) In March this year the Minister for Trade and I held discussions with the European Economic Community Commission Vice-President, Mr Wilhelm Haferkamp, and expressed the Australian Government's concern at the European Economic Community 's production and trading policies for beef, focussing in particular on the distortions of trade resulting from export subsidies and the likely effect on our traditional markets if such subsidies were to be extended. I believe that our concerns were received sympathetically by the European Economic Community delegates. As a result of our talks it was agreed that regular bilateral discussions between European Economic Community and Australian trading and marketing experts would be held concerning the marketing of specific agricultural products. The first meeting took place on 7 and 8 June in Brussels and priority was given at the meeting to beef and diary products. The Australian delegation was fully briefed on the European Economic Community's production and trading policies for beef and veal. The Australian Government will continue to take every opportunity to seek modification of the discriminatory aspects of the production and trading policies of the European Economic Community. (Question No. 1500) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 31 May, 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (A) (a) nil (b) nil (B) (a) nil (b) nil (C) (a) nil (b) nil (Question No. 1505) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program in (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: There were no people employed by my Department, or any statutory authority reporting to me, under the community employment program for the months of (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. (Question No. 1524) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (i) The total numbers of temporary employees of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (including Office of Australian War Graves) under the community employment program during each of the three months specified were as follows (a) Males March 84April 84May 84 566 (b) Females March 84April 84May 84 168183181 (ii) No employees have been engaged under the community employment program by statutory authorities which report directly to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Temporary employees working under a community employment program project with the Office of the Australian War Graves have been included in the answer to (i). (Question No. 1410) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: (1) Further to his answer to a question without notice on 2 April 1984 (Hansard , page 1168) did he indicate that research has only recently commenced into the potential of the plant leucaena leucocephala in the Northern Territory, and in particular the Ord River; if so, has his attention been drawn to experimental work on this plant which has been conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for many years at Kununurra in Western Australia. (2) Is it a fact that it is possible for cattle to safely graze the plant in conjunction with pangola grass. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. My answer to a question without notice recorded in Hansard page 1168 on 2 April 1984 does not contain any statement or any implication 'that research has only recently commenced into the potential of the plant leucaena leucocephala in the Northern Territory, and in particular the Ord River'. I am well aware that experimental work on the plant has been conducted by CSIRO for many years in the Ord River irrigation area at Kununurra in Western Australia. This research forms part of a wider investigation by CSIRO, based at the Davies laboratory in Townsville, into the utilisation of leucaena as a protein feed for cattle. (2) Experiments by CSIRO on the Ord River irrigation area showed that cattle were affected by leucaena toxicity when grazing pastures composed of a mixture of leucaena and pangola grass. It was also shown that the toxic effects could be reduced or overcome by removing the animals from the pasture and allowing them to graze pangola pasture free of leucaena. It is possible for cattle to safely graze leucaena in conjunction with pangola grass provided that the system of stock management ensures that leucaena constitutes a small proportion of the diet-no more than about thirty per cent. Question No. 1441) Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 29 May 1984: In relation to the stockpile of uranium concentrate referred to in answer to Question No. 1206 (Hansard, 3 May 1984, page 1841), (a) has any part of the stockpile been used by the Government or any private company since it was first created; if so, what are the details, (b) when will the Government be addressing the question of disposing of the stockpile and (c) what is the present estimated value of the stockpile. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Commonwealth uranium stockpile was originally accumulated by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) from the Rum Jungle project and stored at the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories. In 1977 the Commonwealth entered into agreements with Peko Mines Ltd, Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd, and Queensland Mines Ltd, which allowed them to borrow uranium from the stockpile to meet their early deliveries under approved contracts. Each company paid into a stockpile trust account the net proceeds of sales of the material, with these proceeds to be refunded by the Commonwealth as the companies returned borrowed material once the mines were in production. All borrowings have been replaced by production from the Ranger and Nabarlek projects and stored at the Ranger storage facility (see answer to Question No. 1206). In addition 3.5 short tons U308 (2.7 tonnes U) was withdrawn for use by the AAEC for research purposes. (b) The Commonwealth at present has no proposals before it for disposal of the stockpile and has yet to decide when this question will be addressed. (c) The current estimated value of the stockpile is around $160m.