Wednesday, 27 February 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.01) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister from making a statement to the House on the consequences for the ANZUS alliance and Australia of the significant scaling down of defence co-operation between the United States of America and New Zealand. This is a very grave day for Australia, for the United States of America and for New Zealand. Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —It is typical of honourable members opposite to treat this matter with such disdain. Let me state the reasons I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. I am cognisant, Mr Speaker, that you will require me particularly to argue the urgency of this matter and the need for the suspension of Standing Orders, though I will necessarily have to point out matters that relate to the substance of issues I would wish the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to canvass. This morning, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM and in other reports internationally, it has been reported that Mr Lange, the New Zealand Prime Minister, had met the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Brown, and Mr Lange was reported as saying that Mr Brown had read to him a list of measures which the United States proposed to take as a response to the New Zealand government's determination to keep New Zealand nuclear free. Mr Lange allegedly said that those measures relate primarily to intelligence sharing and the defence field and, as reported on the program, most importantly Mr Lange went on to say that, in effect, they amount to a drastic scaling down of co-operation with New Zealand in those areas. There can be few things, if any, more important than those that go to the national security of a nation. Quite clearly, from this morning's statement by the New Zealand Prime Minister, the inevitable consequences of the fool's paradise attitude that he and his Government have taken have brought this about. Opposition members have constantly called on the Government to indicate to New Zealand that this would be the natural consequence of the stance that it has taken. The events have flowed as we said they would. The Prime Minister has an abundant duty to execute: To tell all Australians what the consequences are and to tell them today. It is not as if the Government has had no warning of this. In fact, from one's own experience one knows that the Government would have been advised some time in advance of all the details to which the New Zealand Prime Minister was referring. The Prime Minister, therefore, is in a position to come into this Parliament now and explain to us what he sees as the consequences for Australia and what action his Government will take as a result of the United States move. Lest there be any doubt about my assumption that the Government knows about this matter, I refer to a copy of a story in the Australian of 14 February, which concluded: Though Mr Hayden did not confirm the Americans' suspension, he said the US had guaranteed to advise Australia of any initiatives 'in sufficient time'. So we know clearly that the Government has been apprised of this, that the Prime Minister is, therefore, in a position to come into the Parliament immediately and make the statement and advise what action his Government is going to take. As I said, we have warned that this would be the inescapable conclusion to the decision taken by New Zealand. The Government has argued throughout that it would not be a messenger boy for the United States of America and it swept to one side the three nation, tripartite element of ANZUS, claiming all along that this did not impact on Australia, that it was purely and simply a matter between the United States and New Zealand. That is fatuous. Mr Chynoweth —Why are you meddling in it? Mr PEACOCK —To indicate my concern on behalf of Australia is what I am elected to do. I am not meddling when I address Australian interests. Mr Chynoweth —Yes, you are. You are trying to stir it up. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member might be meddling because he is not pushing sufficiently his socialist internationalist stance. I am concerned about anything that impacts on Australia's security, and Australia's security is a matter of fundamental concern to everyone on this side of the House, if it is not to the honourable member's side of the House. This is a three nation alliance and the actions of one necessarily impact on the other. The cowardly, head-in-the-sand approach taken by this Prime Minister, in which he seeks to be well regarded and not take a stance on any issue, even in relation to the factions within his own Party, shows the way in which this alliance has eroded under this Government. It is a very important point that we have to be advised today. Intelligence and defence co-operation has been scaled down significantly by the United States to New Zealand. I am not revealing anything that any member of this House does not know, that a great bulk-not all by any means because we have our own methods-of the raw data in intelligence, as well as interpretations gathered and made by the United States, is passed to Australia. The world knows that. We need to know now: Are we still going to be the recipients of that information which is critical to our own defence planning and our foreign policy assessments? Are we still to receive that? I assume we are, but we need to be advised. If we are to receive it, what is this Government going to do under the terms of our relations with New Zealand, which, being a smaller country, unable to cover the globe and gather information itself, depends considerably on our own raw data but particularly assessments and raw data from our allies, the United States? So I need to know, Australians need to know from this Prime Minister, when we receive the information from the United States whether we will continue to pass it on to New Zealand? And even, dare I use the phrase, Labor's blind Freddy would know that if we pass that information on to New Zealand, as we always have, except for certain areas-but in the main we pass it on-we would thereby be circumventing the decision of the United States announced by the New Zealand Prime Minister today. Australians should not be left in doubt on this issue. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will scuttle back into his bunker and leave one of the faction's spokesmen to come into this House claiming to be a ministerial spokesman. But no one less than the Prime Minister should be attending in this Parliament to advise the House and the nation what the future holds for the ANZUS alliance and for Australia. Anyone can see that the future of this great alliance and great pact to which all on this side of the House are committed, is now imperilled, as we have said all along it would be. We have known since the day of the New Zealand election, as a consequence of the failure of this Government to take any action-it washed its hands of a difficult situation-that this was the inescapable conclusion. We do not know, however, what the Government's reaction to this very grave news is going to be and we are entitled as Australians to know. We are entitled to know whether the information will circumvent United States actions and what the Government sees for the future of the ANZUS alliance. The only action that has been taken by this Government has been the writing of a letter to the New Zealand Prime Minister. As I said last week, the moment that letter became public the Prime Minister ducked the issue, ran away and backed away from its terms because of the heat that the Left was applying to him. I assume it is that heat which now prevents him from coming into the House to make a statement. There is a duty to advise Australians. Already there have been cancellations of sea exercises. The Sea Eagle exercises and the two ANZUS logistical meetings have been cancelled. Defence co-operation has now been suspended and sharing intelligence allegedly has now been cancelled by the United States. There can be few more fundamental elements than this. For a government to be as delinquent as it has been over the period since Mr Lange was elected Prime Minister is bad enough but for the Prime Minister to abstain from telling this nation is cowardly and, worse, a disgrace. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time of the Leader of the Opposition has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.12) —I second the motion to suspend Standing Orders, not so that a ministerial spokesman for the Government can make a statement in this place but so that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can explain to this House the circumstances for Australia and Australian security of the result of the announcement this morning by Prime Minister Lange of New Zealand about the drastic scaling down of co-operation with New Zealand in the intelligence and defence fields. Immediately after the elections we all remember the delightful Cook line about the Prime Minister being lean, mean and rarely seen. How appropriate that is today. He is rarely seen; he is not in the Parliament. He is lean and mean; he has not made a statement to this Parliament about the prevarication of the MX missile affair. He now has an opportunity to explain to this Parliament and to the people of Australia the consequences of the decision which was announced this morning as a result of an interview between Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bill Brown, and Prime Minister Lange of New Zealand. We need to remember that this is not a matter which has just arisen. The government has not been caught short. We all saw the Press reports about a fortnight ago when we learnt for the first time that this situation was a likely consequence of the ill-considered decision by the New Zealand Government not to allow visits by United States naval vessels to New Zealand ports. In case people think that this is all in isolation across the Tasman, let us remember that Premier Cain in Victoria has been saying exactly the same thing. Premier Burke in Western Australia has echoed somewhat similar sentiments. We have all the uncertainty we have now heard from Premier Wran in New South Wales who one minute says that we will not have United States nuclear powered ships in Sydney and the next minute that perhaps we will. We need to look back at what has been said and register why it is essential that the Prime Minister come into this House today and tell the Australian people of the implications of this fundamental change in the ANZUS relationship. First, we need to remember that adequate time and notice has been given by the United States to Australia. We remember the quote of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who stated: Though Mr Hayden did not confirm the Americans' suspension, he said the United States had guaranteed to advise Australia of any initiatives in sufficient time. We know from the same day's Press, in the Australian Financial Review: The role of intelligence gathering under ANZUS is to be reviewed in a joint paper for Federal Cabinet on the practical implications of the alliance being prepared by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. It was following that statement that we saw these headline-grabbing comments from the drover's dog of the Australian Labor Party about the threats to the joint facilities in Australia: US bases would close if data cut off. It is not just a matter of the New Zealand-American connection. Indifferent though this Government has been towards trying to intervene and to protect the ANZUS relationship, it is very much a matter of what the implications are for Australia. We need to remember that it is only a few weeks since the London-based Jane's Defence Weekly stated that intelligence obtained from monitoring radio traffic in the Pacific was usually shared between the United States, Australia, Canada, Britain and New Zealand. That same publication identified the very close interweaving of the intelligence-gathering facilities. But again the media has reported: NZ defence links will stay, says Canberra. We are told that intelligence sharing between Australia and New Zealand will stay. If that is to be so, will the result not be that of the United States will cut off intelligence-sharing with Australia? Will we be left in a position where this will affect not only the relationship between New Zealand and the United States but also our own very vital sources of information which, as the Jane's Defence Weekly report illustrates, are so closely interwoven. The only answer is for the Prime Minister, who is still not in this chamber, to come in and make a statement to the House and tell us of the implications for Australia, Australia's security and Australia's defence relationships. The ANZUS relationship is now very seriously prejudiced. The Prime Minister's indifference reflects totally to his discredit. The only solution is for him to come into this House, not for the Leader of the House to gag this matter and say that it does not matter. It cannot be swept under the carpet. It is a matter absolutely fundamental to every Australian. The Prime Minister has a duty to come into this chamber immediately. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.18) —We have a rather extraordinary turn of events this morning with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who obviously have listened to AM and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news, now wanting to turn Parliament over to a major debate on matters which were discussed overnight between the United States of America and New Zealand. One wonders at the intent of Opposition members in raising this matter, based not on documentation, based not on our involvement, but rather based on the fact that they might be able to attract a bit of attention to their antics, their attitudes and their predictability in this Parliament. This move has been led by a person who now is Leader of the Opposition but who long held the post of Minister for Foreign Affairs. One wonders what his attitude might have been, when he was sitting on this side of the House as Minister for Foreign Affairs, had he been asked to comment on or interfere in discussions between New Zealand and the United States. We might have seen a very different honourable member for Kooyong then. He might have been telling us, as I am telling the House today, that basically what went on overnight was a matter between New Zealand and the United States. The Leader of the National Party produced a few old newspaper clippings. What did the Leader of the Opposition produce in terms of documentation which would warrant a call for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make comment at this very moment on discussions that were held last night between Mr Lange and Mr Brown? It may well be that these circumstances will lead to a statement being made in the House by the Prime Minister at some time, but that time will be determined by the Government and by the Prime Minister; it will not be dictated by the attitudes of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, more than anybody else on the Opposition benches, knows the proper relationship that exists between the United States and Australia. He knows far more than those he leads on the other side about what is involved in that relationship. He knows what happens because he is briefed on intelligence matters more than anybody else on the Opposition benches. Yet he raises the question here whether there is some danger in or some question about the relationship between the United States and Australia in the passage of intelligence material. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the question he raises is just not valid. There is absolutely no evidence upon which he can base that charge and he did not put any before the Parliament. I reiterate: What happened last night is basically a matter between the United States and New Zealand. Irrespective of what might eventuate between the United States and New Zealand in this area, there would be no reason for diminution of the flow to Australian and United States origin intelligence. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is a long established principle in intelligence exchanges between countries that a recipient of an intelligence exchange undertakes not to pass that material to any third country without the authority of the originator. Australia under this Government, as under the coalition, has always observed such understanding scrupulously and will continue to do so. Whatever the outcome, Australia will maintain active intelligence co-operation with New Zealand based on material of Australian origin, reflecting the very close bilateral relationship between the two countries. Nothing could be clearer, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. Yet because this morning in bed he got excited listening to AM reporting that Mr Lange may have said something in his Press statement in Los Angeles and Mr Brown might have said something else, he did not wait for any documentation to show exactly what might have been said. The Leader of the Opposition, thinking a point could be scored, and that some damage could be done to Australia, flew in here at 10 o'clock this morning, like the amateur he is, and demanded that the Prime Minister come in and make a statement, Could honourable members imagine it being demanded of Malcolm Fraser when he was Prime Minister that he come in and make a statement on this question. Those making that proposal would have been blown out of court just as the Opposition deserves to be blown out of court now. I have never heard such absolute nonsense. What will the Leader of the Opposition listen to on AM tomorrow morning which he will seek to raise in this House at 10 o'clock? He ought to change his radio program and listen to something else. This matter is a serious matter. During the election campaign the Opposition explained what Australian under the coalition would do to New Zealand. It almost reached a frenzy. It was to declare war on New Zealand, or so it implied during the election campaign, because New Zealand's attitude did not suit the sentiments the Opposition wanted to express. The Opposition has no great credibility in this area over and above the credibility which has long been consolidated by this Government in this area. If it becomes necessary for the Prime Minister to come into the Parliament to make a statement on this question, he will do so at a time chosen by him when he considers all the material that has been placed before the Government and the relationship between the United States and Australia and that between Australia and New Zealand and the effect of the relationships. He will not make statements, as he has outlined on numerous occasions inside and outside the Parliament, on matters which specifically appertain to the relationship between New Zealand and the United States of America. For the Opposition to carry on about what it would do to New Zealand leads one to wonder what sort of relationship it wants in the region. As I said, the Prime Minister will determine the timing of whatever statement has to be made in this Parliament. It will not be based upon the nonsense that is raised here by the Opposition after its members listen to their favourite radio program every morning. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubios, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Scholes, G. G. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Scholes, G. G. D. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(10.37) —The Opposition supports the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 3 and 4, namely, the Trust Recoupment Tax Bill and the Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.42) —The Opposition will oppose this measure in this House and in another place, unless the Government is willing to accept an amendment from the Opposition that the commencement date of the legislation be altered from 1 July 1980 to 12 May 1982. Except insofar as the commencement date of this legislation is concerned, and one or two other matters which will be raised in debate by my colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the Opposition supports the thrust of this legislation. It has no quarrel at all with wiping out trust stripping operations. In fact, the evidence is that those particular practices were effectively wiped out as a result of an announcement that was made by me as Treasurer in the former Government on 12 May 1982. We had chosen 12 May 1982 as an appropriate commencement date in accordance with the view taken by the Opposition, then in government, that legislation of this kind ought not to have a retrospective operation. It was on 12 May 1982 that I made an announcement on behalf of the former Government, making it perfectly clear that action would be taken with effect from that date to counter trust stripping activities, if it were established that the then existing law dealing with those activities was inadequate. I shall quote from that statement, because it is important to the argument put by the Opposition on this measure. I said on that occasion: Should existing legislation be found inadequate to strike down any scheme of the trust stripping type, the Government will introduce appropriate remedial legislation. That legislation will have the effect after today, that is, it will apply to trust income of the current and subsequent income years, except where the income has been paid to or applied for the benefit of a beneficiary before tomorrow. The legislation will be structured so that taxes borne by the persons who are found to have rights to effectively enjoy the income, whether in a capital form or in any other way. . . . It was made perfectly clear, therefore, by that announcement I made as Treasurer in the former Government that any trust stripping activities that went on after that date would effectively be struck down, either by the then existing legislation or, if that were found to be inadequate, by legislation effectively running from that date. We therefore believe that the appropriate commencing date of the legislation is 12 May 1982. We do not believe that it should run from 1 July 1980. The Government has not established any case, has not even tried to establish any case, as to why this legislation should run retrospectively from 1 July 1980. It is very instructive to know that, according to information I have been provided with by the Australian Taxation Office, the total amount of revenue involved in this measure is about $10m. Of that $10m, only about half a million dollars, so I am advised, is applicable to activities that took place after 12 May 1982. In other words, yet again we have evidence that action taken by the former Government in this area was effective in eliminating the practices. I make it perfectly clear, on behalf of the Opposition, that we have no quarrel with a legitimate prospective operation of this measure in accordance with the warning clearly given by me on behalf of the former Government. We have no quarrel at all with that measure. The Opposition would support it, although my colleague from North Sydney will have a number of things to say about the operation of the joint and several liability provisions-and well he may have something to say about that-and about the effective taxation rate which is being applied under the legislation. As this measure concerns taxation, we are provided with the opportunity of saying something about the Government's agenda this year so far as taxation is concerned. It is not overstating it to say that this year the Government will have in the economic area taxation reform as one of the major things to be considered. The Government is to have a taxation summit and, as the House will know, the Opposition has major reservations about the use of summits as a method of decision-making. But that is the Government's choice and, as observers of that summit, we will naturally be interested to see what comes out of it. I think the Australian public will be even more interested to know what arrangement the Government works out with its colleagues in the industrial wing of the Labor movement before that summit takes place. The Australian public will also want to know whether the taxation summit will have anything to say at all about the matter which is directly linked to the question of taxation, which is of course the level of government expenditure. Much of the taxation debate so far has revolved around the mix of tax collections in Australia and too little has revolved around what causes governments to raise taxation; that is, the level of government expenditure. I do not pretend that reducing or controlling government expenditure is easy for any government and it is a truism that the level of taxation is directly determined by the total volume of government spending. What the Opposition and, I suspect, the Australian community hope is not lost sight of in the months ahead as we debate the issue of taxation is the fact that the overriding responsibility of governments in the taxation area is to bring about reductions in the total volume of taxation via reductions in the total volume of government spending. It has been the experience of just about every government in the Western world, with some minor interruptions on some occasions since the end of World War II, to see an inexorable rise in government spending and therefore rises in levels of taxation year by year. It is important, therefore, if the Government is viewing the taxation summit in a serious light, if it wants to obtain its much cherished community consensus out of that summit, that it have something to say at that summit about the total level of expenditure. I can tell the Government that concern about the volume of government spending is not limited to leaders of the Australian business community, although in the public arena they have been in the forefront of those expressing concern. It goes far beyond that. The Australian public wants out of the taxation summit not just a new way of collecting the same amount of tax but also some indication from the Government of its resolve to control and, if possible, bring about a reduction in the total burden of taxation. As members of the House will know, for a long time I have been a supporter of a change in the taxation mix in Australia towards a greater reliance on indirect taxation. Let me say in that context that I welcome indications from both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that they now favour a change in Australia's taxation system to a greater reliance on indirect taxation. To the extent that they continue to adopt that attitude, and consistent with what I have said about the overall burden of taxation, any moves in that direction will certainly have my support. I happen to believe that reforming and improving the Australian taxation system are long overdue and it is the responsibility and obligation of a constructive Opposition to take an intelligent and constructive approach to the question of taxation reform and not, may I say, to take the blindly antagonistic approach to taxation reform that was taken by the Australian Labor Party when it was last in opposition. I have to remind the House that, when the former Government made attempts to alter the taxation system in the same direction as that which is now mooted by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and for which I have indicated some support, to their great discredit members of the Labor Party, from the then Leader of the Opposition down, including the present Treasurer, went around the country stirring up the most narrow-minded hostility to long overdue reforms which they in government, faced with the reality of government, now concede are absolutely necessary. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we will not adopt that attitude. I certainly will not be part of any kind of negative, destructive response to taxation reforms put forward by the Government. We need to change our taxation mix. We need to have a sensible, broadly based consumption tax in this country to enable major reductions in the burden of income tax. Unless we can move in that kind of direction any other changes to the taxation system are merely playing around at the edges. We can fulminate and carry on with all our pet theories about how unjust the taxation system is, we can all make fine speeches about how it has to be neutral, fair and equitable, but there are a limited number of changes that can be made. I happen to believe that we will not even get to first base in taxation reform in Australia unless we are willing to go in the direction of a broadly based consumption tax. There are a lot of myths around about indirect taxation. Many of those myths and furphies are shared by many honourable members who sit opposite. I have noticed in the Press over recent weeks that many spokesmen for the left wing of the Labor Party have said that indirect taxation is inequitable. I noticed in the Press this morning that a number of unions have indicated that they would support increases in indirect taxation provided they were confined to luxuries. All I can say to those people is that if they are serious about taxation reform, if they are serious about providing enough money from an indirect tax to bring about reductions in personal income tax that people will notice, they have to go far beyond so-called luxuries. If they think there is enough money in them they can forget about it because there is not. I have been down that track before and I know that the Treasurer is going down that track at the moment. The only way that we will get enough money from a broadly based indirect tax to fund major reductions in personal income tax that people will notice is to have a genuinely broadly based consumption tax. That means that we have to have minimal exemptions. Of course, it has to be done in a way that does not discriminate against the poor in our community. It can be done. It is an old furphy to argue that broadly based consumption taxes are regressive. In fact the evidence is that the existing indirect taxation base in Australia is itself more regressive than a broadly based system would be. The reason for that is that it is narrowly based in a number of items that tend to be consumed in equal quantity by the not so well off and the well off in our community. The absence of any kind of consumption tax on services in Australia is one of the very good reasons why there is an argument that the existing packet of indirect taxes is regressive. I think it is quite possible, within the kind of society and the kind of economy that we operate in this country, for us to structure a sensible, broadly based consumption tax that applies in a neutral manner and does not discriminate against the less well off in the community. As far as Opposition members are concerned, we will not give the Government a blank cheque on taxation. We will not commit ourselves in advance to everything that comes out of the taxation summit, but we will take a constructive attitude to the question of taxation reform. It is one of those big things that are on this country's agenda. From the position of Opposition, I think we can play a constructive part in the process and react intelligently to what the Government puts forward. We can do that because, at the last election, we had a program in the taxation area. We did not go the last election asking the people to give us a blank cheque on taxation. We did not go to the people at the last election saying: 'If you return us we will work out what our taxation policy is'. We went to the people at the last election with a clear, specific program. That program had a number of important elements. This first element, of course, was the matter that I have just canvassed; that is, the shift towards a greater reliance on indirect taxation in return for a significant reduction in personal income tax. I do not think I need add anything more to the arguments that I have already advanced in relation to that proposition. The second element of the taxation policy that we advanced at the election was the proposal for income splitting. That was a proposal that drew very strong support within the Australian community. I noticed that, as time went by, the spokesmen for the Government were less strident in their criticism of that policy. They found that it was biting amongst a lot of their traditional supporters. The truth is that, over the years, single income families in Australia have been significantly disadvantaged, compared with double income families on the same level of income. I am very happy to say that one of the things I was pleased to do when I was Treasurer, through changes in the level of the dependent spouse rebate, was to bring about a significant improvement within the overall taxation structure of the relative position of single income families versus double income families at the same level of income. I take this opportunity of reiterating the Opposition's commitment, when elected, to moving towards the introduction of income splitting because we believe it is a fair change, we believe it is a change that will buttress family life in Australia and we believe it is a change that will receive support across the broad political spectrum. But as an important element of that package in the last election we also proposed the introduction, for the first time in the Australian taxation system, of tax deductibility or rebatability for child care expenses. We did that as a companion measure to the income splitting proposal to recognise the dual nature in many cases, of the way in which people organise their family life in Australia in 1985. We recognise the greater incidence of choice to be part of the permanent or part time work force now being exercised by many married women in Australia. In that sense the policy that we offered, whilst asserting, if you like, the traditional family arrangement through the income splitting proposal, also recognised that our policy had to be totally contemporary by, at the same time, offering taxation relief in the child care area. So it is important, as we approach the taxation summit, that we not only react to what the Government has got to say, which we will be doing in a constructive manner, but also that we reiterate what we stood for at the last election campaign. Of course, at that election campaign we also stood in opposition to the introduction of a capital gains tax. That was part of our policy and it remains part of our policy. Indeed, it is very interesting that, as time goes by, many people are questioning the hitherto conventional wisdom that some had, and that is that the introduction of a capital gains tax was a proper part of an overall change to the Australian taxation system. I must recount a discussion I had in the United States of America recently with a very senior person in the United States Treasury, Dr Sprinkel, the Under-Secretary for Monetary Affairs. He has just been appointed Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. At the moment the United States is engaging in some debate about taxation reform. It is remarkable how similar some of the language being used in the United States debate about the complexity of the American taxation system is to the language which is used by many on both sides of politics about the complexity of the Australian taxation system. I pointed out to Dr Sprinkel that Australia was one of the few countries in the Western world which did not have a capital gains tax. His response was: 'My advice is that you keep it that way'. The United States experience of capital gains tax has not been a happy experience. It is the belief of many people in the United States that the significant reduction in the level of capital gains tax that was introduced a couple of years ago has played some role in the recovery of business investment, particularly in the small business area. I know that there are arguments for and against the introduction of a capital gains tax as part of an overall restructuring, but I say on behalf of the Opposition that the longer we look at such a tax the more persuaded we are that the stance that we took in the last election campaign was the correct stance. The evidence is that a capital scarce country such as Australia ought to avoid doing things which discourage people from saving. We ought to encourage people to do the sorts of things that we believe the introduction of taxes of that particular kind would discourage them from doing. I have taken the opportunity in debating a measure which is primarily directed towards a tax avoidance practice of saying something about the Opposition's overall approach to taxation reform, which is an important item on the political and economic agenda in Australia this year. We will continue to remind the Government of its obligations in the expenditure area. We will continue to point out to the Australian public that the taxation summit should not be used by the Government as a smoke-screen for avoiding its responsibilities in the expenditure area. Although we support very strongly an overall change in the taxation mix towards a greater reliance on indirect taxation, we are certainly not going to relieve the Government of its obligations at that summit, and before and after, to bring about a significantly greater level of restraint in the expenditure area. I know that the Treasurer does not like being reminded of this, but I will do it again: However much he may twist, turn and talk about what might have been the case, the truth is-my good friend, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) knows this because it is there in the Government's own papers-that the present Treasurer is the biggest taxing and biggest spending Treasurer, as a percentage of our wealth, since Federation. That is a claim that cannot be disputed. It is a claim that will be repeated and stated through the year to ensure that the Government, in whatever zeal it may or may not have for taxation reform-from those who sit around the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) I do not think there is much zeal for taxation reform except of a very limited, punitive an envious kind-exercises its zeal against the background of showing far greater expenditure restraint. Having said that, I simply return to the precise terms of the measure in front of the House. On a number of occasions in this House I have talked about tax avoidance issues and my friend, the honourable member for Charlton, has done likewise. No doubt he will get up in a few minutes and we will have substantially the same speech from him again. I have not really given my same speech on this occasion as I thought it was a good opportunity to have something to say about a broader issue. We have no quarrel with stamping out trust stripping practices. If we had any quarrel with stamping out trust stripping practices, I would not have made the statement that I did as the then Treasurer on 11 May 1982. It was a statement that certainly had an effect. It put everybody on notice that any trust stripping activity engaged in after that date was done at the peril of those who engaged in it, who were entitled to be dealt with, in a legislative sense, as severely as possible. That is happening. We propose, under our amendment, that the legislation run from that date. I think that is a fair amendment. It is not giving the legislation retrospective effect because a fair, proper, unambiguous and decent warning was given. Nobody can complain, in the face of the warning that I gave, that he was not on notice of what would happen if these particular practices continued. Mr Robert Brown —What about the shysters before? Mr HOWARD —The honourable member interjects about the money before. Of course, our argument simply is that we do not, as a general rule, accept the proposition that Parliament should legislate retrospectively in these matters. We have stated that before. We have had that debate before. The honourable gentleman's colleague, the Treasurer, has produced no real evidence in his second reading speech as to why that principle ought to be violated on this occasion. For that reason, we are totally unmoved by the Treasurer's blandishments. It is the intention, therefore, of the Opposition in Committee to move an amendment to clause 5 to omit '1 July 1980' and to insert instead '12 May 1982'. If that amendment is defeated-I hope the Government will give serious consideration to accepting it-the Opposition will vote against this measure at the third reading. It is my understanding that our colleagues in another place will move a similar amendment. I hope that the amendment will draw the support of the minor parties in another place. I hope that the good sense and the fairness of certain senators in the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine will make them willing to support the amendment. I think in all the circumstances it is a fair amendment and it exhibits a determination to deal with an objectionable tax avoidance practice, but not in a way that can be claimed to violate principle or to operate in an unreasonable manner. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.06) —The Opposition has indicated that it will seek to move an amendment on the effective date of the legislation. That is very important in terms of the way we are conducting the discussion here today. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has pointed out that changing the effective date to 12 May 1982 from 1 July 1980 would be the impact of the Opposition's amendment. We on this side of the House are not satisfied with that. The honourable member for Bennelong has also pointed out that he hopes, if the Opposition loses the debate in this place, that it will succeed in another place in basically protecting another tax avoidance scheme. The Australian Democrats should take very careful cognisance of that situation because I think one of the reasons why they came a little unstuck in the last election was that they were seen as being a bit weak in this area and were seen as being supporters of tax avoiders. As a consequence, they paid an electoral price. It is no wonder that another party garnished some of their votes. I think the Democrats have to have a hard look at whom they run with in the other place. Their tendency to run with the Opposition on certain tax legislation has cost them electorally. I know that they are now looking at the whole position in terms of tax legislation. This is important. The honourable member for Bennelong has made a number of bipartisan comments about the direction and intention of tax reform which would be shared by some honourable members on this side of the House. Our stated intention of holding a tax summit is a clear statement by the Government that we will seek, as widely as possible, debate about tax reform. Members of the Opposition made a number of comments about tax prior to the election. It has to be conceded that they have a problem in that they do not have an effective incomes policy. Their statements about tax policy, might merit consideration; I think they do. However, in the absence of a total incomes policy their tax policy is not seen as being based properly in equity. One of the real problems the previous Government had in its last year in office was that, bit by bit, it allowed tax policy to be seen by more and more in the community as inequitable. It is a major problem. I think it is a problem that is bedevilling members of the Opposition in trying to present a tax policy to the Australian community. But the uncertainty still lingers as to whether the Opposition has both an incomes policy and a total commitment to an equitable tax policy. I would like to talk about those matters in a moment. With respect to the specifics of this legislation, the honourable member for Bennelong has spoken about an amount of $500,000 being involved since his announcement on 11 May 1982 and an estimated $9.5m prior to that. Our legislation would recoup that money. We would effectively recoup $10m. In terms of a total amount of money, that does not seem a large amount at all, but behind that is an undertaking by this Government that if we do act retrospectively what we are doing is, in effect, saying to those who enter into these blatant contrivances: 'If you seek to do that in the future you will pay a heavy price'. I would like to take the honourable member for Bennelong to a point which was made in all seriousness on his behalf at the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australian Congress in 1978. The then member for Balaclava, Mr Macphee, who is now the honourable member for Goldstein, said on behalf of the then Treasurer that these blatant and artificial contrivances should not be practised. He went on to say that there was merit in the professions exercising some self-restraint. That view would be shared by all of us. I think failure to move against blatant and artificial contrivances in subsequent years built up during the time the honourable member for Bennelong was in government. It is not my business in this debate to say: 'Everything you did was wrong and inept'. I am not saying that. What I am saying, though, is that there was a community perception that the Fraser Government was not moving against these schemes. It began to move against these schemes, but this Government would say that that happened too late. As a consequence of moving against the schemes too late, when we come to government we had to move retrospectively. That moves the debate on to the question of retrospectivity. However, I wanted to go through that exercise. It is important to understand that, if the Fraser Government did recognise that there were blatant and artificial contrivances being developed in 1978, it would have been much better, in terms of equity, had it acted against them at the time. I am sure there were constraints on what the Fraser Government was able to do, in terms of its party numbers and the direction of its Party. That is fair enough. I am not here to say: 'If that was the case, they were the constraints and you acted in accordance with those constraints'. It is very difficult to turn around in 1985 and create a very quick equity argument when there were years when the Fraser Government's adherence to equity left something to be desired. Thus when it got around to saying 'Yes, we are going to act'-as it did in 1982-the horse had bolted. It was very difficult for the Australian community to then come on side with the Fraser Government and say 'We trust you enough both to re-elect you in March 1983 and to recognise that you have an all-embracing tax policy', because the Fraser Government's commitment to tax policy was shown to be a little deficient. I say to the honourable member for Bennelong: I am making these comments on a broad base, not as a personal attack, but as a statement about what I think is important in tax policy. What is important in tax policy, as the honourable member has well said, is that it is seen to be fair and equitable and to present a reasonably efficient system for collecting tax. I think that view would be shared by all honourable members in this chamber. However, one cannot allow a situation to develop by which blatant and artificial contrivances grow up and one does not act against them, and at the same time try to develop an effective approach to incomes policy. What occurred over the last couple of years of the Fraser Government was that the community very quickly came to the view that the then Government was not acting equitably in tax policy and it did not have an effective incomes policy. The change that occurred in March 1983 was that we were able to set in place an incomes policy. We are now in the process of setting in place a tax policy. As the honourable member for Bennelong has acknowledged, one of the vehicles for that is the tax summit. The key to the whole thing is getting broad community support. That is why we are heading down that track. The honourable member for Bennelong has said that the Government has a problem with respect to the level of Government expenditure and our tax level. I think it would be acknowledged that what we as a community have done over time is allow our tax system to get completely out of gear. We now have very high marginal tax rates and very high average tax rates. I think that is accepted generally and it is something that we will address at the summit. At the same time, it is a bit hard for us to take on board full responsibility for what the honourable member for Bennelong has said about the level of Government expenditure when we have spent about two years getting the house in order. Our objective has been to do something about lowering inflation, and the score is on the board there; to do something about getting a better level of industrial practice, and I think that is evident as well; and to get economic growth going, which is the next point I want to come to. The problem the Opposition has to address in its Party debates on levels of Government expenditure is that it cannot just say: 'If we wind down the level of Government expenditure, in a sense have an ideological commitment to lowering government expenditure, we will get the best possible outcome'. As the Opposition has found, doing that leads to a recessionary situation. The impact of continuing to reduce Government expenditure in the face of declining consumer demand and declining investment demand is that the floor is pulled out from underneath industry. I think the experience the Opposition had in its last couple of years in government, particularly with the manufacturing sector, was proof of that. It was a trap that the Opposition got itself into. The Government, in the last two years, has been able to avoid that. The level of economic growth has been very good and the level of inflation has been acceptably lower but we do have some more work to do on the unemployment front. I think the general picture that has emerged is that we are keying our level of Government expenditure in to what we deem to be the effective level of economic growth required by industry and consumers. Yesterday the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in the matter of public importance debate that in this year's Budget and Budget planning we are aiming to get our level of expenditure right again in terms of our goals for economic growth. I am suggesting to the honourable member for Bennelong that we are, if you like, laying together a series of steps: We have an incomes policy; we are working towards a tax policy; we have a policy with respect to expenditure which is designed to produce economic growth. It would have to be conceded that so far, in the two years we have been in government, our performance has been reasonably effective. I think it is very important for me to go through the reasons for the Government's commitment to this legislation. The Government since it has been in office, has found as did the honourable member for Bennelong when he was Treasurer, that a multiplicity of artificial contrivances are being practised in the community. The difficulty one faces in government is how to go about ensuring that those schemes do not continue to arise. I think it is acknowledged that as soon as the Government makes a statement about a tax scheme that scheme tends to die. The honourable member for Bennelong said that only half a million dollars was involved in the period since he made his announcement on 11 May 1982. The problem is, of course, that half a million dollars was still being stripped through these arrangements. The Government thinks that the only effective way to curb these blatant and artificial contrivances is to say: 'If you act retrospectively you will stop those things being dreamt up'. The problem we had, particularly from about 1977-78, was that so much time was being spent on artificial arrangements by the professionals in the accounting area and an ineffective amount of time was being spent on proper business practice. What we had in that period was a total disruption of the tax system. I have already talked about the problems of equity. We had a tax system which came completely out of kilter. One cannot expect pay as you earn taxpayers to go along with a tax system knowing that their average and marginal tax rates are going up all the time as they get increases in their level of income and another set of arrangements designed to avoid tax is being worked on all the time by professionals in the area. That is what has happened. It certainly happened under the administration of the honourable member for Bennelong as Treasurer. I am not making a heavy personal attack; I am just saying to the honourable member: 'If that occurred, why didn't you act at the time? As you didn't act at the time it becomes necessary, in terms of social equity, to act retrospectively'. I know there will be a lot of debate about the merits of retrospective legislation. The honourable member has some very very awkward bedfellows on his side if he is concerned about retrospective legislation. The former Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, acted retrospectively on workers compensation and that denied a lot of people their rights under workers compensation legislation. So it is not as though the honourable member has all the truth and light on his side with respect to retrospectivity. He does not. Some of his colleagues in other parliaments have acted retrospectively and have done so in a way that has certainly discriminated against the ordinary workers. It is a very awkward area to move into. I am saying that very clearly it is our view that if one acts retrospectively on tax policy one certainly has an impact on all of the business letters that go out stating: 'Here is the latest scheme. Let's get into it'. People will think again and say: 'I'm not going to get into it because, in effect, as soon as an announcement is made that this is a blatant and artificial contrivance I will be liable to pay the tax that I otherwise should have paid'. That is the important point. It gets back to a question of intention. The issue we as a community have to face is that those who pay tax at a reasonable level-I am talking about after the Government reforms the taxation system-should be encouraged and assisted to pay that tax, but at the same time we should clearly discourage those who have an intention always to evade and avoid tax. I am not talking about normal business practices by which certains sums of money are set aside for business expenses. We support normal business practices. The fact that we support them and the fact that business supports our economic strategy is reflected in the economic growth figures. We have no problems on that front. However, we must avoid the situation in which pay as you earn taxpayers, who have no choice, simply have to pay tax and others very clearly avoid paying tax. That cannot be allowed to continue because the economy becomes distorted and insufficient revenue is collected to enable the normal conduct of government to go ahead. At the same time, there is also the important issue of equity. How can a government stand up in the National Parliament and say that, as a government, it is acting effectively when it is allowing all these practices to continue. We were putting the same argument yesterday with regard to the doctors' dispute. A government cannot have an effective industrial relations policy if it supports people such as militant surgeons because that industrial relations policy then becomes shaky. A government cannot have an effective tax policy if it is prepared to ignore tax avoiders and their practices. What we are saying is that the merit of retrospectivity and of passing this legislation is to stop the activities of those who engage in this trust stripping exercise. I think it is acknowledged by honourable members opposite that this was blatant and artificial contrivance. The scheme, in effect, supposedly paid funds to charity but was not really a proper business practice. It was designed simply to try to reduce taxable income. We say, and I believe the Opposition agrees, that that practice was wrong. We say that we should act against it so that we can turn to the community and say very clearly that we do not endorse that sort of activity. If we can proceed with that basis for legislation, it will be very much easier at a taxation summit meeting in June or July to say that this should be our objective in taxation policy. The statements that the honourable member for Bennelong has made about capital gains tax, a broadly based consumption tax and the very high and penal levels of marginal average tax then fit into a very different context. It is much easier to say to the community: 'This is our intention as a government in taxation matters. We are stepping on people, and rightly so, who try to rip off the rest of the community. But what we are doing is creating a climate in which tax reform can be for the benefit of the wider community'. I suggest to the honourable member for Bennelong and to the Opposition that that is the way that the debate should proceed. What I have tried to do in my comments is to avoid any personal carping in that sort of thing. I do not think that is productive. But what is productive is to say: 'If you want to participate in the debate, let us lay the ground rules for that debate. The ground rules are: Let us very clearly admit that those blatant, artificial contrivances will be dealt with and that we are so determined to deal with them that we will act retrospectively to ensure that those people who thought they could get away with tax avoidance practices cannot get away with them'. The problem for those concerned about the social contract that we all make as part of a society is that we have to ensure that there is merit in being in the game-in being a good citizen, a good taxpayer and part of that society. If we allow law-breakers and law-avoiders to get away with such practices, how do we go to the rest of society and say that they should participate. That is the thrust of what we are saying with regard to this legislation. It is important. I have indicated the sums of money involved. We are talking about $10m which, in terms of our total amount of money, may seem a minor amount. But I believe that principles are involved. Our attitude very clearly is that $10m can be recouped. Half a million dollars of it occurred after the statement of the former Treasurer on 11 May 1982. We believe the other $9.5m should be recouped because it has been admitted that it involved blatant and artificial contrivance. It is of the same calibre as bottom of the harbour taxation avoidance. That is what we believe and we have a commitment to that. We also believe that, if we allow people to get away with this sort of tax avoidance, we will lay a very shaky groundwork for the rest of the community which pays tax. How can we say to such people that they should take part? The problem that the Opposition ran into in its last years of government was that it did not address those issues effectively. It still has not addressed the issue of an incomes policy. That may occur some time in the future. We cannot address the question of an equitable incomes policy and taxation policy unless we are prepared to deal very severely with such schemes. As I have indicated, one of the problems the Australian Democrats got into in the election was that they were seen as being wishy-washy with respect to tax avoiders. As a consequence, a couple of the Democrats will not have the sort of parliamentary future that they had hoped for. On this side of the House we will be clear about tax avoidance; we will act against it. That is what this legislation intends to do. We are sure that with that strategy in taxation policy we will receive wider community support. This clearly has been evidenced in respect of our economic policy so far and we believe that that is the way to proceed with tax policy. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.24) — Madam Deputy Speaker, I start by congratulating you and offering you my best wishes on your re-election to your office. I hope that you enjoy it and I trust that everybody in this House will abide by your directions. I hope that your directions, when issued in the direction of this side of the House, are reasonable, courteous-I am sure they will be-and well received. We have heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) really no case at all for the retrospectivity which is proposed in this package of legislation. Over a period of two or three years, when the Australian Labor Party was in opposition, we heard time and again about the appalling record of the present Opposition, when in government with regard to taxation matters. Time and again the people of this country were told that we were the friends of the tax dodgers and tax cheats, and some pretty outrageous things were said in this House about members of the coalition parties. But what do we find? Since the Labor Party's gaining power, it has not been able to find or propose one single general tax avoidance measure. No less an authority on tax avoidance than the previous Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), in a Press release of 28 April 1983, stated: Introduction of the general anti-avoidance provision, Part IVA, has much improved the situation. He was referring to blatant, artificial and contrived schemes. He continued: That was a move that we actively supported. The information from the Commissioner of Taxation is that the continuing initiation of blatant and artificial tax avoidance has now been curbed, the area of trust stripping being an exception. That exception concerns the sum of $10m. As I have said, who could be a better authority on this subject than the previous Minister for Finance? That really puts to an end, and the people of Australia should understand that it puts to an end, the repeated canard that the previous Fraser Government did nothing about tax avoidance. In fact, it closed the doors on tax avoidance, as the previous Minister for Finance has acknowledged. What we have had in this Parliament, what we have now and what we had in the last Parliament, is a series of measures designed retrospectively to attack certain avoidance schemes. On this side of the House, we do not go in to bat for tax avoidance. In respect of the kind of charitable trust schemes referred to in the legislation, one can say only that it is anti-social in concept to use a charity for that purpose. But that does not mean that one should go to the opposite extreme and employ retrospective legislation. In the present case the sum concerned is $10m. If that sum of $10m were recovered, it would hardly go to pay the overseas car hire bills of some of the more ambitious travellers in the Hawke Government. The damage which this kind of legislation does far outweighs any benefits. Effectively, rules are being changed after the event. If rules can be changed after the event in one area of law, they can be changed after the event in another area of law. On this side of the House we know that the Hawke Government believed that in the last election it had a great election winner with the issue of tax avoidance, that it could attack the principled stand that the Opposition has taken and that it could describe us as, and have the Australian people believe that we are, friends of tax avoiders. But, along with many of the well laid plans, or not so well laid plans, of the Australian Labor Party, that proved to be false. People are beginning to realise that it is all very well to say in popular terms: 'What we are seeking to do is the fair thing by you'. But the cost to the social contract, as the honourable member for Stirling called it, is a very high one when the laws are rewritten after the event. The previous Minister for Finance, in that same Press release I mentioned earlier, referred to the need for retrospective legislation. He said: Only in this way can integrity and equity be restored to the tax system. We are all in favour of equity, though our views of equity may differ, but when we speak about integrity of the tax system we have to recall that the tax system is part of the legal structure of this country and that an attack by way of retrospective legislation on past events goes directly to the legal structure and the legal fabric. It is an attack on that very fabric. That is the reason why retrospective laws are bad: They overturn a cardinal principle of law and a cardinal principle on which people organise their affairs; that is, whether we approve of their conduct or not, if the law permits them to act in a certain way they may do so. After the event, we should not say: 'Wait a minute. We have changed our minds. What you did was wrong. We are going to tax you; we are going to inflict penalties on you; we are going to do other things to you'. There are one or two other objections to the legislation before the House. I refer, in particular, to the main Bill, the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill. In the first place, this Bill imposes joint and several liability. This arises under clause 6, which clause provides for a class of eligible beneficiaries who shall be liable for what is described as a secondary taxable amount. Liability for that amount can arise in a number of circumstances, for example, when a trust no longer exists. Essentially, liability is shifted from the trustee of a trust estate, who would otherwise be liable for the recoupment tax, to a class of actual or potential beneficiaries. This Bill would make all members of this class liable, jointly and severally, for the whole of the recoupment tax. This is to be so regardless of actual benefits received, regardless of whether it is possible for the person who is made liable for the whole of the tax to recoup any part of his liability from others. There may be a number of people involved; one is made liable. He seeks to recover the balance which should justly have been borne by others from those others and he finds that they have disappeared or are insolvent, or that for some reason or another he cannot recover. It is perfectly unjust that one person should be forced by the law to pay the tax liabilities of another, tax liabilities which did not exist when the transaction was entered into and which were created by retrospective legislation. It is an astonishing proposition that individuals are to be their brothers' keepers under the tax system so that, regardless of how much they benefit, they can be visited by the Commissioner of Taxation with total liability for the action not just of themselves, but of others. The next objection that I have relates to those who fall in the class of eligible beneficiaries for the purposes of what are called secondary taxable amounts. As honourable members know, under the legislation there is a primary level and a secondary level. The legislation provides that the eligible beneficiaries class includes persons who have derived or might reasonably be expected to derive a benefit. What does that mean? What does it mean to say 'might reasonably be expected to have derived the benefit'? Surely if we are dealing with retrospective or any other kind of tax legislation we should look to the actual benefit and not to the reasonable expectation of deriving a benefit, because it is the actual benefit that should be taxed and not some kind of reasonable expectation. We might ask the question: Reasonable expectation in whose eyes? It would no doubt be in the eyes of the Commissioner of Taxation, leading whoever is the subject of his judgment to the arduous, expensive and lengthy task of going through the appeals system. Tax liability should be certain, the more so when we are dealing with draconic legislation of the kind with which we are dealing here, albeit draconic legislation that concerns a relatively minor sum of money. I make two other comments on the main Bill. First, we have an example of the Commissioner of Taxation being given a discretion under clause 6 of the Bill to determine what is unreasonable in certain circumstances where there has been a change of beneficial ownership of a stripped trust so as to exempt those originally involved from liability to tax. It is a small point, but it is an important principle that in drawing tax laws we should seek as much as possible to entrench certainty and to exclude discretion. The more discretions we confer on the Commissioner-it is a very easy thing to do and it is always the easy answer and not the hard answer-the more we hand over to those who administer the task and the power of telling people what the law should be. It is our job to make the law certain. As far as possible, discretion should be stripped from the Commissioner of Taxation and other public officials and should not be vested in them. The second matter is in relation to the tax rates. The Bill would impose in certain circumstances a 75 per cent tax rate on companies. I suggest that that is an extremely high rate. I have read what is said in the explanatory memorandum concerning the reasons for it. They are very briefly expressed and I would be very glad to hear the reasons why a tax rate, as contrasted with a penalty rate, should be 75 per cent. Our view is that tax avoidance should be stamped out prospectively. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has made quite plain his position. It was legislation which he steered through the House, which, as I said, has put to an end to a very large extent the tax avoidance industry. Tax reform has been referred to by him and tax reform has been referred to by the honourable member for Stirling. We know that we will have a tax summit. I would like to say something about that and about the question of reform of the tax system. If we are to have reform, let us have a genuine inquiry. We know what the consequences of a summit will be. The agenda will be prepared by the Government. Some weary summiteers, perhaps still glad of heart and hoping that something is to be gained, will trek to Canberra for a few days to deal with matters that are complex and technical to a very high degree. What will come out of that? What will come out of it will be what the Government wants, and nothing less than that. If this Government was serious about tax reform it would engage in the kinds of public hearings across the country that the United States Treasury did when it was called on by the President to present a program for tax reform for fairness, simplicity and economic growth. That is just what the Treasury achieved after those sorts of hearings and after acknowledging the very great value of having public hearings and of the input received, rather than the select, elite, closed and brief gathering we will have here. It is worth while recording some of the criticism by the United States Department of the Treasury of the American tax system in its report to the President of some 800 pages, a report which could hardly be bettered for its clarity, breadth of exposition and recommendations. Of the American system it said: It is too complicated, it is unfair . . . it interferes with economic choices and retards savings, investment and growth. How right that would be if it were also said of the Australian system. The report continues that the American tax system 'has grown without any conscious design or overall planning since it was enacted'. Unquestionably that is so of our own system. The report continues: The . . . tax system is both unfair and needlessly complex . . . it interferes with economic behaviour and, thus prevents markets from allocating economic resources to their most productive uses. Perhaps worse, the complexity and inequity of the tax system undermines taxpayer morale-a valuable, yet fragile, national asset and a prerequisite for a tax system based on voluntary compliance. The Treasury's prescription was direct and, I believe, should be adopted by this country. Its report said: The tax system must be made simpler, more economically neutral, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth. These objectives were later described. The report states that the key to their achievement is: to define real taxable income comprehensively, to exempt families with poverty-level incomes from tax, and to subject taxable income to a rate structure that, while mildly progressive, avoids rates so high that they stifle incentives and prevent economic growth. In short, the income tax should be broad based, simple and fair. The Treasury was able to come up with a tax structure which would raise the same amount of revenue and which would have three levels: Fifteen, 25 and 35 per cent for individuals in place of a 14-level or 15-level rate structure. For companies one level was proposed-33 per cent-in place of a rate structure that peaked at 46 per cent. I suggest that there is no possibility whatsoever that this Government will come up with anything like that. However, if the Government is serious about tax reform, since that question has been raised by my friend, the honourable member for Bennelong, and, as well, by the honourable member for Stirling, let us have some public hearings. Let us have a real opportunity for the people of this country and for those expert in the business to tell the Government what they think about the tax system. Let us have members of this House properly instructed by means of a paper of the kind produced by the United States Treasury. At the same time let us have expenditure restraint and a program by this Government for the cutting of expenditures as it is essential, if we are to have in this country a tax system which is fair, which does not stifle growth, which promotes incentives and which is simple, that we come to grips with the whole question of government spending at the same time as we come to grips with the question of the reformation of the system. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(11.44) —I am pleased to enter this debate and to give my support to the Government measures. I listened with interest to the statements by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Neither appeared to address himself to the Bills presently under debate-the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1984, the Trust recoupment Tax Bill 1984 and the Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. The honourable member for Bennelong covered in great detail the discussions which are likely to take place at the forthcoming tax summit. There will be wide discussion at the tax summit, of course, on many matters including those regarding indirect taxation which the honourable member has been very keen on for a number of years but which, while he was Treasurer, he did not have the courage to introduce into this House. Indirect taxation will be a matter for further debate at the tax summit. The honourable member for North Sydney addressed himself only very briefly to the legislation before the House. He spent most of his time telling us of some of the reforms which have been brought about in the United States of America and lecturing the Government on what it should be doing and how it could be going about tax reform in the future. He failed to mention, however, that his Government, when it was in office, did very little about tax reform and, indeed, allowed tax avoidance measures, such as those we are dealing with here today and those we are trying to put a stop to, to flourish virtually unchecked. The Bills we are debating today seek to impose trust recoupment tax for recovery of income tax avoidance through the use of certain trust stripping schemes. The legislation was foreshadowed in a statement by the then Minister for Finance in April 1983 which indicated that the Government would apply retrospective legislation whenever necessary to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme would be collected retrospectively whenever such a scheme was discovered. The Government's policy on tax avoidance means that no tax avoidance scheme will be successful because tax so avoided will be collected when such schemes are discovered. This policy will ensure the end of the tax avoidance industry. Tax avoidance schemes, which these Bills seek to redress, are those schemes designed to apply income of a trust to a tax exempt beneficiary, for instance, a charity which, having a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of the trust estate is not, however, presently entitled to it until the vesting day, usually in some 80 years time. The effect of enjoinment of the benefit remains in the hands of beneficiaries who do not have a tax-exempt status. Despite anti-trust stripping legislation enacted in 1979 and 1981, variants of trust stripping schemes have continued to flourish because the promoters of such schemes were confident that the former conservative Government would not impose retrospective taxing of such schemes but would introduce legislation to take effect only from the time of discovery of such schemes and not from their introduction which was, of course, the time at which the perpetrators of such schemes gained a very great benefit. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Bennelong seeking to have the retrospective period begin from 12 May 1982, instead of 1 July 1980, cannot be supported for two reasons. The first is the loss of a further $10m in tax forgone but, more importantly, I believe as a matter of principle in telling those people who indulge in such artificial avoidance schemes that they will not benefit at all from such schemes and that tax will be levied from the time that those schemes were commenced and not from the time of their discovery. In the main, trusts have been set up by people to avoid payment of tax at a time when that tax normally would be payable if the trust had not been in operation. Income of a trust flows from the trustee to the beneficiary when it is earned. The trustee is obliged to deal with income according to the terms of the trust deed which may require, for example, immediate payment to the beneficiary or capitalisation and accumulation until a specified event occurs. In the former case, the beneficiary, as the person entitled to receive income, generally is liable to tax on it at personal rates. However, in certain situations, for example, where the beneficiary is non-resident, the trustee is made liable to tax on behalf of the beneficiary. In the latter case the trustee is liable to tax on the accumulating income. For resident trusts the important question is whether the beneficiary is presently entitled. If the beneficiary is presently entitled, the trust income is included in and taxed as part of the beneficiary's income. Otherwise, where no beneficiary is presently entitled, the trustee is taxed generally at a 60 per cent rate. Tax avoidance schemes exploit these provisions by using a beneficiary which is tax-exempt, either because it is a charity or because it has tax losses which can be used to offset the income earned. The chosen beneficiary is presently entitled but the income either is not paid or is paid and later recovered. Under the Income Tax Assessment Act if a beneficiary has a vested and indefeasible interest in the trust estate but is presently not entitled to the income, section 95A (2) deems the beneficiary to be presently entitled. Anti-avoidance provisions directed at particular schemes identify the particular circumstances of the tax avoidance scheme and then prescribe a taxation treatment differing from that which would otherwise apply. Section 100A is directed at schemes involving payment to a tax exempt charity and later recovery of the amount as paid. The section therefore relies on the existence of a reimbursement agreement as defined. Where it does apply, section 100A requires that the trustee be taxed under section 99A which, as I explained earlier, is at the 60 per cent rate. Section 100A of the Act was added by the Income Tax Assessment Act in 1979 and it applies to income dealt with after 11 June 1978. Like many trust taxation provisions, it applies to only the last in a chain of trusts through which income is successfully passed, so as to avoid double taxation. More significantly, it is limited to trusts which return the benefit of their tax exemption through a reimbursement agreement. It leaves open tax avoidance schemes using paper losses or trading losses in the final trust to offset against the income and ensure that no tax is paid. In line with our announced policy on retrospective legislation, the level of penalty tax that would be payable and applied to such schemes entered into before the commencement of this legislation, will ensure that the amount recovered is the tax sought to be avoided, adjusted for inflation. In relation to any future schemes, the penalty tax will be equal to double the tax sought to be avoided. Finally, the Bill contains provisions to guard against the divestment of assets in an attempt to frustrate the operation of the trust recoupment tax legislation. These measures were introduced into this House before Parliament rose for the election last year. As has been indicated by the honourable member for Bennelong, the Opposition will support amendment of the proposed legislation to the extent that the retrospectivity would go back only to 12 May 1982. I believe that the indication by the Opposition that it is prepared to go back to that time means that it is of the opinion, as we are on this side of the House, that this was a blatant tax avoidance measure, and that it is determined also to deal with that tax avoidance. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Government legislation proposes to tax those people retrospectively from 1 July 1980. There is a difference there of the order of $10m, but I believe that the principle of retrospectivity is more important than the amount of tax to be recovered. I believe that if we are not in a position to be able to tell people that tax avoidance will be stamped out by this Government-and indeed, it will be stamped out to such an extent that retrospectivity will apply to the date on which those tax avoidance schemes were commenced and not from the date on which they were discovered-we will not be able to stamp out the tax avoidance industry. The fact that we have given notice that we are prepared to go back to the very commencement of those tax avoidance schemes will be, I believe, the final deterrent for those people who, in the past, have been able to enter very blatantly into a number of tax avoidance schemes. This has meant that the normal taxpayers in the community have been paying additional tax because those people who have been involved in tax avoidance schemes have been paying no tax or perhaps less tax than they would normally be obliged to pay. We need to give a clear indication to those people in the community that we will no longer tolerate the introduction of tax avoidance schemes. I remember some years ago in the United Kingdom that when the Labour Government came into office in that country it was able to introduce retrospective tax legislation. This became a very clear signal to people that tax avoidance schemes would no longer be tolerated and such schemes dried up very quickly. However, when the Conservative Government came to office in the United Kingdom it went cold on retrospective taxation and those schemes began to flourish once more. At present in the United Kingdom the tax avoidance schemes are back in operation. we do not want to see that happen in Australia and I believe that the only way to avoid such schemes being introduced, irrespective of the government in power-whether it is a Labor government or a conservative government-is to provide the ultimate punishment for people and tax them retrospectively to the time when they introduced such avoidance schemes. I believe that the Opposition has shown today that it is indeed prepared to introduce retrospective taxation, because in this legislation particularly, it is prepared to tax retrospectively from 12 May 1982. We seek to go back a little further because we believe that the ultimate penalty must be introduced. However, the Opposition's agreement with the Government that tax avoidance schemes should be stamped out is very pleasing indeed. I believe that the Government's measures before Parliament at present demonstrate our commitment to smashing the tax avoidance industry and ensuring that this deplorable anti-social industry will never operate again. I suggest to Opposition members that they play their part in smashing this industry by backing the Government, not only on this legislation, but on all tax avoidance legislation which we will introduce because, obviously, further schemes will be ascertained and found. I am very pleased to support Government measures in this regard. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.58) —As I rise to speak in this debate I must make it clear from the outset that neither I nor any other member of the Opposition would tolerate in any way, if we were in government, the type of taxation arrangement which the legislation before the House attempts to prevent. However, it must also be made very clear from the outset that whilst this Opposition, when in government, had a very good record on attacking blatant taxation avoidance schemes, we would not in any way countenance the type of retrospective legislation which the Government now proposes. The reason for that is that the principle of retrospectivity is so dangerous to our system of law, and indeed to our system of government, that it cannot be countenanced in these circumstances. The history of the trust stripping scheme before the House this morning is a long one and one which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, has sought vigorously in the past to work against. That was acknowledged by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his second reading speech on the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985, in which he said: Legislation against trust stripping was enacted in 1979 and amendments of a strengthening kind were made in 1981. Despite that specific legislation and the enactment of new general anti-avoidance provisions with effect from 27 May 1981, variants of trust stripping schemes continued to be developed. The first stage against the trust stripping schemes was taken by the honourable member for Bennelong in 1979. The trust stripping scheme, like so many blatant tax avoidance schemes, is very simple in concept although more detailed in execution. It works simply in that the income of the family trust is allocated directly or through a chain of trusts to a charity which is exempt from the payment of tax on that income. An example would be a hospital. By that method the charity is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income, but-and here of course is the catch-it is not entitled to payment of that income for some 80 years hence. Until the time of repayment, in 80 years' time, the charity receives only a token payment, with the balance of the fund being retained for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the initial trust. In other words, the exempt charity returns the income to the trust beneficiaries by way of loans which are drafted in such a way as to release the income to be made available to the beneficiaries, and does not, in any material way at least, reduce the amount of income thereby returned to the beneficiaries. This scheme is simple in concept but very dangerous in application to the taxpayers of this country as well as to the amount of revenue raised by government and is thereby deserving of the loudest condemnation by all members of this Parliament, which indeed it receives. The question then for debate today must be only: How do we go about striking down this blatant tax avoidance scheme and recouping the revenue that the Government is entitled to? I believe that the retrospective aspect of the legislation before the House disqualifies it from being the chosen method of striking down this scheme. Instead, the Government should have relied on two measures, the first being the general anti-avoidance provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act, section 260, which was replaced on 27 May 1981; but for any schemes before 27 May 1981, given the present composition of the High Court of Australia and its rulings to date, section 260 may well have been successfully used against this scheme. The second measure is Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, brought in by the former Government, commencing on 27 May 1981, which I am more confident would have been more successful at striking down this scheme. I base that confidence on the drafting of that part of the Act. When the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, introduced it, he said that the anti-avoidance measure, part IVA, 'ought to strike down blatant, artificial or contrived arrangements'. That is the scope and intention of part IVA. It is interesting to look at the statement from the then Minister for Finance, now the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), dated 28 April 1983, wherein he lays out this Government's approach to retrospective anti-tax avoidance measures. He said: The schemes against which we would legislate retrospectively are only those highly contrived and artificial schemes generally accepted as being unambiguously inspired by avoidance motives and having little if any legitimate commercial function. Therefore, the same words that the former Treasurer used in introducing Part IVA anti-avoidance measures into the taxation Act have been repeated by a Minister for Finance of this Government in justifying retrospective legislation. It may well be that the Government has received advice that Part IVA may not be successful in striking down this legislation. On the other hand, I know from my own legal investigations that there are lawyers who believe that it would be successful. I believe, as so many members of the Opposition believe, if not all its members, that we cannot afford to sacrifice the principle of certainty and predictability in our law by way of retrospective legislation, particularly when so little is at stake. The former Treasurer announced on 11 May 1982 that any schemes of this nature would henceforth be caught by legislation which he would introduce. Therefore, we are looking at taxation schemes between 1 July 1980, which the Government advises us-I am not certain whether this is correct-is when the first scheme appeared, and 11 May 1982. That is the period in dispute by the Opposition. The honourable member for Bennelong has advised the House that he has received advice from the Taxation Office that only $5m-again, this is advice he has received-is at stake during that period. The Opposition does not in any way contest the Government's ability to enact legislation commencing from the time of the former Treasurer's announcement-11 May. However, it vigorously contests the Government's correctness in striking down arrangements prior to that date. We must take into account the likelihood that section 260, succeeded by Part IVA of the Act, would in any event strike down schemes prior to the former Treasurer's announcement of 11 May 1982. The Government's relying on section 260 and Part IVA is a legitimate exercise of the provisions of the Act, because any person going into such a scheme or any drafter of a trust stripping scheme knew of the existence of section 260 and Part IVA of the Act. Therefore, if the court, by virtue of either of those measures, strikes down a tax avoidance scheme, of course those going into the scheme always knew of and always ran that risk. But, to introduce legislation in 1985 which would change the law for that period-1 July 1980 to 11 May 1982-is to breach the most fundamental tenets of our system of legislative government as well as common law. If we are to adhere to the principle that citizens can arrange their financial affairs or, for that matter, can arrange any aspect of their personal affairs, we must not create uncertainty and we must not make unlawful at this time that which was not unlawful at the time they made those arrangements. It has been an accepted principle of our common law system that retrospective law is bad law. That is certainly a principle to which I adhere very strongly. Some members of the Government would have it believed that the Opposition, when in government, was less than vigorous and dedicated in its attempts to stamp out tax avoidance schemes. That is certainly not the case. I take as an example the legislation before the House. As I mentioned previously, the Treasurer acknowledged in his second reading speech that legislation against trust stripping was first enacted in 1979. We know further that the former Government introduced Part IVA, which is drafted in the same or similar words with the same intent as those which the then Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Trade, used to justify retrospective legislation. Moreover, the Commissioner of Taxation, in his report to the Parliament of 1983-84, had this to say about trust stripping schemes: Last year's report indicated that, while the former Government's announcement of 11 May 1982 appears to have curtailed the promotion of the schemes, the backlog of tax avoidance cases included about 4000 incidences of trust stripping. An on-going detection project has identified that over 5000 target trusts have participated in trust stripping schemes one or more times. As further evidence of the reliability of the previous Government's measures against trust stripping schemes we can refer to a statement by the then Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 9 December 1983. I quote from an article by Andrew McCathie: Mr O'Reilly said that the Tax Office has received legal advice that it can pursue trust schemes, all of which were entered into during the years up to 1982. Some, he said, were implemented after the introduction of the general anti-avoidance provision of the Tax Act, Part IVA, which came into effect from May 1981. The then Commissioner for Taxation said in December 1983 that he had received legal advice that he could rely on the general anti-avoidance provisions of section 260 and Part IVA, yet we have the Government now introducing retrospective legislation without taking the advice of the then Commissioner, which was that the previous Government's measures may well have been satisfactory in striking down this blatant tax avoidance scheme. I believe, therefore, that the Government has not made out a case-indeed, for that matter, has not attempted to make out a case-for its relying on retrospective legislation in place of the general anti-avoidance provisions already in the Income Tax Assessment Act. Instead, we can only conclude that this retrospective taxation legislation is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to gain political advantage. The Government in some way believes it can make political capital out of introducing this type of legislation, dirtying the waters, confusing the issues, and thereby seeking to embarrass the Opposition. A close examination of the legislation before the House, in conjunction with the previous Government's record on trust stripping schemes, shows that there is probably no need for retrospective legislation. Indeed, if a case were made out that trust schemes between 1 July 1980 and 11 May 1982 could be caught only by retrospective legislation, I do not believe that the principle so enshrined in our system of law and government in this country ought to be sacrificed for $5m. Even if it were more than $5m, the principle of predictability and certainty in our law which precludes retrospective legislation would not allow passage of these Bills before the House. A number of supporters of the Government have, I believe, sought to make political capital out of this issue of tax avoidance. They have done so without studying the previous Government's record and without studying the legislation before the House. To accuse the honourable member for Bennelong, or any other member of the previous Government, of not vigorously and fastidiously stamping out the previous tax avoidance is to go against the very acknowledgment of the former Minister for Finance, the Minister for Trade, who, soon after the previous election, told a group of accountants in Sydney that tax avoidance was a non-issue in this country. With an acknowledgment by the former Minister for Finance of the previous Government's record on tax avoidance, it is nothing more and nothing less than political point-scoring for members of the Government to rise now and accuse the honourable member for Bennelong and the previous Government of not doing nearly enough by way of stamping out tax avoidance schemes. It concerns me greatly that the Government should, in such a cynical fashion, sacrifice the principle of certainty in our system of law and government by introducing retrospective legislation when it need not have done so. If it were to make out a compelling case that retrospective legislation was needed to recover revenue which was avoided by way of these artificial schemes during the period I have already mentioned, being their first discovery on 1 July 1980 to the former Treasurer's announcement of 11 May 1982, it would do so at its great discredit; a discredit which in many ways weakens the foundations of law and government in this country. To have cynically exploited this issue for political point-scoring, at a time when the Government has been shown to be extremely unpopular and would not, I understand from recent opinion polls, even be returned to government, is an abuse of the system of government in his country. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.15) —The most important of the three Bills which the House is in the process of considering is the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985. The three Bills are designed together to recover the income tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes. Those new generation trust stripping schemes seek to exploit section 95A (2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, under which a beneficiary who has an indefeasible vested interest in income of a trust estate, but who is not presently entitled to that income, is deemed for assessment purposes to be presently entitled to that income. The Opposition has served notice that it proposes to move an amendment to ensure that this legislation does not apply from 1 July 1980, but rather from 12 May 1982. That date which the Opposition has selected is the day following the day upon which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the former Treasurer in the Fraser Government, made a statement concerning avoidance schemes of these kinds. I think it is absolutely appalling that the Opposition should be so blatant and so brazen in its defence and protection of people in the community who continue to look for loopholes in the law which enable them to participate in blatant, contrived and artificial schemes which have no commercial purpose at all, other than to achieve the purpose of reducing the tax they would otherwise be responsible for paying. Whatever the Opposition says in its defence, the fact remains that that is the position it has adopted, and the community knows that is the position it has adopted. I am surprised at some of the arguments presented by the Opposition in connection with this legislation. It has indicated that, unless the Government is prepared to accept the amendment-I can assure the Opposition that it is not prepared to-it will vote against the legislation. That does not surprise me. There have been aspects of the approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to tax evasion and tax avoidance for which he can and should be given some credit. The national newspapers have referred to the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone cold on a lot of these tax avoidance and tax evasion questions since he has been in opposition. I think the Australian Democrats need to give very careful consideration to the position they adopt in the Senate, because their credibility in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion is very much on the line. One of the reasons they failed in their own right to achieve 12 1/2 per cent of the total formal votes in each of the States to get for them the last short-term seventh senator in the last election was that lost credibility. It is all very well for the Democrats and the independents in the Senate to manipulate the numbers there to ensure that some Democrats are seen to be supporting retrospective anti-tax avoidance legislation by this Government, but the others are there in just sufficient numbers to defeat the legislation. It is all very well for them to contrive such a situation, but they need to stand up and respond to the community's demand that they explain the position they have adopted. As a result of their position, as a result of Senator Harradine's position and as a result of the coalition's position in the Senate, the Australian taxpayers have been denied by the defeat of that bottom of the harbour legislation alone $540m that should have been collected. We well remember the attempt that we made then to secure their support. We reintroduced the legislation to enable us to pick up $270m by eliminating accumulated capital profits. They failed again to support the legislation so we amended and reintroduced it in the final instance simply to tighten up the legislation for which they themselves had been responsible. It would have brought us in a net amount of $35m. They defeated it again, with the combined forces of all their allies over in the Senate. That is the position that has been reached. Members of the Opposition need to consider their credibility. I know that the honourable member for Bennelong is concerned about his credibility; he is known as a person who is concerned about that. He needs to re-examine his credibility in connection with these questions. I was fascinated to hear the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) go to considerable lengths to prove that the legislation which already exists is almost certainly sufficient to pick up these cases. Mr Howard —I think it is, Bob. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Okay; I will draw an analogy between this situation and the Opposition's own position in connection with the bottom of the harbour legislation. That was the same claim that present members of the Opposition made on that occasion. They said that their legislation was not retrospective because bottom of the harbour legislation involved tax evasion, which was already illegal. Mr Howard —That was not the argument. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Indeed it was the argument. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must insist that the argument the Treasurer in the Fraser Government used was to the effect that his legislation was not retrospective legislation because it dealt with tax evasion, which was already illegal. Presumably the implication of that is that the purpose of that legislation was simply to facilitate the legal processes in order to recoup that tax which had been lost as the result of the bottom of the harbour legislation. The honourable member for Gippsland makes a similar case in relation to the present situation. In effect, he said that it is not tax avoidance but tax evasion with which we are dealing because the provisions in section 260-- Mr McGauran —Oh, no. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, the honourable member did; he should read the green, or Hansard tomorrow. He said that the provisions of section 260, or Part IVA, are already sufficient to pick up this money. If that is so, it is not tax avoidance against which we are legislating retrospectively, it is tax evasion, which is already illegal, and we are doing precisely what members of the present Opposition did in connection with bottom of the harbour legislation. We are introducing legislation which is simply designed to define, to clarify and to facilitate the legal processes and the picking up of the lost tax. The Opposition intends to move an amendment so that money will be picked up only as from 12 May 1982. The reason the Opposition has given is that on 11 May, the previous day, the honourable member for Bennelong, as Treasurer, issued a statement in relation to the types of schemes covered by this legislation. I am prepared to accept on the face of it that that is the reason but I point out something interesting in regard to the $10m to be collected. I know that is only a relatively small amount in terms of the billions of dollars in tax that we collect. Members of the Opposition might be happy to have their supporters and benefactors keep it in their pockets but we are not; we want to pick it up as it belongs to the Australian people and not to all those shysters, sharks and lurk merchants whom they want to defend and protect. Applying the date that the Opposition wants applied would enable the Government to pick up only $500,000 out of that $10m. Mr McGauran —No; $5m. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member said $5m, but it is half a million dollars-$0.5m out of $10m. That is all. Mr McGauran —No, it it $5m. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My advice is that it is half a million dollars. We believe that the principle is important. People are engaging in contrived, artificial and blatant schemes designed not only to rip off the Commonwealth Treasury but also to rip off the Australian people. That is what it amounts to. Members of the Opposition need to examine their credibility out on the hustings, around the traps. They need to examine their credibility in the eyes of all those people in Australia who in so many ways suffer disabilities and disadvantage. I do not think there is much doubt that the existing legislation is sufficient to pick up this tax lost as a result of these contrived schemes, but I think we are entitled to adopt exactly the same procedure as that adopted by our predecessors, by the Treasurer in the Fraser Government, who introduced legislation in very similar circumstances in order, as I have said, to define, clarify and facilitate the legal processes and the collecting of that tax that they picked up under the bottom of the harbour legislation. Just to give some idea of the total dimension of these trust stripping arrangements, the former Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, in his report of December 1983, covering the financial year 1982-83, referred to the Australian Taxation Office having already identified about 5,000 trusts-not a handful of trusts but about 5,000-which were stripped of their pre-tax profits. How much was involved? Not the $10m that we are considering under these new generation tax stripping arrangements; it was believed then that the amount involved was between $350m and $400m. That was the dimension of those schemes. If the legal provisions which exist in section 260 or Part IVA-the general provisions of the tax Act-are not sufficient to pick up those schemes it is very likely that section 25 or section 26 will pick them up. They are the provisions which relate to the definition of income. Those who are familiar with the nature of these arrangements are absolutely appalled that the Opposition should adopt such an attitude in relation to them. I hope to give a brief description of one of these schemes. It is one that has been identified; it is pretty well known but I would like again to have it on the record so that people will know exactly what types of arrangements have been involved. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer in the Fraser Government, said in a statement of 11 May 1982: Trust stripping arrangements are also within the scope of the new general anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, Part IVA- I have already referred to that. He went on: Under that provision a person is taxed on income which might reasonably be expected, but for a tax avoidance scheme, to have been derived by the person as income subject to income tax. The family members from whom income is diverted under a trust stripping arrangement are accordingly taxed as if they had received the income. Where Part IVA applies to strike down a tax avoidance scheme, the persons concerned are liable to pay not only the amount of tax sought to be avoided but also additional tax by way of penalty of an additional 200 per cent of the basic tax. Essentially those are the purposes we seek to achieve through this legislation. There is another interesting paragraph in the statement that was issued by the former Treasurer. He said: However, the fact remains that promoters are blatantly offering these schemes for sale. Those are his words, not mine. He said that promoters were: . . . blatantly offering these schemes for sale. He said also: Equally, the Government cannot accept-- that is, the Fraser Government in which he was Treasurer-- that such schemes should have even the remotest chance of success, either to escape payment of tax altogether or to defer its payment until after the process of appeals has been concluded. Why should the editorials of the national newspapers not suggest that the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going cold when formerly he took some pride in the position he adopted on tax avoidance and evasion arrangements and schemes? If we accept the claim that has been made by members of the Opposition that this is legislation of a retrospective kind, that confirms the claim I made when we were discussing their bottom of the harbour legislation. If bottom of the harbour schemes were examples of tax evasion, they were illegal at the time they were entered into and that legislation was not necessary. The former Government said that it was necessary. If it was necessary, there was not sufficient illegality in those schemes to pursue them under the existing provisions of the law. If that is so, the former Government's legislation for the purpose of bottom of the harbour tax recoupment was retrospective. Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. I will not let them have it both ways. I want to hear some explanation of that. I did not hear an explanation when I made the claim at the time we were considering their bottom of the harbour legislation; I would be interested to know whether they have any answers at present. I do not believe that they have. I do not believe that they are fair dinkum. I do not believe that they are any more fair dinkum in the sorts of arguments they present in this place than they are in connection with these spurious claims that they make about the morality of not having retrospective legislation. What about the morality of the rip-off merchants? I have said before that not just a handful of people are involved in something concerning about $10m; there are thousands of these cases involving billions of dollars and we know it. When they are artificial, contrived and blatant to the extent that we know they have been, of course the people involved should be required to pay the tax that would otherwise have been due. If this is retrospective legislation, we do not apply it either capriciously or irresponsibly. We have made it clear that it will relate only to those schemes that have no commercial value, purpose or intent other than a desire to reduce the tax paid. Let us examine the implications of equity and morality. We have been hearing damn nonsense from members of the Opposition. Of course they adopt that sort of attitude because, whether or not they realise it, their fundamental role within our society is to protect the establishment. It does not matter to them whether the establishment is engaged in illegal, shyster, smart, shady, cheating, thieving practices, they will defend it because that is their role. In the process of adopting that role a lot of them have repudiated their class and the people from whom they came. If we took half of them and shook them upside down we would not get one cent falling out of their pockets. But they will defend to the death those people whose cheque books are choked with all these ill-gotten gains. They do it repeatedly. Let them answer to the Australian people because the Australian people are their ultimate political judges. In conclusion, I refer to some of the types of schemes that are entered into. Let us take a family trust which earns a certain volume of income. This is the sort of scheme honourable members opposite want to legalise for some reason of high moral principle. Income comes to the trust and the trust is then able to manipulate it so that it appears to be a donation to a charitable, non-tax organisation such as a public hospital. But the family members finish up getting the money and they spend it. They enjoy the money. The hospital will not get that money for 80 years, at which time the depreciated value of, say, a $100,000 donation or gift would be about $50. Those are the sorts of people honourable members opposite want to protect. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.36) —I was fascinated by the description of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) of the processes of trust stripping. I have no complaint with his description. However, I have some complaint with his description of members on this side of the House. It was completely improper for him to draw the analogy which he drew when he and Ministers on his side of the House who proclaim the need for openness and honesty will not even make a declaration of their pecuniary interests. What right does the honourable member have to point a finger of scorn at this side of the House when right on his own front bench the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the man who holds in trust these very principles under his ministerial responsibilities, has not made a declaration of his pecuniary interests? The honourable member should just go back into his cell, set his own house in order and then come back into this chamber and have a sensible debate on this issue. He has no right to make those accusations against or point a finger of scorn at members of Her Majesty's Opposition. I think the problem with members of the Australian Labor Party is that they have been caught on their own rhetoric. In two election campaigns now they have gone out on the hustings making exaggerated claims about the extent of tax avoidance in Australia. They have failed to give recognition to the former Government for the steps undertaken by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and they have sought to press on the Australian people the extent of tax avoidance knowing full well that the facts they are presenting are not accurate and failing in that process to accept perfectly proper processes of gaining funds from the schemes, if there are schemes such as the ones the honourable member for Charlton has mentioned. This Government is not prepared to adopt the processes we adopted in government, a perfectly honourable process. The Treasurer or somebody in authority says: 'From this day, if there are problems, we will legislate'. We need a proper statement to this effect: 'If you are in it, chum, the writing is on the wall and you are going for a row'. This Government is not prepared to do that. It is prepared to go along in a secretive manner and when the Commissioner of Taxation identifies schemes it legislates in a retrospective sense as far back as it wants. I do not think that is a proper process of administration by government. Honourable members opposite keep pressing it because they have been caught on their own rhetoric. They have made exaggerated statements about the failures of the previous Government and then they are caught trying to justify those statements by the processes of legislation. The honourable member for Charlton, a significant member of the Government, admitted that current legislation would adequately deal with the circumstances the Government faces. He made that admission; yet he continues to support the retrospective legislation brought in by the Treasurer. To me that is the proof that he has been caught on his own rhetoric. The Government wants to demonstrate to the community at large just how good it is at catching tax dodgers. It cannot prove that because it knows the legislation that is in place is adequate. It knows that tax dodgers can be pursued and dealt with by the Commissioner. But in order to conduct a massive public relations process this Government has to put legislation before the Parliament and it has to go through the process of having it rejected in the Senate. That is what this is all about. It is a political ploy to have retrospective legislation rejected by the Senate; nothing more than that. The honourable member for Charlton admitted that in his speech today. However, we are saying that if there are problems we will agree to legislation back to the point of notification. That is proper and it is honourable and I urge Government members to take up a similar process. Why does this Government have to secretly go along identifying schemes and then suddenly legislate in a retrospective sense? Notification can be given and then the Government can immediately legislate. Why can the Treasurer not come in here and say: 'I have problems with these schemes. They were identified by Mr Howard. I will legislate back to that time'? That is an easy process. In the 20 months the Government has been in office the Treasurer has not sought once to use that technique, because he knows jolly well that current legislation, particularly Part IVA, will pick up anything that he wants to get at. The process is there, but the Government has not seen fit to adopt it. I would like to draw some analogy between the current process with this legislation in this chamber, what it is leading to and the expectation the community is gaining from the way in which this Government operates. By the attitude the Government has adopted it has encouraged people, such as the Commissioner of Taxation, to go out after trusts which in fact should not be gone after. Mr Robert Brown —Not so. Mr CADMAN —My word; there is no doubt about it. I believe we are shortly to see the Commissioner reverse some rulings in regard to trusts, and I hope he does. The Commissioner's statements on income tax, family companies and trusts in relation to income from personal exertion is an exact ramification of what the Government is doing with this legislation. It has encouraged people to have false expectations so that the decisions of the Government and the Commissioner are exaggerated. Again, the Government is caught on its own rhetoric. In Taxation Ruling No. IT 2121 issued by the Commissioner he seeks to demonstrate the process of pursuing trusts and family companies, somewhat connected with the processes we are dealing with today but an extension of those processes. He seeks to justify a whole series of actions as being based on his wish to deal with tax avoidance. He bases his action on the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Tupicoff v. Commissioner of Taxation. In this area, speaking of the practice of splitting income, the Commissioner states: The practice has extended to most industries and many taxpayers who were formerly deriving income from the rendering of personal services in the mining, computer, insurance, motor vehicle, real estate and entertainment industries are now purporting to be employees of a family company or trust. The Commissioner also gives examples of the times and processes that he will use in order to recover tax that he considers has been avoided. It is interesting to read what he says because it does apply directly to the legislation we are dealing with today. The Commissioner continues: To the extent that the arrangements were entered into prior to 28 May 1981 section 260 will operate to nullify them for income tax purposes. The tax benefit arising out of arrangements entered into on or after 28 May 1981 will be removed through the application of part IVA. The Commissioner is using current methods to deal with the practice that he thinks is improper. Today, the Government has admitted that those same processes could be used in this instance of trust stripping. Mr Robert Brown —The Government hasn't; I have. Mr CADMAN —The Government jolly well should. The Commissioner continues: In both cases, the practical result will be that the taxpayer doing the work will be liable to tax on the amount paid by the former employer to the interposed entity. The interposed entity is the company or trust. As a result of the encouragement the Government has given to the Commissioner, the Commissioner has picked up one case and is applying it across the board to a whole lot of people who should not have a ruling of this type applied to them. I believe he will have to back down on that decision, but it is the expectation, the rhetoric from the Government and its members that is leading to things such as this. The effect of the application of this ruling on small business has been horrific. On estimates that I have seen 250,000 taxpayers will be affected. People who have lost their jobs have been told that the only way they will get work with a company or a group of companies is to became a consultant and then they will be able to get work as it arises. They are now up for huge tax payments. Their net incomes have not been significant. We are not talking about big earners or wealthy people, we are talking about a fellow who has put himself through university-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted. In accordance with sessional order 101A, the debate may be resumed at a later hour this day and the honourable member will have the opportunity to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) to act as a Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 13 February that the United States of America would inform Australia of any move to restrict intelligence to New Zealand, I ask: Has Australia received advice from the United States of the list of measures which the United States proposes to take as a response to New Zealand's ban on United States ships? Furthermore, in view of Mr Lange's statement on American Broadcasting Company television this morning Australian time that 'this constitutes an end to the United States-New Zealand defence relationship', will the Prime Minister now state the implications for Australia? Mr HAWKE —I am seriously indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question because, obviously, this matter is of importance for Australia. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will, in return, treat with seriousness the attitude that I display. I wish to treat this matter not as a point-scoring exercise but as a clear exposition of the Australian Government's position. The answer to the first part of the Leader of the Opposition's question is yes, we have been informed. I make the point that I believe that it is fundamentally in the interests of this country, its security and its future position that the very real difficulties that have arisen between our two allied partners-the United States and New Zealand-should not be used by either side of politics in this country to endanger further the fabric of the important relationship that exists. There is no denying that a serious problem has arisen between our two friends, the United States and New Zealand. It would be futile to deny that. The matter is serious. However, we must understand that this is primarily a matter between the United States and New Zealand. Clearly, irrespective of what might eventuate between the United States and New Zealand in respect of intelligence, which is at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition's question, there is absolutely no reason to assume that there will be a diminution in the flow to Australia of intelligence of United States origin. That has been made quite clear. In respect of this immediate issue, I assure the Leader of the Opposition-I hope that he will accept my assurance-that it has been made perfectly clear by the United States to us that the problem between the United States and New Zealand which has led to the United States decision in this matter will in no way involve a diminution in the flow of intelligence from the United States to Australia. The next point I make-I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate and accept it-is that it is a long established principle in intelligence exchanges between countries that the recipient of intelligence exchanges undertakes not to pass that material so received to any third country without the authorisation of the country providing it. I assure the House and the people of Australia that Australia, under successive governments, has always observed that understanding scrupulously and that will be continued under this Government. Having made it quite clear that the position is one between the United States and New Zealand, that it has no implications for the flow of intelligence to Australia and that, in turn, Australia will undertake to adhere scrupulously to the principle of not passing on information provided from the United States, I also want to make the point-a point which I hope again will be shared by the Opposition-that whatever the outcome Australia will maintain active intelligence co-operation with New Zealand based, I insist, on material of Australian origin and in that way reflect the very close bilateral relationship between the two countries. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will accept that I have gone directly to the points raised in his question and I hope that the House will accept this position, which I believe is manifestly in the interests of people of this country-- Mr Donald Cameron —Do you think Lange is mad? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I want to make the point that I think the issues we are talking about are of such fundamental importance that this should not be taken as an opportunity for attempting political point-scoring and I do not direct-- Mr Peacock —We are not doing that. We have been indicating that for a long while. Mr HAWKE —I make it clear that that observation was in no way directed to the question from the Leader of the Opposition; it was directed to an interjection. I make this point: It is quite clear that it is in the interests of all Australians that we do not seek to exacerbate the situation which undoubtedly exists between the United States and New Zealand. I think all honourable members in this House regret that that situation has arisen. It having arisen, I think there is a bounden duty upon all of us not to do or say anything which will make the situation worse in respect of the relations between the United States and New Zealand and, most importantly ultimately, as far as Australia's own interests are concerned. From the very beginning we have scrupulously taken the view that it is not for the Australian Government to try to make the situation between New Zealand and the United States worse. We have had at the forefront our concern to maintain scrupulously our obligations and expect our rights under the ANZUS treaty to be observed. I do not want to repeat the quotes I have made but it is very important, from the point of view of all Australians, that every spokesman within the United States Administration from the President down has made it clear that its firm position is that, as far as the United States is concerned, the relationship between Australia and the United States is in no way diminished by any events that have recently occurred either within Australia or involving New Zealand. Finally, I make the point, which again I hope and believe will be shared by the Opposition in this place, as it is shared by the United States Administration, that the United States would see no virtue in Australia trying to cut down its bilateral relationships with New Zealand. It is important that these two countries, which, over many years, in war and in peace, have developed defence co-operation relationships, should continue to keep those relationships in good shape and not least because we live at a time-- Mr Spender —Why didn't you come out and make a statement this morning? Mr HAWKE —I simply observe that that is a pathetic indication of what I know the overwhelming majority of Australians will deplore in this issue. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that he has not attempted to do that in his question. The point I was making, in conclusion, was that it is all the more important that Australia and New Zealand maintain their defence relationships because, unfortunately, we do live at a time when it is right to say that there is, comparatively, an increase in actual or potential instability in our region of the world. I do not want to overstate the problems that exist because of the lack of stability in New Caledonia. They do exist and I am not overstating them. Because of that and other considerations, it is very important that the two powers, Australia and New Zealand, which of course still share basic concerns about security in this region, should maintain, as far as they can, an effective defence relationship. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I ask: Can the Minister provide the House with recent statistics which show an increase in manufacturing investment in Australia? What is the cause of this increase? Mr BARRY JONES —The figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics dealing with new fixed capital expenditure and manufacturing investment reveal that there has been a solid recovery in business investment in the December quarter. New fixed capital investment in real terms rose by nearly 4 per cent to 9.4 per cent above the level recorded in the December quarter 1983. Investment in new buildings and structures in the year to December 1984 increased by 16.8 per cent in real terms. The figures for manufacturing investment are also heartening. Investment in manufacturing rose in December 1984 to be 12.4 per cent above the figure for the December quarter 1983. The improvement in the December quarter figures is reflected in expectations for 1984-85. An upward revision in expected total expenditure from 10.8 per cent growth in 1984-85 in the September quarter survey to a 16.6 per cent rise in the preliminary December quarter survey for 1984 highlights the persistence of business optimism for growth in 1984-85. The December quarter preliminary survey also features 1985-86 expectations data and these point to a substantial rise in total new fixed capital expenditure. The figures are good news on the investment front. The Government will maintain the direction of economic and industry policy which has helped to produce them. Mr Brumby —What about Victoria? Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, that is particularly true of Victoria. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the next question, I am sure the House would wish me to acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Clyde Cameron, who was a member of this House for some 31 years and, of course, a former Minister. In doing so I cannot overlook the former Victorian senator, George Poyser, who was a long-serving member of the other place. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, might I say that this is about the quietest I have ever known the Hon. Clyde Cameron when in this House. Mr SPEAKER —I intend to enforce that quietness, if I might say so. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. Given the answer just given to the House by the Prime Minister, and the very intricate relationships that exist in our intelligence network, can the Minister advise the House whether any changes are to be made to the position of New Zealand service and civilian personnel on secondment to Australian intelligence organisations? Mr BEAZLEY —I hope that the right honourable member approaches that question in precisely the same spirit with which both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister approached the previous question because I intend to treat it in exactly the same way. I do not think that there can be any doubt at all that, as a result of the position put by the United States of America to the New Zealanders and of which we have been informed, adjustments will be required in some specific aspects of the intelligence relationship between Australia and New Zealand to take account of that position. I do not intend in this place to go into detail in that regard. I think it would be more appropriate for the right honourable member to be briefed subsequently on the detail of those changes. But, having said that, that does not alter the statement made by the Prime Minister in that regard that, respecting fully, as we always have, the right of other nations passing intelligence to us to place caveats on the distribution of that intelligence beyond us, it is nevertheless our desire that in Australian generated intelligence there should be an opportunity for continued co-operation between ourselves and New Zealand. As to the specific details, when they are in place I think it would be more appropriate for the right honourable gentleman who asked the question, and the Leader of the Opposition, to be briefed privately rather than for me to brief them generally. Mr WRIGHT —My question is to the Minister for Transport. I refer the Minister to the upgrading of the Bruce Highway in Queensland and I ask whether he is aware that the Queensland National Party Government, in an endeavour to take credit for the work being done, not only has erected hundreds of large expensive signs along the highway but also has now published a brochure on the development of this major road. In view of these actions, will the Minister advise the House of how much the Queensland Government has contributed to the Bruce Highway upgrading program and in turn advise what part the Hawke Labor Government has played in funding terms? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for his question. I am aware of the attempts by the Queensland Premier to seek false credit for road projects that are fully paid for by this Government. The matters mentioned by the honourable member for Capricornia are part of those attempts by the Queensland Government, although I have not seen the brochure to which he referred; that must be a new refinement. The fact is that the Bruce and Landsborough highways in Queensland are part of the 16,000 kilometres of the national highway system, the full building and maintenance costs of which are borne by this Government. I must say also that for decades the Bruce Highway was neglected by earlier conservative governments. It was a Labor Government in 1974 which declared that the Bruce Highway should be part of the national highway system. The work that has been done on it and the actual entry of the Bruce Highway into the national highway system were decisions of the Labor Government. Of the total expenditure by the Queensland Government on roads, 62 per cent of the Department of Main Roads expenditure in Queensland is provided by this Government. In the Queensland Budget this year 17 out of the 18 new road construction projects that were listed were either fully or partly paid for by this Government. In the period since 1982-83 there has been more than a 50 per cent increase in Federal expenditure on roads in Queensland. This year some $270m is being provided for that purpose. The problem for the Queensland Government is that the Bruce Highway is so improving, as the honourable member has mentioned, that the Queensland Government is embarrassed by the benefits provided by this Government. That is the basis for its seeking the false credit. We are proud of our achievements. We are providing for the people of Queensland a safer, more efficient, flood-free standard of highway system, particularly to the north and the far north. I conclude by saying that, if Queensland has money available to spend on campaigns seeking false credit for road projects that are fully paid for by this Government rather than on the maintenance and construction of roads for which is is responsible, it will be hard to justify any claim for additional road funds. Mr MACPHEE —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Minister to an article in today's Age stating that senior ministerial sources are concerned at what they regard as inadequate statements by the Prime Minister on the MX missile affair. I ask whether the Minister shares that concern and whether he will confirm the Age report that: . . . Mr Hawke had definitely created the impression during his discussions with the Reagan Administration in Washington in June 1983 that his Government approved of Australian participation in the MX tests, providing the splashdown site was moved from Australian territorial waters to international waters. Mr HAYDEN —I have been guilty of many sins of omission and commission in my life, but, thank God, not that of writing for the Age. Therefore, I accept no responsibility for what appears in that newspaper or any other. I regard what the Prime Minister said yesterday as an adequate and accurate statement. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services whether he is having discussions with the Queensland Government and the local authorities of Moreton Shire, Logan City and the Brisbane City Council concerning the extension of the regional community development program to that region. If he is having such discussions, could he advise the House of their progress? Mr UREN —Arising out of a Cabinet decision, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Queensland and arrangements were made for officials of my Department to have discussions with officials in Queensland. It was agreed that two regions in Queensland would be developed under the regional community development program. One was the Cairns-Mulgrave area in the north and the other was south-west Moreton area in the south. The latter region covers Ipswich Council, the Moreton Shire Council, the Inala ward of the Brisbane City Council and the Logan City Council. This is of particular interest to the honourable member who represents the Inala ward of the Brisbane City Council and the Logan City Council. These areas have had rapid population growth. In fact, in the Logan City area there has been a population growth of something like 8 per cent, yet the social and physical infrastructure has been neglected by governments at all levels. The Government, together with the Queensland Government and local government authorities, is working to upgrade the social and physical infrastructure of those areas. The program is based on pilot schemes of the regional community development program which were carried out in our first year of government in western and north-western Melbourne and the western region of Sydney. With the three levels of government working together those pilot schemes have been successful in overcoming many social problems. With the three levels of government working together, progress will be made in dealing with these problems, particularly in the Logan City Council. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to Premier Wran's misconception that the Fraser Government in 1982 passed an Act giving the Commonwealth Government power over ports in relation to visiting defence or warships. In light of this misconception, and given the fact that no nuclear ships have visited Victoria since 1982, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that neither the Victorian Government nor the Commonwealth Government will place any impediments in the way of such visits? Will the Prime Minister consider introducing legislation to give the Commonwealth Government power to guarantee visiting nuclear ships unimpeded access to all Australian ports? Mr HAWKE —The Government regards access to Australian ports for United States vessels as being essential to the effective functioning of ANZUS. It is important also-- Mr Peacock —That's the end of Cain then. Mr HAWKE —I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should not jump to the conclusion to which he has so readily. We will see on Saturday. It is relevant that I should also say, quite unequivocally, that this Government understands and accepts the 'neither confirm nor deny' formula with regard to the possible carriage of nuclear weapons. Nuclear powered warships are permitted to visit those ports where the necessary contingency safety regulations could be met in the unlikely event of a reactor accident. In respect of the position between the United States and ourselves, as I said yesterday, there is complete amity between us on the basis of the current arrangements for ships' access. As the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, the question of port access is a function of operational requirements on the part of the United States. It is quite clear, as again the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate, that there is no operational requirement for every type of United States ship to visit every Australian port. Finally, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that both the Premier of Victoria and, for that matter, the Premier of New South Wales, to the extent there has been some question on that matter, accept that on this issue the decision in these matters is that of the Federal Government. The decisions of this Government will be made in light of the clear principles that I have stated to the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon His Excellency, Mr Cosmas Batubara, Minister for the People's Housing, Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Minister for Trade. I understand that the New Zealand Minister for Overseas Trade and Tourism will be visiting Australia today and tomorrow. Can the Minister inform the House of the agenda for the forthcoming discussions on trade? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is true that Mr Mike Moore, the New Zealand Minister for Overseas Trade and Tourism, will be visiting Canberra this afternoon and tomorrow. It is part of a visit to Australia to launch a tourism campaign in Sydney. I thought that, given his presence in Australia, it was an appropriate opportunity to follow up discussions that I had with him and his colleagues in Wellington last month. It is particularly important, when there are sensitive issues of defence and foreign relations involving New Zealand and Australia, that we maintain the momentum of reform which exists in relation to our trading relationships. The closer economic relations agreement between Australia and New Zealand was authored and negotiated by our predecessors, particularly the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think he is to be congratulated for the work that he put in on that important initiative. It was, in fact, brought into effect by my predecessor, the current Deputy Prime Minister. Since that time, the agreement has proved of great advantage to both us and to the New Zealanders. Indeed, the level of trade between Australia and New Zealand has grown much more than has that between Australia and the rest of the world and than that between New Zealand and the rest of the world. I thought that this was an opportunity to maintain that momentum and to continue the preparations towards the ministerial meeting which is planned for June or July of this year where, we hope, some outstanding matters can be resolved and where the general housekeeping of the agreement can be attended to. It is important that this agreement has been successful, notwithstanding some difficulties in particular industries. It is the intention of this Government to continue that success and to maintain the momentum of the agreement. Mr WHITE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. In light of the continued rundown of the Australian defence forces as revealed by the latest Defence Force employment statistics which show that the number of Service personnel fell by another 331 in December and that our regular forces are now some 1,500 below target strength, I ask the Minister: What action is he taking, at a time when ANZUS is under threat, to ensure that our defence forces are maintained at their full potential? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question which I propose to answer at some length, as he covered a fairly broad area. In fact, the basic premise of his question is incorrect. There is no general rundown of the Australian defence forces as he implied. There have been among the Services fluctuations over a period between a couple of different levels from the point at which our predecessors came into office until the point at which we find ourselves today. There is no essential difference between the position then and the position now. I take the Army as an example of that process. In 1976, for example, it had 31,430 personnel. The level rose to 33,072 in 1983 and is between the 1976 and 1983 points now. All battalions are operating at much the same authorised peacetime levels that have applied since the reorganisation following the Vietnam war. The operational deployment force, for example, has been maintained at a high degree of readiness. Other elements are maintained at lower levels of readiness but at levels sufficient to maintain a core of skills for timely expansion should that be required. In particular units at particular times when we determine that there is a need to increase strength we do so. For example, the Special Air Service Regiment is in the process of being increased by an additional squadron. So there are fluctuations in levels of Service personnel by a few hundred at different times. One of the factors that are in application at the moment, for example, is the overall strength of the officer elements of the armed services. From a state of experiencing a lower level of resignation in the first year of office of this Government than was achieved in the previous several years to that point we have now gone back to the average that applied during the previous Government's period of office. I do not say that the previous Government's performance in that regard during its period of office was inadequate at all. The point is that other factors impinge on the situation. The factor which most seriously impinged to keep the levels of resignation low in our first year of office was the general state of the economy, coming to office as we did when the economy was in a state of some decline. Naturally enough, the response to that among the military personnel was to stay perhaps a little longer than they intended. We have now returned to the position of achieving resignation rates at much the same level as our predecessors. If there is any area of neglect in the defence forces the honourable member will know, as his predecessors know, that nothing much happens to change the state of affairs in a short period such as 18 months. The strength of the military is related to plans and structures that are of a much more long-standing nature than 18 months. The most significant problem we now confront is directly related to the budgetary policies pursued by our predecessors when they were in office, when successive Ministers for Defence effectively became Ministers for defence statements. They were great on proposing additional expenditures for the defence forces and that additional items of equipment come in but very bad on planning their introduction in a sensible and orderly fashion. They created quite serious bottlenecks, the consequences of which we now confront. Having made those very generous statements, they never at any point backed them up with the appropriate levels of defence expenditure increases. In fact, there has been only one year since 1976-that includes the two Budgets for which we have been responsible-in which there has been a real decrease in defence expenditure. Mr Sinclair —For very good reasons which you know. Mr BEAZLEY —I notice that the Leader of the National Party of Australia feels a certain enthusiasm for this subject. However, there was only one year when defence expenditure decreased and it was not one of ours, it was the first year of stewardship of the Leader of the National Party. However, to let him slightly off the hook, it was a split year of stewardship, so he can bear that problem with his predecessors. One of the problems we confronted as a result of the defence policies pursued by the previous Government-I come to the final part of the honourable gentleman's question in dealing with this matter-was that in that regard our predecessors never seriously addressed the changing nature of our strategic environment that occurred when the United States announced the Guam Doctrine which made its allies in this region responsible for their own defence. Our predecessors never addressed the problems of defence self-reliance. It is now necessary for us to review our capabilities to provide that capabilities that we would regard as essential are able to be introduced. We must not keep them rolling off the end of five-year defence programs in the way they rolled off the end of five-year defence programs under the right honourable member's stewardship of the defence forces of this country. For that reason we have instituted a thorough-going review of our Defence Force structure and equipment requirements, in order for us to be able to make the adjustments essential to establishing genuine defence self-reliance in this country. It has been said by the Opposition in public comment on our announcement in that regard that we are, in fact, too late in instituting that review. In a bipartisan spirit, I agree with the Opposition. We are indeed too late. Unfortunately, we are about five or six years too late because that review ought to have been done by our predecessors. Mr Sinclair —We did. Mr BEAZLEY —We have been doing it since we got into office. We will be a government that takes hard decisions in the defence area- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the National Party ceased interjecting the Minister might round off his answer. Mr BEAZLEY —We will be a government that takes hard decisions in the defence area, not in the area of instituting defence cuts. We will be a government that takes hard decisions in terms of making sure that our capabilities fit our requirements. What we will not be doing is engaging in the embarrassing and mindless exercises that have been indulged in by the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign last year when, from the great enthusiasm of the defence announcement there was a gradual muttering away to nothing by the time the poll was called. We saw the Leader of the National Party parading across Australia in his admiral's suit-the poor man's Napoleon-announcing to the world in general: 'We are going to have an aircraft carrier'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister address the Chair-- Mr Hawke —He is enjoying it. Mr SPEAKER —I know, but he has had seven minutes so far and I wish he would round off. Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the National Party said: 'We are going to have aircraft carriers. We are going to have nuclear-powered submarines'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: 'What you are going to have is another $80m'. If all that he was going to get was another $80m-I conclude on this note-it compares pretty miserably with the $437m increase that, under our defence budgets, the armed services enjoy. It was simply a reflection of our predecessors' incoherence as opposed to our coherence on this matter and I am not surprised at the right honourable member's embarrassment at my answer. Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What progress has been made in discussions between the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government and the medical profession over the dispute affecting New South Wales public hospitals? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Dobell for his question because I think it goes to a matter which is not only of very profound interest to the people of New South Wales but, I think, more generally around Australia. As you know, Mr Speaker, we have at the Federal Government level, in association with our colleagues in New South Wales, attempted to get an honourable and reasonable solution to this dispute. I make the point that our concern for the patients and the people of New South Wales is also allied with a concern about the reasonable levels of income of the members of the medical profession in New South Wales. It was never any part of the intention of this Government, in giving effect to the endorsement by the Australian people of the great scheme of Medicare, that members of the medical profession, particularly those conducting their practices in whole or in part within public hospitals, should be the ones who paid any price for the introduction of that scheme. It is in that sense that I have, in conjunction with Premier Wran, attempted to get a negotiation going with representatives of the medical profession. I pay tribute to Dr Thompson and the Australian Medical Association for the responsible and, I think, courageous way in which they have gone about entering into negotiations with us. I am able to say that the negotiations which commenced with Dr Thompson and his colleagues yesterday were fruitful. The most useful way in which I could give the information to the House as to what has transpired and where we are is to read what is a relatively brief Press statement which will have been released by now, I think. The statement is in these terms: The Premier, Mr Mulock, Dr Blewett and I met yesterday with the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Lindsay Thompson and other members of his negotiating team. We gave an unequivocal guarantee that it is not the intention of our governments or the Australian Labor Party, to nationalise medical practice in Australia. We recognise that it is vital to the continuation of high medical standards in Australia to promote and encourage private practice in public hospitals. Yesterday's meeting identified a number of matters which are central to achieving this objective. Firm proposals on these matters will be put to Cabinet in two weeks time. Specific announcements on their implementation will follow. They are-1. Arrangements to make private health insurance more affordable. 2. The automatic classification of privately insured person as private patients unless they make a positive decision to be public. 3. Reduction in the cost of being treated as a private patient, by requiring only a single $10 gap for all the medical services required during a hospital admission.4. The principle of community rating should be reinforced. The Commonwealth Government will take positive action to ensure that the cost of hospital insurance is fair for all Australians. The above matters, which contribute to ensuring a suitable mix of public and private patients in public hospitals will be discussed with all State Governments and the Voluntary health Insurance Association of Australia during the next week. The Governments have accepted the need for additional funding for teaching hospitals. We have asked the AMA to put forward specific proposals on the funding needs of the teaching hospitals. These proposals will also be considered as a matter of priority by Cabinet. Detailed negotiations on methods or remuneration to doctors for the treatment of public patients are proceeding. Discussions are also continuing on several other complex issues brought forward by the AMA. The current negotiations are vital to a sensible settlement of this prolonged dispute which has caused severe hardship to the sick and injured. The negotiations will proceed while the NSW medical profession follows the AMA's call to make themselves available for normal duties. All reasonable members of this House can see that those negotiations and discussions yesterday between our two governments and the Australian Medical Association were fruitful and productive. Indeed, they will be continued next week. While it may be a matter of some regret to some members, not all members, on the other side of the House that the people and patients of New South Wales are now in sight of having their proper system fully restored-they will be judged by that attitude-the overwhelming majority of the people of New South Wales and Australia will welcome the constructive approach of both the Australian Federal and New South Wales governments and the AMA. Mr LLOYD —Will the Minister for Primary Industry clarify the confused situation concerning tomorrow's meeting of Ministers in relation to the dairy industry crisis? Is the Minister aware that the Victorian Premier and several or his Ministers are stating that tomorrow's meeting will agree to a modified Australian Dairy Industry Council national marketing plan for the dairy industry? Does the Minister agree that this contradicts the statement attributed to him in today's and yesterday's media that there will be no discussion on a national plan as it is now too late and, anyway, the States cannot agree? Will the Minister advise the House who will attend tomorrow's meeting and from which States; what is the agenda; and, above all, will a national plan be discussed and, if agreement is reached between the States, will the Minister accept that plan? Mr KERIN —I thought that I explained this the other day. What is happening in Victoria is an attempt by the Victorian Government to represent its industry and to get some agreement about the arrangements that prevail in the industry. I think we have to acknowledge that the Victorian Premier and the Victorian Government have been doing their utmost to try to get some agreement in the dairy industry and they have also approached the other States. As far as the ADIC plan is concerned, there have been five meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council on this-in February last year, July last year, September last year, December last year and on 11 February this year. The last meeting was only a bit over a fortnight ago. No agreement was able to be reached at any of those meetings about the fundamentals of the ADIC scheme. Basically, in terms of agreement on entitlements, the opposition has come almost entirely from Victoria. In terms of the meeting that will take place tomorrow, it is my understanding from my reading of the papers-I have no more information than the honourable member-that I will be presented with some form of agreement by the States. I have been in contact with the States and the State Ministers have all been invited to attend. We will work out what happens at that meeting because it is a full consultative meeting. I will be particularly concerned that we try to get some agreement so that the actions of militants, supported by the Liberal and National parties in Victoria, do not effectively fritter away the market milk premium. In other words, we want to ensure that in the States where the threats are taking place-the borders between New South Wales and Victoria, possibly New South Wales and Queensland, Victoria and South Australia-this does not occur. We want to get some State agreement to preserve the market milk premium for the dairy industry. We will find out what happens at that meeting. We certainly know that Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania will be represented, although I understand that the Tasmanian Minister is having some problems with transport. I understand that the Premier of Victoria is so concerned about the matter that he will be coming himself. Mr Lloyd —Is Western Australia coming? Mr KERIN —We are not sure of that at this time. After we reach some conclusion at that meeting, given all the discussions that have gone on before, I will go to my Cabinet colleagues with the result. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Science has sought my indulgence to correct an answer to a question that was given yesterday. Mr BARRY JONES —Yesterday, in answer to a question without notice from the honourable member for Dunkley, I said that a feasibility study into aspects of the computer assisted disaster management system project with Mr Andrew Helps would be carried out under section 39, the public interest proposals, of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. I was technically incorrect. Following the transfer of the Act from the former Department of Science and Technology, it has not been determined whether funding will come from section 39 or from a consultancy fund. I regret the inaccuracy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 83 (2) of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 I present the Security Appeals Tribunal annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the Institute of Family Studies annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the Family Law Council annual report for 1983-84. The report was made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 86 of the complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, I present the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 and section 19F (3), I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman annual report for 1983-84. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the Australian Electoral Commission annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the Australian Agricultural Council 119th meeting held in Townsville on 30 July 1984. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the Australian Fisheries Council 14th meeting, held in Townsville on 28 July 1984. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960, I present the Australian Meat Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980, I present the Honey Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Barley Research Act 1980, I present the Barley Industry Research Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Standing Committee on Forestry entitled 'The 1982-83 Bushfires'. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a summary of resolutions and recommendations of the Australian Forestry Council 21st meeting, held in Brisbane on 25 July 1984. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1981, I present the housing assistance annual report for 1982-83. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian research grants scheme report on grants approved for 1985. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Territories and Local Government annual report for 1983-84. MR DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following reports: Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory annual report for 1983-84. Australian Capital Territory Bushfire Council annual report 1983-84. Nominal Defendant annual report 1983. Building Review Committee annual report 1983-84. Canberra Theatre Trust annual report 1982-83. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Canberra Development Board annual report for 1983-84. The report was made available to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 24 (3) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I present the National Capital Development Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 63 (H) of the Audit Act, I present the National Exhibition Centre annual report for 1983-84. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Aboriginal Hostels Ltd annual report for 1983-84, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980, I present the Office of Australian War Graves annual report for 1983-84. Motion by (Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, I present the Defence Service Homes Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Administrative Services annual report for 1983-84. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973, I present the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BARRY JONES —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr BARRY JONES —Yesterday, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) issued a media release in which he claimed that I had twice misled the House in responding to a question by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) on Commonwealth Government support for bushfire research. The honourable member for Bradfield claims that I stated that Commonwealth funding was available for the National Centre for Rural Fire Research at the Chisholm Institute. I said no such thing, as an examination of yesterday's Hansard, page 183, will clearly show. What I said was: . . . a National Centre for Rural Fire Research has been established at the Chisholm Institute of Technology in Melbourne. I also said: The CSIRO has contracted with the centre for the development of a mathematical model of aerial suppression operations for the control of forest fires. In fact, the seeding funds of $70,000 were provided for the Centre by the Chisholm Institute of Technology. I am advised that the Centre's title is self-styled and that its national status is yet to be acknowledged at either the Commonwealth or the State level. The Centre hoped to attract financial support from the various State rural fire services, but this did not eventuate other than from South Australia. Lack of funds has led the Centre to vacate its former accommodation at the Chisholm Institute of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has provided temporary accommodation since 1985 for this research group at the old Division of Forestry Products building at Yarra Bank Road, South Melbourne. The so-called National Centre for Rural Fire Research at the Chisholm Institute has not technically been closed, though it has no staff and no funding allocation. The Director, Research, of the Centre, Mr David Packham, formerly of the CSIRO, has established a business under State legislation entitled 'The Rural Fire Research Centre' and has purchased the assets of the National Centre, which he formerly directed at the Chisholm Institute. I am advised that the option of establishing a non-profit company limited by guarantee is being considered. During the existence of the group, CSIRO contracted from it research to a total value of $127,000. Recent media statements reporting the closure of the National Centre for Rural Fire Research are incorrect. When the results of this year's Project Aquarius trials have been incorporated in the Centre's computer model, the outlook for the Centre will be uncertain. Some of its staff will be interested in applying for positions in the new Bushfire Research Unit when these are advertised. The second point on which the honourable member- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister discussed his personal explanation with Mr Speaker, who has just left the chair. He may proceed, but I trust he is bringing his personal explanation to a conclusion. Mr Aldred —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The personal explanation is to correct an error of fact, not to debate the matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the Minister please draw his personal explanation to a conclusion. Mr BARRY JONES —This is a pure correction of fact. The second point on which the honourable member for Bradfield claimed I had misled the Parliament was that I suggested that Commonwealth grants funds had been made available to the computer assisted disaster management system, CADMAS, put forward by, amongst others, Mr Andrew Helps. What I in fact said was that a feasibility study would be set up into the CADMAS project and that it will be carried out under section 39 of the Australian- Mr McVeigh —End of explanation. Mr BARRY JONES —That is right. As I pointed out, it is one of two funds. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will now resume his seat. He has finished making his personal explanation. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.01) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the remarks made by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr CONNOLLY —I do, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Yesterday the Minister made a response to a question in this House, and he has now admitted to the House that he did not have complete control of the facts. The situation is that I drew attention to two points in his comments. The first related to the role of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in relation to bushfire research. I have never suggested that a bushfire research unit has not been established by the CSIRO. It is a new initiative which has taken place in the last few months. I have a document here which I am quite happy to table in the House, and the Minister is equally capable of asking me for a copy if he wishes. It is from the Rural Fire Research Centre. The Minister referred to a National Centre for Rural Fire Research, which he said had been established at the Chisholm Institute of Technology in Melbourne. The letter I have, dated 24 January of this year, from the Rural Fire Research Centre, states: As you may be aware, the National Centre for Rural Fire Research- which is the one referred to by the Minister- was recently forced to close because of a lack of any direct funding by State or Federal Governments. I stated in my Press release that the Minister was clearly incorrect in suggesting that that organisation was still going. The letter then went on to state that staff have been absorbed into the Rural Fire Research Centre attached to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Forest Research, but that funding would be available only from February to May of this year, after which the whole future of the operation was in considerable doubt, because funding had not been available, either by the Commonwealth or by some State governments, essentially Labor State governments of Victoria and New South Wales. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Could I suggest that the honourable gentleman has now redressed the balance? Mr CONNOLLY —The third point which has to be referred to is the computer assisted disaster management system project. I have here the Minister's letter addressed to Mr Helps, dated 30 November 1984. Firstly, Mr Helps requested funding under two specific grants. He was rejected by the Government on both. The Minister then wrote to him, saying: I am prepared to consider whether an independent feasibility study can be carried out. This feasibility study, however, was only related to two very specific aspects of the total CADMAS package. Those two aspects were the use of infra red photography and weather forecasting. That is by no means the total CADMAS project, yet the implication of what the Minister said in this House yesterday was that he was carrying out a feasibility study into all aspects of CADMAS. That is not the truth, and he knows what he said is incorrect. Mr Barry Jones —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Could I point out to the House that in the last session we had numerous personal explanations brought up, which in fact were not personal explanations; they were debating points. The Minister has made his point and he has been answered. I think probably both were out of order, but I think it might be better if we leave it at that. Mr Barry Jones —Except, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have been further defamed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! May I suggest to the honourable member for Bradfield that it is normal to approach the Chair and ask for indulgence to make a personal explanation before doing so. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I table my letter to Mr Andrew Helps of 30 November 1984, when I used these words: In view of the unquestionable merits of the objectives of CADMAS, I have asked my Department to arrange for an independent feasibility study to be conducted as a matter of priority. There is no reference there to limitation as to areas; it is quite broad. Mr Connolly —In fact, it has been limited and you know it has been limited. Mr BARRY JONES —If you would just listen to what I am saying-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is out of order. You cannot debate an issue; you must make a personal explanation and then resume your seat. You and the honourable member for Bradfield cannot continue to debate across the table to each other. Mr BARRY JONES —The statement made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) is incorrect. There was no limitation expressed in my letter of 30 November. I table a copy of my letter to Mr Andrew Helps. I also want to make the point-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. May I suggest that, subject to Mr Speaker's approval, we would be quite happy to give the Minister approval for that letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! From what I can see of the letter, it does not comply at all with Mr Speaker's standards. You are being very helpful, but it does not comply. The Minister will table it. Mr BARRY JONES —I would like to table the media release from the honourable member for Bradfield. The words he uses in the media release are: Mr Jones claimed that Commonwealth funding was available for the National Centre- Mr Aldred —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is continuing to debate the matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce will resume his seat. The Minister will resume his seat. We will call on the next business of the House. Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence to make one simple observation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The matter is finished. I am calling on- Mr Connolly —This is an important issue and the Minister should be prepared to debate it in the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call on the next business of the House, which is a ministerial statement by the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-In announcing the Government's legislation program for the current period of sittings I am continuing the Government's practice of announcing the legislation program at the start of each period of sittings to provide a basis for informed and open public debate about major national issues. The program includes many of the matters outlined by the Governor-General in his Speech at the opening of Parliament, which of course encompassed the Government's plans for the whole of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The Government consistently demonstrated in the last Parliament its willingness to undertake urgent social reform resulting from years of neglect by the previous Government and its determination to tackle the issues of economic management, placed for too long in the too hard basket. The Government will continue to consolidate this program during this term of Parliament. The Government will continue its major industry restructuring and assistance measures, some of which have already been announced and extensively canvassed. These will include legislation to give effect to the Government's decision to allocate $150m under the motor vehicles and components development grants scheme to encourage development of locally designed components. As well, the Government will continue progress in instituting effective administration of new management programs for the fishing industry. It will provide new organisational and administrative arrangements for rural industry research funds and reduce the number of Acts currently applying to those funds as part of an overall objective of rationalising primary industry legislation and it will provide financial assistance for soil conservation to the States. The Government also hopes to introduce legislation detailing new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry and marketing and financing arrangements for the dried fruits industry. The Government will be authorising a series of major packages revising the legislation dealing with exploration and exploitation of Australia's off-shore oil fields. The Government will introduce off-shore petroleum exploration permits on the basis of a cash bidding system and will introduce retention leases to provide greater security of tenure over petroleum discoveries regarded as currently non-commercial. As a first step towards implementing the resource rent tax measures announced last year, the Government will remove royalties payments from petroleum production in the area adjacent to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. An Australian land transport program will be established to provide financial assistance for roads to the States and Territories to replace the current Roads Grants Act which expires on 30 June this year. At the same time the Government will endeavour to introduce complementary legislation to assist and encourage implementation by the States and Territories of the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-the May report-relating to the registration of interstate commercial freight vehicles and operators. The Government intends to introduce major communications legislation including Bills to implement recommendations of the Vincent Review of Matters Affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission to ensure prevention of illegal use of the network; to make provision for the regional commercial satellite service; to undertake a major revision of the Broadcasting and Television Act to make it service-based; and to provide a firm legislative underpinning for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to determine program and advertising standards. As indicated in the Governor-General's Speech, we do not intend to diminish the pressure on those people and companies attempting to avoid their taxation obligations. We will reintroduce the bottom of the harbour Bills rejected by the Opposition in the last Parliament and strengthen and introduce further anti-tax avoidance measures, and the trust stripping Bills that lapsed on dissolution of the House last October are to be re-introduced. To consolidate our policies in the financial sector we will reintroduce the Banks (Shareholdings) Bill to lift the individual shareholdings limit in banking institutions from 10 to 15 per cent, while providing for exemptions in order to assist the entry of new banks in 1985. If it proves necessary in the expanded banking environment we will also provide for formal powers for the administration and enforcement of prudent supervision of banks. As well, Bills will be introduced to improve the effectiveness and the administration of bankruptcy legislation, reduce accounting and annual reporting obligations for most companies, and bring up to date the laws applicable to cheques. We plan to introduce significant health, welfare and community services legislation to provide for a Commonwealth-State agreement concerning the supported accommodation assistance program which will provide support for those in crisis situations and the longer term chronically homeless, as well as enabling older people to become more independent and less reliant on institutional care. We will define Commonwealth services for disabled people, give effect to a Commonwealth-State agreement for a new home and community care program and alter drug pricing arrangements. The Government will ensure the continued protection of the community rating health insurance system, provide hepatitis B vaccinations to babies at risk, establish a new tribunal to determine medical overservicing and implement recommendations of the interim consultative committee on the report of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The Government will also introduce a Bill to bring about a consolidation of all veterans' entitlements legislation and in the education sphere we will introduce Bills to provide adjustments to the grants for the States and the Northern Territory in line with cost supplementation arrangements. The student loans legislation of the previous Government will also be repealed. The Government will introduce legislation to update Australian extradition legislation, following a thorough review of this area. In addition to the usual Appropriation and Supply Bills, the Government intends introducing Bills to cover development of structures for tourist purposes beyond territorial sea limits; to give effect to the Government's decision to transfer Ayers Rock to the Aboriginal traditional owners on the basis of a lease back to the Commonwealth to continue its operation as a national park; to facilitate the recognition in Australia of overseas marriage; to clarify the interaction of Commonwealth and State laws relating to children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation and related procedures; to establish on a statutory basis the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission; to provide for dual administration of the Quarantine Act between the Ministers for Health and Primary Industry; to provide for inwards duty free shopping for overseas travellers; to revise extensively provisions for the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth; to create a travel agents' national compensation fund to reimburse consumers if travel agents' business fail; to establish the Australian Sports Commission on a statutory basis; and restructure the National Capital Development Commission and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. In addition, the usual Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation, and pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel's time and resources may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the Government may still consider other measures which could result in legislation in the current sittings. However, the program I have outlined continues the direction of reform established by this Government in the previous Parliament. I commend the Government's program to the House and look forward to the assistance of honourable members in its implementation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes this outline of the Government's legislative program presented by the Leader of the House and Special Minister of State (Mr Young) but in welcoming it we would like to comment that we hope that the Special Minister and the Government realise and take account of the fact that we are all now members of a bigger parliament. I mention this point again because, as we saw earlier this week, the Government has curtailed the opportunities available to members of the Parliament to put their points of view and to represent properly the views of their constituents. I underline the need for a proper amount of time to be given to the Address-in-Reply debate. We have a number of new members on both sides of the House and it is most important that the Address-in-Reply debate continue for as long as would enable new members to make their maiden speeches. It is important that they have that opportunity. We again draw attention to the fact that this Government, of all governments since Federation, has been the one least likely to allow members in this House to put their points of view. It is a government which relies heavily on the summit rather than the Parliament. I underline the Opposition's abhorrence of the practice of this Government and this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of undermining the status of the Parliament at every opportunity. We need a parliament which sits long enough for effective consideration of the matters which come before it. The Minister has outlined to the House a quite extensive program for the future and we need to keep in mind when analysing that that there are only about 26 days left for the Parliament to consider the program which has been put before it. It is not long enough and will result in debate being curtailed and the gag being applied. Members of this larger House will not have proper opportunities to debate the issues which will come before the Parliament. As I have said, this is a government which seeks to avoid parliament. One can understand that when one looks at the faction-ridden history of the present Government. Naturally its members do not want to be anywhere near this place when the factions can get together without too many telephone calls. I suppose one good thing about being here is that the telephone bills for individual members are a little less as they can knock on each other's doors before they caucus. We must look more closely at the program outlined by the Minister in his statement. He said: The Government consistently demonstrated in the last Parliament its willingness to undertake urgent social reform . . . I am sure the pensioners of Australia will be glad to acknowledge the role played by the Government in introducing the iniquitous and vicious assets test! I suppose it is urgent social reform to terrorise an entire generation of people with an assets test which is punitive in its effects upon people who have spent a lifetime bringing together assets which will be available to them in their latter years! The Minister went on to say: . . . its determination to tackle the issues of economic management placed for too long in the 'too hard basket'. That will be of enormous comfort to people travelling, particularly to the United States of America, when they see the value of the Australian dollar! We had better not let the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) go over there because with his expenditure capability the cost could double or even treble. Mr Howard —He may not have his American Express account yet. Mr MacKELLAR —The plastic money would really be in evidence then. The Australian dollar is now at a level which really is of tremendous concern to people throughout this nation, and its level is a condemnation of the financial and economic management of this Government. On the bottom of the second page of the statement the Minister went on to say: The Government also hopes to introduce legislation detailing new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry . . . What a dynamic approach that is to problems of great moment. The Minister said: 'The Government also hopes'. Is it a government which is going to govern or is it a government which seeks to try to do something; something less than enough? Why do we not have a little determination from this Government rather than the backing and filling which is characteristic of so much of its actions so far? At page 4 of the Minister's statement we read: We will reintroduce the bottom of the harbour Bills rejected by the Opposition in the last Parliament. That is not surprising for a moment. What the Prime Minister wants, what the Government wants, of course, is the trigger mechanism for a double dissolution. Here is the first one coming forward. No doubt the Australian Democrats will be looking at this very closely. At page 5 of the statement we read: We plan to introduce significant health, welfare and community services legislation . . . What about attacking some of the real problems which are facing people in these areas? I wonder when the Government will do something about horrendous problems such as the absence of nursing home beds and the lack of support for home care services. There is not a mention of those sorts of important problems which are facing people throughout the community. Later, at page 6 of the statement, we read that the Government is going to 'alter drug pricing arrangements'. We will be interested to see what that means for people with chronic illnesses. I am glad to see that there is a Bill to provide hepatitis B vaccinations to babies at risk. I applaud that initiative by the Government and I hope that it can be implemented just as soon as possible. I suppose that we have to take into account the ethnic background of the Minister when we look at this statement on page 7: The Government will introduce legislation to update Australian extradition legislation, following a thorough review of this area. That seems a bit Irish to me, particularly when we have before us the farce of the Government's attempts to bring Mr Trimbole back to Australia to face charges in this country. I hope that the Government puts a little bit of ginger into its efforts to introduce that legislation and to get it on the statute book. There will be a great deal of concern and argument about this statement: . . . give effect to the Government's decision to transfer Ayers Rock to the Aboriginal traditional owners on the basis of a lease back to the Commonwealth to continue its operation as a national park. This is a matter which, quite understandably, raises a great deal of emotion and feeling in people throughout this country. It is something which will have to be looked at very carefully. If members of the Opposition find aspects of that legislation which are unacceptable, obviously they will draw attention to them. This statement is found at page 8 of the document: . . . will extensively revise provisions for the acquisi- tion of land by the Commonwealth. I do not know what that means, but I do know that a socialist government making those sorts of statements must send shivers of apprehension down the spines of a great number of people. I come back to the point I made earlier today and earlier this week. This is an expanded parliament. This is a heavy legislative load. We need proper opportunities to debate these most important issues. Those opportunities will not be available to members, on both sides of the House, simply because this Government is seeking to downgrade the status of the Parliament. It is seeking to implement measures outside the Parliament so that the Prime Minister and his Ministers do not have to come into this House and face the scrutiny of their peers. It is a disgrace that we are having this heavy emphasis on summits. It is a disgrace that the Government is allowing only an effective 30 days for consideration of these matters in this autumn sitting. Today questions without notice are minimal, grievance debate is minimised and adjournment debate has been the least under any government since 1963. On all those opportunities for back bench members of the Parliament properly to represent their constituents' points of view, put forward suggestions and effectively scrutinise legislation, this Government, by its record, stands condemned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of Dr H. C. Coombs on the role of the National Aboriginal Conference. I seek leave to make a brief statement on the report, Madam Deputy Speaker. Leave granted. Mr HOLDING —On 7 November 1983, I announced the engagement of Dr H. C. Coombs to assist and advise the National Aboriginal Conference in considering its future structure and organisation in order to give effect to the Government's desire to involve the NAC in policy and decision-making. Dr Coombs travelled extensively throughout Australia during the inquiry and also received many written submissions in relation to his investigations. In some respects, Dr Coombs's report is critical of the structure of the National Aboriginal Conference. However, he has stressed that his report should be used as a basis for consultation with Aboriginal communities about an appropriate organisation to advise the Government on Aboriginal affairs at a local, State and national level. A task force has been constituted, comprising members of the National Aboriginal Conference, including State chairmen, and officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to consider, among other things, the recommendations contained in the report and to develop, for the National Aboriginal Conference's and the Government's consideration, a proposal on the future of the National Aboriginal Conference. Such proposal will be circulated widely amongst Aboriginal people and their organisations so that any reconstructed national body will reflect the desires of Aboriginal people. I present the following statement: National Aboriginal Conference-Report and ministerial statement, 27 February, 1985. Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(3.26) —I wish to speak to the brief statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) when he tabled the report of Dr H. C. Coombs on the role of the National Aboriginal Conference. The Minister has had this report in his hands for at least nine months. He has had nine months during which to consider it, yet we see that he still has not made any major decisions in relation to it. He put off the hard decisions last year. In fact, he contradicted Dr Coombs's recommendations at that time and announced that the National Aboriginal Conference's term of office would be extended for a further six months to 26 April 1985. He has added to that uncertainty today, because in his statement before the House he has not told us what is the position concerning the National Aboriginal Conference's term of office. Is it to be extended beyond 26 April 1985? I think this shows that the Minister has been preoccupied and obsessed with his national uniform land rights legislation. Confusion has surrounded his administration. Here we have a major matter within his portfolio, the National Aboriginal Conference-the means by which the Aboriginal community meets, discusses, makes decisions and communicates with government and the broader Australian community-and the hard decisions have been further put off and further uncertainty has been created. The Minister comes into this House today, makes a brief statement hoping that the matter will go away, then retreats to his bunker to beat off Mr Burke, from whom he is under daily attack. Why has the Minister not said to the House and to the Parliament where he agrees and disagrees with Dr Coombs's report? Why has he not given us reasons? I believe that he owes it to the Parliament, the Aboriginal community and Dr Coombs to do so. Obviously his attention has been diverted from the future role of the National Aboriginal Conference by the attacks on him by Mr Burke and the fourth graders in his own Party, by the faction fighting and by his obsession and pursuit of national uniform land rights legislation. I wish briefly to read parts of Dr Coombs's report. The Minister should have done so. I think I owe it to the House to bring this matter before it and before the people of Australia. Dr Coombs recommends, on page 34 of his report: . . . the Government accept that in its present form the NAC is unsuitable for and ineffective as a national Aboriginal representative body . . . We have no statement from the Minister responsible for the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia of his reaction to that important re- commendation. Dr Coombs also recommends: . . . the Government accept the principles . . . as the basis upon which a new National Aboriginal organisation be established . . . He refers to the principles in his report. I will not read them. We have no reaction from the Minister to that. Dr Coombs goes on to say, importantly: . . . pending the meeting of the Convention an interim representative body based upon existing Aboriginal organisations be set up to act for Aborigines and to advise the Minister at the national level. I ask the Minister why we have no statement from him on that recommendation. What is the position on that recommendation? Further on in the report Dr Coombs comments on the need for an interim organisation. Let us look at that. He stated that the NAC is unsuitable and ineffective, that a new body needs to be set up and that, pending that, an interim organisation is needed. The Minister, in his statement, has not referred to those vital and important matters. I read from page 75 of the report because I think the House and the people are entitled to hear what Dr Coombs said: Careful thought has been given to the possibility of achieving the desired changes by incremental modifications to the Charter of the NAC, its structure and its methods of operation perhaps over a period of time. Regrettably we have been forced to conclude that this would be impracticable. The changes necessary are too fundamental and comprehensive. They are too fundamental and comprehensive, yet we have no comment from the Minister. The report continues: The existing members, especially the Executive, are too identified with the existing practices to accept fully the need for change. This is a very fundamental point. The report continues: Lack of confidence of Aborigines and their organisations in the effectiveness of the present NAC and its identification with their aspirations is too strong. These factors combine to make a new start essential with a more clearly defined Charter with mechanisms to ensure Aboriginal participation at the regional level and with membership without identification with the past and accountable to their own communities. These are very fundamental points and there is still no response from the Minister to them. On page 76, Dr Coombs stated: If the NAC were to continue to be active during this process it is unlikely that it could be conducted in an appropriate way. I assume that the Minister, by his brief statement today, is rejecting and contradicting Dr Coombs and in fact the state of affairs that Dr Coombs is referring to is being brought about in an inappropriate way. Dr Coombs continues: There would be danger of the resources and powers of the NAC being used to influence the outcome unduly. One assumes that Dr Coombs knows what he is talking about and that that will happen under the Minister's lack of decision-making. There would be a serious risk of factional dissension. The factions in the Australian Labor Party are not the only ones which would be relevant. Obviously great dissension would break out. Dr Coombs sees this and obviously does not want it to happen in the broader interests of the Aboriginal community. He continues: Furthermore, the NAC Executive is developing organisational plans which are costly and far reaching in their implications and which will inhibit future decisions in ways which could prove embarrassing to any future Aboriginal national body and to the Government. The Minister set up a task force to look further into the matter in direct contradiction of what Dr Coombs has said. As Dr Coombs has said, the Minister's setting up of the task force is in complete contradiction of what is happening because the NAC Executive- Mr Holding —He has not said anything of the sort. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister said that he has not said anything of the sort. What has the Minister to say? We will give him leave to say something further at the end of this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair will give the leave, not the honourable member. Mr SHIPTON —I am glad of the protection of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's task force sets up the conditions for confusion. It sets up the conditions whereby the NAC, as Dr Coombs says, 'is developing its organisational plans which are costly and in fact their implications will inhibit future decisions'. So the Minister's indecision concerning the NAC is in direct contradiction to that. Further on in the report Dr Coombs recommends that the Government terminate the NAC in its present form at an early, specified date and proceed to the formation of a new representative Aboriginal body. The Minister has rejected that proposal. The recommendations continue that, pending the establishment of the new organisation, expenditure and other activities by the NAC should cease. The House needs to know clearly that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has rejected the recommendations of Dr Coombs on the role of the NAC. The Minister has ignored the major recommendations. His statement indicates that he is fundamentally opposed to Dr Coombs's recommendations and that he hopes that the matter will go away. Whilst he implies some praise in his brief statement and sets up a task force, by setting up that task force he creates more uncertainties and further indecision, and the real needs of the Aboriginal community will be further put off in this area. He creates more problems for himself and for the Aboriginal people and he creates more questions than he answers. He has duck shoved. He is obviously having his attention diverted by the bitter disputes going on between himself and the Premier of Western Australia and in the factions of the Australian Labor Party in Canberra. Why has he not accepted what Dr Coombs has said? Why has he not made a clear statement to the House? I believe that his inaction amounts to negligence and neglect of the needs of the Aboriginal people. His reaction to this report will create further divisions and tensions in Australian society. The Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community do not need further tension and division. One of the characteristics of the Minister's administration is the exacerbation of the divisions and tensions in society. His indecision and inaction on this report regrettably will lead to the same tragic state of affairs in the nation today. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-I want to make a further statement because the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) is obviously in error. I say this to the honourable gentleman: One of the problems that Dr Coombs indicated in respect of the National Aboriginal Conference was that in fact it was very much a white model which was imposed upon the Aboriginal people. We have taken Dr Coombs's report and referred it to a task force. That report will then be circulated widely amongst Aboriginal people so that they can advise the Government as to what they regard as the most appropriate forum and body to serve them. That process is in place. I say to the honourable member that that process has been discussed with Dr Coombs and with Aboriginal leadership. I believe that that process will produce a far more effective exercise. It is regrettable that the honourable gentleman misunderstood the significance of that point. Aboriginal people are being given the opportunity to tell the Government what sort of effective national forum they want and how it should be structured. That is the reason we have chosen this course of action. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHIPTON —I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) when, by leave, he made a further comment on my statement on the National Aboriginal Conference. I am glad that I got the Minister to his feet to elucidate on his statement. In relation to his comments about me, I understand that Dr Coombs's report says that the NAC is a white model. I am aware of what is on page 20 of the report. But I say that the Minister did not answer my question as to why he has rejected Dr Coombs's report. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. The report was posted to all members and senators during the parliamentary recess. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the report. Leave granted. Mr WILLIS —The Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs was appointed by the Commonwealth on 20 December 1983. The Committee submitted an interim report on 30 May 1984, and its final report was handed to the Government on 21 December 1984. The Committee was charged with examining the objectives and cost-effectiveness of labour market programs which had developed in an ad hoc manner over the previous 10 years-a period of substantial change in the Australian labour market. The Committee was asked to consult widely and to report specifically on the scope for improved labour market planning; the training needs of the economy; the training and retraining needs of various groups of job seekers; and the scope for rationalisation and integration of existing programs and the cost-effectiveness of individual programs in achieving their objectives. The report which I have taken pleasure in tabling today clearly indicates that the Committee has responded comprehensively to the Government's requirements. The fundamental thrust of the report is that our training effort must be substantially upgraded if we, as a nation, are to have the skills necessary for economic development, and if all Australians are to have access to worthwhile employment opportunities. The Government strongly endorses this view. The recommendations of the report are predominantly concerned with achievement of two main goals: The introduction of a new system of traineeships for young people outside the traditional trade training areas, to address the serious difficulties faced by that group in achieving a foothold in the labour market, and the rationalisation of labour force programs into a more compact and less complex arrangement. The proposal for new traineeship arrangements is both bold and imaginative. It is a recognition that youth unemployment cannot be tackled without raising the skill level of Australia's young people by developing improved training opportunities. The report recommends that the traineeship proposal be initially directed at 16 to 17-year-olds who leave school before completing Year 12. Traineeships would involve at least 12 months work and on the job training with an employer, combined with a minimum of 13 weeks formal, broad-based vocational instruction in a training institution, such as a technical and further education college. Trainees would be contracted to employers, contracts would be administered by State government training authorities, and appropriate credentialing would be developed. Implementation of pilot projects is proposed for 1985-86 with the aim of establishing 75,000 traineeship positions by 1988 in suitable industries not covered by traditional apprenticeship arrangements. A major feature of the traineeship proposal is the determination of a trainee wage, which would be based on the time spent on the job by the trainee and the nature and extent of on the job training provided by the employer. The trainee wage concept does not constitute a recommendation for cutting youth wages. Rather, it will be an integral part of a comprehensive training package. It will reflect the fact that the trainee will be spending time in formal training away from the workplace, and will also take account of the trainee's productivity while on the job. Actual trainee rates will be determined according to existing processes of wage determination for particular industries and awards. The Government has already considered the report, and given 'in-principle' endorsement to the proposed traineeship system. This was announced on 30 January this year by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) and me. Before making any firm commitment to the implementation of the traineeship proposal, the Government has recognised the need to embark on widespread consultation with all relevant parties-employers, unions, State governments, training authorities and training providers. These consultations have already commenced. A conference organised by the National Training Council and its industry training committee network on 20 and 21 February provided an initial opportunity to seek the views of employers, unions, training authorities, and the technical and further education system. Initial discussions have been held with State government officials through the departments of labour advisory committee, and I will be discussing the Kirby report with State and Territory labour Ministers on 7 March. Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for youth affairs will consider the report at the youth Ministers Council meeting on 15 March, and a special meeting of TAFE directors is being planned. I will also be discussing the traineeship proposal at the tripartite National Labour Consultative Council meeting on 1 March. These initial discussions will, of course, be followed by a process of ongoing consultation with the relevant parties, which will provide the basis for an assessment by the Government of the feasibility of the traineeship proposal, and the development of a strategy for implementation. It is clearly evident that, unless both sides of industry, training institutions, governments and young people themselves actively support the traineeship concept, there can be no prospect for its successful introduction. The Government, for its part, has initiated an urgent examination of the possibilities for developing traineeship opportunities for young people within the Commonwealth Public Service. The Kirby Committee has also proposed that the community youth support scheme be developed into a permanent Australian youth service, with support from Commonwealth, State and local government. The basic role of the new service would be to provide a 'one-stop shop' where young people could go for advice, assistance and referral. It would provide a focal point for the broad range of youth services provided by government and non-government agencies. The Government has not yet taken any decision on the proposal to establish an Australian youth service. We have, however, accepted the report's recommendation that extensive consultations should be undertaken with all relevant government and non-government bodies involved in youth affairs. Accordingly, a high level team of officials from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Office of Youth Affairs has already commenced a series of meetings to be held in all capital cities over the next five to six weeks. Groups to be consulted will include the CYSS network, Commonwealth, State and local government authorities, and voluntary groups operating in the youth area. These consultations, together with written submissions, will constitute an important input into the Government's consideration of the Australian youth service proposal. The Kirby report has also made a number of other recommendations. These include: A doubling of resources available for adult training and retraining over the next three financial years, and the rationalisation of existing adult training schemes into a single program; the integration and rationalisation of existing wage subsidy programs into a new targeted scheme which would make special provision for the disadvantaged; the rationalisation of existing community-based programs and a substantial increase in available resources from $5.5m per annum currently to $10m in 1985-86, and the establishment of new advisory and administrative arrangements, including a national council for training and employment. The Government intends to give detailed consideration to these recommendations in the process of formulating the 1985-86 Budget and beyond. In that context, it is my intention to make a statement to the House during the Budget session on progress in implementing the Committee's recommendations. While recognising the need for urgency, particularly in responding to the needs of those at a disadvantage in the labour market, the Government is also aware of the need to consult with the major parties. This is fundamental to achieving lasting improvements in Australia's training systems. In concluding, I would like to commend the members of the Committee of Inquiry-Mr Peter Kirby, who was the Chairman, Ms Kaye Schofield, Mr Harry Hauenschild, Professor Bill Ford and Mr Brian Pickett-for their commitment and effort in providing the Government with this report, which will form an invaluable framework for the future development of labour market programs and policies in this country. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.37) —The coalition welcomes the Government's tabling of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. I join the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in warmly commending Mr Peter Kirby and his fellow Committee members on the thoroughness and quality of their work, the thrust of which the coalition supports. The coalition welcomes the tabling of the report, most of all because it will now allow informed and reasoned debate from the Opposition side at least on the important matter of what contribution a sound, rationalised and well-integrated system of labour market programs can make to ameliorating unemployment in Australia, to increasing our stock of skills and to revitalising our economy, a most urgent matter I am sure all honourable members will agree. I hope that the level at which this debate will be conducted from now on will be a little higher and a little more rational than that which the Minister has been engaging in hitherto. Apart from a statement on 30 January in which he joined the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) in announcing the Government's in principle endorsement of the proposed traineeship system, the Minister has spent the rest of his time misrepresenting the Kirby Committee's statement on youth wages. The coalition supports the central thrust of the Kirby Committee's report. It is a sane, well-balanced document. The Committee has cut a swathe through the existing array of programs and has presented, in general, a pleasingly straightforward alternative to the present fragmented approach-integrated training programs for youth and adults and a single integrated subsidised employment scheme. We support the upgrading of Australia's training effort as strongly advocated by the Kirby Committee. Upgrading Australia's training effort is, in itself, not enough to solve unemployment or to counter our current economic malaise. The Kirby Committee recognises this and makes clear statements about the importance of responsible and constructive macroeconomic policy in addressing these problems. I hope that the Government is not going to try to pretend that labour market programs alone are a magic cure-all for the woes of those who are languishing in Australia's very depressed labour market. To pretend that this is the case would be to play a cruel joke indeed on the unemployed-to raise their hopes and give them skills, only for them to find themselves where they were when they started, tossed back into the labour market with still too few jobs to go around. I urge the Minister to play it straight with unemployed Australians and explain that labour market programs are only one of the measures necessary to provide work for all those Australians who seek it. The Minister should also pass that message on to the Prime Minister, who seems to be losing sight of employment growth as a Government priority. His refusal to enhance prospects for the creation of more jobs by asking the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to discount any national wage rise it might award for the devaluation of the dollar is most worrying. There are two principal weaknesses foreseeable in the implementation of the report. My first concern is the extraordinarily long lead time involved in the establishment of the proposed youth traineeship scheme. The scheme will not be fully operational until 1988. That seems an inordinately long time for unemployed youth to have to wait for positive government action. Unemployed youth expect a little more from this government than labour market programs with three-year lead times. I am concerned that there is so much that the Government could do but is not doing to stimulate the creation of more jobs for youth. This leads me squarely into the youth wages question, a matter on which, as I have said, the Minister has been determined to pervert not only the views of the Kirby Committee and the views of the Opposition but also generally accepted economic theory. In this quest the Minister engages in extraordinary, most unfortunate and not particularly plausible verbal gymnastics designed to fool I am not sure whom. It would be a great relief for unemployed youth as well as for the coalition and economists around the country if the Minister would simply admit the nexus between wages and employment. The Kirby Committee acknowledged the nexus in its trainee wage proposal. Its report quite rightly argues that encouraging lower youth labour costs, in the context of employment-promoting macro-economic policy, is the optimal course for the Commonwealth to pursue if the tragedy of youth unemployment is to be solved. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Kirby and his fellow Committee members on this point. I urge the Minister to delete from his rhetoric-rhetoric which fools no one, particularly unemployed youth-statements such as the following which he just made: The trainee wage concept does not constitute a recommendation for cutting youth wages. What is the trainee wage proposal if it is not a recognition of the role of compressed youth-adult wage relativities in the maintenance of high youth unemployment? I wish the Minister would do us all a favour and abandon such unreal rhetoric. We on this side of the House do not believe it, unemployed youth do not believe it, and the rhetoric is hindering progress on the development of real solutions to this terrible social problem. To this end, once again, I urge the Government to act on the coalition's suggestion for an inquiry into the magnitude of the relationship between youth wages and unemployment. I urge this upon the Minister, confident of the fact that it can only bear out what the coalition has been saying for months-that the deregulation of youth wages is a necessary and desirable stimulus for the expansion of youth employment. Note that I have stressed deregulation and not slashing of youth wages. It is not, has never been, and I confidently predict never will be, coalition policy to slash youth wages. This sort of hysterical language has been used only by the Prime Minister, the Minister and others in the Government. We advocate the deregulation of youth wages, a restoration to youth of the right to enter the labour market and bargain directly the price of their labour with potential employers. This would prove a very powerful stimulus for the expansion of youth employment. It is illogical to deregulate financial markets, with good effect for the nation as a whole, and not even to consider the deregulation of labour markets. I now wish to draw the attention of honourable members to a matter in which the Minister has directly contradicted the spirit and letter of the Kirby Committee report. The Committee recommended that: Governments should ensure that relevant industrial relations legislation precludes industrial tribunals from making determinations on training matters such as training classifications and conditions. That is recommendation 23 of the Committee's report. Despite the Committee's recommendation that the process of determining trainee wages and conditions of employment be removed from the existing centralised system, the Government has chosen to ignore its advice. Indeed, the Minister has just said that: Actual rates will be determined according to existing processes of wage determination for particular industries and awards. What is the point of seeking the advice of expert committees if the Minister, blind with ideology, then ignores one of the key recommendations? Underpinning this aspect of the Kirby Committee's recommendations is a recognition of the role played by the present centralised conciliation and arbitration system in discouraging employment, particularly amongst the young. By recommending the removal of training classifications and conditions from the jurisdiction of the centralised system, the Kirby Committee is loudly and clearly saying to the Government that the system is at fault. Most positively, the Kirby report advocates the decentralisation of training condition determinations. This accords entirely with the essence of the coalition's proposals for reform of Australia's industrial relations system. We welcome support for our policy from an expert committee appointed by the Government. There is one message that the Kirby Committee has for the Government and that is that one has to look at the demand side as well as the supply side in the labour market. It is necessary to get macro-economic measures right as well as rationalising and reforming labour market programs. Only then will a dent be made in present levels of unemployment. Only then will the economy be able to provide employment opportunities for all those, whether they be young or old, who want them. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Drummond and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognises that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The larger star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the nation as expressed in a referendum''. 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 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 for 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 certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Cadman and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitations; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable 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 pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test will mean the sale of homes, of cars and treasured possessions which have been accumulated over many years of hard work and saving; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of old people is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. 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 shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary education assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. 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. Petition for the preservation of our flag. We, the undersigned, feel that the present Australian Flag is part of our way of life and woven into the Australian tradition and request that it be retained in its present form as our National Flag, an emblem of which we are very proud. Please help to preserve our heritage. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. Your petitions humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government adopt policies which encourage the growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia so as to ensure that: Australians have continued access to modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals; and existing jobs are protected and products are developed for future increases in employment in manufacturing, research and product information services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Unhold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. We, Your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape. We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for tertiary education assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take a stand on the ANZUS nuclear ships issue and the damage that this has clearly done to the ANZUS Alliance. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.00) —We raise this matter of public importance following our request this morning for the suspension of Standing Orders, expecting a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. I listened with interest to his answers this afternoon and they did not advise this nation of the wider consequences to Australia of what has been a grievous day in the history of the relationship between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. I now read to the House an extract from an interview with the New Zealand Prime Minister shown at 11.30 a.m. our time on the American Broadcasting Co. television network: Mr Lange was asked what the State Department has told him today. He said the State Department had the following two very straightforward points: (1) The U.S. would be stopping bilateral defence exercises. (2) They would be stopping the sharing of intelligence information of a raw military type. He then said: This constitutes an end to the United States/New Zealand defence relationship . . . It is heavy, but we can cope. Today we have had a further step in the tragic breakdown of an alliance which has existed firmly over 30 years, an alliance which was forged in the world's fight against fascism and Australia's fight for national survival, which was built on the historic Anzac tradition and which had as a joint partner the United States. The alliance has been defined by this Government following its review of ANZUS as fundamental to Australia's security interests. The alliance, regrettably, has been unravelling since the Lange Government came to power in New Zealand and indicated that United States nuclear ships would not be given berthing rights in New Zealand ports. I remind the House of what transpired after that, by posing the question: What did the Hawke Labor Government do? The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) firmly and publicly rejected the possibility of any Australian support for the United States position. He said last September that Australia would not be 'the errand boy' for the United States. The Government's policy was to leave Washington and Wellington to work out the ANZUS nuclear ships issue between themselves and not to involve itself in this matter of fundamental importance to Australia's security. Mr Coleman —Not the action of an ally. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member who interjects is quite right in referring to this act as not being that of an ally. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) used those words in regard to the MX missile test. Both matters show a lack of preparedness to assess properly what is transpiring in the international scene and, more particularly, the disarray and the unravelling of ANZUS itself. Following the Foreign Minister's visit to Washington, the Minister admitted that he had no idea where the Treaty was going. He should have known. The coalition had told him that ANZUS was in jeopardy and that the Government had a responsibility to it. But what did the Government do? It can be said, succinctly: Nothing. It maintained the pretence that it was a bilateral matter between Washington and Wellington. By its stance this Government undermined the ANZUS alliance. What was the Government of New Zealand supposed to make of a public statement by Australia, given our historical bonds and ties of sentiment, that what New Zealand did, according to the Australian Ministers, with respect to the alliance was none of Australia's business? The failure to take a public position was tantamount to that acceptance that whatever New Zealand did, whatever conclusion emerged, would not affect ANZUS. The Government went along with the wish that New Zealand could derive the benefits of an alliance without sharing the obligations. Why did the Government do this? Was it because it thought New Zealand was unimportant? I sincerely hope not. If that was the case, the Government was clearly wrong, because New Zealand is, after all, important. Did the Government do this because the Americans thought that the ANZUS nuclear ships issue was unimportant? It was clearly wrong if it thought that. The United States regards the matter as being fundamental to its strategic interests. The reasons for the failure to pursue the national defence interest, the failure to defend ANZUS and to meet our obligations to New Zealanders, lie at the very heart of the Australian Labor Party with its factions, its lack of determined leadership, and the violent anti-Americanism and unilateral disarmament commitments of some of those factions. As I said in the debate on last week's censure motion, Australia had a duty, as a member of ANZUS, to involve itself actively in this dispute and to take a mediatory role. Despite the coalition's repeated calls to the Prime Minister to accept this responsibility, he has refused to do so. He was afraid to take on the factions in his Party before his early election. He claimed that it was a matter between New Zealand and the United States alone. By so doing, he treated the Australian people with contempt, because what was at stake is at the very heart of Australia's defence interests. It was and is an alliance issue that also affected and affects the general Western alliance. To pretend that it was a matter between only Washington and Wellington was and is a fraud. The Prime Minister knew this, and after the election he tried to recover the position by writing to Mr Lange, telling him that New Zealand's decision was inconsistent with the ANZUS alliance. This was futile because if he gives in to the Left once, he will have to do it again and again. As soon as his letter leaked, the Prime Minister backed down in the face of the Left's outrage, outrage fuelled by its oft quoted violent anti-American and anti-nuclear ideology. The Prime Minister went back to saying: 'The issue is one between New Zealand and the United States'. In other words, this Prime Minister stood by and did nothing while ANZUS unravelled. Today we know what the New Zealand Prime Minister has said, namely: This constitutes an end to the United States/New Zealand defence relationship. What was and has been ANZUS at its root? It has been a military defence pact between three nations, and the relationship between two of them in that sphere, according to the New Zealand Prime Minister, is at an end. Does anyone think that ANZUS is the same today as it has been since its signing? This morning on behalf of the Opposition I moved a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which would have allowed the Prime Minister to come into the House to explain the full extent of the limitations in defence co-operation between the United States and New Zealand, as announced by the New Zealand Prime Minister. It would also have allowed the Prime Minister to explain fully the significant impact that this will have on ANZUS and Australia's national security. The Prime Minister entered the House to vote. He came out of his bunker for that, but he did not enter the House to speak. He did not do so, yet the matter went to the heart of our national security. What has happened to ANZUS could surely not have taken him by surprise. It has been a slow motion crisis. This Government has been fully aware of what was happening in general for many months, and in specific detail for weeks, yet it has done nothing. Mr Lange stated that these measures constituted 'an end to the US/New Zealand defence relationship'. It is inconceivable that the Government is unaware of the damage that the developments have caused to ANZUS and Australia's security. The consequences which were predicted are now there for all to see. This Opposition is making no political point scoring play. This is a great democracy in which we reside. When there has been a delinquency on the part of the Government that strikes at the heart of our national security and causes embarrassment to that Government, I will not be forced out of the arena. I am pointing out the errors that have occurred through the inaction, the weakness, the vacillation and the compromise on the part of a government. One of the fundamental elements that ANZUS was to guarantee was freedom of expression and freedom of speech, the very heart of democracy. This Opposition will not engage in petty political point scoring, but it will call into question the non-action as well as the actions of a government that has let Australia down. No amount of parsimonious talk in this Parliament will silence any member on this side of the House because this is a very grave issue, brought about partly by the inadequacy, weakness and vacillation of the Government. Today the Prime Minister is still displaying the same weakness that has marked his handling of the ANZUS dispute over many months and the MX missile dispute over a few hours. The MX decision was prompted by panic, and inaction over ANZUS was prompted by the same insidious fear, a fear that his own Party would not allow him to act in a more responsible fashion. Australia, as one of the three members of ANZUS, has a duty actively to involve itself in the dispute and take a mediatory role. That is still possible, but we have heard nothing from the Government on that. This Government has a duty at least to try to find a solution to the problems and so preserve a tripartite treaty that has served Australia and the international community so well. Today's developments have the most serious implications, not just for the region but for the Western alliance as a whole. If the wave of anti-nuclear feeling is not stemmed by strong and determined leadership, by a willingness to persuade our allies about the importance of nuclear deterrence to world peace, the only beneficiaries will be those who seem to promote instability. There should be no illusions about this. In two important respects ANZUS is vital to us. Firstly, it offers the ultimate guarantee of our security. Secondly, it is important for global and regional security. Indeed, the operation of ANZUS in peacetime is vital, all the more so in a nuclear age when the great task must be to avoid nuclear war. Is it doubted that ANZUS is a great force for regional stability and that the United States presence over the last three decades has underpinned growth and stability in the Pacific region? ANZUS is welcomed by all the Asian Pacific region, with a few notable exceptions such as Vietnam. ANZUS is also important in the wider global sphere. It is our only formal link into the network of the Western alliance. Our own security, as the Government acknowledges, is bound up with the security of the Western alliance and the viability of deterrence. Alliances and treaties are not easy things to put together, and can quickly be undermined by foolish and irresponsible actions. That is one of the ways I could describe the New Zealand Government's actions. It is not adequate for this Government to permit the destruction of ANZUS and wipe its hands of the affair. This Government, by its refusal to involve itself in the dispute, must take a great share of the blame for the present crisis. It has sought to wish it away, knowing that the consequences are as inevitable as we have stated time and again. The Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, have been given repeated opportunities to show strong leadership and to quell the anti-nuclear and neutralist sentiments in the Labor Party. The Prime Minister refused to do so. We are reaping the consequences of that inaction and that weakness. The Prime Minister must now tell the Australian people, beyond the arrangements on intelligence, just what the Government's detailed response to these grave developments will be. There has to be an end to drift, there has to be an end to surrender to the factions of the Australian Labor Party, and there has to be an end to them now. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.15) —We have heard a great deal from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) about what is wrong with the Australian Labor Party. We have seen a strong display of rhetoric, posturing and moralising. However, I challenge him to identify one area, just one sentence, even one short phrase, where he came up with a constructive, positive, practical proposal to have New Zealand change its mind. It is all very well to moralise about factions. The Leader of the Opposition has more than enough factions in his own ranks, more than enough dissidents who are out there sharpening their pen knives to cut into the problems of his own leadership. What is the single, central, constructive proposal he puts forward whereby New Zealand will be curbed and brought back uncomplaining into a full participation in the ANZUS arrangement? What is he going to do? It is all very well to engage in rhetoric, it is all very well to engage in a little bluster, but what would he do? Would he, if he were in a position to do so, suspend defence participation with New Zealand on a bilateral basis? We are not going to do that. Mr Peacock —No. Mr HAYDEN —No, he would do the same thing. Would he suspend the intelligence exchange, the collection of which we are responsible for and therefore it belongs within our autonomous decision-making authority to distribute? Of course he would not. What would he do? What sorts of reprisals would he take? What sort of leverage would he exercise on New Zealand to turn it about? Does he propose to cower New Zealand? If that is his intent, he is sadly mistaken. He would embark on an impossible mission. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition said is that the Government should take a mediatory role. What sort of mediatory role? Against whom or with whom? What sorts of processes? With the Labour Party in New Zealand? That would be a rather novel and, I think, demanding undertaking, with public opinion in New Zealand being what it is, because there is overwhelming support for this decision of the Labour Government's in New Zealand. It is not a view we share, but it is a clear indication of the atmospherics within which that decision making took place in that country. What the Leader of the Opposition sought to do was to pick up, out of context, some comments which were made, to enlarge them, to elaborate on them in a somewhat whimsical way and then to beat the stuffing out of them. Here is a classic illustration: Referring to a comment I made that the Government did not propose to carry messages for the United States this year, he said that that clearly indicated that there would be no messages from us to New Zealand on a bilateral basis. That is nonsense. I conveyed our views on this matter, not once but on several occasions, to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange. The Australian Prime Minister had conveyed views not once and not just in writing but personally, orally, to the New Zealand Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. We made our views known. We made our unshameable commitment to ANZUS patently obvious to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of New Zealand. The views were conveyed. Let us recall the circumstances leading up to quite recently. It was not as though this Government sat down, cross-eyed with perplexity, wondering what step it should take next. If that is the assertion, the allegation should be launched equally against the United States, because the United States Administration and this Government adopted a similar tactic. We discussed the situation. We discussed the circumstances in which it was developing. We concluded, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, that the problem was not going to be resolved with a megaphone exchange and the brandishing of some sort of rhetorical waddie publicly. New Zealand would be unmoved by bluster. What had to be borne in mind was that the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of New Zealand publicly declared, as he elaborated in detail privately, the need for time for the New Zealand Government to develop responses to the situation that had occurred there where there was a party policy decision that nuclear powered and nuclear capable vessels of the United States, or any other country for that matter, would not be allowed to use New Zealand port facilities. He said, not once but on many occasions, that he believed that a resolution could be developed which would be mutally satisfactory to New Zealand and the United States on a bilateral basis and to all three parties to ANZUS on a trilateral basis. The United States was hopeful, even reasonably confident at one stage, having had some dialogue on this matter with New Zealand officials, that time would be the essence of success, and went along with that proposal. We wished that it would prove to be so. We had some caution. We expressed our views to our friends in New Zealand that both the United States and Australia agreed on the common tactic which was adopted up to very recently. I repeat that that tactic was to respond positively to the request of New Zealand to be given time to try to resolve the situation. The Leader of the Opposition, with all of the virtues and advantages that Opposition provides-it means that one can declare without ever having to be brought to account by performing-has asserted that this matter should have been resolved well before this. If he blames this Government for shortcomings in this matter, he must at least equally, and I would suggest on a commensurate basis to a much greater degree, impugn the United States Administration for not resolving the situation. But neither of us concluded that the propositions being put by the Leader of the Opposition now were practical in any way at all. They were the sorts of things that were considered and they were rejected by the United States Administration because, in its view, they were impractical. Similarly, they were not accepted by us because they were not practical. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear what Australia's attitude is. In a letter, a paraphrase of which appeared in the media in the latter part of January, he made a number of points. I will repeat some of them. He said: I stressed that I had no wish or intention to act in any way as an emissary. But I knew that the New Zealand and United States governments had had a number of bilateral exchanges on the subject, and that it would be helpful to have his (Mr Lange's) judgment on where the matter now stood and the prospects of an agreed outcome. We were signalling that the appeal for more time had been responded to but that the provision of time was starting to run short. We had to find out what the situation was so that we could make deliberative judgments. The Prime Minister said: We- that is, Australia- had firmly concluded from that review that ANZUS continued to serve fundamental Australian security interests. There is no ambiguity about where Australia stood, under this Government, in respect of its commitment to ANZUS and we left no ambiguity in the minds of the New Zealand Administration. The Prime Minister went on: . . . Australia . . . had its own well-known and clearly expressed position on visits by United States warships and the importance of maintaining the neither confirm nor deny principle- That is, in relation to the carriage of nuclear weaponry. We clearly put on record, in case there was any uncertainty about it, what had been well placed on record successively over many years, namely, that under a Labor government-we declared it in opposition and in government it is a practice that we apply-the ships of the United States, whether nuclear powered or capable, are able to use our port facilities in transit. We made it clear that we would oppose home porting of foreign warships in Australia, the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the launching of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory. But, those very important principles to one side, we do provide the facilities that I have just mentioned. We must understand that there is a different nature in important respects-not all respects-in the relationship between Australia and New Zealand as against that between the United States and New Zealand. We are much closer. That is fairly obvious. Historically there are many reasons why we are very close. Culturally we have a similar background. Commercially we are closely integrated. Regionally and geographically we can share, though not exclusively, similar interests. If Australia were to adopt what the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply-that is, a policy of going out and giving the New Zealanders a thoroughly good buffeting to teach them a lesson, which is what he is getting at; apply pressure; push them about and perhaps imply some sort of threats-it would be counter-productive. I repeat that the atmospherics in New Zealand are vastly different from the attitudes in this country and heavy-handedness will not be successful. If there is to be any success, it will be through persuasiveness. Let us look at the implications of what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. He implies that we should take a tougher, stronger line. Let us look at the relationship in trade alone. I use this not to uphold single-mindedly the dominance of commercial relationships-that is not a view to which I would assert-but because it is part of the ingredients of the important relationships and it is part of a very important set of relationships between Australian and New Zealand. Trade between the two countries in 1983-84 amounted to $2,323m as opposed to a little over $1,850m a year earlier; that is, a 25 per cent increase. New Zealand is Australia's third largest export market. The relationship is developing all the time. Instead of taking the clumsy line that the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply-he spelt out nothing, except some sort of mediation; I do not know whether he is proposing a trans-Tasman arbitration commission or some such thing, but that is nonsense-he should recall from his days as Foreign Minister that the processes for these things if they are to be resolved are often painstaking, quite frequently difficult and require application most often at a discreet level. Shouting across the fence line at New Zealand will be counter-productive. Shouting publicly that the New Zealanders are so empty and mindless that they are unable to attend to this situation themselves will guarantee a counter reaction rather than a productive response. It will not be easy to sort out this situation. The Prime Minister made that clear today. But if we take steps which imply that we are going to become heavy-handed and that we will apply some sort of threat against New Zealand, I would be quite concerned about the potential consequences. It could well be, given the atmospherics in New Zealand at present, that any tendency there to feel isolated or cut off could be emphasised and aggravated. Indeed, there could be an incitement for some more active people there to embark on isolationist rhetoric. That is not a line of conduct that we want to encourage or provoke in any way at all. I repeat that there are differences of view within New Zealand as against Australia in respect of the ANZUS Treaty. For all of that, the important thing to bear in mind is that the Government of New Zealand has declared that it is firmly committed to the ANZUS Treaty and wants to work out some arrangement so that it can come back effectively to operate within it. If it is possible to do so, we should take steps to encourage it to do so. If it is not possible to do so immediately, we should take the advice of the United States Administration, which we endorse completely. That simply is that there are problems within ANZUS but ANZUS still exists, it still functions-- Mr Tuckey —Not according to Mr Lange. Mr Lange says it does not. Mr HAYDEN —The United States Administration said it does. Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the Secretary of State for East Asia, is on record as publicly declaring that. We accept what the United States Administration says and we will persevere. Our exchanges will be discreet, practical and sensible and we will not resort to the public megaphone diplomacy preferred by the Opposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.30) —The consequence of the contribution that we have just heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is that, sadly for Australia, it would seem that under a Labor Government there is absolutely no chance of the restoration of a proper ANZUS relationship. There is no other conclusion that one can reach. He has just given a very lame apologia for a series of misdoings or failures to act on behalf of his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and himself. He fails to understand that one of the reasons why the ANZUS horse has now bolted is that New Zealand, instead of being approached in a conciliatory fashion, as he now seems to be advocating, has, in fact, been goaded and prodded over the whole period since the election of a Labour Government in that country, with its acknowledged policy about banning visits of nuclear ships, by the comments that he and the left wing of his Party have been making, encouraging the New Zealand Prime Minister to enforce the ban. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been taking steps which show that he has tried significantly to leave the New Zealand position to New Zealand, for, quite obviously, he does not want to alienate that socialist Left faction on whom he is depending for his ultimate election to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party once again. Let us be honest. That is what it is all about. The reason that the Foreign Minister is giving this new found conciliatory approach today is that he has not been man enough to take the stance in which he believes in order to ensure that the socialist Left in his own Party and its attitude to New Zealand are properly laid to rest. We remember that when he was in the United States a little while ago he staked his claim. I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 September 1984: Mr Hayden has staked his claim by rejecting the possibility of active Australian support for the United States position- that is, within ANZUS and with respect to New Zealand and he has rejected: . . . the possibility of active Australian support for the US position firmly and publicly. There is little doubt that the reason we are in this bind today is that the Labor Government in Australia has been totally inactive in properly approaching the New Zealand Government and alerting it to all the consequences of any decline in our total ANZUS relationship. Let there be no doubt about it. There were difficulties when the New Zealand Labour Government was first elected. I think that everybody recognises that it was in a bind with its avowed policy. But shortly after the election of that New Zealand Government the Department of Defence presented to the New Zealand Minister for Defence a brief which covered the entire field of New Zealand's defences, its role in helping friends and neighbours and its alliances. In that, it referred very cogently to the ANZUS connection. The brief says that ANZUS: . . . gives dimension and depth to mutual defence exchanges between the services of the three nations which goes beyond that provided by other co-operative bilateral or multinational arrangements. It continues to identify that without the whole of the ANZUS relationship, the bilateral defence arrangements with Australia cannot really be sufficient to ensure our defence. The Foreign Minister has told us a great deal about the special relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Of course there is such a relationship. But who established that trade connection? He cited trade figures, the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement arrangements and then the closer economic relationship. That was an initiative taken by our side of the House. Of course the trade figures cited by the Minister for Foreign Affairs have benefited from that relationship. But that is the very reason why this Australian Government should have said to the New Zealand Government, with their economic relationship improving as it is: 'For pity's sake, we have far more at stake than just you implementing some ideological commitment to the radical left of the New Zealand Labour Party'. The whole of the neglect in this area has been predominately because the members of this Australian Government have been prepared to virtually wipe their hands of the whole issue. Even today, we heard the Prime Minister say that the matter was predominantly an issue between the United States and New Zealand. What absolute rubbish! This is a matter which goes fundamentally to Australian security. It is a matter which Prime Minister Lange said in Los Angeles this morning has, sadly, constituted 'an end to the United States-New Zealand defence relationship'. It is no use the Australian Government saying: 'Ah, but that is the United States-New Zealand. Do not worry about it'. This is quite intrinsic to the whole structure of our Australian defence. It is fundamental that we have a relationship with New Zealand. We all accept that. But because of the closeness of our relationship, this Government should have been active in endeavouring to contain what obviously was an unacceptable policy of elements within the present Labour Government in New Zealand. Of course, it could well have been eased if the Minister for Foreign Affairs had not shown that indifference, and if the members of the socialist left of his Party had not constantly goaded the Prime Minister of New Zealand and urged New Zealand to take an action which is totally contrary to Australia's interest. It has been aided and abetted by the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) but he does not count in this issue. What does count is Australia's interests, and neither the socialist Left, nor the Democrats, nor the Australian Foreign Minister, have shown any concern for Australia's interests in this affair. Long ago, the relationship between an island nation and an alliance which helps to control the seas was well recognised. I think we all understand that ANZUS is a relationship which has brought Australia into a blend of connections. We have known of the defence exercises. We know of the way in which the American fleet is a very important part of ensuring that umbrella that is really the counter to the Soviet power bloc in the Eastern bloc and which is there to assist and play a role with Australian and New Zealand forces through ANZUS. We need to remember, however, that the only way it can work is by having a clear and adequate definition of the way it will be operated in Australian circumstances. There are two things I want to say about that. The first is that, although the Prime Minister gave today what seemed to be a very responsible answer when asked that first question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) about the implications of this morning's announcement by Prime Minister Lange, the Prime Minister has a very unsteady and uncertain record in this field. We all remember that he called for an end to ANZUS. We have often cited in this place his signature to that advertisement calling for Australia to end the ANZUS military alliance. We know that his Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), only a few weeks ago, after this matter blew up, did exactly the same thing. She called for a review of ANZUS and for passive resistance. She said it conflicts with the Labor Party's commitments to peace and disarmament. I ask honourable members: Is that an approach which will encourage the New Zealanders to say they are on the wrong course? Mr MacKellar —It's a great endorsement of ANZUS, isn't it? Mr SINCLAIR —Of course it is, it is a great endorsement of ANZUS! In fact, it highlights that in the past and in the present, at the most senior level of the Australian Government, honourable members have turned their backs on the ANZUS relationship and have put their heads in the sand, hoping the whole problem would go away. Sadly, I see the consequences of Mr Lange's statement in Los Angeles as not dissimilar to the statement by our Prime Minister in Brussels about the MX missile testing. What has been happening in Australia's defence, over the course of the last few weeks, is that we have seen first-because it happened first-the Australian Prime Minister, knowing what should have been done, together with his then Minister for Defence and his Foreign Minister, finally accepting that MX missile testing would go ahead, and then suddenly realising that the radical Left was going to dominate within Caucus, and he was not prepared to stand up for what was right. The result was that we saw the about turn on the whole of the assistance-and very limited assistance it was-that was requested for the MX missile testing program. Now, we have the whole circumstances of the Prime Minister not being prepared to pursue the proper course with Mr Lange, and we have Mr Lange being incited into the present course he is taking, which is quite disastrous for the ANZUS relationship. We have Labor in government in Australia demonstrating that it is not able to sustain the sort of proper defence relationship which it believes to be correct. Indeed, I find a very sad and marked similarity between the Prime Minister's refusal to give that limited assistance to the MX missile testing program and Mr Lange's refusal to allow visits of nuclear warships. If any-body thinks that on the nuclear warships issue everything is clear, I would suggest that he look at Hansard for 28 February 1984 and the response by the then Minister for Defence to questions I put to him about the terms and conditions of the visits of nuclear warships to Australian ports. If anybody thinks it is clear how they will come here, he should read that answer. I have not time to read it. It says essentially that they will be assessed at the time and on the basis of the circumstances at that time. We are in a position where Labor has failed in its responsibility to act in Australia's defence interests and in our alliance interests, and there is little doubt that Australia is the poorer because of that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.40) —The address of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was somewhat more modulated than perhaps he intended this morning when he laid down the matter of public importance to be discussed in this debate. He has obviously been trying to re-leash his defence spokesman in this regard, with some success but not sufficient success. Clearly, the course of action that has been suggested by the Opposition defence spokesman, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in relation to New Zealand-when he raises the possibility of trade threats and trade sanctions, when he urges us to a more militant course of action in relation to the New Zealanders-means that he can walk out of this debate with his reputation undiminished as the only mallee bull in this place who carries his own china shop around with him. The manner in which this Government has conducted itself while this unfortunate situation has developed between the United States and New Zealand has been perfectly in line with the type of relationship which was conducted by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, albeit not confronting this crisis. The Leader of the Opposition decided he would have a brief chat about nuclear warship visits at the end of his statement. I was not going to be drawn into that, but let me make one or two points in that area that will outline for honourable members both the position of this Government and the position of our predecessors on some of these matters. It has been clear from the time this Government was elected, and in fact well before that, that it accepts visits by nuclear-powered nuclear-armed warships of the United States to this country. If there is any proof required of that there were 46 visits by American warships to this country last year, and there have been several visits this year. Only once in Australian history has any ban been placed upon any element of the United States defence force entering this country; that was, of course, by the McMahon Government in 1971, when it banned visits by nuclear-powered warships. The Whitlam Government, when it came into office, found itself confronted with a slightly embarrassing situation in regard to ANZUS, so it implemented an investigation of the environmental and safety factors involved in visits by nuclear-powered warships to this country, and put in place a set of environmental and safety criteria. That was at about the time when the Whitlam Government fell. The Fraser Government was enabled in 1976 to lift its bans on American warships. That was the situation which posed us some difficulty at the time in our relationship with the United States. The McMahon Government had proceeded on that course. As the incoming government we recognised the potential implications of this for ANZUS and dealt with it accordingly in a sensible and responsible fashion, which ultimately enabled the Government coming back into office to deal with that problem. As members of the Opposition would be aware, under those safety regulations-implemented initially by us and then amended slightly by the Leader of the National Party when he was Minister for Defence-there are still some restrictions on port entry associated with nuclear-powered warships. I have taken that out and put it in a separate category. The Opposition should not come into this place, all holy, wrapping itself in the flag, trying to demonstrate that this Government in its stewardship does not take its obligations seriously in that regard. The Opposition should not suggest to this Government that we are not aware of the requirement for the defence of this nation that the American alliance should remain undiminished, despite the events which have occurred in relations between New Zealand and the United States. This Government's agreement with the United States and the umbrella that the ANZUS alliance affords us are elements of co-operation which are essential to us. On the testimony of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and more recently by me, they are undiminished. They are undiminished under the statements made by the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of State, the United States Secretary of Defence and the relevant spokesmen who more ordinarily handle day to day business in relations with Australia. There is no question in the minds of any of those people that in all the many areas of co-operation with Australia the relationship between Australia and the United States, irrespective of anything happening in relation to New Zealand, remains undiminished. To suggest that something has occurred which in any way, shape or form places Australian security in jeopardy flies directly in the face not only of the advice of this Government, solidly backed up by evidence, but also it flies in the face of statements made by the United States. Instead of coming into this place to try to demonstrate that somehow or other there was an inadequacy in this regard, the Opposition should have given at least some acknowledgement to that fact. It should show some expression of delight, appreciation or whatever, that this situation still obtains. Instead, as always we get from the Opposition some attempt to divide this Government from the United States-in this instance based on totally spurious evidence. The fact of the matter is, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined, that there is a substantial difference in the nature of the bilateral relationship under the ANZUS rubric between ourselves and the United States and that which exists between New Zealand and the United States. There is a substantial difference in the attitudes of the various populations to that relationship in both its bilateral and trilateral aspects. There is no question that since the 1960s the bilateral relationship between Australia and the United States has deepened considerably in the areas of joint activity on what might be entitled national security matters. That level of relationship is obviously deeper than any relationship in that regard established between the United States and New Zealand. Likewise, there is an element of our relationship with New Zealand which demonstrates that the primary aspect of that relationship too is bilateral. Our economic arrangements with New Zealand are bilateral. There are many areas of co-operation in the diplomatic area and the defence area which are bilateral. Those bilateral relationships are in support of a very important strategic position. The fact of the matter is that since the early 1970s the United States has looked more and more to countries such as Australia and New Zealand to assume responsibility for the defence and security arrangements of their own areas and not to be constantly leeching off the United States, not to be constantly demanding of the United States more and more performance, extending American obligations and activities beyond those which the Americans feel they can happily live with. Those responsibilities which have been imposed on us have caused successive Australian governments to assume a level of responsibility for general security arrangements in the environment of the South Pacific-a far greater level of responsibility than they had, at least to the time when the United States began to be concerned about that matter. We have a relationship with New Zealand which is enormously important in the South Pacific context. This Government, since this difficulty in relations between Australia and New Zealand arose, has been making it clear cut to both parties exactly where Australia stands on the issue. There has never been any doubt about that. It has also been ensuring that, insofar as the American alliance is important for the national security of this country, that relationship should be undiminished. It has been successful in that. Secondly, this Government has been ensuring that insofar as the bilateral relationship with New Zealand is important to Australia and New Zealand economically, and important in strategic terms in the South Pacific, whatever the outcome of that quarrel there will be an undiminished posture in favour of an environment that suits ourselves. We have been successful in that regard, too. This Government is proceeding in a sensible, modulated fashion-the sort of fashion which I think the Opposition in government would pursue, and indeed was pursuing in its own comments on the matter until afflicted with the sort of sciatica, or whatever it is, which seems to afflict Opposition members and which makes them jittery around election time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The Minister's time has elapsed. The discussion is concluded. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.50) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 4 (1985); and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1985). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The proposals formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette since the House was dissolved in October last year. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1985), operative on and from 31 October 1984, contain a new item 56 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. The new item provides for the removal of customs duty of 2 per cent or less on goods imported for use in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels. Proposals No. 1 also contain changes implementing the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on: (1) Separate Articles Direction No. 1 (1983); and (2) Certain consumer electronic equipment and components. The Government accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's advice that Separate Articles Direction No. 1 should be cancelled. It also accepted the recommendation that section 26 of the Customs Tariff Act, the provision enabling such directions to be issued, should be repealed. As a result of this report the Customs tariff has been amended to provide a general tariff rate of 20 per cent for certain generating sets. These were the only goods that the Commission found would be substantially affected by the abolition of the separate articles direction. The insertion of this rate prevents a substantial duty increase and is essentially a short term measure. In this regard the Industries Assistance Commission will be recommending the long term rate that should apply to these goods in its forthcoming report on electric motors and generating sets. As a consequence of the Government's decision on the certain consumer electronic equipment report, colour television sets having a cathode ray tube measuring 47 centimetres or more diagonally across the face of the tube are subject to a general tariff rate of 50 per cent for one year, with a concessional general tariff rate of 30 per cent applying to sets imported under a tariff quota. In the second year such sets will be subject to a general tariff rate of 30 per cent, with the duty phasing down to a long term rate of 20 per cent at the end of the third year. Smaller colour television sets have been made subject to a general tariff rate of 25 per cent for three years, after which the rate will reduce to 20 per cent. For most other goods under reference in this report the duty will be reduced over a three year period to a long term general tariff rate of 20 per cent. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1985), operative on and from 21 November 1984, contain tariff changes which implemented the Government's decision on the Steel Industry Authority's August 1984 report on cold rolled strip and sheet excluding tinplate. As a result of this decision imports from Brazil, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province are no longer eligible for the developing countries quota rate applicable to such goods. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1985), operative on and from 1 January 1985, contain measures to: (1) Update the names of certain countries specified in Schedule 1 to the Customs Tariff Act-duty rates are not affected; (2) keep the Customs Tariff Act as up to date and as simple as possible by amalgamating certain tariff classifications in schedules whose rates of duty had become identical; (3) implement the 1985 tender quota and developing country preference arrangements applying under the Government's textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy; (4) implement phasing duty arrangements under the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement; and (5) implement the variation in the demarcation point for low-priced footwear contained in the May 1984 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1985), operative on and from 1 January 1985, contain measures which implemented the Government's decision in respect of the post-1984 arrangements for passenger motor vehicles. The main features of these changes are: (1) A base quota general tariff rate of 57.5 per cent to apply to passenger motor vehicles; (2) a tender quota rate of 94.5 per cent to apply during 1985 for such vehicles; and (3) phasing penalty rates for such vehicles when imported outside of quota-from a general tariff rate of 100 per cent in 1985 to a 57.5 per cent rate in 1992. Proposals No. 4 also contain certain administrative measures which the Government has decided to apply to certain aspects of its passenger motor vehicles policy. These measures are: (1) The provision of a general tariff rate of 35 per cent for four-wheel drive forward-control vehicles without an independent chassis; (2) the deletion of the term 'as original equipment' from certain Schedule 3 tariff classifications; and (3) the provision of a general tariff rate of 25 per cent for certain amphibious vehicles. Summaries of alterations for these Customs tariff proposals have been prepared and are being circulated to honourable members. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1985) decrease the excise rate on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $36.96 to $35.55 per kilolitre for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 September 1984 and from $35.55 to $34.70 per kilolitre operating on and from 1 October 1984. These changes followed the setting of a new average wholesale price for naturally occurring LPG by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in accordance with Government policy. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I draw attention of honourable members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Mike Moore, MP, Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing and Minister of Tourism in the Government of New Zealand. On behalf of all members in the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the Minister. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.59) —I move: Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Proposals No. 1 (1985). The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Proposals No. 1 (1985) which I have just tabled increases the adjustment levy rate imposed on unstabilised crude petroleum oil produced in Bass Strait from $1.26 per kilolitre to $1.39 per kilolitre on and from 1 January 1985, and further to $1.96 per kilolitre on and from 1 March 1985. Notice of the first alteration was given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on 21 December 1984 and gazetted on 28 December 1984. The two increases arise from the determinations of the import parity price of Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January and 1 March 1985. The levy represents 65 per cent of the special freight allowance in the import parity price, in accordance with a decision announced by the former Minister for Resources and Energy on 9 October 1984. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962, the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962 and the Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 to allow honey producers to pay honey levies annually rather than monthly as now required by the legislation. The Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962 imposes a levy on honey produced and sold in Australia. The Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962 imposes a levy on honey produced in Australia and used on the production of other goods. The Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 provides the mechanism by which these levies are collected. Levy collections for 1984-85 are expected to exceed $300,000. The money is used to finance the operations of the Australian Honey Board and to provide funds for research, administered by the Honey Research Committee. Levy returns are presently lodged by more than 300 levy payers each month. Of this number, over 90 per cent are producers. The remainder, 26, are honey dealers. Most of the honey sold in Australia is sold through dealers. In the current year, for example, it is estimated that the levy paid on returns lodged by honey dealers will be about $285,000. The balance of around $22,000 will be paid by producers. This means that the average monthly payment by each producer is about $6. Such payments are administratively expensive and inconvenient for both industry and government. The proposed changes are intended to alleviate the situation by reducing the costs and volume of paper work associated with collection of the levy under the legislation as it now stands. This Bill seeks to achieve those aims by removing the need for producers to lodge monthly returns, requiring instead the submission of a single annual return. In keeping with this change, the present monthly exemption limits of 50 kilograms contained in the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) and the Honey Levy Act (No. 2), are to be expressed in annual terms for producers; that is 600 kilograms per year. Payment of levy will be due on 28 February of the following year. The requirements for the payment of levy by dealers will remain unaltered. They will continue to lodge monthly returns as at present. Under these arrangements more than 90 per cent of the levy will continue to be collected monthly. The uncollected balance, however, represents a deferral of payment rather than a loss of revenue and most of the $22,000 involved will be collected during February of the following year. It is expected that this deferral of the receipt of a small proportion of levy will not create a significant problem for the Australian Honey Board or the Honey Research Committee. The impact of these changes on receipts therefore will be minimal. In the long term, the level of annual collections will vary little, if at all-probably by less than $1,000, or about a quarter of one per cent of the total. There could be a fall in the amount of revenue collected arising from producers who occasionally sold or used over 50 kilograms of honey in a month not now having to pay levy if they do not sell or use over 600 kilograms in a year. The changes are seen as being of advantage to both Government and industry. The Department of Primary Industry will benefit considerably by a reduction in the administrative effort now required to process a large number of returns for a small amount of levy. Producers will be relieved of the task of completing return forms monthly and the costs associated with making numbers of small payments. The changes in the Honey Levy Collection process outlined have the support of both the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Association and the Australian Honey Board. The proposed date of effect is 1 January 1986. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.04) —I move: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as are referred to it by- (a) resolution of the House, or (b) the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. dl030 (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. It is not my intention to speak to each of the notices which stand in my name on the Notice Paper. I will be as formal as possible in moving the motions. All these notices re-establish and, in some circumstances, expand on committees which existed in the last Parliament. At the suggestion of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, we propose the establishment of select committees on Aboriginal education and aircraft noise. We hope that they will complete expeditiously reference which remained unfinished at the end of the last Parliament. At the suggestion of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), I will propose that the role of the Standing Committee on Road Safety be redefined to become the Standing Committee on Transport Safety. The Committee on Parliamentary Privilege made its final report at the end of the last Parliament and there is no need re-establish this Committee. The report is an extremely valuable one and the Government is considering the recommendations. In line with the intentions of the House at the end of the last Parliament, I propose to move that a Joint Select Committee on Video Censorship be established. This Committee should take over from the Senate Select Committee on Video Material. I have proposed that a new procedures committee be established to examine the procedures of this House. I also propose to move that the Standing Orders Committee be suspended for the remainder of this session. The Committee met on only six occasions during the life of the Thirty-third Parliament. It is to be hoped that the procedures committee can look at the formal work of the Standing Orders Committee. I realise from discussions I have had with the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) that he would have wished the Standing Orders Committee to continue and for it to run parallel with the procedures committee. However, for the first session, I am hopeful that the procedures committee will look at those matters which appertain to the running of this chamber and bring in a report quickly. If it is felt by that committee that the Standing Orders Committee ought to be re-established for the second session, we can do that. Because of the increase in the number of members of Parliament there have been requests that the membership of committees be increased. The Government has reacted to these requests by increasing the membership of the Standing Committee on Expenditure from 12 to 15. We have expanded the membership of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence from 21 to 28. Hopefully this will enable the sub-committee structures of both committees to operate more effectively. I propose also to refer the televising of Parliament and the simultaneous radio broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. As we run through the notices I will move some minor amendments. These have been circulated to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.09) —The proposal to re-establish the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs certainly is welcome. As one who chaired that Committee under the former Government, I am certainly pleased that its work will continue. I believe that the very substantial and excellent reports of the Committee on the circumstances facing Aboriginal people in the area of health, legal aid, alcohol problems and the like are well known to honourable members and have added very considerably to our knowledge and ability to be able to respond with specific programs which are of assistance to Aboriginal people. I know that it is important, from the point of view of Aboriginal people throughout Australia, that they know that there are people in the Parliament who are interested in their circumstances and desirous of seeing efforts undertaken that might be of assistance to them in ensuring that the programs that are in place are the most beneficial and most likely to lead to an improvement in their situation. All too often we hear of the importance of Aboriginal self-determination and self-management. I believe the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was well able to enunciate support for those sorts of initiatives in the reports that it brought forward. It brought those views forward in a bipartisan way and, I believe, a very helpful way. I would like to encourage those who join this Committee to consider the report of one of the earlier committees on Aboriginal health. In one of the last reports that I was associated with, the report dealing with Aboriginal town campers, the fringe dwelling report, reference was made to the earlier report on health and the need for much of the material that was collated at that time to be reviewed again, for information upon the standards and present health profile of Aboriginals to be looked at carefully to see whether the efforts that had been undertaken as a result of the Committee's recommendations had brought forward an improved situation. The Committee was also keen, at that time, to look at the area of Aboriginal housing, an area of tremendous problem and difficulty and one where the programs could, I think, be quite critically reviewed. I notice that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is to establish a special committee on Aboriginal education. During the last Parliament a reference that had been earlier part heard was not completed. A great deal of information was obtained in relation to Aboriginal education and the reference was not completed. I was disappointed that so many people who had given evidence and who were keen to be assured that their views were taken into account in the recommendations and likely recommendations of that Committee's report when it came to hand, were, of course, left in the situation where their evidence was really quite in limbo and perhaps, in a sense, not even relevant. So I think it is appropriate that in the area of Aboriginal education there is to be a proposed select committee to complete that reference and to ensure that the evidence that was available is properly availed of by the Parliament and not left, in that sense, part heard, without any deliberations occurring in relation to what ought to be the recommendations that flow from the evidence that was given. There is only one other matter that I will address. It is perhaps not for me to make this point. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, my colleague, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), might well recall that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was always very keen to advocate that the Aboriginal Affairs Committee look at and offer advice on the area of Aboriginal land rights. It may well be an area in which the Committee itself might be able to offer some helpful advice and the shadow Minister and his colleagues might be able to offer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs some constructive suggestions as to the way in which Aboriginal land rights legislation might be modelled. I think it is appropriate that the Parliament look at the question as to whether or not it should be consulted in a more detailed way about some of the proposals that the Minister will be putting. I note that in relation to this Committee the notice of motion of appointments states: That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as referred to it by- (a) resolution of the House, or (b) the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That means that the Committee itself cannot seek its own references, it cannot initiate its own inquiries. Its activities and the areas into which it is going to inquire in effect have to be regulated by the resolution of this House or by the reference that it receives from the Minister. The Minister was, of course, always keen, when he was in opposition, to see that the committee had a right to seek out its own references. He has not put before his colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that the resolution in this case be altered. I think that is an important matter to simply draw to the attention of honourable members. Perhaps the Minister, when he later looks at the debate that has taken place in relation to the establishment of this Committee, might recall well his interest in the question of land rights and his view that the Committee ought to be examining this particular issue, when it was a matter being considered by the former Government. He might like to consider giving to the Committee a reference on that issue as I am sure there are many members on this side of the House who would be ready and willing to offer some views on the subject. Mr Shipton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same subject. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —You do not need leave. Mr Young —Come on. We are only setting up a committee. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.16) —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has said that the Government is only setting up a parliamentary committee. We in the Opposition regard parliamentary committees as very serious matters and places where real issues can be looked at in a bipartisan way. One aspect that is forgotten in the debate on the parliamentary committee system is that members on both sides of the Parliament on many issues-in this case, we are debating the question of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people of Australia-can in fact agree and solve some of the real difficulties and problems that are facing Aboriginal communities in Australia. Those comments go across the board for the whole parliamentary committee system. I was very interested in the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and I support them. He is a man of considerable experience in relation to Aboriginal Affairs issues, having served with distinction on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in previous parliaments. He made two points, one of which is that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), when on the Committee and in opposition was always saying, as I understand the honourable member for Dundas, that this Committee ought to be involved in the area of land rights. I suggest to the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that because of the inept handling by the Government of that issue and its obsession with the uniform land rights approach it would be appropriate for the Committee to be involved. May I even suggest to them in their so-called spirit of consensus that they refer to the parliamentary Committee on Aboriginal Affairs the question of land rights. The other issue-I think it is a very important one in relation to this Committee and a number of other committees-is that this Committee cannot seek its own reference. In fact, it is limited by the Government because the resolution of the House is a resolution moved by the Government and, as we know, the Government has the numbers. We need to know what the Government will put, what is resolved and what the Minister, who is the other means by which the Committee can get references, is going to refer. I support the honourable member for Dundas in that the Committee does need power to seek its own reference. I believe that that would be in the greater interests and welfare of the Aboriginal people. The real issues, such as the problems facing fringe dwellers-the Committee has a very significant report on that matter-are health, welfare and housing needs. I mention education in passing because I reserve my rights to speak on education. But the real needs of the Aboriginal people can be looked at and the Committee should clearly have the right to seek its own reference in the interests and the needs of the Aboriginal community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia's natural resources, and (b) such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia's natural resources as are referred to it by- (i) the Minister responsible for those matters, or (ii) resolution of the House. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.19) —The Opposition supports the Government's decision to re-establish the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in this Parliament. It is a Standing Committee and it naturally abides by the Standing Orders that have been set for it. It is a matter of some regret, however, that subjects such as science and technology do not receive the advice or the encouragement of committees working through this Parliament, nor do we have any committees looking at subjects such as the arts. There has been a tendency, I think, for too long for the committees of the Parliament to be re-established virtually without serious consideration being given to whether the priorities set in relation to the national political agenda are necessarily reflected in the scope and the content of the committees established. Now that we have a large Parliament I think there is a strong case to be made for extending the terms of reference of a range of committees such as the Environment and Conservation Committee to enable sub-committees of such a generalised committee to cover subjects not only relevant to the environment but also relevant to other aspects of human endeavour such as science and technology on the one hand and the arts on the other. Nevertheless, the decision has been taken and we, of course, have no choice but to live with it. It is worth while emphasising that our natural environment does have a major impact on virtually all areas of human endeavour. However, it concerns me that the terms of reference of the Committee specifically state that essentially our terms of reference are controlled by the Minister of the day. Because of the division of responsibility between the various departments of state, such key areas as soil conservation and Murray Valley salinity, for example, are not issues which are generally covered by an environment committee because regrettably, and I think erroneously, they are seen as agricultural type problems. Whereas, of course there is an agricultural input, nevertheless they are essentially environmental problems. I hope that over the next two or three years of the life of this Parliament the Committee will be able to encourage the Minister to give us terms of reference which will allow us the opportunity of examining in more depth the long term problems of the Murray Valley in particular, relating as they do to salinity, soil erosion and environmental degradation in a much wider context. In that area over two million Australians are dependent on the River Murray for their existence and economic development. Something like two-thirds of the total value of Australian primary exports comes from the River Murray area. It is generally believed, not just by those who live there but by scientific people throughout Australia, that we are facing in the Murray Valley some of Australia's most deep-seated environmental problems. Yet as I have said, neither at a ministerial level nor at a party or parliamentary committee level have we seen any serious attempt taken in this Parliament to examine in detail and in depth how we can come up with better long term planning for that area on the basis of principles which we can discuss and negotiate with the States. One of the key problems we face in so many environmental areas is that land management is essentially a State responsibility. Within the context of the Constitution, therefore, I see it as the role of the Federal Parliament at least to be prepared to take the lead in suggesting alternative lines of action which can then be negotiated by Federal Ministers together with the responsible State Ministers to see where the situation can be improved. A classic example of this was the bushfire report tabled in this Parliament by the previous Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in about October last year to which the Government has not yet seen fit to respond, but no doubt it will. In the last few months we have seen, yet again, a significant level of both human tragedy and massive economic loss to Australia. It is estimated that damage caused by the fires in the last two months is well in excess of $100m. A few weeks ago the Bright fire alone in Victoria cost in excess of $20m just to put out, and that is not taking into account the economic long term costs involved or the opportunity cost losses which are naturally part and parcel of the whole bushfire situation. At the more critical level one finds difficulties such as the problems we had on Ash Wednesday in both South Australia and Victoria when there was massive human loss as well as losses of property, stock et cetera. There was massive damage to the natural environment. Damage was well in excess of $250m to $500m. None of the statistics take into account the losses and effect on the environment. Therefore much depends on a much greater degree of financial support for research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other similar organisations so we know better than we have in the past what we are supposed to be doing in these areas. My final point is that the record of Government action on committee reports-not just on the environment but in the whole context of the relationship between the government of the day and committees of this Parliament-does leave something to be desired. I sincerely hope that we will see in the life of this Parliament the Government taking a close interest in responding through the Parliament to the reports which so many honourable members spend a substantial number of hours trying to achieve for the good of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House (5.25) —I ask leave of the House to amend Notice No. 3 by omitting paragraph (10) and substituting the following paragraph: Leave granted. (10) That the quorum of a sub committee be 2 members. Mr YOUNG —There was a request from the honourable members who participated on the Standing Committee on Expenditure previously that a quorum of the sub-committee be two honourable members. They said it worked successfully. I therefore move the motion as amended: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to: (a) consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine; (b) consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically; (c) examine the relationship between the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and (d) inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by the House. (2) That the Committee consist of 16 members, 8 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 4 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 3 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 6 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman of that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be 2 members. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Expenditure appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.25) —The requirements that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has put forward in this motion are satisfactory to the Opposition. I raise a matter relating to the Standing Committee on Expenditure because I was a member of that Committee prior to the election. I am deeply concerned that although the then Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), was an excellent chairman, when the Parliament rose an interim report was submitted to the Parliament relating to the affairs of the Aboriginal Development Commission. It was stated in that report that a confidential report would be made to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) regarding matters arising from that inquiry. My continual requests for information throughout the recess indicated to me that that has not been done. I put it on the record that that is a matter of great urgency. The motion makes the responsibilities of that Committee quite clear to everybody. Those responsibilities make it necessary to consider any papers on public expenditure which are presented to the House and such of the Estimates as the Committee sees fit to examine. In other words, it is a committee which has the responsibility to check not only that the funds provided by the taxpayers of Australia are spent in the most effective manner but also that they are spent properly. It must be clear, for instance, to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has retained his portfolio in this new Parliament, when a committee of that nature suggests to the Parliament that it is necessary to make a confidential report to the Minister, that is a matter of great seriousness. I do not think that everyone should have had to wait for that report; I believe the Minister should have demanded that report in the public interest. I take this opportunity to draw the House's attention to the failure of the Expenditure Committee to continue its job in the recess. There may have been some difficulties. Maybe the matter will be dealt with with great speed. On the other hand, the Chairman of the Committee is a Government member and, of course, the Minister is naturally closely associated with him. I do not think the Minister needed to wait to see that report. Quite clearly he should have got the information and taken some action on it. I spoke in the debate when that report was tabled in Parliament. I made it very clear at the time that there were some matters of great concern. Certain witnesses were not prepared to tell the Committee what the circumstances were. Consequently a more serious type of inquiry is needed, one which has considerably more powers. I now bring that matter to the attention of the Government. If we are going to have a Committee of this nature which makes such decisions-they were not taken lightly; they were taken with great seriousness and concern-of course the Government should respond promptly, otherwise such committees are a waste of time. Some committees form opinions only. This Committee is one of two committees-the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is the other-that specifically interest themselves in the expenditures of government. This involves taxpayers' money. I find no fault with the previous Chairman. I thought he did his job with great diligence. He was hard-working to the extent that if any criticism could be made it was that he took on too much work. I have nothing adverse to say about him; the fault lies with the Minister for not demanding the report. I hope that he will rectify that matter very promptly and give this Committee, which we are about to renew, the credibility it is entitled to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. (2) That the Committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip and 1 member to be nominated be either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (8) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have the power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (14) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.29) —The Opposition welcomes the Standing Committee on Procedure being set up but it has some comments to make in line with some of the actions that the Government has taken this week. I reiterate the fact that although we have an expanded number of members in the Parliament the procedures which are presently in place at the behest of this Government make it very difficult for individual members effectively to fulfil their role as representatives of their constituents. I notice that the proposed membership of the Committee is eight. I recognise that a number of committees have eight members-five Government and three Opposition-but I suggest to the Minister that, on an important committee such as this, dealing with an expanded parliament and the need for the procedures to reflect both the membership of the House and the amount of work to be covered, the membership should or could be increased. It is important to have on the Committee new members of Parliament who will bring a fresh approach to the problems of procedures, but also it is tremendously important that we have some experienced long term members of Parliament on the Committee. Often things which have been tried many times in the past and found to be particularly wanting are enthusiastically advocated by new members and new governments. The procedures Committee is a most important one. I hope that its membership will reflect the composition of the House, in terms of both length of membership of the House and experience, and that the Government will look very closely at the proposition that the membership be expanded if, in early meetings of the Committee, it is found that the membership is simply not large enough to cover the requirements that have been laid down for the Committee. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.32) —I just want to make a comment on the setting up of the Standing Committee on Procedure. It is almost a farce in that on Monday the Government made far reaching decisions about the availability of opportunities to both its members and members from this side of the House. It made those decisions when the proceedings of the House were not being broadcast, as is the case today. Once again, when a change is made it is made under the cover of darkness and silence. Dramatic changes are being made to procedures which have existed since at least 1907. I do not say that because something is old it must be kept, but a very valuable procedure which existed in this Parliament has been changed. Having abolished that procedure, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), trying to cover up for the changes that were made, proposes to set up a committee. If the sorts of changes that were made in this Parliament on Monday had been made in the Queensland Parliament by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, or had been made by the Fraser Government, the Press Gallery would have been writing about it in large stories in every newspaper in Australia, but because the 'got-them-in-the-pocket' Hawke Government did it, under the administration of the Special Minister of State, hardly an article appeared throughout Australia. The Government set about making changes which have far reaching effects on the way this Parliament and its procedures work. Having done that, the Government has decided to set up a committee to look at the procedures. I give the Minister marks for being very devious and very clever at casting smoke screens. But I ask: Why on earth are we to have a procedures committee when the changes that the Government desired have already been made? Talking about procedures, when I first came to this Parliament there was a thing called an adjournment debate which went on for as long as members of the Parliament wished. There was absolutely no limit. Some nights it went for two hours. They were very interesting nights. Members from both sides of the House raised issues, and the differences which existed were thrashed out in debate. Early in the 1970s-I think it may have been by the Whitlam Government but I will not blame it-limits to the adjournment debate were introduced. The debate was limited to one hour and speeches of members of parliament were limited to 10 minutes. That was the new procedure. Then people started to say: 'Why do we have to hang around here for an hour?'. Consequently, it was changed and only five-minute speeches were allowed and the length of the debate was only 30 minutes. Mr Young —Who did that? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Who did it? Mr Young —It was the right honourable member for New England. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)? Is the Minister telling me that it was the right honourable member for New England, of the National Party of Australia, the Party which helped increase the size of the Parliament when it joined with the Government? I do not believe that that is possible. I just cannot accept it. The other day, the Special Minister of State, who is now sitting at the table, told this Parliament that the Government is to increase opportunities in the adjournment debate by lengthening the period of debate by 15 minutes. What is proposed is that the debate increase from 30 to 45 minutes. We are all supposed to clap with glee. Mr Gear —You should. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member says that we should. Government members have been fed like mushrooms. They have been kept in the dark. They do not know what they have lost. In the period of this Government, back bench members of this Parliament have been pushed more and more into obscurity, almost into oblivion. Government members do not know what is happening to them. When the new members arrived, at the first Labor Party meeting the Minister at the table told the party room: 'This is good for you'. I see in the chamber the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). I dip my lid to her for the expertise she developed with 'notices without motion'. She brought to this House a way of using the system which had never previously been used in this Parliament. What amazes me is that on Monday she sat silently and voted out the old system of notices of motion which she had used so well to her advantage. The Minister said how terrible it was that Ministers had to sit on the front bench each day and listen to notices of motion when they had more important things to do. In the two and a bit years of this Government, it has lost sight of the people. Those notices of motion so often reflected the aspirations, hopes, disappointments and views of the people. Yet the Minister told this Parliament that it was not fair to make Ministers listen to notices of motion. Admittedly, there were occasions when frivolous notices were given, mainly from the Government side of the House congratulating football clubs for getting back into leagues and things like that. Mr Goodluck —Mainly from the other side. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Franklin should not say too much because a couple of frivolous ones came from him in the past. Generally speaking though, the notices of motion were of high content and high import. Yet the practice of giving notice of motions has been abolished because the Government was being embarrassed politically. Members on this side of the House were honed to such an extent that they even made the honourable member for Lilley look an amateur. We had developed the skill to perfection and were utilising it. We had the Government on the run. It even resulted in the diminution in the number of seats this Government has as a result of the redistribution, when the Government thought it would come back with a walloping majority of 50 or 60. I have taken the opportunity to say those few words. Last night, less than 28 hours after the promise of a 45-minute adjournment debate, we saw the debacle of the adjournment debate suddenly being cut to 20 minutes. That reminds me of the figures presented by the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England, when he showed that in about 1983-I am going on memory-the House sat for 49 nights and there were only about 27 adjournment debates. In 1984 it was even more disastrous when Mack the Knife slashed the opportunities. I have been in this place for a long time-the Leader of the House would probably say for too long-but the fact is that, after one has been here for a while, one learns and understands the importance of procedures. One also appreciates better than others do why governments of the day attack such opportunities; it is because they do not suit a government. Governments do not wish to be embarrassed. I believe that last Monday, 25 February, will go down in history as one of the sad days in our democracy. The Minister stood up, described giving notice of motions as an antiquated procedure, did not bother to refer it to a procedures committee but abolished it that day. I have to steal this opportunity-I am not even on air; only the seven people in the Gallery will even know I said this and will wonder why the Opposition has been silent-to register my protest. I believe we should recommit that matter and put it to a vote. I am not one who keeps on speaking when he has nothing more to say. I just believe that the Minister should be known as Mack the Knife. Even one of my staff members, in Canberra for the first time, said to me: 'Isn't he ruthless? Isn't he a gagger of democracy?' I said: 'That's the man who couldn't even fill in a Customs form, yet he has been expected to take up responsibility for the procedures of this Parliament.' With those few words, I register my protest- Mr Jacobi —You had the worst record ever when you were in government. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Worst record! Did I have the worst record because I brought in a lot of motions? I was going to sit down, but the honourable member for Hawker has provoked me. I raised many an issue that was important to the electorate through that procedure. But I will not go through that matter again. It is a crying shame that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water and that we are to go through this farcical situation of establishing a committee- Mr Ruddock —Tell us about the videos. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It was the only opportunity that we ever had to raise the subject because the Minister at the table introduced legislation in the middle of the night when media representatives were in bed and our proceedings were off air. That was the only opportunity members of this Parliament had to expose what the Government was doing in relation to those changes and to let the public know about them. As a matter of fact, I have never had so many petitions in my life as I did on that subject- Mr Ruddock —That's right. We are still getting them. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Dundas has agreed. He saw it too. Anyway these are the opportunities that have been taken from us. I wish that the honourable member for Hawker who is trying to interject would be quiet, but I can understand his disappointment because there are now four factions in the ALP-the left wing, the centre left, the right wing and the honourable member for Hawker, who is the sole member of the left right out. Many of us have a very high regard for the honourable member and feel sorry for what happened to him because he wanted to stand tall and non-aligned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.40) —I ask leave of the House to amend Notice No. 5 in the terms circulated to honourable members. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the most effective means in terms of cost and efficiency of achieving greater transport safety in Australia; (b) the main causes of air, sea, rail and road transport accidents in Australia; (c) the particular aspects to which those concerned with transport safety could most advantageously direct their efforts; (d) the economic cost to the community of transport related accidents in Australia, remedial measures and equity considerations in the burden of cost; (e) those sections of the community most affected by transport related accidents, and; (f) occupational health and safety issues in the transport sector. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the Committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed during the 28th Parliament, and of the Standing Committees on Road Safety appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(5.42) —I support the motion. It is proposed to change the name of the Standing Committee on Road Safety to the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, so I assume that its terms of reference will include train, ship and aircraft safety and will probably take a wider perspective of this major subject. It is not a very fashionable subject. Very few people seem to rush to join the Committee, but I have always enjoyed it and found it a bi-partisan committee in which we work for the one goal, namely, to try to reduce the number of people in Australia who die as a result of road accidents. I think that I will enjoy this wider reference. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has just pointed out that the Standing Committee, under the amended terms, will inquire into the main causes of air, sea, rail and road transport accidents in Australia. I assume it will be a very good committee with a grave responsibility to cope with these problems. When I read about traffic accidents over the Christmas period and accidents such as that high speed chase last week through Victoria in which three innocent people were killed, I realise that we have a responsibility to be involved. I support the establishment of the Committee. I believe that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will be the chairman of that Committee. She did a good job before, and did it very conscientiously. As a matter of fact, I think she drove us a little bit too hard. I will be a member of the Committee and will support her. I hope that we can do a good job in this area of grave responsibility. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.44) —I will make a few comments enlarging on what was said by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), about broadening the role of the Standing Committee on Road Safety to include all transport safety. I certainly want to make reference to the work of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) and to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who was involved with the Committee at an earlier time. He is not in the chamber at the moment, but he certainly put a great deal of work into the Standing Committee on Road Safety at that time. I commend the Committee for the valuable reports it has released over the years. Its terms of reference will now be broadened to include all transport safety in addition to road safety. I make a couple of points particularly with reference to air safety. Most honourable members have probably been given a copy of a book by Dick Smith, called Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom. Dick Smith is well known around Australia as a person who has made a considerable amount of money through electronics, money with which he has been very generous. He is well known also for his flying feats around the world. A number of honourable members have made the point that he has raised some very serious questions in this small book which, nevertheless, has a very great impact. One point in particular relates to the brawl going on in Sydney at present with respect to the Sydney heliport and Darling Harbour. I suggest that it would be very sensible of this Committee to study Dick Smith's book and invite him to support before the Committee some very serious comments that he makes in his book. I make another point with respect to air safety, namely, the booming popularity of ultralite aircraft. A dilemma is created with both the ultralite aircraft themselves and the fine line that needs to be drawn between excessive regulation for safety and a reasonable arrangement for safety. If there are not enough safety regulations unnecessary dangers ensue with air use. However, excessive regulations bring direct and indirect costs. The direct costs occur in relation to restrictions on the use of the machines that may be used and the added cost in making them right according to the regulations. The indirect costs, which Dick Smith and others have pointed out, occur in relation to the bureaucracy that develops over a long period to draw up the regulations and administer them. I make a couple of points with respect to road safety. Paragraph (2) of this motion reads: That the Committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters-- That is referring to traffic accidents and the like-- and seeks their co-operation. That is tremendously important. The States have the primary role. Therefore, anything done at the Commonwealth level has to be carefully handled. If the Commonwealth Government is a dictator too directly, the reaction can be different from what it would like. Therefore, there is in paragraph (2) of the motion this important bringing together of what are sometimes contradictory arrangements between the States. By having a more national, co-ordinated approach, we can have more sensible regulations for road transport generally. I make one plug for a complex in my electorate that has made a very positive contribution to road safety. I think that the honourable member for Lilley is very much aware of the Goulburn Valley Driver Training Complex in Shepparton which has played a leading role in providing what I would call positive aspects of road safety for some years. I attended the tenth anniversary of the complex just before Christmas. The facility was started by the determination of one traffic policeman who saw a great need for a more positive approach to driver training and all that means for safety. It has grown from that to the premier driver training complex in Australia. Some of the defence forces go on training programs there from time to time and some of the major truck and bus companies send whole teams of drivers there for special training with articulated vehicles. I believe that the Murray electorate can be very proud of providing this national contribution to road safety. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD —(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)-I seek leave to table a corrigendum to the paper entitled '1986 Census of Population and Housing: Content and Procedures' which I tabled in the House on Monday. That paper stated that the 1986 census of population and housing would require 48 responses from the public. The fact is that, as I said in my statement on Monday, the census will seek a total of 46 responses from households. Two responses concerning dwellings will be required from collectors. Leave granted. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on all aspects of Aboriginal education with particular reference to: (a) the educational needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people including the effect on these needs of environmental, social and cultural factors. (b) means of promoting wider and more effective participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people at all levels in the development and implementation of appropriate programs and curricula. (c) the most effective methods of providing appropriate education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people at all levels, having regard to the expressed needs of the Aboriginal communities and organisations and to the respective responsibilities of- (i) the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments, and (ii) Aboriginal communities and other agencies administering Aboriginal education programs. (d) the effectiveness of funding arrangements, including- (i) whether the best use is made of available funds, and (ii) whether present priorities as between States Grants and Grants-in-Aid are appropriate. (e) the effectiveness of existing programs and special support schemes including- (i) Aboriginal student assistance schemes; (ii) enclave support schemes; (iii) independent Aboriginal Schools; (iv) bilingual and bicultural education programs, and (v) pre-employment and vocational training courses. (f) the recruitment and training of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal teachers and teacher assistants. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (9) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have the power to move from place to place. (12) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (13) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (16) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records relating to the Inquiry into Aboriginal Education undertaken by Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments. (17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.49) —I assume, though the Government has not said so, that the reason for the establishment of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education is to complete the unfinished inquiry into Aboriginal education which was carried out by the former Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Young —I did say it at the start. Mr SHIPTON —I apologise to the Minister and withdraw my statement, and accept that it is to be established to complete the reference. Mr Young —It is to complete the reference which has been going for two parliaments. Mr SHIPTON —As the Minister says, it is to complete the reference which has been going for two parliaments. It is unfortunate that it has been going for two parliaments. In the Thirty-second Parliament evidence was taken and the Committee travelled around Australia. I think it is important that committees be able to complete their work and that they not be diverted from their main task of undertaking important inquiries, such as one of this nature, by other matters. That is why it is very important that a Minister, in deciding what he refers to committees, consider those matters very carefully. As I said earlier today, that is why I think it is much better that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be able to seek its own terms of reference and that they be general. That would be much better. If the other Committee had had a general reference, perhaps we may not have needed to set up this special Committee. However, I look forward to serving on this Committee. I hope that it can take into account the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the thirty-second and thirty-third parliaments and will complete its work quickly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the effects of aircraft operations on the environment surrounding airports including, but not limited to: (a) the extent of the impact of aircraft noise on- (i) the health and welfare of persons, institutions and communities, (ii) property and property values adjacent to major metropolitan airports; (b) the effectiveness of administrative procedures and regulations (including curfews), designed to lessen noise, and the monitoring of such procedures and regulations; (c) the extent to which aircraft noise should be taken into account in establishing priorities and programs for the development of existing airports and the building of new airports within and adjacent to major urban areas; (d) compensation schemes for aircraft noise operating in the United Kingdom and other countries and the effect of those schemes on airport planning and development; (e) the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, State and local Governments to legislate for the adequate control of aircraft noise and how these powers could be used for that purpose; (f) the effects of aircraft operations (other than noise) on property; (g) the effect of aircraft engine emissions on people and property, and (h) such other matters which the committee decides should be drawn to the attention of the House. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to examine. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (9) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (10) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (12) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (13) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (15) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise appointed during the 27th Parliament, and of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.54) —I have some concern about the possible use of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. I would see the use of the Committee as a vehicle to reduce further the effective operation of some of our major airports in Australia as being very negative. Mr Young —It has a reference before it, has it not? It is to complete the reference it has already. Mr LLOYD —Yes, but let me just say that, as the Committee still has to complete that reference, there is the question of what its conclusions about noise will be and the ramifications of those conclusions for the use of airports. Mr Young —They will be sorted out by the Committee. Mr LLOYD —Yes. However, I just want to draw attention to some of the possibilities that could arise in the deliberations of that Committee. They are genuine concerns. I instance Sydney Airport. It is already a restricted airport. There are already problems with delay periods and the expenses and frustrations that they create for people going to and from Sydney, whether for business or for tourism. There is also the question of the ultimate use or popularity of Sydney Airport in relation to other airports. Mr Cadman —We have the curfew, too. Mr LLOYD —Yes. These issues are important, particularly as it will be 10 years before there is any chance of there being another airport in Sydney. That could mean problems for Sydney people generally, such as cost. That is not taking into account the problems of where that other airport is to be. I am talking only about what this Committee could be used for in relation to Sydney Airport and all that Mascot means to Sydney and its vicinity. Mr Cadman —It is to prop up Labor seats around Mascot. Mr LLOYD —I accept the point made by that interjection. That is a particular worry I have with the Committee. There do not appear to be any criteria to protect another aspect of aircraft noise which has occurred at Tullamarine Airport. Planners said: 'Let us put the airport right out where there is nobody so that nobody can ever complain about aircraft noise'. What happened? People started building houses right around and up to the airport. When that happens pressure is then applied to restrict the use of the airport with all the additional costs that that creates. To me that is a major deficiency and a major worry. This problem also arises with Brisbane Airport. People could say that some of the land around Brisbane Airport may not be quite suitable for building houses. However, one hopes that everything will be sorted out there. The Commonwealth goes to great expense in regard to airports such as Tullamarine and the question of aircraft noise is looked into. One would assume that a project would be completely safe if there are no houses around the airport site. However, people start building there and then want to restrict the use of that airport. Those are a couple of points I wanted to make. They are genuine concerns I have about the establishment of this Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.56) —I ask for leave to amend Notice No. 8 by adding, at the end, the following paragraph: '(20) that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.' Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) all proposals for modification or variations of the plan and layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for Territories, and (b) such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by- (i) resolution of either House of the Parliament, or (ii) the Minister for Territories. (2) That the Committee consists of 10 members, 4 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigation of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.57) —I wish to make a few remarks about the motion to establish a joint committee on the seat of government. Obviously, it is appropriate that such a committee be established and oversee, as it were, the home of the Parliament. However, there are more problems relating to the Australian Capital Territory than just that. The terms of reference of the proposed Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory are fairly innocuous although, obviously, the Committee may have wide-ranging tasks if either House resolves to give it any such job or, for that matter, if the Minister for Territories refers any particular task to it. It would seem to me that the scope of the Committee should be widened to include other Territories. For instance, the Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands could well do with some parliamentary watchdog. Situations exist in both of those Territories-both very remote Territories-where I think the interests of democracy and the rights of the citizen could be well served by the widening of the scope of this Committee. I also suggest that the matter of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory could well be referred to the Committee for consideration, either by the Minister or by a resolution of this House or the other place. It seems to me that, in many ways, that is the most critical issue facing the Australian Capital Territory at present. The policy on this side of the House is, of course, that whether to have self-government is a matter for the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory to decide. However, it seems to me-I think I can speak with some experience of the pains and trauma of moving from a wholly dependent territorial status to that of limited statehood or self-government-that the citizens of Canberra and, for that matter, their elected representatives in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly should have the greatest degree of say in whatever the decision is. To the best of my knowledge at this stage, it seems that the decisions are being taken by committees of bureaucrats or by bureaucrats themselves. It seems to me that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly should play a much greater part in whatever moves are being taken to send this Territory down the path of self-government. Other than that, I support the motion. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.59) —I welcome the comments of my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) on this matter. In the last Parliament I had the privilege of being a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The helpful comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the role of this Committee might be examined with a view to expanding its area of inquiry are, of course, matters that were considered by the Committee. Mr Young —Do you think the Territory would want all those things to be referred to a committee to consider? Mr RUDDOCK —I can say that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory had approached the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) on that matter. I assume that he would have consulted the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I certainly know that the matter had been raised with him and with some of his colleagues. That proposal was supported by the Committee as a whole. I do not think I am saying anything out of school in saying that the Government members of the Committee were present when motions were carried that the Minister be advised of the Committee's view that these were appropriate areas in which the Committee might be able to offer some beneficial advice. I know that previously some aspects of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island and their future had been considered by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, but the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory looked quite critically at that question and said that, as a committee, it had had considerable experience in looking at the social consequences of decisions that were taken and had been in its area of operation. It was of the view that a committee on territory questions in the broad would be more appropriate than just a specialist committee to look at proposals for modifications and variations of the plan and layout of the city of Canberra. If honourable members look at the nature of the resolution they will see that it is very narrow in its ambit and if the Committee were only to carry out those sorts of functions and we would probably have difficulty in obtaining members who would be prepared to spend the time carrying out that particular duty. In fact, it is because of the resolutions and references from Ministers that the Committee has been able to carry out a number of very beneficial inquiries in the areas impacting upon the Australian Capital Territory. I think of the reports on planning in the Australian Capital Territory and some of the more controversial areas that the Committee looked at in terms of waste disposal and questions relating to trading hours and so on. The Committee felt that its specialisation in those sorts of problems relating to social development could be beneficially used in considering the future of the people in Cocos (Keeling) Islands and in Christmas Island where there are particular problems associated with the future of the islands as the phosphate mining activity diminishes. One could well envisage situations where the Committee, as my colleague has pointed out, could assist the Government with advice on this vexed question of self-government. There are some areas of activity where the differences of opinion between the Government and the Opposition are not of such a dimension that if people are brought together to sit in a parliamentary committee environment, helpful suggestions can come forward in the form of recommendations which would be acceptable to a government of either political persuasion. I encourage the Minister to look at this question of the widening of the brief for the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I believe it is appropriate that there should be a committee of the Parliament that has the capacity of offer to the government advice and assistance in relation to territories in general. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.02) —I seek leave to amend Notice No. 9 by adding at the end the following paragraph: '(19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.' Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on- (a) foreign affairs and defence generally, and (b) such matters as may be referred to the committee by- (i) The Minister for Foreign Affairs (ii) The Minister for Defence, or (iii) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (2) That the committee consist of 28 members, 11 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House of the Government Whip, 5 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may from time to time appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered consider. (8) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (7), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex-officio members of each sub-committee appointed. (9) That the members of a sub-committee elect one of the voting members of the sub-committee to be the chairman of that sub-committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, or move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (12) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (13) That 9 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (14) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (15) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matters on which those committees had not completed consideration. (16) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(6.03) —I wish to make a couple of observations. First of all, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is one of the most respected committees of this Parliament. It is a Committee with a substantial international reputation. The work it did on human rights in the Soviet Union is regarded throughout the world as a very fine document. I recall that when I was the Director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and was involved with the Australia-Japan Business Co-operation Committee, the study that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence did on Japan was regarded as being pioneering. Likewise, in recent years, its work on the Association of South East Asian Nations and on aid to the Horn of Africa, to mention but two, has been very significant. This work of the Committee has gradually been expanding and it has gradually gained more respect. However, it has not had the funding that perhaps it needs. One of the issues which it tackled last year on a bipartisan basis was that of disarmament. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree that in the light of the events in New Zealand and in the light of debate within the Australian community, there is no question that it is extremely important that this Committee should not only continue its work on that subject but also have opportunities for travel, for discussion with other countries and for the conduct of seminars within Australia in order to gauge the views of a range of people and to help in the education process in the discussion of this and other subjects of vital foreign and defence significance to Australia. I am informed that members of the outgoing committee had the greatest difficulty in getting from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and their departments the funds necessary to enable them to complete the work which they had begun; for example to canvass effectively the views of ASEAN in respect of its preliminary recommendations, as well as to hold seminars in Australia with various people, including those in industry and commerce who had a great interest in that part of the world. So, on behalf of the Opposition members of that Committee, I urge that if the Ministers concerned think this Committee is as important as they say it is-and they ought to think that-they should back it with funding, both in the remainder of this financial year and most certainly in the financial years thereafter in the life of this Parliament and this Committee. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.06) —I wish to speak on this motion to establish the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and to support and agree with the very sensible comments of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) who preceded me. I commend his attitude and his challenge to the Government to make adequate funds available to the Committee. Mr Young —Like the Fraser Government. Mr SHIPTON —I did not have any trouble with funds from the Fraser Government when I was Chairman of the Committee, and I am glad to hear the interjection of the Special Minister of State. I wish to refer to two matters very briefly. This Committee is one of the great committees of the Parliament and this is one of the great areas in which bipartisan work can be done in the areas of foreign affairs and defence by members and senators from both sides of the political process in the interests of the security of the nation. An understanding of these issues in the Parliament is one way in which very important foreign dignitaries, shadow foreign Ministers and distinguished people such as ambassadors to the United Nations from the United States of America can meet, talk and exchange views with members of parliament. Parliamentary delegations from the European Economic Community and other countries can meet with members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and this is one way in which there can be an interchange of views in the foreign affairs and defence areas between members of parliaments from around the world. In relation to defence, I must mention that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was once a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He served the Committee well and with distinction, and I say that in a real spirit of bipartisanship which occurs on that Committee, although people dissent from reports, and I have done so myself from time to time. As a distinguished member of that Committee, the Minister should have known its capacity to inquire into and review matters. Therefore I was surprised when he set up a review of defence and appointed a Mr Paul Dibb. I have great respect for Mr Dibb's ability and his reputation. He has given evidence to the Joint Committee over the years and that is where I developed my respect for Mr Dibb. I make no criticism of him, but my criticism is that someone like the Minister for Defence who had served on that Committee and knew its work should decide to go outside its framework. I think that is an insult to the former Chairman, who is now the ambassador designate to Indonesia, Mr Bill Morrison, and to the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)-he is a Government member but I am prepared to say this-who served well as Chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee which had the reference to monitor Australia's defence program. Frankly, that is a slap in the face and an insult by the Minister and the Government to members of their own Party who have served with some distinction on the Joint Committee. I notice that the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) is not to be renominated for membership of the Committee. I think that is one of the great tragedies. I say that again in the spirit of bipartisanship, but I do not want to be carried away by that because there are substantial foreign policy differences, none more than over this Government's handling of the MX crisis and its attitude towards ANZUS. This Committee is one of the places in which that matter will doubtless be taken up. I think that, in a bipartisan way, the honourable member for Hawker made a great contribution-and I served on the Committee with him-to the debate in the parliamentary committee system. He is an expert on Middle East affairs. It is a tragedy that he was not re-elected in the Federal parliamentary Labor Caucus. He is a man of independent views. That is one of his strengths. One of the strengths of the committee system is that people with individual ideas, views and thoughts can express them. Through the parliamentary committee system, the Parliament is better because of people standing up and saying what they think. The honourable member for Hawker did that fearlessly on that Committee, over the nine years in which I served with him. Now, because of the growth of factions in the Australian Labor Party, he has been denied membership of that Committee. I want to put on record-- Mr Ruddock —It is a disgrace. Mr SHIPTON —It is a disgrace. It is one of the tragedies of this Parliament that such a distinguished member is cut off at the socks, cut off in his prime. I would have hoped that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) would have moved in the House today an amendment to his motion, moving that the honourable member for Hawker serve on that Committee. Mr Young —I am not naming the Committee. Mr SHIPTON —The Special Minister of State is not naming the Committee, but we would be agreeable to adding-- Mr Young —Are you on it? Mr SHIPTON —The Minister will find out in due course. I am proud of the service I have given to the Committee. I want the Minister to know that and to treat the Committee with the respect it should be given and make funds available to it. Mr Young —I saw Don Dobie's how to vote card, and you are not on it. Mr SHIPTON —I am sure I have the utmost confidence of the Whip. The Minister is interjecting as to who may or may not be on the Committee. I understand that the Government has decided its members. That process has not been decided in the Opposition. The Minister's anticipation will be rewarded in due course when the Party decides through the ballot system. We do not have these factional problems. We have a free and fair ballot in our Party. We are members of the coalition. Members of the Liberal Party can vote for people with individual ideas and initiative, and we do not cut them off at the socks. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member is wandering a little in relevance from the motion before the House. Mr SHIPTON —I am being greatly provoked, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Young —John Spender wants to introduce ballots. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I request the Minister to cease interjecting. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister needs bringing to order. I come to my final point. I understand that Senator Sibraa will be nominated by the Government as Chairman of that Committee. Whilst I condemn the Government for its disgraceful conduct in the strongest possible terms regarding the honourable member for Hawker, I put on record that I think that Senator Sibraa has served that Committee well. He served as a Deputy Chairman when I was Chairman of it. I think that he will serve the Committee well and with dignity, and I commend the Government for that decision. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.13) —The only thing I wanted to say on this notice of motion was that I hope the outline as given is not interpreted as diminishing the right of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to take to itself matters for investigation which it decides upon. There are a couple of words near the end of the notice of motion which could give that impression. From memory, it says 'seeking to avoid duplication', or something like that. If the Committee, having considered that problem, still came to the view, despite the fact that some other body was looking at a particular subject, that it was right and proper for the Committee to look at the subject, it should have the right to go ahead and do so. As other speakers have said, this is a very highly regarded committee of the Parliament, not only within this country but also overseas. It has produced some outstanding reports under the chairmanship of various political persuasions. It prides itself on its independence and on its capacity to get the job done. I would like to add my support to the point of view of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), that funds should be available from time to time to the Committee to enable it to conduct its business and to allow it to bring to Australia people who can make a significant contribution to the deliberations of the Committee, because in this way a wide representation of members of the Parliament have access to high quality information-if necessary in camera, but mostly in public. This Committee has a solid reputation and I believe it would be added to if further resources were made available to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building, which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or (b) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and (d) 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (7) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (8) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (11) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (12) That 5 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (13) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairmen whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote. (14) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (16) That any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House. (18) That the foregoing provision of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(6.15) —I support the creation of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. It has been a good one and it has played a very useful role. I think that the individual contributions made by members on both sides of the House on this Committee have done much to improve the quality of the building. One's mind goes to the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), for example, who has played a major role in the creation of a child care centre in the new Parliament. Whether one agrees with it or not, it shows the influence that individual members of this House can have with regard to the content and the purpose of the building. It should be pointed out to the House at this stage that this Committee is in fact the client of the architect. It is the representative of the Parliament in its dealings with the Parliament House Construction Authority, so ably administered and so effective in its management. I therefore believe that this Committee should be taken most seriously by this House and particularly by those who serve on it. It is not a Committee on which one serves just in order to say that one has served on a committee. There are real roles for it to play. It has had to accept the problem of the increased Parliament. I say to those parties which supported the increased Parliament, namely the Australian Labor Party and the National Party, that they got in just in time. If it had been six months later it would have cost a fortune to have had the new Parliament House changed to meet the services and provide accommodation for the increased numbers of members of parliament. It should be said now in this Parliament that this will probably be the last time such a committee will be so formed. Mr Young —That we shall be on, anyhow. Mr DOBIE —I do not know whether the honourable member will be the Minister. We will see what happens in time. Hopefully, by the time the next Parliament starts-we can only beg that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) goes his full term and is not threatened by the Australian Democrats or the New Zealanders-this Committee should not exist. In the next Parliament, the new Parliament House should be fact. The membership of the Committee is significant. There are areas the members have to look at which were not covered in the terms. For example, as I have mentioned here previously, I believe that the area of Canberra under the authority of the Construction Authority should be moved out to State Circle, if only for the reason of stopping the National Capital Development Commission in a few years time putting some hideous car park in the area which presently is under its control and not under the control of the Construction Authority. This is a real problem because with millions having been spent on aspects, on the gardens, on the approaches and on the architecture of the place, we still have the possibility, if this Parliament does not expand that area under the control of the Authority, of the National Capital Development Commission deciding to do as it will with the creation of car park facilities within the area of the new Parliament House. While I was a member of the last Committee, I decided-it was a decision of the Committee-not to raise it as a full matter in this House. I was disappointed that it was not discussed by the Committee, despite assurances given to me that it would be discussed. I mention now that I believe the area that should be under the control of the Construction Authority of this, supposedly the last parliamentary Committee to be connected with it, should be expanded to State Circle, for many reasons; not merely because of the car park situation. I think we should be very much aware that no building, perhaps in the history of the world, has had such detailed consultation between its architects, its clients and its occupants. The degree of preparation and the degree of co-operation has been quite staggering and, certainly, remarkable. I am pleased to say that the Fraser Government handed it over to the Hawke Government ahead of schedule and on budget. I am pleased to say that recent inquiries I have made show that the present Government has maintained that record. Despite the disastrous strike, I am led to believe it is still on time and, according to the Authority, it is still within budget. There are points for this House to consider during this Thirty-fourth Parliament. I hope this Committee, which will be an invention of this House, will take it to heart; will realise that it has extra responsibilities which go beyond political and party political bounds. The new Parliament House is going to be one of the great buildings of the world. It is excitingly referred to in international architectural circles in very much the same way as the Sydney Opera House is discussed. I think we in this House sometimes overlook that fact. We see it as a place where we are going to work, but the fascinating thing is that in international architectural circles this building is regarded as one of major achievement, and I think we should be aware of that fact. I am delighted to say that, if one has had some influence on some things, one is the fact that the very chair in which you sit, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be taken to the new Parliament House. For a long time that was not to be the case, and I am glad I had something to do with that. I am delighted also to say that in the new Parliament House there will be a section devoted to and furnished with furniture from the 1927 period, when we came into this building. That was something I had something to do with and something which was not going to take place. I mention that, not for any sense of what I have done on the Committee, but to say that those who serve on this Committee in the Thirty-fourth Parliament have an individual role and duty to perform on this Committee to ensure not only that there is a nice place for us to go to, but also that the parliamentary process itself is maintained for the 300 years for which this building is being constructed. I strongly support the creation of the Committee, which I shall be nominating for again. As with the previous speaker, I hope I am on my own ticket for that one as well. Mr Shipton —We have just done a deal; we are on each other's ticket. Mr DOBIE —He said it, I did not. I hope the Committee proceeds successfully and in a challenging manner, fully appreciative of the very high professional skills which we are privileged to have bringing it all into effect. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.24) —I wish to comment briefly on the establishment of this Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who spoke before me, is well known for his continuing interest, and particularly for the expertise he brings to particular areas of the Committee's activities. He has been very much involved in the selection and programming of the acquisition of art works for the new Parliament. He has brought very considerable skill to the new building and will bring great credit in the expertise he has been able to use in this area. The important matter I want to refer to is the way in which the Committee, during the last Parliament, undertook through a sub-committee to look at the future role of the old parliamentary building-this building-and the use to which it will be put in the future and the way in which, in any development of the new Parliament House, this building will remain. There were important recommendations dealing with the future of the building and its retention; recommendations as to the future use to which this building can be put. A number of constructive suggestions flowed from the Committee's recommendations, including its use as a form of constitutional museum and also its possible use for displaying parliamentary works of art that might not be suitable for display in the new Parliament House. As the honourable member for Cook has correctly identified, the siting of the building is important to members of this Parliament and the fitting out of the building is important to us, but the wider area is also a very important matter to be addressed. Of course, if this building were to be demolished by the will of some authority-perhaps the National Capital Development Commission-acting on its own volition, without supervision from some committee such as the parliamentary committee on the new Parliament House, I think that would be a matter which would be of very considerable concern. Yet, in the first place the recommendations which came forward from the NCDC in terms of planning were for the demolition of this building. Later, when it recognised that there was a change of view of members of parliament and a concern about the building being kept for its historic place in the development of this nation, it came forward with proposals to remove the newer parts and to go back to the 1927 model; such that the prime ministerial wing, the presidential suite on the Senate side and the offices on the extremities of the building would be demolished, without recognising the place those parts of the building have played in its evolution over time. I know that many members of the Committee were very, very concerned to see that this building be retained. As the honourable member for Cook has mentioned, it is the wider area of the Parliament and the setting of the Parliament in which it is important for honourable members to have an interest. It was very much by accident, I think, that the honourable member for Cook discovered that the NCDC was planning car parks quite close to the parliamentary building, in addition to the car parks that were being planned- Mr Dobie —To park 2,000 cars, what is more. Mr RUDDOCK —As he mentions, of the order of 2,000 vehicles would perhaps be in view of the major verandahs and so on of the Parliament. Part of its significant aspect would be very likely detracted from quite considerably. Yet there was some rigidity when questions were put in relation to that matter-that one ought not be surprised that there might be a need for additional car parking close to the Parliament, or that perhaps more trees could be planted to deal with the problem; rather than asking whether the client might have an interest in that area. That was a very important question to be addressed. I think it was very much to the credit of the honourable member that he was able to raise those matters in context. The final point I make is that very often those involved in the design and construction of a building such as the new Parliament House see their role as being very much one of creating a new design and constructing a building about which they know far more than the clients themselves, the people who will live in it, as to what is really needed. It is important that members of the Parliament who have had the experience of working in this place give their experience and ensure that their views are taken into account during the development of the building. This Committee will be the vehicle by which those views can be taken into account. Rather than sit back afterwards and ask how something could have been done in such a way without accommodating the things members think are important, we should take an interest in the activities of this important Committee. Members ought to take an interest in finding out what is involved through the reports themselves so that they can acquaint members of the Committee with the issues that they think are important. All too often I have seen honourable members surprised to find out at a later point in time that certain decisions have been taken in relation to either this building or the new Parliament House and wondering why those recommendations have gone ahead as they have without their views being accommodated. This Committee needs to be seen as the vehicle by which their views can be fully understood and taken into account at the earliest possible stage. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.32) —I have a strong belief that the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House should look at the provision within the new Parliament House of a non-denominational chapel. I understand that there is to be what is called a quiet room, but I do not think that that has the same significance for people. I recognise there are within the Parliament people of different faiths and people with no faith at all, but I think it would add a great deal to the Parliament as a whole if there were within the building a consecrated non-denominational chapel for those who wish to take advantage of it. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(6.33) —It is interesting that the debate on the new Parliament House seems to have attracted more speakers and more lengthy debate than any other subject. I suppose that is because members of the Parliament take a very proprietary interest in the subject of the Parliament, present and future, and also things to do with the Parliament. I will not canvass issues covered by other speakers but there is one aspect I would like to raise for the future consideration of the Leader of the House (Mr Young). Much has been said this afternoon about the role of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House in relation to certain planning for the new building. When I served in the other place I had the privilege of playing some role on the Committee in that planning. It was in connection with that that a matter arose last year. The Leader of the House will recall that this Committee had to consider suggestions relating to some modifications to this building. It was required that they go to the Committee for recommendation and report to the Parliament. Of course, any modification to this building required a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. The motion setting up the Committee refers to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 and directs the Committee to consider and report on matters coming before it within the terms of that section that might be referred to it by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 or by resolution of either House of the Parliament. In that context a matter arose last year that I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the Leader of the House at this stage because in the future thinking-perhaps immediate future thinking-of this Committee there will be a matter that very deeply concerns me in relation to what will be the new Parliament House, the present Parliament House and the Parliamentary Triangle. Unlike the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), I think that there could well be an ongoing role for this Committee and possibly an expanded role at present, although I do not think it would necessarily be very active in an expanded role. However, I do think that the role is important, and that is the matter of the surveillance of activities and suggestions by the National Capital Development Commission in relation to the Parliamentary Triangle. When I was involved in a gathering last year which had nothing to do with this place, I was startled to be informed that a new archives building was to be built next to the National Library, that is, within the Parliamentary Triangle. Mr Young —That is Burley Griffin's original concept. Mrs SULLIVAN —I will come to that. I was unaware, and I soon discovered other members of the Parliament who are interested in what happens in these areas were unaware, that an archives building had been approved. On investigation I came across several reports and suggestions from the NCDC, the most recent of which contained quite detailed plans for a very large number of buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle. This Parliament has approved certain buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle-buildings that now exist-but it has approved no others. Nevertheless, when one goes through the history of plans for the Parliamentary Triangle one finds that at different times the NCDC has come up with different schemes. The last time a scheme that included multiple buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle went before the Parliament for debate it was resoundingly rejected. I do not say that decision holds for all time; it is possible that a future parliament might determine otherwise. The Parliamentary Triangle is as relevant to the new House as it is to the present House and I do not think it can be removed from considerations. I discovered that the present NCDC plan, which has never come before this Parliament, includes multiple buildings and part of the justification is that it was in Burley Griffin's original design. That is interesting and Burley Griffin's reasons for putting those buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle are probably worthy of debate if a future determination is to be made on this matter. But this point is not sufficient justification in itself because the Parliament has from time to time rejected that notion and the NCDC has been required to draw up different plans. On further investigation I was informed that the NCDC recommended to a Fraser Cabinet that the archives building be built in the Parliamentary Triangle in the present proposed position. That Cabinet rejected the recommendation; it did not proceed. I am informed-the Leader of the House can tell me if I am incorrect-that after the election of the present Government the NCDC re-presented that recommendation to the Hawke Cabinet and it was approved. I am not trying to play any party politics. I am just saying that that is a case where a government had said no and a new government was elected so the NCDC had another go-apparently in this case successfully. I was told that it was because of that Cabinet decision in favour of the proposal that the archives proposal will go ahead. The person who told me that did so in all good faith, believing that that was all that was required. By my understanding, that is not so. My understanding is that no building can go in the Parliamentary Triangle without resolution of the Houses of Parliament. I hope I am correct in that. I believe I am correct; I am afraid time has not allowed me this afternoon to go out and get that Act of Parliament and check it. It occurs, therefore, in that context that neither we as a parliament nor the Government has at the moment any filtering mechanism for any such proposals that would very deeply concern members of this Parliament. Mr Ruddock —The Australian Capital Territory Committee looked at that. Mrs SULLIVAN —The honourable member for Dundas indicates that the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has looked at that. I am aware that that Committee can be active in these things but the point I make is that I do not think that it is the most appropriate committee. The Committee we are discussing now is the most appropriate committee to deal with matters relating to, for example, the Parliamentary Triangle. We now have a committee which is concerned with the issue of Parliament House and its precincts and I believe that it would be useful for all governments to utilise a parliamentary committee as a filtering mechanism, for recommendations such as these that must come before the Parliament for resolution of both Houses, as I am sure it was very useful to the Government last year to put recommended changes to this building to the New Parliament House Committee to get recommendations to the Houses of Parliament for a vote and a resolution. I think that could be a very important future function of the Committee, an important present function too as issues arise, but one that ought to be important for all time. I think this Committee on the New Parliament House has built up a great deal of expertise specifically on this subject. It would be a very good idea to keep that expertise with a committee that had that as a primary responsibility. In all sincerity I make that suggestion to the Minister for his consideration. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.41) —I do not want to delay the House either because I have more interest than most others in getting the business through. I just wish to say to a couple of honourable members who have spoken that I think their input, in terms of 'parliamentary input' to the decisions made in relation to the new Parliament, is singularly important. I think the decision made by the Parliament to go to Capital Hill, after long years of wrangling as to where the new Parliament ought to be built, is the correct one. I say to the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) that the suggestion about the Australian Archives Building has been around for quite some time. If she looks at the original drawings of Burley Griffin she will see that it certainly was in the area adjacent to the National Library. Mrs Sullivan —Not specifically the Archives building. Mr YOUNG —No, not specifically, but another public building. A number of things have to be taken into account in the Australian Capital Territory. Obviously the Committee or the Parliament can look at them. One of these things, of course, is the sort of expertise that is acquired in the building industry in the construction of national buildings in succession, such as the new Parliament House, the National Library, the High Court of Australia and the Australian National Gallery. A skilled workforce is thereby maintained; there are not these lapses when we let workers go and then try to get them back when we start another building. The other important feature to the visitors to Canberra, when we are talking about the Parliamentary Triangle, is that if we have these buildings spaced all over the place we are then talking about transport. The estimate is that something like 6,000 or 7,000 people per day will visit Canberra when the new Parliament House is opened in 1988. These figures are based on the number of people who are now visiting the High Court, the National Gallery, the National Library and this Parliament. We are talking about a lot of people who will just be wandering around this Parliamentary Triangle. I think the maximum utilisation of that area is enormously important. Certainly the matter which the honourable member has raised is something which the Government and all honourable members ought to take into account when these matters are considered. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including: (a) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Commission; (b) the provision of ''free'' radio time for political messages during election periods; (c) the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 concerning the defamation of candidates for election; (d) tax deductibility of political donations; and (e) the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other territories are entitled. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the Committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee, not being members of the sub-committee, may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of- (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (15) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (16) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee report as soon as possible. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.44) —The Opposition approves of the establishment of the proposed Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Those members of Parliament who were members of that Committee during the last session worked very hard. There were some disagreements with some of the propositions that finally were agreed upon. At this stage I only want to say to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that we do not want to see a repetition of this week's performance where we had alterations to the Standing Orders before the Procedure Committee was set up. I hope that we do not have any introduction of any changes or suggested changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act before the Select Committee has had a chance to do its work properly. I think it is a most important committee. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not seek to override-- Mr Young —I cannot commit the Government, but that is my personal view. Mr MacKELLAR —That is the Minister's personal view. Fine. I just make the point that it is a committee of great importance to all members of parliament. We look forward to its working and we look forward to the Government considering very carefully its recommendations. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.46) —I am very pleased to find that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is being carried on. I take this opportunity of congratulating its previous Chairman for the very individualistic and efficient manner in which he carried out his duties. I am sure that the enjoyment that all honourable members had in serving on that Committee was in no small way due to the quality and friendliness of that chairmanship. However, I also take this opportunity of refuting some of the quite misleading statements that have been made by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in relation to the origin of the proposal to increase the size of parliament. The Minister continues deliberately to mislead this House in this matter. Apparently he is ashamed of his support and his Party's support of the increase which has taken place. I thought that he would let this matter rest, having been party to debates previously where I have taken the time to refute his misleading and quite disreputable references to this matter. However, on Monday of this week, in reply to an interjection he again made the assertion that I, the member for Boothby, had been responsible for bringing this matter to a conclusion. He said on Monday, in reply to an interjection from an honourable member from Queensland: If the honourable member reads Hansard he will find that the honourable member for Boothby was the first person to mention that we should increase the number of members in this Parliament. Of course I deny that absolutely. It is deliberately misleading and it is irresponsible. I know that the Minister has had long training now in misleading this House, in misleading his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to matters of national security and in misleading authorities and falsely filling out Customs forms, but I do not appreciate his continual misleading of this House about the origin of this matter. He would know, and the House should again know, that when this Committee was set up in the initial stages I moved an amendment to the effect that the matter of the size of the Parliament should be included in the terms of reference. I make no secret of the fact that that was moved at the insistence of the then Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Hon. Doug Anthony. It was moved without making any reference to the desirability of an increase in the size of parliament. When the Committee was set up and I served on it, as the Chairman of the Committee well knows, I vigorously and continuously resisted any moves to increase the size of parliament. When the matter came up before this House as a substantive debate the legislation included a Bill to increase the size of parliament. I opposed it and took up over nine columns of Hansard in my opposition to it. That debate, which took place on 15 November 1983, is available for all honourable members to peruse. As I have said, the remarks I made in opposing the proposition took up nine columns of Hansard. That followed the dissenting report which I submitted to the Joint Committee's conclusions about this matter. I do not suppose that anyone will get the Minister to tell the truth about this matter. He will continue, no doubt, in his most irresponsible way, with his long-standing attitude of deception, to mislead the House and others and to purvey this nonsense. However, my position stands on record. I simply refer the House to it at this time. I hope that the Committee continues to do its useful work. I look forward to its findings on the informal votes, which created so much publicity after the last Federal election. I am sure that the surprise which the Minister feigned after the election will be confirmed simply to be a political response to what he knows took place at that election when a large section of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party voted against it on the basis of that section's opposition to the question of the development of nuclear energy and the sale of Australian uranium. Be that as it may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to refute what the Minister knows to be a deliberate deception that he continues to practise about this matter. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(6.50) —I want to make a few comments following the comments made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I do not share his disappointment in the larger Parliament; I certainly welcome it. In fact, my presence in this Parliament is due to the increase in numbers and the creation of the electorate of Streeton. I want to comment very briefly on the high informal vote that was recorded at the recent election. No doubt it is something that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform will have to look at. The high informal vote in my own electorate of Streeton, and the electorate of Casey, robbed me of an absolute majority, something which I have never faced before. That disappointed me. More importantly, the former member for Casey, Mr Pete Steedman, was robbed of that seat by the informal vote. The reason he is not present in this chamber is not that he was rejected by the people of Casey, but that he did not receive the intended vote from those who wished to see him returned to this place. Unless an electoral system genuinely reflects the will of the electorate, there are faults in it. Those faults must be redressed by this Committee. With an informal vote approaching 10 per cent-in my own electorate it was 7.9 or 8 per cent, which is well above the long term average of 2 1/2 per cent-something is surely wrong with the system and must be redressed. Another point I hope the Committee will look at is the matter of mobile booths, which I do not think were used extensively enough. Being a potential member of this Committee, I will raise this matter in full. I wanted to mention these matters as an indication of what should arise. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.52) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, greeted me as I approached the dispatch box with the words 'no adjournment'. I will be brief, but if I did not comment at this time about the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I feel I would not be frankly discharging my duty. One of the functions of the Committee is to inquire into and report upon the legislation governing and the operation of the Australian Electoral Commission. My remarks will be brief and to the point. I express gross dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Australian Electoral Commission conducted the redistribution last year and in particular the redistribution in Tasmania, even after it had amended its original proposal. Whilst we went into the legislation in the hope and expectation that electoral redistribution would be fair, I think there are aspects of this legislation that need to be seriously looked at. The first point I put to the Minister is that I hope that the Committee will look at the question of the appeal from Caesar unto Caesar which follows the original outlining of electoral redistribution proposals. One goes before an augmented Commission but the majority of members sitting on that Commission in what is literally an appeal procedure are those who have already made the first recommendation. It is an impossible situation, I have to say bluntly, having appeared before that augmented Electoral Commission, to argue that it was wrong when the majority of people sitting there, before whom one is appearing, are the people who have made the very decision about which one is objecting. One cannot be judge in one's own cause. Dr Klugman —You cannot have been much good. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member says that I cannot have been much good. When this sort of comment appears in the Hobart Mercury from a life member of the Australian Labor Party and a former endorsed Australian Labor candidate for the Tasmanian House of Assembly election, I think even the Minister should think about it. This was this person's reaction to the redistribution when it was announced: This has been a shonky move by the Federal Government to gain more Labor seats. Hodgman looks like copping the brunt of it . . . When one sees a situation where, as a matter of law, there was no need to change any boundary in Tasmania, I have to ask the question: Why were the boundaries changed? According to the provisions of section 25S of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and particularly at section 25S sub-section 3 (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) and (v), in each case, as a matter of law, the Electoral Commission's original proposals were other than in compliance with the provisions of the Act. There is no right to challenge that as a matter of law. There is grave legal doubt even whether a prerogative writ would lie to challenge what the Electoral Commission has done. I express my dissatisfaction not only with the original proposals of the Electoral Commission, but also quite frankly with the manner in which the Electoral Commission conducted the 'appeal hearings'. I do not believe that the hearings were fair and I do not believe that justice was done. I take it no further than to say to the Minister that when members of his own Party in Tasmania regarded the redistribution as 'hot', when I have taken off me a part which has now gone to the electorate of Franklin which will grow by 2,300 over the next three years and I am given a new section which will grow by 230, on the Commission's own statistics it is clear that in three years time the boundaries of Denison will have to be moved south again. The question therefore was: 'Why did the Commission change the boundaries of Denison for one election' I do not need to answer that question, the answer is in the Minister's eyes. As I said on television last year on 1 December: 'You had the chance of a lifetime'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had a loaded shotgun which he cocked, he aimed-he took very careful aim-right at my stomach, pulled the trigger, and he missed. I can say- Mr Young —He should have pointed at the head. Mr HODGMAN —It was the chance of a lifetime. Perhaps if it had been the Minister, it would have been pointed at his mouth or at his Paddington Bear. I do not know. But there was the chance. Quite seriously, there are a number of very unhappy elements about the Australian Electoral Commission. I do not think it was fair, I do not think it was impartial and I do not think that it acted in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. I put it to the Minister bluntly that unless he wants to be immortalised as the Hon. Michael gerrymander Young, which is fast becoming his nickname, he should look very carefully at the Australian Electoral Commission and should at least ensure that the right of appeal is to people who have not already made the decision. I think even the Minister, on reflection, would agree that one cannot be judge in one's own cause. The present procedure is simply an appeal from Caesar unto Caesar, under the legislation that he put through this Parliament with the weight of the numbers of the Hawke socialist Government last year. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.58) —Madam Deputy Speaker, very briefly-- Mr Young —I move: That the question be put. Mr Hodgman —Put a hammer and sickle up there over the Speaker's chair. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not pass aspersions on the Speaker. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to assure you that I cast no aspersion on you as occupant of the chair, but I am saying this Minister might just as well put a hammer and sickle over the top of the chair, the way he carries on. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not make such remarks again while I am in the chair. Mr Young —I withdraw the motion because the honourable member says he wants to speak for one or two minutes. But I must say we have been going for two hours just setting up the committees. Members should be making their speeches at the committee and not here. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will be brief in accordance with my undertaking to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table. I get rare opportunities to express a view. The last election under the new Australian Electoral Commission, which was my tenth election, was the worst conducted election-I refer to the Electoral Office-that I have ever been through. The incompetence and inability of the Electoral Office to produce the material associated with elections such as postal votes, et cetera, were an appalling indictment upon those who set about systematically to sack or dismiss so many of the staff members of the former Australian Electoral Office and replace them with people who seemed to have backgrounds remotely associated with this type of work. I do not want to say too much more. Staff members of the former Electoral Office have made high-handed decisions. They have decided that every member of this Parliament is entitled to only one electoral roll. I believe in my heart that when the Government established the Electoral Commission it did not think for a moment that it was setting up another dictatorial, bureaucratic body in this country that would deprive members of material that was previously available to them to use in their work. I believe that the December election was the worst conducted election. Ironically, the electoral officers had more time in the lead-up to it than they had in previous elections, yet they botched it completely. Even out in the field, electoral officers were embarrassed by their ineptitude and inability to come across with the goods that were needed. I ask the Special Minister of State to take that matter on board because if nobody tells him about it he will never know. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes/discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the Australan Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons, purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above 'R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above 'R', subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above 'R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the committee report as soon as possible. (9) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (11) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(7.02) —The Opposition supports the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Video Classification. It is no credit to the Government that the motion has been moved today, because the Government has been particularly tardy in this matter. Nevertheless, it is better late than never and the Opposition wishes the Committee well in its worthwhile activities. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for inquiry and report: (a) the televising of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees in the present and the new Parliament House, and (b) the radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees including the continuous and simultaneous broadcasting of both Houses. (2) That the committee, for any purposes related to this inquiry, have power: (a) to appoint a sub-committee consisting of 2 or more Senators and 2 or more Members of the House of Representatives, 2 members of the sub-committee to form a quorum of the sub-committee; (b) to appoint the chairman of any sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of the sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of chairman at that meeting, and (c) to refer to such a sub-committee any matters into which the committee is instructed to inquire. (3) That a sub-committee appointed by the committee for any purposes related to this inquiry have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (4) That for any purposes related to this inquiry, the committee or any sub-committee have power: (a) to send for persons, papers and records, (b) to move from place to place, and (c) to consider and make use of any evidence and records of the committee appointed in the 33rd Parliament. (5) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (6) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (f) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (g) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (h) That the committee appoint a chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (i) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (m) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (n) That a sub-committee have the power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (p) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (q) That, in carrying out its duties the committee, or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (r) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(7.03) —The Opposition supports the motion to establish the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I must say at the outset that it is certainly no credit to the Government that this motion is before the House today. From the very beginning, the Government has actively opposed the establishment of a parliamentary committee to monitor the activities of the National Crime Authority, and it is to the everlasting shame of the Government that it has taken that attitude. One need only go back to the Senate debate when the proposal to establish the parliamentary committee was before it to see exactly how this came about. How true it is that the Government has actively opposed at every stage of proceedings the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee to monitor the activities of the National Crime Authority. The then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, speaking in the debate in the Senate when the proposal to establish a committee came before it, started his contribution on the proposal by saying that there were very real dangers in a Parliamentary Committee operating in this area. That is a view which the Government has maintained from that day to this. There was a momentary glimmer of hope when the then Attorney-General subsequently said that the proposal was remotely tolerable, but at the end of his contribution on the subject he stated: I indicate the quite strong opposition of the Government to any proposal for a Parliamentary Committee in this area. It is clear, therefore, beyond any argument whatsoever, that from the very beginning the Government has actively opposed the establishment of a parliamentary committee to monitor the activities of the Crime Authority, for the simple reason that it does not want those activities to be monitored, it does not want ordinary members of this Parliament-back benchers on both sides of the Parliament-to see the activities of the Authority and to ensure that the Authority is properly carrying out its functions. More to the point, I have recently discovered that it is the attitude of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that he does not want a committee for the simple reason that he does not want the Parliament to see his involvement with the National Crime Authority. I will come to that in a moment. Let me go on to say in support of the proposition I have put that from the time the National Crime Authority Bill was passed through the Parliament the Government has been particularly tardy in having this Committee established. On 19 October 1984 Senator Chaney pointed out in the Senate just how tardy the Government had been. Speaking of Senator Missen, Senator Chaney said: I express not only I think the regret that he would feel but also the regret of the whole Opposition that this aspect of the Crime Authority has been so tardy in being put into place. The Committee, as Senator Missen has said, will not be able to sit at all once the House of Representatives is dissolved. Hence we will have a very long delay in bringing this element of parliamentary scrutiny into effect. The Opposition regards that as a matter of very great regret and as being fairly typical of the lacklustre way that the Government has approached this whole question of dealing with organised crime. Senator Chaney said that on 19 October 1984, after the Bill had been passed by the Parliament in July 1984. So it can be safely said that for four or five months the Government did nothing except obstruct the establishment of this Parliamentary Committee. Having failed in its attempts to frustrate its establishment in the legislation, it then clearly set out on a long delaying program to prevent members from being appointed to the Committee. I have no doubt in saying that now that the Committee is being established, contrary to the strong opposition of the Government, the Government will do everything it can to frustrate the activities of the Committee. I urge honourable members on both sides of the House to ensure that the Minister is not able to achieve that objective. I will amplify that point by making my second principal point, which is that the Committee, now that it has been established, despite the strong opposition of the Government, will certainly have a lot to do. It will have a lot to do because the Opposition maintains, as it has maintained for many months, that the National Crime Authority, established as it is with the restrictions it has on its activities, is not a proper body in its present form to pursue properly and vigorously and with any confidence of success the very serious matters of organised crime that still exist in this country and which should be investigated vigorously and without restraint. As the Opposition said months ago, the National Crime Authority is subject to political control and I have no hesitation in saying that while the present Minister is in charge he will have no hesitation in limiting the activities of this Authority in an improper way. I know that they are strong words and I wish to underline them. I say that for this reason. For a long time the Opposition has maintained that the structure, under the National Crime Authority Act, of having references for which Ministers are primarily responsible being used as the vehicle for referring matters to the National Crime Authority is an inappropriate method of referring matters which the Authority should investigate. Mr Costigan pointed that out. He said that once we embark upon this path we will find that we fall foul of two propositions. One is that we will breach civil liberties and the second is that we will end up not referring specific criminal matters to the Authority to investigate. What has happened since Mr Costigan said that, when we said that and when it was said by everyone else who knew anything about the subject, is that those predictions have come true. I submit that the references that have been given by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to the National Crime Authority contain massive abuses of civil liberties and they are so wide that they will prevent the Authority from coming to grips with the real criminal issues. There are two vices, therefore, in the references that the Minister has given to the Authority. The first is that he has stumbled into the very trap that he was warned against. He is committing gross abuses of civil liberties, about which every member of this Parliament should be concerned. The second is that in the course of that stumbling exercise he has probably succeeded in referring nothing to the Crime Authority. That has a very serious consequence, namely, the criminal trail will go cold, people will vanish, assets will be moved overseas and the investigating authorities will never get to the bottom of a large number of very serious criminal activities that should be investigated. Let me amplify that. Although it has not been made public, the first reference given by the Minister-it was given on 19 October 1984-requires the National Crime Authority to investigate-mark these words: . . . the widespread financial and business activities . . . of a certain person, whose identity was communicated to me by the Authority . . . That is the matter that he has referred to the National Crime Authority. It is extraordinary that the Minister should direct the National Crime Authority to embark on such a fishing expedition. I hope that the Joint Committee will investigate this matter at its first opportunity. The Minister seems to want to turn the National Crime Authority into some sort of Star Chamber and direct it to inquire into matters that may have nothing to do with crime. The reference to which I have referred means that the National Crime Authority can use its coercive powers to roam at large through the financial and business affairs of this unnamed person, this certain person. It sounds like something out of Soviet Russia. The Authority is supposed to be investigating crime; it is not supposed to be investigating the financial and business affairs of people. I maintain that the Minister is abusing his powers by directing the Authority to go far beyond its proper role of investigating a specific criminal matter, which is what Costigan said should be investigated, what the Opposition said should be investigated and what everyone who knows anything about the subject has always said should be investigated. There are specific criminal issues. Assets are being moved overseas. Probably millions of dollars are being moved overseas due to the inactivity of this Government. But the Minister is not saying investigate that specific criminal issue which must be investigated; he is saying investigate the widespread financial and business activities of a certain person whose name has been communicated to him. I believe it is a grave abuse of civil liberties for a Minister to direct a statutory authority to go beyond its real functions in this manner. But, of course, the direction by the Minister goes further. It requires an investigation not only of this unnamed person but also of associated persons and companies. By that direction, I presume that what is meant is that any person, any individual, who has associated with the unnamed person, or any company which has associated with that person, should likewise be investigated. As I have said, this is the first trap that the Minister has fallen into. I hope this Committee will investigate exactly what he has done in this matter. We believe he has committed a massive abuse of civil liberties. The second defect, the second vice, is that, having committed this massive abuse of civil liberties, he is not even aiming at the target that has to be investigated. As I have said, the Government was warned by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union that the process now being used, because it was written into the legislation, was full of difficulties. The first reference that the Minister has given and to which I have referred shows just how right Mr Costigan was in arguing against this system of references to the Crime Authority using the Inter-Governmental Committee. As we see from this particular case, if such a system is used, it is clearly quite impossible to specify precisely what the criminal matter is and what the National Crime Authority is supposed to be investigating. What needs to be investigated are the specific matters that Mr Costigan said should be taken over the National Crime Authority. I refer to specific criminal investigations. They are not being pursued as a result of these references. This can be achieved by identifying and referring to the National Crime Authority all the matters which Mr Costigan recommended should be referred. Frankly, the system which the Government insists on using has the risk that a court will probably say that what the Minister has done is to give a reference which is so wide, so vague and so all embracing that he probably has not referred a specific criminal matter to the Authority for investigation at all. By the time that has been up and down the courts over the next few years, what will happen to the criminal trail? It will have gone cold and assets will have been moved overseas. People will have either vanished or removed themselves overseas-- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(7.15) —I was making the point that, using the system the Government is insisting on, will result, clearly, in years of legal activity because the almost certain result is that a court will say that nothing has been referred to the National Crime Authority which it has power to investigate. What that means is that the criminal trail will go cold, people will disappear, witnesses will not be available, assets in evidence will have been dissipated and the very serious criminal issues which should now have been well under investigation by the National Crimes Commission which the previous Government wanted to establish will never be investigated properly. Twelve months from now we will be saying that the National Crime Authority established by this Government has not been responsible for any prosecutions in any of these very serious criminal matters. As I have said, the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority will certainly have a lot of work to do and it could do a lot worse than to make its first area of inquiry this first reference by the Minister because it is a shameful exercise and shows, as we have said from the outset, that with this Government, using its methods and its mechanism through the National Crime Authority, it is a complete waste of time and is working contrary to the pursuance of criminal matters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(7.16) —in reply-It had not been my intention to debate these matters because we are merely setting up the committees. It is a great pity that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), who has returned to this House after three, four or however many years, is so much in the dark about the operations of the National Crime Authority. Over the past few months, since he has known that he was coming back, he has been putting out Press statements saying how acquainted he is with the National Crime Authority Act and what he thinks should happen. I know that he is a Queen's Counsel, which impresses us all; but the fact is that he is not quite as eminent in the law as some of the people who are serving on the National Crime Authority. He said: 'The Minister dreamt up a reference and passed it on to the National Crime Authority and the Authority can do nothing with it because it is such a useless reference'. Of course, the first thing to say about this is that the National Crime Authority is not the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Everything that was handed to the Government by the Costigan Royal Commission was in fact, in turn, handed over to the National Crime Authority to act upon in the way that it saw fit. I also add-we have been very careful about this-that the matters that have been sought by the National Crime Authority in the form of a reference have not been made public. That is another attitude that the Government takes. The honourable member talks about civil liberties. I am on record on two occasions on the subject of the setting up of a parliamentary committee. If honourable members look at some of the earlier debates about the setting up of the parliamentary committee they will see that it was fairly gung ho stuff. Some of the parliamentarians from the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats wanted to set themselves up as some sort of police force to go running around the country as if they were going to gather evidence and start prosecuting. That does not seem to me to be the role of a parliamentarian. It is no wonder that some of us were apprehensive about what was seen as the role of a joint parliamentary committee written into the National Crime Authority Act. However, I must say that I have changed my mind on it. I think there is a proper role for a committee to work with the National Crime Authority, to monitor its activities. I do not think that any of its activities should be hidden. I think many things should be kept confidential. Perhaps the honourable member does not believe in that. He perhaps thinks that people should be found guilty by the newspapers before they go to trial. I do not happen to share his view. I turn specifically to the question of the references. Of the four references granted by the Commonwealth, three derive directly from the Costigan Royal Commission. All four have been sought by the National Crime Authority. The Commonwealth has not given any of the references to the National Crime Authority. Each and every one of them has been sought by the National Crime Authority itself in the manner in which it felt it could continue its work. Some of the people who work on the National Crime Authority, if they are not better versed in law than the honourable member for Menzies, are at least his equal. He should have some respect for them. Mr N. A. Brown —Will you table the references? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies will cease his constant interjections across the table, or I will deal with him. Mr YOUNG —The stupidity of asking us to table the references! Does the honourable member for Menzies want a parliamentary National Times where everything comes out and we print the names of everybody who might be involved in the references? That will not happen under this Government. I think this Committee has an extremely important role to play. I think also that the honourable member for Menzies has a role to play. The first thing he ought to do is have a yarn with Justice Don Stewart so that he can understand the National Crime Authority. The honourable member will really make an idiot of himself if he continues in the vein in which he started tonight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to the following Committees: Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, Senators Coleman and Watson; Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Senators Cooney, Georges, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Maguire and Watson; and Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Senators Foreman, Jones and Sheil. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That standing order 25 (Standing Orders Committee) be suspended for the remainder of this session. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.22) —Canberra is a nice, quiet, pleasant spot. One gets out of bed and reads the papers. All of a sudden I decided today to read the Canberra Times. I am not afraid of criticising anybody, because everybody seems to have a fair go at me. Mr McGauran —They do. Mr GOODLUCK —That is right. I will not cry tonight, like many other people. I was astounded that there was an article in the Canberra Times written by a lady by the name of Beverley Miller. I have nothing against the reporter. Apparently she is a stringer for the Canberra Times and she wrote it from Hobart. She is a reporter with the Hobart Mercury. On the second page of the Canberra Times is the headline 'Phase II' of the 'battle for the Franklin'. The article is all about our friend, Dr Bob Brown. Again, he is arranging his publicity program away from Hobart, preparing the Australian Capital Territory for the entry of Bob Brown. Bob Brown intends to come up here to tell the people of Australia that again they need to do something to look after the Wilderness Society in Tasmania. It was astounding to read the article and discover that Bob Brown is going to come to Canberra to persuade the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to change his mind about the Government's management plan. He is going to talk to the Government and to that fellow in the Senate, Don Chipp. He has certainly changed since he left these benches. Bob Brown will try to influence the Government and Senator Chipp with respect to a particular committee that was set up by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). The management plan would have the Premier of Tasmania as chairman of the ministerial council. That is what the article is all about. Of course, the Premier of a State should be the chairman. He is the one who will be held responsible. He was the one elected by the people of Tasmania to look after the people of Tasmania. It was not Dr Brown and his cronies from the Wilderness Society, not some of those who came to Tasmania- Mr John Brown —Hey, listen! I am on that Committee. Be careful how you talk about it. Mr GOODLUCK —I know that the Minister is on that committee. He appointed that committee. I think it was a dashed good thing that he did. I applauded him the other day in a motion of which I gave notice, but a lot of people would not have understood what I was talking about when I praised the Hawke Government- Mr McGauran —That often happens with you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Franklin needs protection from the honourable member for Gippsland, I will give it to him. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. They are a bit rough tonight. I applauded that committee because for once we have taken the initiative away from the conservationists. We have taken the initiative away from Dr Brown and his cronies who were going to do so much for Tasmania. They were going to provide so many industries and were going to do this and open up that, but nothing at all has been done because they are a selfish, rotten lot. They wanted the Wilderness Society- Mr Chynoweth —That is not right. Mr GOODLUCK —No, it is good enough. The honourable member for Dunkley does not know the names they have called me. It was good enough for those selfish 200-odd people who went down to the Franklin over Christmas, but the good people of Tasmania, the ordinary working people of Tasmania, do not have the opportunity to go into that wilderness because they cannot afford to join the Society and do not have the right to go there. All of a sudden, we discover that a thermal power plant is to be constructed in Tasmania. There has not been a word from the conservationists about the construction of a dirty, rotten thermal power plant. There has not been a word from the conservationists about it, because they wanted the wilderness for themselves. They were not interested in the future of Tasmania. They were not interested in another power plant that was to provide an economic base for the future of Tasmania. They just wanted the wilderness for themselves. Now Bob Brown is coming to Canberra. The article in the Canberra Times says that he is folklore in Tasmania. He is not folklore in Tasmania at all. He has ruined Tasmania just like that Sanders who will come into the Senate in July. They are the fellows who will have on their heads- Mr N. A. Brown —On their consciences. Mr GOODLUCK —As the shadow Minister said, they will have it on their consciences. It will be on their heads because their schemes are doomed to failure from the beginning. But they belong to a selfish group and are interested only in their own little nests. They are interested only in what they want and are not interested in the future of Tasmania and the ordinary people of Tasmania. I am ashamed too that some of the Labor people on the opposite side who always say that they care for the worker, the poor, and the underprivileged have supported this group. This fellow, Bob Brown, will come here tomorrow for such support. He will try to con Labor members once again to support his movement. He reckons he got Labor into government at the election before last. He reckons he is the one who got Labor in. He will try to con the government again. I only hope to God that the Minister is aware of what he is like and will have the fortitude to stand up and say: 'Look, we will not be influenced by this lobby. We will not be influenced into changing direction'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(7.27) —I wish to discuss the importance of Federal and State governments working together for the benefit of this nation. In my State of Victoria, this partnership has been vital in the resurgence of Victoria's economy. The results speak for themselves. More than 100,000 jobs have been created. Days lost due to industrial disputations have declined by 80 per cent. Housing approvals have increased by 50 per cent over the last three years. The figures demonstrate a turnaround in Victoria, one that has its origins in the close working relationship that Victoria and Canberra have with each other. For our part, the Hawke Labor Government has set the national scene for the recovery. In 1983, all sections of the economy were brought together to form a common purpose and a common goal. That purpose, of course, was the reconstruction and the recovery of the Australian economy. The Victorian Government, over its three year term, has worked diligently to assist us in this task. The Cain Government has restructured the public sector to make it more accountable to the community so that each tax dollar is spent more efficiently and wisely. Diversion of funds into employment generating capital works has had a significant effect in Victoria. The formation of an industrial relations task force has been another outstanding innovation. The task force, comprising of officers who have a solid industrial background, has the responsibility to seek out industrial trouble spots and to assist in the resolution of problems by bringing together both sides in the conflict. The result of this action has been a decline by 80 per cent in the number of days lost due to industrial disputation. This is quite a remarkable achievement. It has greatly assisted us in our task of restoring business confidence. Without a doubt, it has contributed to a Victorian growth rate which is higher than the national rate. A major project of the Cain Government over the last three years has been its investigation of the economic strengths and weaknesses of the State. From this has come an economic strategy for the next ten years. The strategy seeks to develop the comparative strengths of Victoria, to achieve more employment growth and to improve the living standards for all Victorians. The development of our brown coal, our oil reserves in Bass Strait, our tourism and an agricultural base form an important part of this strategy. It is a blueprint for Victoria's development that will work well with our national policies. Premier Cain and his Ministers must be applauded for their foresight. The alternative government in Victoria has no such policies. Its policies seems to have been made on the run. It has promised to spend an extra $731m, yet it is going to cut State taxes and charges by $441. Mr Kennett has not told the public where he will find the $200m he would need to carry out this program. Mr Kennett's public sector policy is equally ill-conceived. He would cut the Public Service by 3.5 per cent each year, or 13 per cent over a four-year term. Despite those cuts, he has promised to increase the number of nurses and police in the State. Where is all this money coming from? Mr Kennett's youth employment scheme is equally unworkable. It seeks to cut youth wages by 50 per cent. The effect of this policy would be to depress the spending power of a whole generation of young people and give employers a weapon to use against other workers. Far from increasing employment, Mr Kennett's youth employment scheme, together with the other policies I have mentioned, would work against recovery and discriminate against young people in society. I have no doubt that Victorians will not support these policies and will return a government that has a proven record of achievements, one that is able to work with the national government in its task of achieving recovery and a more equitable society for all Australians. While I am on my feet, I mention the fact that my friend Bruce over there has mentioned that the Franklin Dam did not have an effect on the election. He has only to ask Peter Reith, sitting on his back bench, whether it affected him or not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows the custom of referring to members by their electorates. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I have allowed him, in the spirit he was presenting it, to do what he has done. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.32) —I draw the attention of the Parliament this evening to the very severe economic problems being encountered by that part of my electorate known as Gippsland East due to the blinkered, narrow ideology of the State Government which has given way totally to Collins Street, high rise environmentalists, better known, in the colloquialism of the area, as greenies. The area I am speaking of encompasses towns such as Orbost, Cann River and, what is perhaps a more central Gippsland location, Heyfield. These areas are largely dependent on the timber industry for their very existence, let alone their viability and, to a lesser extent, on tourism. We have reached a ridiculous stage in East Gippsland whereby the true conservationists, namely, members of the timber industry- Government members-Oh! Mr McGAURAN —They are the true conservationists, because they rely on harvesting of raw materials for their very livelihood. If they were to destroy or weaken their harvests they would, of course, suffer economic loss. This attitude of squeezing the life out of East Gippsland is reflected in the State Government's attitude towards mountain cattlemen, who are true conservationists because they seek to care for the mountain highlands, and who are being deprived of their heritage, of their grazing areas. The solution to the problem of the timber industry in East Gippsland is a controlled, measured woodchipping industry. Only recently a timber owner rang me to advise that, of 350 logs cut, or felled, to use the language of the industry, 200 are rejected as being unsuitable for processing. To continue the example, those 200 logs lie on the floor of the forest and will be burnt once summer has passed by the Victorian Forestry Commission. This occurs throughout the whole of East Gippsland. Mr Chynoweth —What a waste. Mr McGAURAN —It is a waste. The honourable member for Dunkley says it is a waste. It is causing a tremendous amount of frustration and economic hardship in East Gippsland. Mr Hand —Why do you hate trees? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable members for Calwell, Dunkley and Melbourne remain quiet. I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Melbourne interjected: 'Why do you hate trees?' It is not a matter of hating trees; it is a matter of providing job security for the several hundred timber workers in that region. It is a matter of the very existence of East Gippsland. It is not an exaggeration to advise the Parliament that the very life of East Gippsland will be squeezed out of it unless the Government of Victoria and to some extent the Federal Government take a more rational and balanced view of the timber industry and explore ways, such as woodchipping, to eliminate obvious waste. If they do not, I believe East Gippsland will continue to decline. Mr Speaker, it is indeed a hard fact of life that East Gippsland is suffering tremendously as a result of the narrow, unenlightened views of a strident minority. Regrettably, this strident minority has the ear of the relevant Ministers-indeed, of the Premier of Victoria-and for that reason a great deal of suffering is occurring because the people in the timber industry, and the mountain cattlemen for that matter, cannot arrange their industries in a balanced and coherent fashion. As there is no further investment in those two industries they will continue to decline. The challenge, therefore, is to allow the true conservationists, the true lovers of East Gippsland, to determine their own destiny. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —(7.38)-I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to congratulate you on your re-election. We all benefit from your wisdom and humour. I wish to speak about the accord which exists between my State colleagues and me and our mutual objective of assisting our constituents. I have already informed the House of specific examples of this. I wish tonight to take up the importance of co-operation on the subject of youth policy, in contrast with the ludicrous scheme for youth put up by the Victorian Opposition, whose policies, notable for their lack of anything resembling rationale or detail, would see young people being used in the kind of cheap labour which Dickens wrote about. This Dickensian scheme, the youth exploitation scheme, is a hastily put up proposition notable for being the brainchild of an advertising expert, and it is in complete contrast to the careful policies of the Federal and State governments based on the research contained in the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports and other documents. The Cain youth guarantee scheme fits into the policies developed by the Hawke Government for income support, educational and training opportunities and improvements in the areas identified by both reports. Importantly, both State and Federal governments know the importance of consultation, of involving young people in the decisions which will affect their lives. No put-up job here, no hasty piece of policy making on the run, no nonsensical policy which, if implemented, would lead to putting the jobs of family breadwinners at risk, but policies and actions aimed directly at the identified needs of young people without shifting unemployment to older workers. As chairperson of the Government youth affairs co-ordinating committee, I look forward to the challenge of assisting in the implementation of our policies for improving the quality of life and opportunities for young people. I know that my State colleagues, the honourable members for Box Hill, Bennettswood and Syndal, with their knowledge, understanding and experience of young people, will be working together with me in this important area. This kind of co-operation does not happen by accident. It does not happen in a political climate of divisiveness, point scoring or smear; it happens because members of the various governing bodies put differences aside to give priority to community needs and wishes. There is a reason why the constituents of my electorate, and those of my State colleagues' electorates, have seen improvements in virtually every area of government responsibility. The reason is that we put community interests ahead of cynical political interests, because we understand and have a part in forming the policies which our governments implement and because we believe that consultation and consideration of community expression of opinion are the legitimate responsibilities of electorate representatives. I have shared with my colleagues Doug Newton, Margaret Ray, David Gray and Cyril Kennedy many hours of working together with our mutual constituents to provide for the things that they need. Government is no longer distant from the people in my area of the world, nor is it all words and hot air. The services are there, the policies are being implemented, the bricks and mortar are in place. In the three years of the Cain Government and two years of the Hawke Government our people have improved transport, improved housing, child care and several new aged care centres. We have the Eastern Suburbs Geriatric Centre and a new aged care centre being built at Waverley with a $2.5 million input from State and Federal governments. All in all, $80m worth of public works have gone into the area in the last three years. That does not even begin to count the $1.9m worth of community employment program projects which have put 220 people to work in that area. All those jobs are based on things which the community wanted and needed and which the community will support. That cannot be done by people who simply ignore their responsibilities in order to achieve their own political purposes; it can be done only by people who work as closely together as I do with my State colleagues. I wish to pay tribute to them tonight because one could not find a better team anywhere in the world. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(7.43) —Today we have learnt that the Australian Council of Trade Unions will seek 'comparable worth' wage increases for female workers. The ACTU alleges discrimination in over-award payments and proposes an attack by seeking supplementary payments to minimum wage rates by using the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act. The issue which I wish to address is the Government's response to this claim. Given the Government's commitment to the elimination of all forms of discrimination on the grounds of sex, the Government would surely have no choice but to support such a claim. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) registered his support for the Sex Discrimination Bill when he said in this House on 5 March last year: The Sex Discrimination Bill, when it completes its passage through Parliament later this week, will become one of the finest achievements of this Government. Australia will finally catch up with the rest of the civilised world in making it unlawful to discriminate in matters such as employment, education, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. Yet, if this Government were to support such a claim, what effect would it have on the economy and, furthermore, what would it do to the accord? These are the questions which the Government should answer. On the accord, let us look at the Government's own words as shown in the Governor-General's Speech delivered last Thursday: The Prices and Incomes Accord has played a crucial role in Australia's economic success. The Accord will continue to be the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy and the basis for sustained non-inflationary growth. The Government maintains its commitment to the policies in the Accord and will give particular emphasis to the maintenance of an effective wage fixing system to protect real living standards whilst ensuring moderation in labour cost increases. Let us look at the last phrase and make sure we clearly understand what it is saying-'ensuring moderation in labour cost increases'. So here we have the key signatory in the linchpin of the Government's very existence-the ACTU-prepared to make a claim which the Australian today suggested was 'a move with enormous ramifications for the economy'. This move by the ACTU is taken when it has just mapped out its costly agenda; an agenda which is clearly seen as only a starting point in its intention to demand full wage indexation, superannuation for all workers, supplementary payments for low income earners, tax reform and the consolidation of job protection gains. Now the ACTU has added further claims which are only costs to employers, whether they be private or government, and costs in terms of job opportunities forgone. These are claims which the Confederation of Australian Industry is quoted in the Age today as saying are in 'breach of commitments to collective restraint given at the national economic summit'. Such a claim can only weaken the chances for economic recovery and the provision of jobs for the unemployed. We all know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) appears to have conceded that for long term jobs to be created the private sector has to be competitive. Sir Arvi Parbo, in an article in this week's Bulletin, had this to say about our competitive advantage: We have been locked into internal cost increases that are higher than those of our major competitors. The minimum we have been forced to accept in wage increases has been the inflation rate. Australia's international reputation has suffered further with the latest bout of strikes-in part reflected in the depreciation of the dollar. When the dollar is under pressure, as it is at the moment, when our attractiveness as a trading nation is diminishing and our international competitiveness is in rapid decline, that supposedly responsible partner of the Government in all matters of economic import, the ACTU, is irresponsibly threatening any chances of sustained recovery and employment opportunities by a move which would result not only in fewer jobs being available to both men and women but also in a reduction in some female wage rates. Let us hope that we are not in the situation which this week's Bulletin suggests. It states: What is becoming clear in 1985 is that, as far as some unions are concerned, Labor's prices and incomes accord is essentially a document for recession-not one for better times. I call on the Government to say quite clearly where it stands on this matter, not just because its political neck is at risk but because of future growth prospects for all Australians. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(7.47) —I want to join the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) in speaking about the quality of government. We in this chamber all recognise that that depends on many things. One of the more important is, of course, the quality of leadership of a Premier in a State and the quality of the membership of the back bench on the government side. We have in John Cain in Victoria a person who is a most reliable, honest and progressive Premier, not prone to firing from the lip or attacking by confrontation methods the rights of women, which is exactly what we heard from the honourable member from Corangamite (Mr McArthur). He would not allow a woman to be paid a proper wage for the same work she does next to a male. In Victoria that fine work, that fine program of the Labor Government, has been frustrated by the members of the Legislative Council of the Victorian Parliament, by a combination of the majority of National Party and Liberal Party members. Earlier we saw the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) waving his newspaper around in the chamber trying, seemingly, to get some attention, and getting stuck into the Australian Democrats in his State. At least the Australian Democrats realise that if we want progressive and proper government in Victoria we have to get rid of that obstruction and obfuscation in the upper House. We can do that only by allowing the Labor Government to gain its rightful place with a majority in both chambers, and that will happen on Saturday. I will give one example of how that obstruction has gone against the working men and women in Victoria. The Minister for Employment and Training in that State introduced an occupational health and safety legislation program to protect the safety and rights of workers. Yet the troglodytes in the upper House in that State have thrown out that legislation on two occasions. It must go through and it will go through after Saturday. I also want to talk about the quality of the membership of the Government ranks in that State. I will not stray far. I will stay close to home in my electorate of Streeton. Within that electorate we have five State seats. The seat of Warrandyte is represented by Mr Lou Hill, who has proved himself a champion of the rights of the underdog and the ordinary person. He has brought his talents as a lawyer into the political arena and used them for the benefit of the people. In the State seat of Evelyn we have the former member for Sandringham, Graham Ihlein, who has an eye for detail and the tenacity of a bulldog to get things done for his people. He gives excellent representation. Let me also mention another person with concern for her fellow human beings, the member for Ringwood, Kay Setches, who has put so much effort into the welfare of the homeless and the aged and has worked for the refuges, the hospitals and the elderly people's homes. She is a person who has forged one of the closest links between ordinary people and any State member in that Parliament. Let me move on to the State seat of Monbulk, which is represented by Mr Neil Pope, who, for the first time, has brought two basic utilities to the township of Silvan and one to Monbulk. What are they? He has brought basic reticulated water to the people of Silvan, who live right opposite the Silvan Dam but who had been unable to get water from it until this gentleman in this State Government provided it. Also, natural gas is now to be piped around the base of the Dandenongs to the people of Monbulk, who can be warmed during the colder winters experienced there. I now come to our candidate for the seat of Berwick. Phillip Staindl knows more about the seat of Berwick than does the sitting member. Not only was he the electorate secretary to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), but he has been the secretary to the Victorian Minister of Agriculture, Mr Eric Kent. He knows the problems of that area and he will do well. He has lived there all his life-unlike the Liberal member for Berwick, who has decided to desert the fire victims of Cockatoo and the poor people of the electorate of Berwick and live in the salubrious suburb of South Yarra. Government members interjecting- Mr LAMB —Disgraceful. I agree with Government members. Mr Speaker, is there any doubt now, when you have heard about the quality of government, the quality of the back bench, that the people of Victoria, on Saturday, will elect, for the first time in Victoria's history, a second successive Labor Government, led by John Cain. Mr BURR(Lyons)(7.52) —I wish to comment on what I consider to be a most appalling dispute which is occurring at the moment throughout the Public Service. This is not a dispute which should be seen in the light of wages and conditions. There are very few matters on which I would agree with the present Hawke Labor Government, but the irrefutable fact is that on 1 December last year it was elected as the democratically elected government of this country. As such, it has a right to expect loyalty and dedication from the Public Service, and it has a right to expect that its program will be put into place by loyal, dedicated public servants. But that is not happening. This is, in my opinion, not a dispute about wages and conditions, as we are led to believe by the media; this is a dispute which brings into question the very functioning of democracy. Mr Hand —Come off it. Mr BURR —I appeal to the honourable member for Melbourne: Do not just think from your socialist left point of view about whether unions have a right to demand wages and conditions. What is happening in this dispute is that the honourable member's Government is being prevented from putting into operation its program. I disagree with that program, and I am sure that there are many public servants who also disagree with it; but the fact remains that the Government was elected and it has a right to expect that dedicated public servants will put its program into effect, so that it can then be judged by the people of Australia. I believe that no longer can this country live with permanency for public servants, as they have had for many years, and with militant unions within the Public Service. What has come about is a situation in which public servants are protected by permanency so that they cannot be dismissed for not performing their duties and, at the same time, they now have some of the most militant unions in the country, which will continue to cause disruption and disrupt democratically elected governments. The time has come-I am quite certain that some of my friends on the opposite side of the chamber, in more sober times, would agree-to bring into question the basis on which public servants are employed. I appeal to my friend the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) to think carefully about the future administration of this country. One day he, too-God forbid-may be Prime Minister. If that were to occur, I am sure that he would like to think that his program of administration would be put into effect. During the last Parliament the Hawke Labor Government made the unfortunate mistake of repealing the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. I am quite certain that now the Government is feeling the effect of its folly in that action. While the CE(EP) Act may not have represented the full measure of discipline over public servants at least it did offer some measure of discipline. By repealing that Act all avenues of discipline have now been removed. Couple this with permanency of employment for public servants and militant unionism within the Public Service. Honourable members on the other side of the House are now seeing the effect of that combination of events because it is the Government's program that is being disrupted and the Australian people are paying the cost. In January it cost the Australian people an additional $18m by way of interest charges. That figure can be expected to escalate in the coming months while this dispute continues. I appeal to my friends on the other side of the House and to my colleagues on this side to think very carefully about the future basis of employment for public servants. I suggest it is high time that permanency was scrapped for ever. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.57) —Early in 1982 the people of Victoria rid themselves of a tired conservative Liberal Government and elected John Cain and his Australian Labor Party team. Next Saturday Victorians will create history; they will re-elect the Victorian Labor Government for a second consecutive term. John Cain, the hard working Premier, and his imaginative team will deserve the victory as they pulled out Victoria from the stagnation of conservative Liberal rule and made Victoria the No. 1 State in Australia. When John Cain first came to office he inherited quite a mess left behind by 27 years of Liberal rule. At that time Victoria was fast going bankrupt and in the midst of a depression. Industries were closing, unemployment was growing and people were forced to leave the State in search of better conditions elsewhere. There was gloom and doom everywhere. It took just over a year for the new Labor Government under the stewardship of John Cain to stop the rot, to arrest the downturn of the economy caused by the Liberals and to start to create the conditions for improvement. After three years of hard work by the Victorian Premier and his able team of Ministers, Victoria has today the fastest growing economy in the Commonwealth. The economic recovery engineered by the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra and assisted by the Cain Government put Victoria into the No. 1 position. Wherever we look, whether in the field of finance, reducing inflation, employment or housing, the Labor Government led by John Cain achieved great success. In employment creation Victoria leads the field. People who left the State because of the previous conservative Government's mismanagement are now returning to take advantage of the job opportunities in the growing economy. While in the beginning the recovery was stimulated by the public sector growth, today the private sector is taking over. Private sector investment is growing faster in Victoria than elsewhere in Australia and it will give the State a steady and lasting economic recovery. Together with private investment, private consumption also is growing fast-as every Victorian retailer can testify. If one goes out into the streets and talks to the shop keepers they will tell how fast the tills are turning around. They know very well that the Cain Labor Government has to be returned next Saturday so that business confidence and economic recovery can remain with us. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Robert Brown to move- That this House- (1) expresses its dismay at the inability or unwillingness of the Queensland and Tasmanian Governments to benefit from the employment promoting programs and policies of the Federal Government with the result that those States now record the highest levels of unemployment of all the States, and (2) congratulates the Victorian Government for its outstanding successes in employment generation and industrial developments which have resulted in that State maintaining the lowest level of unemployment of all the States. Mr Hodgman to move- (1) that this House condemns the Minister for Housing and Construction for misleading the House by falsely claiming that- (a) the Victorian Opposition's housing policy directly contravenes the Commonwealth State housing agreement, and (b) the Victorian Opposition's housing policy is not lawful, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to dismiss the Minister for Housing and Construction forthwith.