Tuesday, 8 October 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be overseas on government business until 14 October. He is visiting the United States of America and the United Nations. During his absence the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will represent the Acting Minister in this place. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) will be absent from Australia until 12 October. He is visiting Korea on government business to attend meetings of the International Monetary Fund and associated bodies. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will act for the Minister, including his representative roles, during his absence. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether he will confirm that the former Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mr Reid, spoke to him on 19 August and told him that any settlement for Dr Armstrong's dismissal would be in excess of $400,000 with a large part of the payment based on restraints. In the same conversation did the Prime Minister thank Mr Reid for his quick action in securing Dr Armstrong's resignation and did he advise Mr Reid to err on the side of generosity when determining the settlement? Mr HAWKE —As I have indicated before, I certainly spoke with Mr Reid on 19 August, on which occasion also I was in receipt of a letter from Mr Reid. At that time he indicated to me that the settlement would total more than $400,000. A clear indication was given to me then that that was because six years of a contract still existed and had to be bought out. Mr Reid indicated to me, following the discussions he had with me on 15 August when we had first gone into these matters, that he had had discussions with Dr Armstrong and that he would be proceeding to a negotiation of this matter. It is the case that I expressed my gratitude that Mr Reid had come to this view because when he had spoken to me on 15 August he said he would want to think about the matter. He had thought about it. He had discussions with Dr Armstrong and he indicated to me that he was in a position to proceed with the negotiations. He made it clear then, as he did at all points and as he had to do under the law, that the negotiation of this matter was, under the law, a matter for him. I emphasise to the Leader of the Opposition that on 19 August, and at all subsequent relevant points when I discussed this matter with Mr Reid, he acknowledged that he had put to me on 19 August that there were six years of a contract to be bought out and that it was that fact which constituted the size of the settlement involved. Mr Howard —He did not mention restraint? Mr HAWKE —In the process of the discussion he said there would be a number of matters he would be discussing. Mr Howard —Including restraint? Mr HAWKE —He may have mentioned restraint, but let me make it clear- Opposition members-Ah! Mr HAWKE —Do not get satisfaction out of passing ahs. The essential element that was put to me and never at any point contradicted by Mr Reid was that the size of the settlement would be the buying out of the contract. The salary was in the order of $70,000 a year. There would be six times that. One got to the order of over $400,000 by that method. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure this House that the prices and incomes accord will continue to deliver the wage and price stability to which Australians have become accustomed under this Government. Mr HAWKE —It is well known that the prices and incomes accord has indeed become the cornerstone of this Government's extraordinarily successful approach to economic policy and economic management. The accord has been central in securing for Australians three years of substantial non-inflationary economic growth. The people of this country are concerned about, interested in and applaud the fact that we are now entering the third year of 5 per cent non-farm gross domestic product growth. I repeat, and the Opposition is going to hear it until it is sick and tired of it, that what we have now achieved for the third year in a row of 5 per cent non-farm GDP growth is something that the Opposition was not able to achieve in any one of its seven years in office. The people of Australia now know that with the renegotiation of the prices and incomes accord they can look forward to a secure expectation that this sort of growth will continue and that we will not be facing the dissipation of recovery in the blowout of a wages explosion which characterised the years in office of those now in Opposition. The Opposition was wrong in predicting after our election in 1983 that the prices and incomes accord would not hold. Who was the leader in this prediction that the prices and incomes accord would not hold? It was none other than the present Leader of the Opposition. On occasion after occasion in this House and outside this House he said that the prices and incomes accord would fail. He said: `I will tell you from my great knowledge and experience that it will fail'. It is fortunate that the people of Australia do not have to rely on this side of the House for an assessment of the qualifications of the current Leader of the Opposition to talk about matters economic because it may have escaped the attention of some members of this House that a judgment was made upon this gentleman's record by one from his own side of politics. We noticed in the Sunday Mail of 22 September an assessment of the Leader of the Opposition by his friend and colleague Mr Russell Hinze. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is giving the impression that he treats the Minister in Queensland with some sort of contempt. I do not know what our friends in cockies' corner will have to say about his treating of Mr Hinze with contempt, but I noticed on 22 September, under the heading `Howard a shocking Treasurer', these words: The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, had been-- Mr Speaker, you know that I would use language like this only in quoting others-- a `bloody shocking' Treasurer, the Local Government Minister, Mr Hinze, said yesterday. . . . he questioned the `sincerity' of Mr Howard's commitments to private enterprise. `I can't be the only person whose consideration of Mr Howard is strongly influenced by his performance as Treasurer' . . . As I was saying, honourable members opposite were shocking in government and when we came to office they predicted that the accord would not last. The Opposition's current ideological obsession with labour market deregulation, opting out of the centralised wage fixation system, reflects a total inability on its part to understand the fundamental economic relationships between wages and inflation, inflation and employment and unemployment and protection. Opposition members do not begin to understand the great benefits that have accrued to this country from the operation of the accord. If we had again the policies they imposed upon this country we would have a repetition of the wages explosion, the 20 per cent blow-out in wages, that took place in 1981-82. It is not only honourable members on this side of the House who understand this. People behind the Leader of the Opposition also understand that we are starting to see the disintegration of economic policy making on the other side of the House. I do not know how many people had the opportunity to witness the pathetic performance of the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on the Sunday program last Sunday. He said, as he has said in other places, that the Opposition's policy `has got off the rails to some extent'. The one thing wrong with that statement is that it assumes that the Opposition's policy was ever on the rails. It was never on the rails. Others over there are rightly concerned about this nonsense that the Opposition is going on with. It is perhaps no surprise that the chairman of the Liberals' own relevant back bench committee, the honourable member for Lyons, has attacked what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations have said. He has said: `Look, we have now talked to big business and we have talked to small business. We can tell you that small business and big business think that your policy in this regard is a load of codswallop'. That is exactly what it is. It is remarkable that when the gentleman opposite currently occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition mounted his sinister coup against the former Leader of the Opposition the sort of criticism made of the former Leader of the Opposition was that he did not have any policy positions; he would not take a firm stance; he was sitting there and waiting. It was suggested that we would get from this Leader of the Opposition firm and clear statements of position. Let me say this: The performance of the current temporary Leader of the Opposition makes the former Leader of the Opposition look like a model of stability, of forward-looking imagination. That is an opinion which is increasingly coming to be shared by those opposite. Mr Speaker, I assure the honourable member for Aston that the prices and incomes policy will continue in the future to deliver the benefits and good results in this country which have made the international community say of Australia, rightly, that it is the best managed, most prosperous economy in the world. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister who, despite his posturing and spouting, is still in the dock. Will the Prime Minister honour the House by telling us why he pressed the past Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mr Reid, to dismiss Dr Armstrong without substantial grounds and urged a quick and quiet settlement? Furthermore, why did he then fail to inquire fully about the composition of the payout to Dr Armstrong when he was advised of it and approved of it? Does this indicate that the Prime Minister was aware that Dr Armstrong was being forced to resign in haste and without adequate explanation, and that this factor would necessitate a large settlement to restrain him from taking legal action for wrongful dismissal? Mr Tuckey —Give us a 15-minute answer on this one. Mr HAWKE —One Opposition member says: `Give us a 15-minute answer on this'. The House may well get an answer longer than 15 minutes. Those opposite will get the facts which will expose the total grubbiness of their performance on this issue. Let me answer the first part of the question from the honourable member for Bradfield. Why was it that I put to the then chairman of the Authority the proposition that the Chief executive of the ABA should go? I preface the detailed answer I will give to this question by saying something that should be obvious even to those grubby people on the other side of the House, and it is this: I have deliberately in the past not sought to create hurt or embarrassment for Dr Armstrong beyond that hurt that he would obviously suffer from the fact that his services were going to be terminated. I saw it as no part of my function to inflict any unnecessary hurt on Dr Armstrong, but as those grubby people opposite have sought now to have all this matter exposed, with some degree of reluctance I will say to the House in detail why I found it necessary, not to instruct Mr Reid- Mr Howard —You heavied him. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition says I heavied him, but it is a great tragedy that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bradfield have deliberately at all points in this matter misrepresented what has occurred here. They have deliberately used the word `instructed'-that I instructed Mr Reid-when they know that at no point did I instruct him, because as a matter of the law that they put in place, under which this Government and I as Prime Minister have to conduct relations with the ABA, there was no power to instruct. In the discussions I had with Mr Reid, the then Chairman of the ABA, I certainly did put strongly to him that the best interests of the ABA and of this country would be served by the termination of the services of Dr Armstrong. I have at all points, including in the statement of 11 September, sought not to impose any additional hurt or embarrassment upon Dr Armstrong, but because of the tack that has been followed by those opposite I will now go in some detail to the considerations which motivated me in this matter. As I indicated to the House on 19 September, I have received a number of expressions of concern regarding the performance of Dr Armstrong. There had been a unanimity of views- Mr Spender —From whom? Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member for North Sydney will possess his soul in patience, he will find out. To some extent I am responsible for his re-elevation to the front bench. Do not let me down by becoming absurd. There had been a unanimity of views regarding Dr Armstrong's inadequacy in that position. They included views put to me not only by my Department, to which public reference has already been made, but by former and current members of the Board. My Department advised me prior to my meeting with Mr Reid on 15 August-and this was in written advice to me from the head of the Department on 13 August, two days before I met with Mr Reid-in these terms: We hear nothing but criticism of the Chief Executive and we doubt whether the organisation can expect to be regarded as successful while he is there. That was written advice over the signature of Sir Geoffrey Yeend. That judgment went to the ABA's performance on program, administration and accountability. Further, the Board itself at its meetings on 14 December 1984 and 1 March 1985 put forward requests for regular reports from the Chief Executive and the Board minuted a decision in these terms: Concern at the decision making processes, the role of consultants and committees, the extent of consultation on sensitive issues and the way in which reports were being presented to the Board. Secondly, there was ample evidence in the media of a widespread community loss of confidence that the ABA, under its Chief Executive, was making effective preparations for 1988. Mr Tuckey —We have read all this in the papers. Mr HAWKE —Those on the other side of the House ask their question as to the reasons. They will get them in detail. In particular, public criticism was brought into focus, as we all know, by Mr Ranald Macdonald's comments at the time of his resignation concerning these matters: Overcentralised decision making in the ABA, failure to draw on voluntary contributions, extravagant use of consultants, weak controls over expenditure, remuneration packages, travel in terms of efficient user funds, sponsorship strategy and inability to communicate the program and its aims and objectives. I want to make it clear that I did not support all of those criticisms. However, in the case of a number of them, I found the ABA's responses unsatisfactory. Indeed, as is known, the honourable member for Bradfield wrote to me on 12 July expressing community concern at the continuing allegations relating to the ABA's expenditure. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Government itself had become increasingly concerned about the management of the ABA for which Dr Armstrong ultimately, as Chief Executive, had to accept responsibility. These concerns went to three issues other than the loss of community confidence in the ABA under Dr Armstrong to which I have referred. The three issues are these: Firstly, lack of progress on the national and international program in regard to which I cite three examples-(a) In spite of repeated requests since January 1985 the Government did not receive until a few days ago a detailed report that can be put to the Cabinet on the proposed 1988 program of events; (b) the ABA has been slow in responding to Government requests for more emphasis on programs for Aboriginals, women, the handicapped, the aged, trade unions and ethnic groups; and (c) the ABA and the Government's own contacts with those overseas involved in the international program demonstrated a lack of confidence in the ABA. For example-and let me make it clear that this came on 17 September, so I am not saying that this cable was in my mind on 15 August but it is indicative of a continuing concern-our ambassador to the United States of America- Mr Tuckey —We know about all this. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member does not know this because I do not make a habit of showing cables from the ambassador to the United States to me to him. I would not trust him on anything. Mr Howard —You only allow people to listen in to your telephone conversations. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member wants to ask a question about that, let him do it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Did you show Peter Barron the cable? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Honourable members are complaining about the length of answers, yet they continually interject with supplementary questions. Can I suggest that the answer be brought to a conclusion. Mr HAWKE —In this recent advice he reported that the Australian-American Bicentennial Foundation `had expressed disappointment with the difficulty it has had in getting the ABA to respond to proposals, requests for information et cetera.' Secondly, in regard to the administration of the ABA, in which context I refer to Mr Macdonald's criticism, is my reply to the question on notice of the honourable member for Bradfield which was printed in Hansard on 31 May and which indicated that there had been 49 overseas trips by ABA members from 21 January 1980. So honourable members opposite should not try to say that it is something that has just happened recently. From the beginning of January 1980 there were 49 overseas trips, all but four of which were first class. The pattern of expenditure by the ABA to June 1985 was $18.9 million outlaid on salary and administration and only $3.8 million on programs. These were concerns that I put directly to Mr Reid both on 8 May of this year and again on 15 August. Thirdly, there were problems of financial accountability. Notwithstanding the annual certification of the ABA's accounts by the Auditor-General, the ABA has been reluctant to provide details of expenditure and planning to its board and the Government which would provide a basis for decision-making on cost-effectiveness. Dr Armstrong expressed the view to my Department on a number of occasions that the ABA is a body of special character which should not be excessively bound by normal Public Service practices. My reasons for believing that very serious consideration should be given to finding a replacement for Dr Armstrong are therefore threefold. First, there was sustained and unanimous criticism of his performance from all with whom I spoke or who put views to me regarding the ABA. Secondly, this perception was clearly shared by the media and the Opposition, as evidenced by the letter to me from the honourable member for Bradfield, and contributed to a lack of confidence in the Authority. Thirdly, the ABA's performance in regard to the national and international program, administration and accountability was unacceptable to the Government. The Chief Executive, Dr Armstrong, had to accept primary responsibility for this. I make no apologies for having replied in that detail and at that length. It was something that I would rather not have had to do. But it is quite clear that there were more than adequate and, indeed, pressing grounds as to why I should have put the position which I did put to the then Chairman of the Authority on 15 August. Mr DUBOIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What are the projections for employment growth in Australia? How do these compare with those for other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? What would the prospects be without the accord and with a deregulated labour market, as favoured by the Opposition? Mr WILLIS —Employment growth is one of the proudest achievements of this Government. As all honourable members of this House would be aware, since April of 1983 we have had growth of employment in this country of 430,000 or 7 per cent. That has occurred in less than two and a half years. That stands in very stark contrast to the growth in employment of only 340,000 in more than 7 years under the previous Government. The House would also recall that the Budget forecast for employment growth this year is two and three quarter per cent or 180,000. On this basis we will be running well ahead of our 1983 election forecast of 500,000 jobs in our first three years in office. The latest OECD employment outlook-for September 1985-forecasts that Australia's labour market will be the most buoyant in the OECD area in this calendar year, 1985, and in the next calendar year, 1986. These figures are particularly encouraging because they show that Australia is creating jobs faster than any other country in the Western world. The employment forecast for Australia in 1985 by the OECD is 2 3/4 per cent against an OECD average of 1 1/4 per cent, more than double the rate of growth of the OECD area as a whole, and its forecast for next year is a growth rate of 2 per cent for Australia compared with one per cent for the OECD area as a whole. So next year Australia will more than double the OECD rate of growth. Those growth rates are very encouraging and demonstrate, as I have said, that we are creating jobs in this country at a faster rate than that of any other industrialised country, and that includes countries which are held up by the Leader of the Opposition as a model for employment growth, such as the United States of America. Mr Nehl —Not in manufacturing! Not in primary industry! Not in mining! Not in electricity generation! Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, the rate of employment growth in this country is faster this year, and will be next year, than that of even the United States, which has been held up as a model for employment growth through deregulated labour markets. There was an interjection from cockies' corner that that was not so in the private sector. That interjection is totally and absolutely untrue because the overwhelming majority of the job growth has been in the private sector. Honourable members opposite need to understand that and not to believe the propaganda that might be put forward by some of their leaders. The reality of the situation is that the employment growth in this country has been overwhelmingly in the private sector. If honourable members look at the figures they will see that about 90 per cent of the employment growth in this country has occurred in industries which are predominantly in the private sector. So it is a nonsense and an absurd lie to argue or suggest that the employment growth has been in the public sector and that not much has been happening in the private sector. The opposite is the truth; that is, most of the employment growth has been in the private sector. The success of these policies is very much attributable to the fact that we have had the prices and incomes accord. The accord gives us the capacity to create employment in a way which was not possible in the past simply because it allows us to set fiscal and macroeconomic policies for growth. That could not be done under the previous Government because it used those very same policies to control inflation. As soon as it turned those policies to growth it would lead to inflation. What happens under our policy is that one directly impacts on costs and prices through the accord and that enables us to set macroeconomic policies for growth which result not in the growth of prices but in the growth of employment and production. Of course, along with that is an increase in our living standards. Therefore the accord has been a basic element of the strong employment growth that has occurred in this country. It is an incredible irony that at the same time as the enormous benefits of the accord are becoming absolutely clear-there can be no denying the fact that even the accord has been able to adjust to the devaluation in a way which would not have been possible without the accord, unless we were to have a substantial recession to keep down the inflationary impact and therefore loss of growth of output and employment-we have, and this is beyond dispute, the Opposition arguing that it should all be thrown away and that what we should have instead is some deregulated labour market in which we have no possibility of centralised control of wages and labour costs and that we should let all of this happen out in the field by way of a deregulated process. The Opposition has absolutely no answer whatever to the question that must follow, which is: How then would one control labour costs? The Opposition has no answer to that question, as it had no answer when in office for seven and a quarter years last time. The only answer that those opposite would have is the answer that they had before, which was to set the policy settings for recession and unemployment. That would be the only way that they could control costs and inflation. To suggest that we should abandon the accord for some absurd, unclear policy of labour market deregulation is an irony of the greatest magnitude. I am sure that the Australian people will see that this suggestion is just a desperate throw from those who have to be seen to be different from a government which is pursuing policies which are undoubtedly of great benefit to this country. Mr SPENDER —I refer the Prime Minister to his Press conference on 26 September when he spoke of his puzzlement about the change in composition of the settlement for Dr Armstrong, and to his answer to this House of 19 September when he said of Mr Reid's letter of 28 August: While the total amount contained in it is consistent with the amount Mr Reid had first mentioned to me, the method of arriving at it was vastly different from the formula, based primarily on six years of salary- In view of this vast difference that was known to the Prime Minister on 28 August, the sums involved and his puzzlement, why did he not raise the questions of this vast difference and puzzlement in direct and unmistakable terms when he wrote to Mr Reid on 30 August. Mr HAWKE —I have already explained this matter in the House. If it gives pleasure to the honourable member for North Sydney and other members of the Opposition I am more than prepared to say it again. With hindsight, it would obviously have been wiser if I had raised this matter with Mr Reid earlier than 10 September. I have said that. I say it again. Mr Sinclair —You didn't think about it before then. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —I made the mistake of assuming- Mr Sinclair —You didn't think about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —It is a very pertinent interjection. Mr SPEAKER —I cannot take notice of that. Mr HAWKE —I simply say in response to the Leader of the National Party: Who would take any notice of him when it comes to making arrangements about matters financial. I assumed when I was told by the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority on 19 August that the negotiations and the settlement to which he was seeking to proceed would have taken place on the basis that was indicated to me. I make the point that the basis of the settlement was indicated to me on 19 August. It was stated again on 10 September. I made a statement to this House on 19 September which clearly indicated the basis of the conversation on 19 August. It was pointed out to me that the basis of negotiation was the buying out of six years of the contract. I made that statement here on 19 September. On 24 September, five days later, the Chairman of the Authority said to the Board that the statement that I had made in this House was accurate. Five days after I made that statement in the House the Chairman did not question that I was putting the matter accurately. On the contrary, he told the Board that I had put it accurately. On 26 September, at what was the final meeting with Mr Reid again, in no way did he demur from the statement that I put to him that it was my clear understanding that he was proceeding on the basis of a buying-out of the six year contract. I assumed-I guess I made a mistake in assuming-that what had been told to me by the Chairman of the Authority I should accept in good faith. Mr Howard —Didn't you read the letter? Mr HAWKE —In the letter of 19 August- Mr Howard —No, the 28th. Mr HAWKE —I will come to the letter of the 28th. At all points, including at the time of the letter of the 28th, I simply did not assume that the Chairman of a publicly funded public company would indulge in an exercise which constituted tax minimisation. That was the assumption I made. Of course, when I directed my attention to it and raised it with the Chairman of the Authority on the tenth, the sequence and train of events occurred which has brought us to the position which shows that the whole edifice upon which the Chairman of the Authority had spoken to me was false. Firstly, we do not find out until the day after 28 September that, five days before, the letter I received on 28 September where he purports to seek my approval for an agreement, had already been signed-on 23 September. There was no indication that that had been done. When I raised this matter on the tenth, as I say, the sequence occurred which showed that the whole edifice was based on falsities. It was only on 26 September-on the day on which I sought the resignation of Mr Reid-that we find that, in regard to the contract which he had been told from 19 August involved a six-year payout, there was no such contractual obligation. We were told that there was a contractual obligation for a six-year payout. We did not find out until 26 September that there was no such contractual obligation. The first time that the letter was produced-there had been a refusal before to produce the letter-we find that there was not a six-year contractual obligation but four months notice on either side. My mistake, and I confess it, was that I accepted in good faith what was put to me by the Chairman of the Authority from 19 August. Every subsequent piece of investigation shows that that assumption, which I made in good faith and having regard to the accuracy of what was put to me by the Chairman, was ill founded. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House what would be the impact of labour market deregulation on employment growth and the level of industrial disputes in Australia? Mr WILLIS —It is difficult to know exactly what one can say about that matter until we know what the Opposition's policy is. Clearly, there is total confusion on the other side about what that policy is, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in a newspaper article on the weekend as saying: `We have a well thought out policy'. That does not really seem to sit with comments by his Deputy Leader, who was quoted in a newspaper the previous day as saying: `The Liberals' industrial relations policy has got off the rails to some extent.' He also said that he did not know how far he wanted to go in deregulating industrial relations, how best to go about it, and what the consequences would be. Apart from that he is right across the subject. It seems to us that that situation of total confusion on the other side makes it very difficult to pin down exactly what the impacts would be, but one could make various statements on the basis of what we know. We know that in whatever form a deregulated system was brought in, it would clearly involve loss of centralised control of the growth of incomes. In an environment of every man for himself there is no doubt that people would get what the market could bear and that there would be no sense of conforming to some national wages policy or wages guideline. We would see inflationary wage-price spirals and there would be no way of preventing sweetheart deals in one area flowing on to other areas. We would then see the kind of thing that happened in 1981-82 when with the end of the wage indexation system some decentralisation occurred and a wage-price spiral leading to a 17 per cent rate of increase in average weekly earnings. To control that spiral the only thing that a government would be able to do would be to impose more recession and unemployment. The Opposition is losing sight of the big picture because of its rather myopic obsession with micro-economics-with looking at what happens with individual firms and the supposed benefits in productivity and employment which would flow for individual firms from the deregulation of the labour market. However, even ignoring the macro-economic effects, the benefits at the firm level are very dubious. I draw the attention of the House to a paper recently published by the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States which looked at flexible wages among industries and how they could increase or reduce employment. It looked at the United States experience in that regard. After a detailed investigation of that situation the authors concluded: The bottom line of the United States experience is that flexible wages by industry have not contributed to employment growth. . . . If anything, it has been inimical to employment and the competitive allocation of labor across sectors. What is being said in this article in that prestigious United States publication is that flexible wages policy has not helped employment growth in that country; indeed, it has been inimical to it. That has come about because the flexibility of wages is not so possible on the lowest side but very possible at the upper end. That was the situation which that body investigated. It found that there was much more flexibility at the top end and that in areas of high productivity and prosperity there was an upward flexibility of wages of some considerable note. However, in areas of recession, in areas of industry not in such good economic circumstances, wages were very sticky downwards. Of course, that is the reality in this country. We all know it is the reality. It is an absurdity for people to propose the policy of wage flexibility between sectors without acknowledging the fact that there is a quite distinct division between upward and downward flexibility and that, therefore, one would be likely to find with a flexible wages policy that one had a wages price spiral and an adverse impact on employment. The honourable member asked me about industrial disputation. There is no doubt that the policies advocated by the Leader of the Opposition would lead to total industrial chaos. On the weekend the Opposition Leader was quoted as saying: I'd like to see a few thousand Mudginberris break out all over Australia. That is what he was reported as saying. I believe that if the Opposition were ever in a position to put its policies into practice, that call to let a thousand Mudginberris bloom would be as short lived as a similar call by a previous national leader in another country. It would last about five minutes. Undoubtedly, it would mean tremendous industrial chaos in this country. Already, in one small plant in a remote part of the Northern Territory a number of major stoppages have led to a significant increase in time lost through industrial disputes. If we were to have a government promoting thousands of Mudginberris in our major capital cities we would most certainly see a level of industrial chaos in this country which was quite unprecedented. There is no doubt that the Opposition's industrial relations policy is a total mess. It has no clear idea of what it is on about. Indeed, Opposition members are bickering amongst themselves as to what the in policy is. Insofar as they do know what their policy is, they know that it is not wanted by any of the parties involved, that it is not likely to help big or small business, that it would certainly be highly detrimental to employment growth and that it would be a disaster for industrial relations. Long may that policy remain in that state. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.51) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would permit the Prime Minister to make forthwith to the Parliament a full statement about his own handling of recent matters involving the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Mr Connolly —I second the motion. Mr HOWARD —It is perfectly obvious from Question Time and the nature of the handling of this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that Standing Orders should be suspended to allow him to explain his own conduct because in one the longest and most naked abuses of Question Time the Prime Minister sought to evade the simple fact the he heavied Mr Reid to get rid of Dr Armstrong. He told Mr Reid that Dr Armstrong should go quietly, that he should go quickly and that Mr Reid should err on the side of generosity. That was the three-fold instruction given by the Prime Minister to Mr Reid on 19 August. The Prime Minister would now have us believe that he has been the innocent victim of some deception by Mr Reid. He would now have us believe that in some way he was misled by the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The fact remains that this Prime Minister has misled this Parliament and has misled the country about his whole handling of the matter. He had an opportunity at Question Time today to explain himself. He had an opportunity to answer questions, but all he did was launch into a diatribe against other people. He did not take advantage of the opportunity to explain his own mishandling of the matter. He did not explain away his Press statement of 11 September when he pretended to the Australian public that he had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the settlement. During Question Time he made no attempt to explain to the Australian public and in fact until today he has not given the Australian public any explanation of why he wanted Dr Armstrong to go. In fact, in this matter the Prime Minister has been guilty of total and complete administrative indifference and incompetence. It is only when the matter loomed as a matter of public concern that the Prime Minister started to take an interest in it. Did he care about the $400,000 on 19 August? Of course he did not care about the $400,000 on 19 August. He told Mr Reid to err on the side of generosity. He even thanked Mr Reid for the speedy way in which he had dealt with the matter. He even said to Mr Reid: `Let us get it finished as quickly as possible'. Yet this Prime Minister bullied Mr Reid into a resignation on 26 September. He demanded that Mr Reid accept public culpability for the administrative failure that ought to belong to the Prime Minister. The truth is that this Prime Minister heavied Mr Reid into getting rid of Dr Armstrong. He told him to go quietly and to go quickly. The Prime Minister knew darned well from the advice that he was given by Mr Reid on 19 August that one of the factors which was going to inflate the price of the settlement that would have to be paid to Dr Armstrong was the fact the the Prime Minister wanted Dr Armstrong to go quickly. Mr Reid asked that Dr Armstrong be given another five or six months. What did the Prime Minister say to that? He said: `Not on your life. I want him to go straight away.' He was not prepared to do so at that particular time, despite being warned by Mr Reid that by forcing the issue and by requiring a quick and quiet execution of Dr Armstrong the Prime Minister was inflating the very settlement figure about which he now wrings his hands and implies that it was too much and about which he now expresses concern about tax minimisation. If the Prime Minister was concerned about tax minimisation, why did he not ask his own Department on 19 August about the tax implications of the $400,00? If he was concerned about the tax aspects of this amount why on earth did he not go to his Department? Why on earth is it that as late as last Friday a senior officer in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said before the Estimates committee that the letter of 28 August `came as a complete suprise to us'-in other words, the letter which sought the Prime Minister's approval for the additional allocation of funds was apparently not sent to the Prime Minister's Department by the Prime Minister when he received it. The relevant officer, as late as last Friday, said that that letter `came as a complete surprise to us'. It is perfectly apparent to us, from the Prime Minister's own answers, that he did not read properly Mr Reid's letter of 28 August because if in fact he was puzzled about the composition of the sum, why on earth did he not express that puzzlement when he wrote to Mr Reid on 30 August? Why did he remain silent about his concern about the sum? He now professes concern and puzzlement about the vast difference, yet his reply on 30 August to Mr Reid's letter of 28 August was totally silent on this matter. There was no reference to concern and no reference to puzzlement-there was an absolute cavalier indifference to the whole question of whether this was a proper sum or whether he had conducted the matter in a proper manner. Now the Prime Minister, because he is in a political corner, because there is public criticism and party concern about it, casts around in his good old bullying fashion for a scapegoat. Who does he light upon? He lights upon the former Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority-the man who warned him on 19 August that it would be expensive, the man who said to him: `If you push me it is going to be expensive'. The former Chairman told the Prime Minister that it would cost $400,000 but the Prime Minister said: `That is terrific, I congratulate you on having done such a good job'. There was no mention then about tax minimisation. The Prime Minister did not say: `Now look, John, I don't want any tax minimisation in this deal; you know you are dealing with the Commonwealth's money'. What did he say? He said to err on the side of generosity, despite the fact that Mr Reid had warned him about a $400,000 settlement. Yet this same man, the Prime Minister, in order to deflect criticism of his handling of the matter, came along after the event, after it became public and after he had been questioned and criticised for his handling of this matter, and said: `I was wrong, I was misled. He did not really tell me all of the facts. Although I had the total resources of the Solicitor-General's Office and of the Prime Minister's Department at my disposal and did not use them and although I could have sought advice from anybody and everybody I wanted and did not do so, you all have to gloss over this administrative failure on my part; you all have to excuse and forgive me. You have to forget about it and get on with something else because I, the Prime Minister of Australia, was completely misled by this dreadful man who did not really tell me the facts.' The truth is that this dreadful man, as the Prime Minister implies, did tell him the facts. He not only warned him that it would be expensive, mentioning the figure of $400,000, but also he made it perfectly clear in the conversation of 19 August that significant releases against future conduct were part of the settlement. He confirmed that in his letter of 28 August but in spite of all that the Prime Minister said on 19 August to go ahead. That is why the deed was signed on 23 August. Subsequently, on 28 August when the Prime Minister received Mr Reid's letter what did he do? Did he express any concern about vast differences in sums, as he implied at Question Time today? No. Did he express any puzzlement about the amount? No. Did he say anything about tax minimisation? No. What did he do? He went ahead and gave de facto approval to the settlement. It was not until 10 September that the Prime Minister suddenly decided that maybe it would get a bit too hot. What did he then decide to do? He rings up Mr Reid, he gets his minder to listen in while the conversation is going on, and then, in a totally belated and unsatisfactory manner, a manner that has not been explained, the Prime Minister tries to construct a post facto rationalisation for his subsequent making of Mr Reid a scapegoat in this matter. The Prime Minister has not explained his conduct in this affair. He is bogged down, he is weak, he has evaded the point, and we want to give him a full and uninterrupted opportunity to explain from go to whoa his own completely inadequate administrative handling of this whole matter. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.00) —For the last five weeks the people of Australia and the members of this Parliament have been watching the Prime Minister of Australia doing his best to disseminate a version of the truth as he wants it to be known; doing his best to delude and to defame people in this Parliament and outside because of the incompetence of his public administration. The record as it stands is one which without question damns this man for what he is-a man who has failed Australia, failed his Party and certainly failed his Government. He is a man who has demonstrated now for five weeks his inability to tell the truth, his inability to administer the affairs of state, his inability to control public expenditure; and, to make it worse, at the end of the day he seeks to find somebody else to blame. He picks on a servant of the state, Mr John Reid, and holds him responsible for the errors of judgment which emanated from no one else in this nation except the Prime Minister himself. We must examine the deal we have seen this Prime Minister approve, the deal which was forced upon both Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong by the Prime Minister, the deal he has consistently said he did not understand, because quite clearly he did not even bother to read the letters from Mr Reid. And if he did read the letters, we must ask the obvious question: Why is it that he did not seek the advice of his Department when it was there to give him that advice? Why is it that last Friday afternoon in the Senate chamber of this parliament, when Senate Estimates Committee A had before it not only Mr Reid but also Mr Rose and other members of the departmental staff of the Prime Minister, in cross-examination those men, every one of them, made the point that they were unaware of the facts of this situation, unaware of the letter of 19 August, and even unaware at one stage of the letter of 28 August? We know that this Prime Minister knew the details of settlement at least by 19 August. On the same day, he spoke by telephone with Mr Reid and said: `I congratulate you on the speed with which you have achieved this settlement'. Mr Reid's record of that conversation stated that, in addition to congratulations, the Prime Minister also said that he supported the proposals for settlement, both (a) and (b). Now we know what (a) and (b) mean because those papers were tabled elsewhere, but the important thing is that (b) referred to the supplementary payments. Those supplementary payments cost the Australian taxpayer at least $240,000. They cost the taxpayer for one fundamental reason-that this man opposite, this Prime Minister, who claims that he has been misled, who claims that he did not have access to the appointment letter to Dr Armstrong, a letter which we were told last Friday has been in the files of the Department at least since 1979-80, was apparently unaware of the facts. Even if he were unaware of the facts, how can he answer the fact that the letter of appointment contained provisions that Dr Armstrong could leave service on four months notice or there could be four months notice on the part of his employer. That meant that any change in the terms could involve legal action by Dr Armstrong at substantial cost to the Commonwealth and the Australian Bicentennial Authority. He knew these facts. The time has come for the Prime Minister, after five weeks of dissembling the facts, after three weeks of parliamentary questioning, after two weeks of adjournment where he could have done something about it, to come clean and explain to the Australian people the full details of his involvement in this most sordid affair. Let us get to the bottom of it. Let us get the ABA back on the trail and let us work for a decent bicentennial celebration at the end of it-not a Labor Party bicentennial but a bipartisan bicentennial involving this side of the Parliament as well as the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.05) —The Government will not facilitate the motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Again, he has received some very bad advice. I am not too sure that the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), is not undermining the Leader of the Opposition's leadership with all the bad advice that he is giving him. He asked the Leader of the Opposition to move a censure motion a fortnight ago when there was no substance for him to do so. Today he has tried a new tactic. I believe that the shadow Cabinet met yesterday afternoon and said that it was really going to be tough today on the matter of the Australian Bicentennial Authority; it was really going to tear strips off the Government; it was going to come in here and tear this Government down. So I said to the Prime Minister: `Now, for God's sake, don't chop Question Time short. Give the Opposition all the opportunity it needs to ask questions'. So we prolonged Question Time. But what do we find? We find that the Opposition ran out of questions about the Bicentennial. It had no more questions to ask. So I thought the Opposition must be going to move a censure motion. I thought it considered this matter to be really important. Yesterday we saw the Opposition's Press statement which someone had typed for three hours in the Leader of the Opposition's office. That four-page statement set out all the things that the Opposition was going to do to us. What has the Leader of the Opposition moved? He has moved that Standing Orders be suspended so as to allow the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make a statement. The Leader of the Opposition has already placed on the blue sheet a matter of public importance regarding this matter in which he challenges the competence of the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman has had all of Question Time today and all of Question Time during the last week of sitting to raise this matter. He has all of Question Time for the next two weeks, if he wants it, to ask about the Bicentennial, while he sorts out his policy on industrial relations, the economy, inflation, interest rates and all the other matters about which the Opposition seems to be talking industrial mumbo jumbo at the moment. So the Bicentennial is doing the Opposition a large favour. The Government is not going to facilitate, at the Opposition's behest, the making of another statement by the Prime Minister, which will take up the time of the House. We are going to set the business of this House. The Opposition wants to bring on a matter of public importance so that these matters can be discussed. What did the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) put forward in terms of substance concerning the need for the Prime Minister to make another statement? They just engaged in another harangue of criticism about the Prime Minister. There was no inquisitiveness about what might be missing. They do not happen to agree with everything that the Prime Minister has done. That is not unusual for an Opposition. The usual role of Oppositions since Federation has been not to agree with the Prime Minister of the day. Those honourable gentlemen do not agree with the Prime Minister today in regard to the Bicentennial. It is rather amazing that the honourable member for Bradfield should get up here like Richard Burton and tell us how upset he is about what has happened, because he was one of the first to complain about the Bicentennial. He was going crook in July. He said: `What is the Authority doing? It has $166m at 1982 prices'. Whatever that had to do with it, I do not know. However, he has taken a lesson in economics. He asked in July: `What are they doing with all this money? I questioned the Authority's efficiency'. He raised the matter and now he is going crook because the Prime Minister took action. There is no secret. What did Dr Armstrong tell the world in his resignation? Dr Armstrong told the world that it would be to the benefit of Australia and of the Authority if he resigned. I ask honourable members to read his letter of resignation. Now there is the point about how much money was involved. The Prime Minister has told the Opposition that his information was that a contract of six years employment was going to be bought out and that is the reason it was over $400,000. However, when we have a look at the letter between Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong, we find, going back a few years to during the term of office of honourable members opposite, that there is no contract. It is four months notice either way, which would hardly lead to a sum of nearly $500,000. Where is the contract that the Prime Minister was told about? Under normal circumstances, because the Opposition wastes the time of the House, the next procedure which the right honourable member for New England would have adopted in our time in opposition would have been, of course, to dismiss the MPI. He would have said: `You have taken up your time talking about the suspension of Standing Orders: There will be no MPI'. I have news for the Opposition. It has adopted this tactic only to get out of the MPI, but we are going to proceed with it. We are going to make sure that the Opposition is really put to the test. Honourable members have been listening to a speech from the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bradfield for the last three weeks. They are going to have to listen to it again and it is going to be terrific! Nothing could be better for this side of the House than for the Australian public to keep listening to the Leader of the Opposition. The more exposure he gets the more people we will have sitting on this side of the House after 1987. In fact, by virtue of his actions we will have more members of the Australian Labor Party to celebrate the bicentennial than we could have ever dreamt of. All I can say to him is that he had better get out and prepare his speech because, as I have said, we will not dismiss the MPI. The Leader of the Opposition put it on the blue sheet; now he will have to proceed with it and put his case. The Prime Minister will respond, as will the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial (Mr Cohen), to the charges which the Opposition has been laying for the last three or four weeks about the operations of the Bicentennial Authority. I think what the Prime Minister has put on the record will satisfy every fair-minded Australian about the actions which he took and which he had responsibility to take to put the Bicentennial Authority back on the rails so that it could carry out its responsibilities to the Australian public for the 1988 celebrations. As Dr Armstrong said in his letter of resignation, it was in the interests of Australia and of the Bicentennial Authority that he stand down. Having recognised that and having looked at the widespread criticisms that have been made of the Bicentennial Authority, including those by the Opposition's spokesman on the Authority who led the charge-there was no secret about it; the criticism was widespread-the Prime Minister, in answer to a number of questions asked by the honourable member for Bradfield today, laid down piece by piece all the criticisms and all the inadequacies of the relationship between his Department and the Bicentennial Authority about the way it was carrying out its duties. We cannot hold the bicentennial after 1988. That happens to be the year we have to celebrate. Some honourable members opposite are carrying on as if we have said that we will let things settle down for six or 12 months and then we will get things back on the track. If that were the case we would be holding the bicentennial in the year 2088. We would just put it off for 100 years and hope that we could fit the Opposition's criticisms of the Bicentennial Authority. The fact is that the bicentennial is on in a couple of years time. We want the Bicentennial Authority in place carrying out the role that the former Government and the present Government saw that it should play in these celebrations. As a result of the actions taken by the Prime Minister in the last few weeks, I am sure that it will do that. It would not have done that had the Prime Minister not taken the actions he has taken in the last few weeks. In spite of the carryings on of the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bradfield. I am sure that after the meeting between the Prime Minister and the board last week the Authority feels happy about the duties it has to carry out, the new relationship that has been struck between the Government and the Authority in carrying out those duties and its responsibility to keep the Government informed about the preparations for 1988. That has been the aftermath of the actions of the Prime Minister and that is the most important thing to the people of Australia. It is not a matter of whether the Leader of the Opposition or Smiles Cunningly is happy about the Bicentennial Authority, but whether the Australian people are happy that it will be an efficient authority carrying out its duty for the festivities in 1988. Therefore, there is no reason why the Government should facilitate the move of the Leader of the Opposition. If I speak for another minute we will avoid a division. Mr Howard —Make up something, Mick. Mr YOUNG —Actually, I was going to say something about the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), but he is such a friendly bloke I think I had better not. When I was speaking he was nodding because he believes in smaller government. If I keep speaking to 3.15 and a half we will avoid a division. I know that every member of the House wants us to do that. So I will just say that let us hope that as part of the bicentennial- Mr Howard —Keep going. You are the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Yes, I am the Leader of the House. It would be a fair bet that I will still be Leader of the House when there is a different Leader of the Opposition because the present one is not fronting up too well. Some of his policies are being deregulated by his colleagues. I do not know whether he looks behind him at his front bench, but every time I see a Press release from a shadow Minister there seems to be some diversion from the definitive policies of the great honourable member for Bennelong. He was going to be tough today with our tax policies as well as with the Bicentennial Authority. We have not heard much about tax today. All we know-it was part of his Press statement yesterday on taxation-is that he is not ready to unveil the new tax policies of the Liberal and National parties. There seems to be some difference of opinion about what they are going to do. I noticed that the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) said that he is not in favour of some of the tax policies put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allowed for debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodges, J. C. Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hawke, R. J. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Rocher, A. C. Humphreys, B. C.Aldred, K. J. Gear, G.Cameron, Donald Lindsay, E. J.Dobie, J. D. M. Scott, J. L.McVeigh, D. T. Hurford, C. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER —I have been advised that the Leader of the Opposition of the Provincial Legislature of British Columbia is in the Gallery with fellow members. I am sure that the House would want me to give them a warm welcome to our chamber. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 (1) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the Primary Industry Bank annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on outboard engines. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek leave to make a personal explanation? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The Chair will allow him that indulgence. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been informed that the Centralian Advocate of 13 September reported me as having said that when the coalition is returned to government no action will be taken to repeal the Uluru legislation. I wish to place on record that I made no such statement. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I thought it would be opportune to outline to the House the Government's proposals for dealing with Budget, tax and tax reform legislation during the remainder of the current period of sittings. We have already spent considerable time debating the Appropriation Bills. The Government has deliberately extended general debate on these Bills to give honourable members from both sides of the House the opportunity to express their views on matters of interest to themselves and their electorate. We now propose to proceed to the Committee stage and systematic consideration of the votes allocated to the various departments. That debate will begin later today and it is proposed that it continue on Friday and on one sitting day next week. We also have before the House the Loans Bill related to the 1985-86 Budget and it is intended to debate this Bill later in the present week. On 19 September the Government introduced four tax Bills flowing from this year's Budget. They were: The Taxation Laws Amendment (No. 2) Bill; the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill; the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill; and the Medicare Levy Bill. With one limited exception, these Bills are not directly related to the tax reform package outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 19 September. The Taxation Laws Amendment (No. 2) Bill is designed to counter the use of non-leveraged finance leases and introduces statutory loan back rules by employer-sponsored superannuation funds. The other three Bills provide for the formal, annual imposition of taxation on individuals, companies, corporate unit trusts and superannuation funds. The Medicare levy is also renewed. The only element of the taxation reform package involved in these Bills is the abolition of the concessional expenditure rebate. The Government wishes that these four Bills pass quickly because the introduction in November of new PAYE schedules depends on their passage. It is therefore proposed to debate them this week. Turning to the taxation reform package, it is proposed to conduct a general debate on the overall package prior to the introduction of the bulk of the specific legislation. To enable this to occur I now table a copy of the Treasurer's statement and explanatory papers and I suggest that the House take note of the statement and papers at the conclusion of the comments by the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). We propose to debate the statement for two days during the current two-week sitting period, both on broadcast days. The Government hopes that there will be co-operation from members to enable a large number of honourable members to speak on the statement so that justice is done to the wide ranging reforms in this package. After the general debate on the tax reform package we will be moving to consider specific legislation. The legislation dealing with the proposed amendments to the sales tax system has already been introduced and we expect to debate those Bills next week. We will be looking to introduce much of the remaining legislation required to implement the package towards the end of this two-week period of sittings. It is the Government's expectation that, having had a wide ranging debate on the tax package as a whole, debate on the specific pieces of legislation will be directed clearly at that legislation rather than range again over all the taxation measures. In summary then, we are proposing: Firstly, to deal with the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills this week and next week; secondly, to debate the Budget tax Bills and the Loans Bill this week; thirdly to have a general debate on the taxation package this Thursday and next Tuesday; fourthly, to debate the sales tax Bills on Wednesday next week; and finally, to introduce other tax Bills next week. The taxation package announced by the Treasurer is the greatest reform of the taxation system yet undertaken in Australia. There should be a full parliamentary debate on these reforms and the Government intends to permit and encourage that. We ask for the full co-operation of all honourable members. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.32) —by leave-The substance of the statement by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) can only be said to be `speak now or forever hold your peace', so far as the tax changes of the Government are concerned. I was a little curious when I received the statement, in trying to work out what the devil it was all about. However, looking through it I found that really it is a device to tell us that the tax legislation is not yet drafted. It is a device to tell us that in spite of the fact that the legislation will be extraordinarily complex and will have a very profound impact on people throughout our community and in spite of the very widespread and justifiable concerns about the nature of these tax changes, for example, the burden they bring to bear on small business and farmers, the difficulty they create for nearly everybody involved in business, the problems for those who seek to invest and the uncertainties that properly arise about the degree to which apparently the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Lodge and Kirribilli House will enjoy a tax exemption which policemen and school teachers will be denied-to name but two other categories of public servants-there is a wide range of issues which, not unnaturally, we would like to have an opportunity to consider when we know just what the Government's final tax package might be. I think it is relevant to comment that we have now had five versions of changes to the tax scale proposed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and we still do not know what they are about. Until we get that tax legislation I think it will be very difficult for members of this place or those people in the community who seek to work out the impact of the tax changes on their daily lives to determine whether the effect of the Government's tax changes will be as the Treasurer's tax reform statement suggests. Therefore, while the Opposition welcomes the fact that there is to be a wide ranging debate on the statement, I think it will be totally inadequate unless there is also at least a reasonable opportunity for proper scrutiny of the tax change Bills when they are introduced into this place, given their complexity and the very nature of the problems that flow from complex legislation being rushed hastily through this place. It is also worth commenting that the statement by the Leader of the House has come on a day when the Sydney Morning Herald, in an article by Milton Cockburn, has made some very pertinent comments following the publication of the latest annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives. I know that the Leader of the House takes great pride in his ability to ensure that the proper proceedings and practices of the House, as they accord with the wishes of the Government, are complied with. If we take a little time to look at the detail we will find that in every significant area there has been a decline during his term of responsibility for this place. In terms of questions without notice, let us recall our experience today. Five questions were asked. Many statements could properly have been made on matters that emerged from the few reasonable responses given by Government Ministers. We had a burst on the prices and incomes accord. It would be very interesting if we had a debate in this place on the accord and its effect on our very high level of interest rates, the degree to which it is contributing to unemployment in small business and the effect it is having on the cost structure of the Australian farming community. I can think of an array of matters on which ministerial statements would be pertinent. We had a total abuse of the proper procedures of this place during Question Time. We know there are many matters about which this Government could properly tell us more than it now is. Not only has the House of Representatives annual report set out the deficiencies in the control of the Leader of the House but also there are many serious issues which the Government, of course, wants to conceal. I do not want to spend too much time going through them all. Today we heard a little of how the Prime Minister's principal adviser listened in to telephone conversations. That must send shudders down the spines of every member of the Australian Labor Party. One must wonder just which calls he listens in to and on what basis he does so. It would be interesting to know why Mr David Combe is going to Vancouver. I find it incredible that a man roundly condemned by a Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Hope, is to take up a senior position of responsibility under government control. We are told that the Prime Minister was not very keen on his appointment. However, Mr Combe is going. Obviously, factions of the Australian Labor Party are alive and well. I think it would have been appropriate for the Prime Minister today to have made a statement about his involvement in consultations with the Premier of Victoria about the resignation of the Victorian Governor. It would be appropriate if the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had told us a little about what he is doing at Jervis Bay. He should tell us which land he intends to take over and what environmental impact studies have been canned out. He should give us an opportunity to find out whether the whole thing has been yet another snow job on the poor old Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). That Minister, of course, had the responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority until the Prime Minister said: `No, things are too crook there. I am going to take it over'. We have had a half million dollar payout to the man who the Prime Minister told us today was no good. Just think what he would have got if he had been any good! It is incredible. Many other matters should be talked about. I have not finished with my list of matters. I instance the Aboriginal Development Commission and that much travelled Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). It is an absolute disgrace what is going on in regard to Aboriginal management. That is a matter which could properly have been discussed here. There is no mention of it in the statement of the Leader of the House. We could talk about the Australia Post strike and all those who are looking for mail deliveries at the moment. We have not heard anything from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) about what is happening. We should discuss whether it might not be better if Australia Post were run by private enterprise. Perhaps he could explain the benefits of the present arrangements governing Australia Post. Perhaps we should also hear something about regional television. The Minister for Communications has some hare-brained idea that he can immediately convert the regional television stations to allow them to provide equal television cover to that provided in the cities, irrespective of the cost and the problems in funding proper television cover of local areas. I could go on. These are all matters which the statement of the Leader of the House ignores completely. We need to know from the Leader of the House that there will be adequate opportunity for proper scrutiny of the legislation to which the statement refers, particularly the taxation package-not as it relates to the Budget but as it relates to the Treasurer's statement the other night in this place. We believe that a very serious burden will be imposed on selected members of the Australian community as a result of the tax change. We want to know to what degree people will be adversely affected. We do not believe the legislation can be just rushed through. We do not believe, as the statement suggested, that it is a matter for very brief consideration because, having had a wide ranging debate on the tax package, it will not be necessary for the specific pieces of legislation to be considered in the same detail. On the contrary, I advise the Leader of the House that we believe, given the character of that legislation, and the profound effect it will have on the community, that it is essential that there be no aborted debate when that matter is before the Parliament. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I table a copy of the statement of the Treasurer and explanatory notes on the Australian taxation system. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That leave of absence for three months be given to the honourable member for Griffith on the ground of parliamentary business overseas, and for one month to the honourable member for Herbert on the ground of parliamentary business overseas. Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to: That leave of absence for three months be given to the honourable member for Bruce on the ground of parliamentary business overseas, and for one month to the honourable member for Curtin on the ground of public business overseas. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the Industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation and Hospitality Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hodges and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that 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 of this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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 Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Griffiths,Mr Lamb and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mr Blunt,Mr Connolly,Mr Holding and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian ministry for peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national summit for survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations world disarmament campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the international year of peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop national employment programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement national recycling programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared international year for repairing the earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Macphee,Mr Tickner,Mr West and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared international year for repairing the earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the international year of peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing national recycling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing national employment programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Campbell,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock,Mr Scott,Mr Staples,Mr Willis and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``No Cuts For Kids''! We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``No cuts for Kids'' We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Fife and Mr McArthur. 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of The South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Porter. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is strong support for the establishment of Australia's first Arid Lands Botanic Garden on a site at Port Augusta. Such a garden will be the only facility of its type in Australia and one of only a few in the world. Australia is largely arid and South Australia is the driest State. The development of the Port Augusta Arid Lands Botanic Garden has been recommended in ``A Report on the Collection of Native Plants in Australian Botanic Gardens and Arboreta'' compiled by the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation in October 1984, a copy of which was forwarded to the Prime Minister. Benefits of the garden would include: 1. Centre for research and study of all aspects of arid land flora. 2. Provision of appropriate extension and advisory service to pastoralists, councils, settlements, mining companies and individuals in arid areas of Australia. 3. Display both native and exotic plant material. 4. Valuable educational resource at all levels. 5. Significant tourism potential. 6. Creation of employment. 7. Ideal site available at Port Augusta which is the centre for a vast area of arid Australia, and readily accessible. 8. Ideal centre for production of seed of arid land plants on a commercial basis for local and overseas markets. 9. Display of plants used by Aboriginal people in arid Australia. 10. Ideal development in which to display and demonstrate technology appropriate to arid Australia e.g. solar power, desalination, appropriate building design etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take all possible measures to ensure that Australia's first ``Arid Lands Botanic Garden'' is established at Port Augusta as an urgent priority. We ask that all possible avenues of funding be investigated as this project will be a very important first for Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the 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; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce diversion in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase, perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. by Mr Blunt. 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 exploitation; 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the towns of Ayr and Home Hill and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the sugar industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to that industry to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all steps be taken to prevent the continuous erosion of the rights of the holders of freehold land. Your petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament the denigration of freehold rights as practised in NSW and calls on the Parliament to enact overriding legislation to allow full and proper compensation to all Australians where Government requires the use of private property and traditional rights attached thereto. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangements are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That ethnic public broadcasters are not represented by the national organisations, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia or the Special Broadcasting Service. 2. That public ethnic broadcasters nationally have formed an Interim National Committee to represent the interests of public ethnic broadcasting and that neither the special broadcasting service nor the government as represented by the Minister for Communications have, to date, been prepared to negotiate with the Committee. (Interim National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasting Committee). 3. That the main concern of this committee is the desire of ethnic broadcasters to maintain the Special Broadcasting Service as the funding authority, for the time being, as proposed in section 6.76 of the report of the `Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service'. 4. That The Interim Committee which represents 90% of all subsidised public ethnic broadcasting in Australia does not wish to see the authority for funding transferred to the public broadcasting foundation in which they have expressed no confidence. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will impress upon the government and the Minister for Communications to take account of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of public ethnic broadcasters and maintain the Special Broadcasting Service as the funding authority for public ethnic broadcasting until all ethnic broadcasters can propose another solution: and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. 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, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House. That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- The quality of commercial television in the area which is deplorable has been further affected by the recent boosting of Victorian T.V. signals. Channels 9 and 10 have been almost obliterated by this boost. The impending introduction of Channel 8 to the area does not compensate, as its content is largely Victorian. South Australians wish to watch South Australian television. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the signal from Adelaide commercial television be boosted to cover a wider area and to regain channels lost by boosted signals from Channel 6 at Ballarat. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: They strongly oppose the increase in the price of fuel, which is one of the main items causing the increases in the cost of living in Australia today and also the upward inflationary trend. Australia produces 60% of the required amount of crude oil necessary to supply our Nation's own requirements, and is boasted as being the cheapest produced in the world, therefore the Australian consumer of this commodity instead of being so heavily taxed should receive more benefits than those of the foreign oil consortiums. Extra taxes required to fill the coffers of the government, to use as they see fit, should be collected from the foreign oil consortiums without recourse to the Australian citizens. The World Parity Pricing of Australian crude oil was introduced when the local crude oil production was in its infancy, and the imported overseas product was at a world record high. With the promise that the pricing would be reduced in keeping with the falling of the world market price of crude oil, this also has been the falling of Hawke Government's pre-election to office promise. In introducing the World Parity Pricing the Federal Government bent over under pressure from the foreign oil consortiums. The petitioners hereto request that the Hawke Federal Government immediately introduce and put into action a Fuel Price Reduction Policy, even if it means that the Government builds its own refineries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise 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 program, (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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three-year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Veterans' Entitlement Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair ``earned service'' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembeld ensure that the previous legislation in respect of War Veterans' and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Wilson and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned ex-service persons in the electorate of Lyons in Tasmania respectfully showeth that: (i) The welfare of Australian veterans and their dependants should be kept out of bureaucratic costing exercises. (ii) The Veterans' Entitlement Bill 1985 does not represent the actual needs of ex-service persons, especially the abolition of dependants' pensions, the alteration to the assessment of rates of disability pensions and the alteration to Section 47-the onus of proof. (iii) As ex-service persons who served their country in time of need, and now apparently forgotten by governments, we are deeply concerned that our organisations were not consulted before the amendments were made. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The controversial parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 be repealed. 2. That ex-service organisations be given the chance of a ``Summit'' type meeting, as accorded management and trade unions, at which to express their opinions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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 request that your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to implement the provision of the Channel 0/28 multi-cultural television service to the Albury/Wodonga and surrounding districts 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 Petition of citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: 1. Badgery's Creek and surrounding district are unsuitable sites for any major airport due to environmental, conservation and weather factors. 2. Many hundreds of people will be dislocated and many thousands more will be disturbed by the siting of an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. 3. N.S.W. taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost upgrading and expansion of Kingsford Smith will satisfy the needs of N.S.W. air travellers in the foreseeable future. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will not approve an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the House: Section 21 Block 3 the vacant land adjoining South Bruce bounded by Haydon Drive, Belconnen Way and the South Bruce cycle path sustains considerable native flora and fauna and provides a corridor of natural vegetation and open spaces linking the Black Mountain Reserve through to Lake Ginninderra. It also provides the main habitat and watering place for the large numbers of native birds that have remained in South Bruce as a consequence of the National Capital Development Commission's past policy of retaining natural vegetation in the South Bruce development. It is considered that this land would be a valuable community asset if it were to be set aside in its natural state as a Reserve. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives advises the Minister to direct the Department concerned to set the aforementioned land aside as a Reserve. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain Wollongong citizens of Australia (electors of the Division of MacArthur) shows- Living Sound Radio (here circumstances of case stated) has been allocated 104.5 Mhz on FM Radio band and has blocked out all Sydney FM Radio reception. Those stations affected are: 2 triple M and 2 Day FM Your petitioners therefore pray that (1) They allocate to another frequency. (here terms of action petitioned stated) (2) Reduce power output transmission by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expenses in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens 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 Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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 Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Prime Minister's incompetent discharge of his ministerial duties as evidenced by his handling of the Bicentennial Authority. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.48) —The Government would have us believe that, arising out of Question Time and the matters that came from Question Time, nothing new under the sun has emerged in this whole affair. However, one of the most interesting things to come out of Question Time and the debate that followed was the quite extraordinary proposition that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is now asking the Parliament and the Australian public to accept. That extraordinary proposition is that somebody whom the Prime Minister judged to be incompetent and no longer fit to hold the office of Chief Executive of the Australian Bicentennial Authority was, without inquiry, worth at least a $400,000 payout. That is the proposition and the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say over the telephone to Mr Reid or say to other people `Get him quietly and get him quickly. I will keep it all quiet and will not say anything about it. Err on the side of generosity, but for heaven's sake get rid of him, and $400,000 at least is okay', and now, because he is in a political hole, go along to the Australian public and say the reason why he sacked Mr Reid and the reason why he behaved as he did in the matter was that Mr Reid was careless and profligate with money of the Commonwealth. Is it not careless and profligate with money of the Commonwealth to say to somebody: `Buy him off to the tune of at least $400,000, even though I do not think he is any good. Err on the side of generosity, but do it quickly, do it quietly and for heaven's sake get it out of my hair'? The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Once again this Prime Minister has demonstrated a double standard. When it comes to buying off a problem and when it comes to getting his own way, the sky is the limit with money of the public. He would say: `Don't worry about $400,000; err on the side of generosity. Good on you, John; you have done it quickly and that is how I wanted it done.' But because there is now a problem and the public perhaps does not like the idea of $400,000 being paid, what does the Prime Minister say? He says that he was misled by this dreadful man and, what is more, there may have been tax minimisation involved. But was there any reference to tax minimisation on 19 August when they had their discussion? Did the Prime Minister go to the Attorney-General's Department, to the Australian Taxation Office or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and get some advice on tax minimisation? Of course he did not. Did he care on 19 August about the 400 grand? No. He said to err on the side of generosity. Yet he is the man who now says to the Australian public: `I had to get rid of this man Reid because he let you down, he authorised a tax minimisation arrangement and under no circumstances can I as Prime Minister countenance an arrangement in which people are careless with taxpayers' money even though it may be perfectly legal'. Let us apply that standard to the Prime Minister's conduct on 19 August. By his own admission an hour ago in Question Time, baring his breast, indicating that `this grubby lot have dragged it out of me', he said reluctantly that he had to say finally why Dr Armstrong had to go. The reason Dr Armstrong had to go, according to the Prime Minister, was that he was no good in his job. That was the state of the Prime Minister's mind on 19 August. What did he do then? Having come to that conclusion he said to Mr Reid: `Get rid of him as quickly and as quietly as possible. Don't let it come out; we will keep it all quiet, all secret, and please above everything else will you err on the side of generosity.' Mr Reid said that it would cost at least $400,000 and one of the reasons why it would cost that much was that the Prime Minister wanted it done in a hurry. Yet the Prime Minister now asks us to believe that he sacked John Reid because he was worried about wasting the public's money. If he was so concerned about people being prudent about the payment of public money why on earth did he say on 19 August to err on the side of generosity? Why did he give cavalier approval to the payment of $400,000? Why did he not get proper advice on 19 August? The fact is that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot now claim to be the guardian of prudent expenditure of the Commonwealth's money and yet be exposed as having authorised on 19 August without proper advice and counsel the payment of over $400,000 to a man he judged to be incompetent. One simply cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister cannot say that on 19 August and now come into this House and say: `Look, Madam Deputy Speaker, ladies and gentlemen and the public of Australia, the reason I have had to get rid of John Reid is that he let the Government down, he let the public down, he was not careful enough, his stewardship was not good enough and, above all, he was engaged in some dreadful tax minimisation practice'. We still do not know what that dreadful tax minimisation practice was. Perhaps we will be enlightened later today. It certainly was not in the mind of the Prime Minister on 19 August when the sum of $400,000 was mentioned. He did not then go to Mr Boucher and get advice; he did not go to the Attorney-General's Department and get advice. All he wanted to do was have a quick, quiet settlement. As I said earlier in the debate on the motion to suspend Standing Orders, the Prime Minster heavied Mr Reid to get rid of Dr Armstrong. He said: `Go quietly and quickly and I will err on the side of generosity in the settlement'. This is the man who now craves respectability as the guardian of the public's money, the man who on 19 August was prepared to say that $400,000 was perfectly okay. That once again reveals the Prime Minister as having double standards. The Prime Minister has two defences to the way in which he has made Mr Reid a scapegoat. Those two defences are, firstly, that he was misled as to the nature of the settlement and, secondly, that tax minimisation had been involved. They are the only two arguments that stand between the Prime Minister's reputation in dealing with John Reid on this and the con- demnation of this Parliament. Let us examine those two propositions. He said that he was misled. His argument is that he believed all along that it involved buying out a contract. All along he said that it involved buying out a contract and it was a matter of great amazement to him when, late in September, he learned for the first time that it did not really involve buying out a contract but involved a payment in consideration of certain releases. That is the argument that he has attempted to put forward. Let us test that argument. I go back to 19 August and examine the letter that John Reid wrote to the Prime Minister on that date. Let us remember that the Prime Minister received this letter from Mr Reid on 19 August, and this is what the former Chairman of the Authority had to say in paragraph B: That I have your authority to negotiate a financial settlement to the contract of employment, details of which would be certified by professional advisers to me in the first instance and then to you as being reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. Mr Reid then went on to say-this is critical to the Prime Minister's defence of what he is now doing to Mr Reid and the way he is trying to make Mr Reid a scapegoat for his own administrative failing and political embarrassment: Mutual releases from future action on past and future obligations. Restraints on speaking to the media. Restraints on entering into competitive employment. Restraints on disruptive contracts with staff- That is in the letter from Mr Reid to the Prime Minister. Yet the Prime Minister now tells us that he knew nothing about restraints, although his memory prompted him in Question Time to say that Mr Reid may have mentioned restraints in the telephone conversation of 19 August. Not only did Mr Reid mention restraints in that telephone conversation but also, more importantly, he mentioned restraints in his letter of 19 August. So the Prime Minister cannot now pretend that he know nothing about restraints and say that all along it was about buying out a contract. Mr Reid did not say in the letter of 19 August that it was about buying out a contract; he did not say that at all. He talked about restraints. Yet the Prime Minister now says that he knew absolutely nothing about restraints. When final approval in relation to the money was sought by Mr Reid on 28 August once again the Prime Minister had an opportunity to express his concern. He told the Press on 26 September of his great puzzlement about finally discovering that it did not relate to buying out a contract but to restraints. If he was puzzled, if he had a concern or a question, why on earth did he not mention it in his letter of 30 August to Mr Reid? Why on earth did he not say in that letter: `Look, Mr Reid, I can't give you approval. You have misled me and you have misled the Government. I want to renegotiate the whole thing because I believed all along that it was about buying out a contract and you now tell me that it is all about restraints.' The fact is that the Prime Minister could not have cared less on 30 August what it was about. He wanted him out quickly and quietly, and hang the expense. Yet this is the man who now comes to the Australian public and says: `Look, you must believe that I have had to get rid of this man Reid because he hasn't been careful enough with your money. What is more, he has connived at some tax minimisation practice'. What the Prime Minister cannot ask us or the Australian public to accept is that somebody who could be so cavalier about a payment of over $400,000 to a person he now tells us he regarded as incompetent is now being so careful, is worrying so much and is being so prudent about the payment of the Commonwealth's money and possible involvement in tax minimisation arrangements. The Prime Minister asks us also to consider the question of tax minimisation. Did he say anything about tax minimisation when he discussed the matter with Mr Reid on 15, 19 or 28 August? When did he first raise the question of tax minimisation? He raised it for the first time, so far as I am aware, on 10 September. That was almost a month after he had first raised the whole matter with Mr Reid and three weeks after he had given authority on 19 August for the arrangements to be entered into. Is it not strange that 10 September is the day before 11 September, the morning on which for the first time this matter became public? Is it not amazing? What a remarkable coincidence that the Prime Minister suddenly expresses interest in the tax minimisation aspects of the matter, and the following morning a story comes out for the first time blowing the whole thing? The Prime Minister's argument about tax minimisation cannot stand up. He did not raise it early enough on 17 September when he quoted with approval from the letter from Allen Allen and Hemsley dated 23 August, which had been provided to him by Mr Reid. Did the Prime Minister then say anything about tax minimisation? Did Allen's letter say anything about tax minimisation? Having got a letter from the Authority's lawyers, did the Prime Minister think to go to the Solicitor-General then? Did he think to go to the Taxation Office then and say: `Will you please have a look at the tax aspects of this?' Did he go to his own Department then and say: `Look, this is what the lawyer says about it. Is it okay from the tax point of view?' Of course he did not. He got interested in tax only when this became a matter of public dispute or was about to become a matter of public dispute. The Prime Minister still has not explained to us where the tax minimisation has occurred and the extent of it. How it is that a Prime Minister who can be so cavalier and so indifferent about the payment of over $400,000 to a person whom he now judges as incompetent at the task can now come along to this Parliament and say: `I want you to accept that as one standard. In other words, as far as I am concerned I can be cavalier. I can give telephonic approval to a payment of over $400,000 to somebody whom I do not think is any good, but when it comes to the conduct of somebody else, even if he is remotely connected with an arrangement that is totally legal but might involve the payment of the minimum rather than the maximum amount of tax, I have the right to sack that person and to blame that person for all the administrative difficulties and all the political difficulties into which I have fallen'. That is another example of the double standards this Prime Minister has adopted. At no stage has the Opposition ever argued, and I have said this from the very beginning, that the Prime Minister did not have a right to be concerned about or to have a view about whether Dr Armstrong should continue as Chief Executive of the Authority. At no stage has the Opposition disputed the Prime Minister's right on that, but what the Opposition all along has disputed is the way in which the Prime Minister has handled this. He misled us on 11 September; only today has he finally given some reason why Dr Armstrong should have gone; he has tried to make Mr Reid the scapegoat for his own difficulties; and out of his own mouth today he has committed the greatest condemnation of his conduct in the whole affair. He has now told the Australian public that a person whom he believed was incompetent at the job should be paid over $400,000 as a settlement payment, and yet he asks us to accept that he is prudent with payments from the Commonwealth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(4.04) —In recent weeks the administration of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Dr Armstrong's termination of employment and Mr Reid's subsequent resignation, and the future structure of the ABA have been subject to exhaustive analysis and comment, some of it ill informed though much of it well intentioned. I propose today to address in sequence the main issues in this whole affair. At the outset I wish to venture the view that when 1988 has come and gone and our bicentennial celebrations have been successfully completed, the issue we are now debating will be remembered in terms of its tax evasion and avoidance effects; the basic issue we are debating today is whether or not it is right and proper for someone to receive a $500,000 settlement package from a publicly funded company and to pay only $7,000 in tax at the time of termination of employment and receipt of this amount. At stake is the principle of whether or not this House is prepared to take a united stand in expressing its clear opposition to the contriving of schemes to minimise tax payments in this country. That is now the key issue in this matter, and it is the issue to which this House must address itself today. For this part the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has already taken a public stance which the Government would regard as totally unacceptable for a publicly funded company. I believe the Australian people would view the matter in the same way. Speaking on talk-back radio in Adelaide on 27 September, the Leader of the Opposition said: Let's face it, there are literally thousands of people when they retire take their retirement payments in the most advantageous tax manner that the law allows. Let's be realistic about this there is nothing in the law that says you have to go out and find the method of being paid that ensures that you pay the top amount of tax. Such an attitude towards contrived tax arrangements might be regarded as normal by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, but it does not and never will constitute normal or acceptable practice on the part of publicly funded authorities, for myself or for members of this Government. Tax evasion and avoidance have been at the centre of political debate in Australia for the best part of a decade. By their attitude to this matter, the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts have demonstrated that they have learnt nothing in that time about morality or fairness regarding taxation. The Leader of the Opposition, who as Treasurer for five years was both unwilling and unable to stop the rorts, has demonstrated yet again that he is totally out of touch with the demands of the Australian people on taxation. He and his small group of supporters are alone in still believing that it is both proper and desirable to cook up a scheme to enable tax on a lump sum of $500,000 to be kept down to $7,000. When the time comes, the people of Australia will again show the Opposition what they think of that sort of morality. As I have already dealt in Question Time with the reasons for Dr Armstrong's removal, there are two issues I now wish to address: What was my state of knowledge about arrangements relating to Dr Armstrong's settlement; and why did I seek Mr Reid's resignation? I go now to those two matters. On 19 September I outlined in detail to the House the sequence of events relating to Dr Armstrong's settlement. That account was accurate, and indeed was stated to be such by Mr Reid when he spoke with members of the Board on 24 September. I therefore see no need to reiterate those details, but I should add that it has since come to my notice that, as a result of further documents being made available to my Department, the deed of separation, the payment for which Mr Reid wrote seeking approval on 28 August, was in fact signed on 23 August, five days before he wrote to me. I go to Mr Reid's resignation. The reasons I felt Mr Reid should resign as Chairman of the ABA were that he was not able to satisfy me that Dr Armstrong's settlement was not a device contrived to avoid or minimise tax, and because he misled me in regard to the contractual obligations of the ABA to Dr Armstrong on termination of employment. On 19 August Mr Reid claimed, after taking his decision that Dr Armstrong should go, that it was his right and obligation to negotiate the settlement. This was the correct position, which I have always acknowledged. When Mr Reid communicated the terms of settlement to me on 28 August, the letter stated that once the additional calculations for tax were completed he would write to me again with the final figures. These were never provided to me, and I had to ask for them on 26 September. The terms of the settlement changed significantly between what I was given to understand on 19 August was the basis for settlement-that is, redeeming Dr Armstrong's contractual entitlement to six more years of salary-and what was then put to me on 28 August. When I spoke with Mr Reid by telephone on 10 September, I expressed concern and puzzlement regarding the method used in calculating Dr Armstrong's ettlement package. I expressed particular concern when Mr Reid explained that the settlement had been negotiated between the solicitors representing the ABA and Dr Armstrong to provide him with the best tax arrangements, and that the Authority's solicitors had stated that the agreement reached was normal commercial practice. I said that I sought from him an assurance in writing that Dr Armstrong's settlement was not a device contrived to avoid or minimise taxation. Mr Reid's letter of 26 September did not satisfy my concerns, but indeed exacerbated them. It was apparent by then that the difference between what I had understood would be the terms of settlement and those finally agreed upon had clear tax advantage to Dr Armstrong. The position taken with me by Mr Reid that the settlement was in accord with `normal commercial practice' was simply not credible because I was advised it would not have been normal commercial practice to choose to pay out a $240,000 severance payment to a retiring employee in the form of such capital payment, on which the company could not normally claim a tax deduction, rather than as a normal lump sum termination payment that would attract tax and on which it could claim a deduction. Furthermore, the various restraints and releases that the Chairman considered needed to be obtained from Dr Armstrong could have rested on other elements of a settlement, that is to say, there was no need to specify a large payment of the nature of $240,000 expected to be non-taxable in order to obtain such restraints and releases. For these reasons, I formed the view that the only motive for the composition of the settlement was tax minimisation. For the ABA Chairman to approve a package that involved a contrived tax minimisation scheme-and to assume that it was not his concern-in my view was unacceptable for the Chairman of a publicly funded body responsible for disbursement of public funds. This was one of the grounds on which I sought his resignation on 26 September. The other related to the fact that Mr Reid misled me over this whole period about the nature of the ABA's contractual obligations to Dr Armstrong and about the reasons for the composition of the settlement. On 26 September, when I saw Dr Armstrong's letter of appointment for the first time, it was evident that his services could be terminated with four months notice and that there were no other overriding clauses. There was no contractual commitment for a further six years, as I had been told on 19 August. In the circumstances, I had no option but to seek Mr Reid's resignation. I come now to the question of the Solicitor-General's report. Following Mr Reid's resignation, I asked the Solicitor-General to investigate fully and to report upon the settlement payment to Dr Armstrong and its circumstances. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —This report was compiled with access to ABA files and with material provided by the ABA's solicitors. As a consequence of receiving some further advice from the ABA's solicitor on a letter tabled by Mr Reid at a Senate Estimates committee hearing on 4 October 1985, but not earlier made available to the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General has added to his opinion a further supplemental note and this note is included in the material tabled. Although the report is lengthy, its central conclusions are significant and they are as follows: Dr Armstrong's legal entitlement was to no more than $122,673. Secondly, the covenants for which $240,000 was paid `do not seem to be very substantial', particularly as aspects of the ABA's activities are protected by sections 22 and 23 of the ABA Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, seeing the importance that has been attached by the Leader of the Opposition to these covenants, it is interesting to note the next point by the Solicitor-General and that is that these covenants could, in the Solicitor-General's view, have been obtained for a nominal consideration of, say, $10. The payment of the $240,000 is exempt under section 27A of the Income Tax Assessment Act from taxation liability as an eligible termination payment to the extent that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Taxation, it was reasonable having regard to the nature and extent of the restraints in the deed. The amount of the payment was found by the Solicitor-General to have been calculated with section 233 of the Companies Act in mind so as to avoid the obligation to obtain the consent of the members of the company. The handling of the complicated legal issues that arose in attempting to take advantage of section 27A of the Income Tax Assessment Act and to avoid section 233 of the Companies Act has had the result that, in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, the requirements of section 233 of the Companies Act have not been complied with. In the Solicitor-General's opinion, the effect is such that the ABA may recover from Dr Armstrong the payment of $240,000 under clause 6 of the deed and, arguably, $71,037, being part of the payment for superannuation in relation to estimated superannuation contributions by the ABA if he had retained his office. Paragraphs 38 to 40 report the Solicitor-General's conclusions on these matters. As regards the various claims that have been made regarding the legal entitlements and tax arrangements relating to Dr Armstrong's settlement, I believe I should leave the Solicitor-General's report to speak for itself. This report was conveyed to the ABA as soon as it became available to the Government and I understand that the Authority will seek the advice of its own counsel on the question of the recovery of part of that settlement. As to the future, in regard to this whole matter I should make it clear that the legislation which has governed the ABA since its inception, and has meant that the ABA has not been subject to the same scrutiny in regard to its administrative practices as the majority of public funded bodies in this country, was a heritage from our predecessors. For them to have referred in the terms that they have to the handling of this matter, without addressing themselves to the contraints imposed by their legislation, is an act of considerable hypocrisy. I should inform the House in this regard that, following recent discussions with the new interim chairman of the ABA, Mr Utz, and the ABA Board, the Government has taken a number of steps within the existing legislation to improve accountability. These include monthly reports on programs, the provision of quarterly estimates and a senior departmental officer attending board meetings as a way of assisting liaison with the Government. I believe the framework now exists for successful bicentennial celebrations, and celebrations from which the Australian community will receive full value for their money. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.18) —The defence which we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is nothing short of pathetic. The very fact that after three weeks of questioning he has had, at the last moment, to use the Solicitor-General's defence as the basis of his case merely confirms what we have been saying throughout this entire debate that is, that this man is not fit to be Prime Minister of Australia, if what we have seen today and in recent days is the example of the quality of his public administration. If there have been any significant defects in the performance of the Australian Bicentennial Authority in recent years, responsibility for them lies wholly with the Hawke Government and specifically with the Prime Minister himself. The ABA has been under the direct authority of the Prime Minister and under the direct authority of his Government for almost three years. It has been under his administration since December 1984. The Australian Bicentennial Act 1980 gave the Government full authority over policies and expenditure. For example, clause 6 of the Act, which deals with directions by the Minister, states: The Authority shall promote its objects and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions (if any) with respect to the policies to be followed by the Authority as may, from time to time, be given to the Board by the Minister in writing. And yet we have been told by this Prime Minister that he did not have the authority to influence the decisions of the Board and that he did not have the authority to influence the directions taken by Mr Reid in relation to the staffing questions which were brought to his attention. When we relate to the question of funding, under clause 11 sub-clause (1) of the Act we see: The Board shall prepare estimates, in such form as the Minister directs, of the receipts and expenditure of the Authority for each financial year and, if the Minister so directs, for any other period specified by the Minister and shall submit these estimates to the Minister not later than such date as the Minister directs. Furthermore, sub-clause (2) states: Moneys of the Authority shall not by expended by the Authority otherwise than in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister. Yet we have been told time after time by this Prime Minister, this dissembler of the truth, that he did not have the power and that the responsibility rested absolutely with Mr Reid. He did that at the stage when he knew that he had been caught with his political pants down and when he was saying to the Australian people on the one hand: `I want to change the tax system; I'm going to cut out all these heinous tax avoidance and minimisation schemes', while at the same time he had agreed, supported and endorsed a settlement which would give Dr Armstrong in excess of $400,000. We hear that the Solicitor-General has now said that those payments were unnecessary. I must make this point absolutely clear: The Prime Minister in his request to the Solicitor-General did not say: `Was there a prospect of a legal action ensuing from the wrongful dismissal of Dr Armstrong?' Without asking that question the evidence which he has brought forward today is very dubious indeed. As my Leader has said, the matter will be settled ultimately only before the courts of the land. Whether this Prime Minister likes it or not, he forced the sacking of Dr Armstrong. He has come into this place and claimed that he did not have access to the document of appointment. If he had read it-as I said earlier today, departments of government have had access to that document since at least 1979-80-he would have seen in black and white that Dr Armstrong could be sacked only under these conditions only provided he had four months warning of the decision. The letter states: You or the Authority may terminate your employment by four months notice in writing, except in the case of your misconduct when the Authority will be entitled to terminate your employment forthwith. Has there been any suggestion that Dr Armstrong had demonstrated palpable misconduct? Therefore, on the basis of what the Prime Minister said, is there any reason why that man should not have been given at least the terms which would have enabled the Commonwealth to have come out of this imbroglio substantially better off than it is today? But no, Mr Reid was told by the Prime Minister at that infamous meeting on 15 August to sack Dr Armstrong quickly and get it over with as soon as possible for the simple political reason that the Prime Minister knew that within days he had to face questions in Parliament and he was scared of being caught in a situation where the negotiated settlement which he had initiated may not have been carried through. The facts stand. The advice given by the Solicitor-General is not relevant to the essential fact that this man was forced from his job in circumstances which are similar to those of any other employee. I am amazed that this Prime Minister, who has previously been no less a personage than the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has come into this place and demonstrated such an abysmal knowledge of terms and conditions of employment and the conditions of law-especially New South Wales law-in relation to termination. If the Government sacks people under those conditions without adequate reason, it is not unreasonable that it can expect a legal claim for wrongful dismissal to be brought against it. On four occasions Mr Reid sought legal advice from one of the best companies in this nation, Allen Allen and Hemsley. The documentation tabled in both this House and the Senate last week bears out absolutely that for the Prime Minister to accuse Mr Reid of having misled him on tax minimisation is a grotesque figment of his imagination to which he has resorted for no other reason than that somebody else has to carry the political odium and blame which members of this House know, if they are fair to their own consciences, rests absolutely with one man-the Prime Minister, who initiated this imbroglio and who, time after time, has weaved, bobbed and done everything conceivable to avoid facing up to his responsibilities. In the final analysis, we are told that Mr Reid is responsible. The Prime Minister has told us that he sacked Mr Reid because he misled him on tax minimisation. I wonder what settlement the Prime Minister received when he ceased being head of the ACTU. I wonder what settlement most people around this nation receive in such circumstances. The Prime Minister has come into this place and claimed that he knew nothing about the matter when the evidence of the letter to him from Mr Reid of 19 August bears it out absolutely. A person with half an eye would be able to read it. Mr Reid told the Prime Minister that he had taken the first steps to achieve the objective the Prime Minister wished-that is, the enforced removal of Dr Armstrong. Mr Reid went on to state the details of the proposal in terms of the consequences of that settlement. They were all laid down in section 7, page 2 of his letter which stated: In this context you should know that still to be negotiated are, inter alia; Mutual releases from future action. . . Restraints on speaking to the media. Restraints on entering into competitive employment. Restraints on disruptive contacts. . . Obligations to provide me with information. . . Restraints from possible litigation for wrongful dismissal. Stated in black and white are the words: `Restraints from possible litigation for wrongful dismissal'. Yet the Prime Minister took no action to seek professional advice. Many weeks later he went to the Solicitor-General and all he wanted to know from him was whether under the original terms of appointment these payments were appropriate. He got an answer which any first year legal student could probably give: If one is going to take the terms in vacuo without considering the legal implications of those decisions forced on Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong, the outcome has to be a negotiated settlement. It was precisely that legal settlement which the Prime Minister gave Mr Reid the authority to carry through. In the Prime Minister's conversation with Mr Reid on 19 August-noted by Mr Reid in his record of conversation-this is what Mr Reid said: I spoke to the Prime Minister. He has given me assurance and his agreement to my proposals A and B. He expressed his gratitude to me for moving so quickly. Ingratitude more stronger than traitor's arms had finally vanquished him because Mr Reid lost his job. He lost his job because our Prime Minister decided that despite whatever this servant of the Government had done at his behest, his face was not going to be the one that would be taken from this chamber. That decision will rest with the people of Australia. They will be his final judges. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial)(4.28) —One amusing aspect of this debate is the feigned surprise of the Opposition that something was wrong with the Australian Bicentennial Authority. My mind goes back to earlier this year when there was a welter of Press criticism about the ABA. In fact, for some months earlier this year one could hardly pick up a paper in which there was not an article containing criticism of the ABA. There was, of course, the famed resignation of one of Australia's top media men, Ranald Macdonald, a director of the ABA. He resigned and, to put it in colloquial terms, dropped a bucket all over the General Manager, Mr Reid and the rest of the Board for what he saw as wasteful expenditure and junketeering. He had a whole range of criticisms. We need go no further than the present shadow Minister who was one of the sternest critics of the ABA and who now tells us that Dr Armstrong has been grievously wronged. It has been suggested by the Opposition that somehow Dr David Armstrong, the Chief Executive, should not have been asked to resign and that the performance of the ABA should not have attracted criticism. It is not a question of misconduct, as was put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), but of incompetence. As one who has been associated with the Bicentennial Authority since its inception, let me assure the House that I was fully aware of the problems that any organisation set up to run a unique event like the bicentennial would face during its nine-year gestation period. It was inevitable that a celebration involving 15 million people of different economic status, race, religion, ethnic origin, political views and interests would require management of extraordinary skill and tact to avoid criticism. The question of Aboriginal involvement in the celebration of the 200th birthday of the arrival and settlement of Europeans was one which we were all aware would be controversial and, probably, an unsolvable issue until the end of 1988. It was not the conceptual or philosophical framework for the bicentennial that concerned the Government. By and large, I believe that Dr Armstrong and the Board acknowledged the diversity and pluralism of Australian society and, quite rightly, attempted to cater for all tastes, to acknowledge our Anglo-Celtic origins and history and not to make 1988 solely a celebration in honour of the First Fleeters and those who can trace their settlement in Australia to the last century. Dr Armstrong repeatedly addressed the need to acknowledge our achievements and mistakes and to attempt to have a warts and all look at ourselves and how we could improve our performance during the next 100 years and beyond. The Government has no criticism of Dr Armstrong's philosophical approach. I have no time for the type of ill-informed criticism of the ultra-conservatives, such as Dr Ken Baker. Our criticism was about the way the program was being managed and the lack of progress after four to five years of work. As a director of the Bicentennial Authority from early 1980, I was aware of the bicentennial program which was presented to the Board within a year of its inception. It covered a range of recommendations including arts, sport, education, special events, heritage, environment, Aborigines, the aged, disabled and multiculturalism. That program, with minor changes, was endorsed by Cabinet in April 1984 in Adelaide. In July of that year I launched the program at the Authority's headquarters at the Rocks. It was at that point that alarm bells started to ring for me. I mentioned to both Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong my concern that the `program' did not look markedly different from the initial program which had been presented to the Board nearly four years earlier. That the conceptual framework had remained basically the same was not what concerned me. I was amazed and disappointed that there was so little meat on the bones. So little had been fluffed out in the interim four years. When I pointed to various items listed on the program-I have them before me but I will not read through them all because that would take 10 minutes-such as military tattoos, multicultural festivals, the Australian exhibition, sports and arts, I was told that details were not yet available, that all this was to be worked out in the future. I can recall being very relieved that I was not asked by journalists to give details because I would have been unable to provide them with any. I expressed my concern to Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong that I hoped the program would soon have more detail, otherwise people would ask the obvious question: What the hell have you been doing for the last four years? I saw the first sign of a `program' in July of this year. I went through it item by item. No matter which section I looked at-I saw programs for the aged and disabled-I was told: `We are discussing this with X or Y'. On another program I was told that the details would be filled out in the future. There was page after page of nothing. I asked: `What have you been doing for the last five years?'. I got the answer the other day and it was not very pleasant. I will not use in the House the colloquialism used by one of the senior executives because it is unparliamentary. Soon after that July meeting I went to Europe. I made it my practice during the period I was the Minister responsible to take the opportunity when I was overseas to visit the countries which had close ties with Australia for reasons of heritage, trade, defence, geography, ethnic origin, et cetera. Obviously, one could find some tenuous connection with every country but one had to make a choice and I think most honourable members would agree with the order of priority. The first country I wanted to raise the bicentennial with was Great Britain followed by Ireland. I had not been to Ireland but I will come to that later. I certainly would have put it second on the list. The United States of America, Japan, China, Indonesia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea were others. Then there are the countries from which we have received our large migrant intake. One would not have to be a Rhodes scholar to work out which countries they would be. They are Greece, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Lebanon, et cetera. As I have said, as the responsible Minister I visited Great Britain, the United States, Japan, China, Greece, Italy, France and New Zealand and there I raised the bicentennial and the involvement of those countries in it. This year I planned to visit Hungary, Yugoslavia and Ireland, but for various reasons the trip had to be postponed. However, in August of last year I went to Greece and Italy-they were high on my list-to talk to my opposite number, to deliver a personal invitation to participate in the bicentennial and to discuss various contributions these countries might make to our 200th birthday. I also planned to discuss another of my favourite goals for Australia for the bicentennial and that was to take Australia to the world prior to and including 1988. This would ensure plenty of pre-publicity before the big year to generate interest in and visitations from those countries that had close ties with Australia. Imagine my surprise when I arrived in Athens and was greeted by Melina Mercouri with the information that the Greek Government was unaware of the bicentennial. She said to me: `Why are you here?'. I said: `I am here to invite you to our 200th birthday'. She said: `You do not look that old'. `No, it is the birthday of the whole country'. She said: `We will come. Why didn't you tell us about it before?'. Australia has the largest Greek population outside Greece and it did not know anything about the bicentennial. The Italians knew nothing about it except what they had received from our embassy. This is despite 49 trips around the world. No one had been to Greece or Italy. Every country, almost without exception, stated that the information it was getting about the bicentennial was coming not from the Authority but from our ambassadors. When I returned to Australia I called Dr Armstrong and Mr Reid to my office to discuss the matter. I raised these matters with them. The program was a shambles; the international program existed in name only, either Australia to the world or the world to Australia. I asked: `What is going on?' `Don't worry your little head, Minister. Yes, Minister. No, Minister. Three bags full, Minister'. It sounded like something out of a British Broadcasting Corporation program. I could not get any answers from the Authority. Nobody could. That was not unique to me. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet could not get anything out of it. Finally it became an absolute fiasco. The Authority regarded the Government as some sort of interference. It was only supplying $200m; why should it know what the hell was going on? There is no question that Dr Armstrong should have been sacked. Perhaps, if anything, it should have happened earlier. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was very careful to give Dr Armstrong and Mr Reid every opportunity to put their house in order and they could not do it. The Prime Minister admitted that he had made one mistake and that was believing and trusting Mr Reid. Why should he not believe a man who was one of Australia's leading businessmen and Chairman of the Authority? Unfortunately, Mr Reid has grievously misled the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Assent to the following Bills reported: Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill 1985 Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 Rural Industries Research (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Mr Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Shipton and Mr Coleman to be members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in the places of Mr Macphee and Mr White. Also, Mr Speaker has received notice from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) notifying his resignation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.40) —On behalf of the Opposition I wish to advise that we will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill. The amendment is: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `The House declines to give the Bill a second reading because of its concern that the Northern Territory Government was not consulted in relation to the alterations to the boundaries of the Petermann Land Trust or its effect on the Uluru National Park at any stage prior to the introduction of the Bill into the Parliament'. The Opposition is very concerned that there has been no apparent attempt by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) or the Government to enter into discussions of any substance with the officials or Ministers of the Northern Territory Government in relation to the proposals to change the boundaries, even though we acknowlege that this Bill is essentially a technical amendment. The fact is that the Minister is well aware, particularly in the context of the Northern Territory, that there is mounting and real concern, amongst most Australians, about the Government's decisions relating to the handover of the Uluru National Park to the traditional owners, because Uluru contains Ayers Rock which is symbolic not just to the Aboriginal community but to the vast majority, if not all, Australians. These points were brought out fairly succinctly when we debated amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill a few months ago. The amendments committed the Government to overcome the existing restraints which prevented the Commonwealth from transferring ownership of what has been to date a Commonwealth-controlled national park to the traditional owners. The essential political issue which we believe the Government has failed to acknowledge is that the Opposition's position is in no sense meant to be seen as being anti-Aboriginal. It is a clear belief on our part that it is only a question of time before the Northern Territory achieves full Statehood. There have already been significant legislative changes, especially during the latter period of the Fraser Government. I assure the House from my observations that the Northern Territory has a competent and effective commission reponsible for conservation matters. The officers of that Commission for some time under the previous Fraser Government had administrative control on a day-to-day basis over Uluru National Park. This Government-I regret to say that this Minister for Aboriginal Affairs apparently had more than a small role to play-ensured that any administrative overview previously conducted by the Northern Territory should be removed and replaced by the Commonwealth National Parks and Wildlife Service. In fact, the effect of the proposed legislative changes which we debated some months ago, and which are relevant to the legislation before us, was to place the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service in complete control of the future administration of the park even though, at least officially, the majority on the management committee of the park consisted of representatives of the local Aboriginal community. The legislation before us today is an extension of the position of some months ago. We are debating it because it was discovered some years ago that an error had been made, presumably by the surveyors. It has not been made clear whether they were Commonwealth or Northern Territory surveyors. Approximately two square kilometres had been misplaced because of an error in one of the boundaries between the Petermann Aboriginal Trust and the Uluru National Park. This Bill will make minor variations to the description of the boundaries of the land granted to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust and ensure that the description of the land does not overlap the Uluru (Mount Olga-Ayers Rock) National Park. The second important element in this legislation relates to the confirmation of the validity of the 1977 proclamation of the Uluru (Mount Olga-Ayers Rock) National Park, notwithstanding that the proclamation included a description of land which included a small area described in the deed of grant to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. In other words, the original 1977 proclamation was also factually in error. In no sense are we objecting to that amendment because we believe that the 1977 proclamation is an essential ingredient of the case which we presented in this place some months ago and which we present again; that is, that when the land claim went before the land commissioners on that occasion-notwithstanding the substance of individual evidence put before the Commissioner-in law it was not possible for the Commissioner to grant that claim for the reason that the land had already been alienated for a national park. The amending legislation introduced some months ago removed that impediment with the effect that the Government has seen fit to offer the land to the Aboriginal community irrespective of the interests of the Northern Territory Government and the vast majority of the Australian people. It is worth making the point again that I strongly believe that had the Government gone to the last election seeking a mandate to hand over a symbol of Australia to a small section of the community, there would have been a revolt in the Australian community against the proposal. Nevertheless, in its usual underhand manner, the Government sought not to do so. It brought legislation to this House. Now it claims that we are making difficulties, when the problems were created by the Minister and the policies which he is trying to introduce for this Government. The House should be aware, as I am sure all honourable members are, that the Aboriginal land rights legislation as it currently stands was introduced by the Fraser Government and passed in this Parliament by all parties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Bradfield that while his proposed amendment broadens the area that I will allow to be debated under this legislation, the fact is that this legislation is very narrow. I suggest that the honourable member may transgress the Standing Orders if he endeavours to broaden the debate further. Mr CONNOLLY —I will endeavour not to transgress too far, but I make the point that this legislation directly affects the Uluru National Park. Therefore, it is rather difficult to talk about a boundary to a park without talking about the administrative and political underpinning for that park when this legislation endorses in law the boundaries concerned. We have emphasised and continue to emphasise that the Northern Territory should at least have been involved throughout in the settlement of these new boundaries. We have been informed by the Northern Territory Government that no attempt has been made to discuss any aspect of this proposal with it. I would have thought that it was simple manners, if not common sense, for a Commonwealth government involving itself in decisions which clearly affect the land mass over which the Territory expects in due course to claim sovereignty, to bring the Northern Territory into consideration of these matters. The failure of the Government to do this has clearly resulted in the last 24 hours in Mr Tuxworth's starting a national campaign, at great expense, to bring to the attention of the Australian people that Ayers Rock belongs to all Australians. I do not wish to be- labour that point because nobody disputes that the Aboriginal communities in the area also have rights to Ayers Rock as Australians. But it needs to be emphasised that the mishandling of this issue by not bringing the Northern Territory into discussions, has created a political climate in which the Aboriginal people will be in the difficult position of having to defend the decisions taken by this Hawke Labor Government in relation to land rights. The Commonwealth has ignored the quite legitimate interests of the Northern Territory Administration. Yet we find ourselves in the situation, ultimately, of having to support a position, which we have consistently held, that the boundaries of the park which are covered by this legislation should remain a national park under the direct administration of the Northern Territory. We have also made it the basis of our policy that cognisance should be taken of the fact that the relevant areas in the national park, both the Olgas and Uluru, may well be of considerable historic and religious significance to the Aboriginal communities. Their sacred sites in those areas must, of course, be given the highest pos- sible level of protection. We have also suggested to the Northern Territory Government, as we suggested to the Government in this Parliament, that the opportunity was there for this Government to enter into negotiations and an agreement with the Northern Territory by which control of the national park within its new boundaries shall be taken over, subject to the local Aboriginal communities being given adequate access to residential areas over which they should have legal ownership and control. The Government chose of its own initiative to take a far more political route in this matter. We find ourselves facing the major problem of a total breakdown of bipartisanship, which we used to have on the subject of Aboriginal land rights in the days of the Fraser Government and which we have not had since the change of government. I think that is something to which this Minister, if he truly believes in the interests of the Aboriginal people, should give very serious thought. They are the ones who ultimately suffer most from any major division, either in philosophy or in the direction of policy, which occurs in this Parliament and which becomes a focus of division within the Australian community. I am also rather intrigued, if I may make the observation again in the context of this legislation and the boundary changes-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member will make it within the context of the legislation. I remind him again of the narrowness of this legislation and also of the amendment he proposes to move. Mr CONNOLLY —I am rather surprised, in regard to the proposal to hand over on the last Saturday of this month the titles to Uluru-the titles will be clarified within the context of this Bill if it is passed by the Parliament-that the cost of that performance will be about $400,000. The figures given to a Senate Estimates committee show an amount for catering of $22,000, co-ordination of Aboriginal arrangements $30,000, public relations $80,000, film production $150,000, books $55,000, and pamphlets $50,000. If we add to that figure the funds which Mr Tuxworth obviously feels responsible for spending in order to present the other side of this issue, the amount is probably not far short of $800,000. In recent weeks we have seen examples in the media of Aboriginal communities asking this Government for financial support, especially in the area of Aboriginal health. There is a range of other areas of Aboriginal advancement of which the Minister is even more aware than I am. I say that as a shadow Minister who has only recently arrived in this portfolio. I think it is a matter of moral concern that governments, be they Territory, State or Federal, should be forced to assert their political interests, by spending such amounts of money, and at the end of the day have to admit that they have probably done little to advance the interests of the Aboriginal people. I draw that point specifically in relation to this Bill and the earlier legislation to which it is related, by virtue of the fact that the Minister has taken the issue of land rights, in particular the symbolism of Uluru, to the very frontiers of what the Australian electorate is prepared to accept. I suggest with some sadness that the Minister has transgressed. He has crossed the frontier. People are now looking for reasons to say `no'. The good will which was built up over the last eight or 10 years has been dissipated by the manner in which he has conducted the Uluru issue and the manner in which he has forced his views in such a very sensitive matter. I do not refer only to the people of the Northern Territory, who rightly feel that they have lost something they thought was theirs. He has forced upon the Australian people as a whole the belief that this Government has now given away something that generations of Australians presumed was part of their legacy as well as part of the legacy of the Aboriginal people. No serious attempt was ever made to negotiate on these issues. I say to the Minister, as a matter of deepest concern, that he has not put in place a public perception of land rights which will make it very difficult to give the Aboriginal communities a fair deal. People now believe that they have a Federal Labor government which negotiates behind their backs and offers their heritage to other people without consultation with either the electorate or the State or Territory concerned. At the end of the day it is the Aboriginal people who will run the risk of having to carry the odium of the decisions this Government has made. My case rests on the terribly important point that insofar as Aboriginal land rights have been successful and insofar as the boundaries of the Petermann Land Trust, for example, are covered by those Aboriginal land rights decisions-it was a coalition government which established the Petermann Land Trust, and honourable members should not forget it-it is because we did those things that the Minister is now in a position to introduce the legislation we are debating today. I fear that because he has taken this action and because of the way in which he has taken it, he has set in train a set of circumstances over which, regrettably, there may be a distinct lack of future control. I therefore move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House declines to give the bill a second reading because of its concern that the Northern Territory Government was not consulted in relation to the alterations to the boundaries of the Petermann Land Trust or its effect on the Uluru National Park at any stage prior to the introduction of the bill into the Parliament'. Mr Cobb —I second the amendment. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.58) —I preface my comments this afternoon by making reference initially to the amendment to the motion for the second reading which is now before us. One really has to take it with a grain of salt. It is a sham and a fraud on the parliamentary process to have this amendment brought forward by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I make the same point about the alarmist, confrontationist comments made by the honourable member, who mentioned bipartisanship during his speech. If he really meant that and if he was genuine about it, he would certainly have spoken in a different vein about the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill. Having listened to what he said and having now to put it in its proper context, I ask honourable members and the people of Australia to realise what we are talking about in regard to the amendment that has been moved. Of the 44,970 square kilometres which make up the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve under the current land rights legislation, this legislation will affect two square kilometres. I ask honourable members and the Australian public to weigh that fact against the alarmist, confrontationist comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield. He is completely out of context as is his amendment. I will say no more about that amendment except that it has no basis and, quite frankly, it cannot be backed up except by his ridiculous and exaggerated claims. Mr Deputy Speaker I will refer specifically, as you have indicated we should, to the narrow terms of the legislation before the House. I will not move outside those terms. The Bill has been introduced to rectify the description of the boundaries of an area of Aboriginal land described in Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The provisions of the Bill are merely technical and procedural. Therefore, let us not be carried away once again by the exaggerated claims of the previous speaker who spoke of consultations with the Northern Territory Government. I have said previously that this Bill is designed to rectify a description. Once again I refer to the two square kilometres of land out of a total of 44,970 square kilometres. The description was only recently drawn to this Government's attention. The Bill provides a rectification of a description in an incorrect map. This misdescription, which was used during the time of the previous Government goes back to 1958. The Petermann Aboriginal Reserve was defined within Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Title of the land was granted to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust in 1978. The deed of grant described the land by reference to a compiled plan prepared on the basis of the description in Schedule 1 of the Act. Land obtained to the east of the Petermann land was vested in the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1977. The proclamation of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National Park contained the description of the boundaries of the land in the Park. The recent amendment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which added the description of Uluru to Schedule 1 of the Act followed the 1977 proclamation description. That proclamation encroached on the Petermann land as described in Schedule 1 of the Act. The misdescription emanated in 1958 when land, which became the national park, was excised from the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve and the revised boundaries were separately described. This Bill will rectify the description and remove any confusion in respect of the Petermann land. I repeat-one cannot repeat this too often-that the Bill is merely of a technical and procedural nature. There is Aboriginal support for this action. The Aborigines have been consulted. The Bill will confirm the validity of the 1977 proclamation of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park, notwithstanding that the proclamation included a description of land which includes a small area of land described in the deed of grant of the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. Under the existing legislation, that is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Minister may establish Aboriginal land trusts to hold title to land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of the Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition, to the use or occupation of the land. The Bill transgresses none of the provisions of the land rights legislation. I repeat what I said at the outset: There is no basis for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. It is fraught with exaggerations and alarmist comments. The honourable member for Bradfield indicated that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Government intends to spend something like $400,000 on a national media and advertising campaign. Of course, most of that money comes from the Federal coffers anyway. I suppose only about 15 per cent of Northern Territory money is included in that amount. It is unfortunate that the confrontationist approach by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory will add to the problems faced by the Aboriginal people in this day and age. Let us look at the attitude of the Northern Territory Government in relation to Uluru. One has only to refer to the following comments made by the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now a back bencher in this place, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in July 1982 when addressing the National Press Club. So that there is no doubt I will quote from his speech: The Northern Territory Government will enter into negotiation with Land Councils for the granting of titles to national parks subject to claims. Such negotiations will include . . . Uluru . . . He continued: The Territory Government will give (Aboriginals) title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mt Olga and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a national park . . . That is in total conflict with the tenor of the media campaign now being run by the present Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Therefore, they are at odds. In fact, Mr Tuxworth is at odds not only with the former Chief Minister and now back bencher, Mr Everingham, but also with Mr Hatton, the Northern Terrritory Minister for Conservation. He is not opposed to title to Uluru, being given to the Aboriginal people. In fact, Mr Hatton supports Aboriginal ownership under Northern Territory title. Once again, that is in complete conflict with Mr Tuxworth and with the media campaign he is now running. I finish on this note: Not only do we have conflict at a Northern Territory level but also we have conflict in the ranks of the Opposition. The honourable member for Bradfield is reported as saying that the Opposition would not take the title from the traditional owners if it got into government. Mr Connolly —I beat you to it. Mr GAYLER —The honourable member should speak to the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). I do not know whose policy he is espousing-that of Mr Valder, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or his own. So many policies emanate from the Opposition benches that one really does not know where they come from or where they belong. The honourable member for Higgins-I draw the attention of the honourable member for Bradfield to this-in the House of Representives on 17 September this year, said that the legislation providing for title to Uluru National Park to be given to the traditional owners would be repealed if the Opposition got back into government-a very unlikely event. There is conflict not only at the Northern Territory level but also at the Oppostion level. It does not do much credit to the honourable member for Bradfield to come into this place and raise alarmist views and make alarmist and confrontationist comments on this technical and procedural legislation. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.09) —The Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill concerns a change of boundaries whereby land is transferred from the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. The strip of land involved is about 220 metres wide and nine kilometres long and amounts to just under two square kilometres. Apparently there was a mix-up in the delineation of the common boundary between these two areas of land. This Bill is now presented to rectify that anomoly. At first glance this seems to be an innocuous change requiring little or no debate. That would be a wrong assessment for there are many underlying principles in this seemingly tame piece of legislation which epitomise much of what is wrong with how the Government is dealing with the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, with Northern Territory Government and, in particular, with land rights. The Uluru National Park, which contains Ayers Rock and the Olgas, embraces an area of 1,325 square kilometres. It was proclaimed as part of the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve in the 1920s. However, in 1958 the area was excised from the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve and proclaimed as a reserve under the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance. The Northern Territory Reserves Board managed it but during the term of the Whitlam regime the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed to create a national park in the area. In 1977 the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park was finally proclaimed. This is an area unlike any other in the world and was set aside to be owned equally by all Australians and to be enjoyed by all Australians regardless of creed or colour. What Australian does not have an emotional attachment to Ayers Rock, the largest and most spectacular monolith in the world? It stirs deep feelings in all of us. A visit to Ayers Rock has become something that every Australian aspires to do. It has almost become a pilgrimage for some. We have other geological symbols in Australia, such as the Three Sisters, the Wittenoom Gorge and the Twelve Apostles. However, there is nothing quite like Ayers Rock. It has become something very special and unique to us all, rather like Mount Fuji is to the Japanese. Remember the horror which swept this country when the present Hawke socialist Government took this national symbol away from 99.99 per cent of Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Parkes, as I found it necessary to remind honourable members earlier, of the narrow context of this legislation. I suggest that if he transgresses beyond that narrow context he do so in passing and that he return to the subject matter of the Bill fairly quickly. Mr COBB —I am leading to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ayers Rock was taken from that percentage of Australians and given to a small group of Aborigines-less than 100. I am particularly referring to this because-- Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. I support the ruling that you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out that under standing order 73, no member may reflect upon any vote of the House except upon a motion that such vote be rescinded. I do not want to restrict the general comments of the honourable member for Parkes but clearly the very terminology he is using does reflect upon a vote of the House and is outside the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. Mr COBB —What I am leading to is that there are less than 100 Aborigines who have been given the whole sweep of land that we are debating here today. The Government said that it had negotiated with both groups to determine the boundaries. When this happened, of course, the people of Australia saw it for what it was and were outraged. Wherever one goes in Australia today people talk about this decision with bitterness and they will continue to do so until there is a change of government in this country and the ownership is returned to all Australians. There was no consultation with the Australian people before that Act was proclaimed. There was no referendum. It was not even mentioned in the election platform of the Australian Labor Party. There was no consensus-a word that this Government says it is good at honouring. There may have been a `con' but there was no `sense' in the decision and there was certainly no consensus. Australians have become strangers in their own country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! For the last time, I remind the honourable member for Parkes of the narrow nature of this legislation. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that there has been an amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield and this amendment obviously widens the breadth of this debate. There is every reason for you to take that into account. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that when I have previously referred to the narrow nature of this legislation, as I did again on the last occasion, I have taken into consideration the fact that the honourable member for Bradfield has moved an amendment. The fact is that that amendment really refers to consultation with the Northern Territory Government. Mr Tuckey —On a further point of order, the motion refers to a lack of consultation with the Northern Territory Government. Quite clearly the honourable member for Parkes is making reference to that area of the lack of consultation and I believe he is fully entitled to continue with those comments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not uphold the point of order. Mr COBB —If Australians were to visit this area of Australia and look at where these boundary changes are to take place, I think they would feel strangers in their own country. To visit Ayers Rock or anywhere in that area, we have to trespass on someone else's land with his permission. It is a permission that can be withdrawn at any time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I wonder whether the honourable member for Parkes is aware of the fact that I have drawn his attention to the narrow nature of this debate. The honourable member for Parkes told me that he was returning to the legislation. I trust that he will do so fairly quickly. Mr COBB —With the greatest respect, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Parkes that he return to the legislation fairly quickly. I do not want to hear about `with the greatest respect' from him. He will return to the legislation fairly quickly or he may find that he will have to resume his seat. Mr COBB —I was just referring to the fact that, if Australians want to visit that area to see where these boundary changes are taking place, they will have to receive permission. I would have thought that that was relevant, with or without respect. The amendment clearly talks about the lack of consultation with the Northern Territory Government, the effect on the Uluru National Park, the ability of this Government to negotiate with Aboriginal groups and whether it has been negotiating with the correct people or not. I would have thought that that was relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member for Parkes is not reflecting on the ruling of the Chair. I accept the fact that the honourable member may be using this as an example. The Chair would appreciate it if he got back fairly quickly to the legislation before the House or the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr COBB —No reflection on the Chair was meant. I was trying to explain the relevance of what I was saying. The previous speaker on the Government side-the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler)-ranged fairly widely towards the end, with good licence, I thought. I believe that the group the Government consulted is not necessarily the legitimate group that it should be consulting. There is no hard evidence available that the Aborigines now at Uluru are descended from the original inhabitants. In fact, there is quite irrefutable evidence dating back over 50 years to show that members of the recently formed Mitijulu community are not the traditional inhabitants of Ayers Rock at all. In fact, four tribal groups were recognised as the inhabitants of Ayers Rock-namely, the Jankunpjatjgara, the Antakininja, the Pintubi and the Pitjantjatjara, in that order. The traditional ownership was established by Professor T. G. H. Strehlow in the 1930s. It seems that Mitijulu is not the name of any individual tribal group but the name of the waterhole at the base of Ayers Rock, now known to tourists as Maggie's Springs. Giving title to any Aboriginal group that does not include those tribes as the principal shareholders is a dangerous precedent. To give title to a small group which might have some difficulty in establishing its claim as the former sole traditional owners is fraught with danger. I am told that there have been some who have even come in from interstate recently on motor bikes and several have settled there in response to tourist development. Now that this proposed take away and lease back arrangement is to be finalised, the day cannot be far off when other Aboriginal groups can claim title to Fraser Island, the Great Barrier Reef or whatever and lease them back to the Government at annual rentals which could run into millions of dollars. I believe the whole operation has become a sick joke. Where are the details of the lease and the details of how it is to be adjusted? Who will actually see the colour of the money? Is it to be divided equally or is it to go into a so-called trust? What is it to be used for? Will tax be paid on it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes in his remarks is ranging very much further than the narrow context of this legislation or the amendment. I am sure he is aware that I have reminded him of that on several occasions. I recognise the fact that on the last occasion I did so he went on to suggest to me that certain tolerance had been allowed to the honourable member for Leichhardt. That was not appreciated by the Chair, nor is it appreciated that he is still wandering much further afield than the narrow context to which I have endeavoured to draw him back. I call the honourable member for Parkes. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Should your interpretation continue in this fashion you would leave me no- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for O'Connor threatening the Chair? He will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I will move dissent from your ruling. I will move: That this House dissents from the ruling of the Deputy Speaker in his interpretation of the relevance of the remarks of the honourable member for Parkes. The honourable member for Farrer will second the motion. I believe that, under the Standing Orders, I have the right to speak to my motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor may be referring to an earlier ruling that I gave. It would have been appropriate for him to move dissent at that time. He did not do so. On this occasion I was only guiding the honourable member for Parkes back to the legislation. I have not given any ruling in relation to which the honourable member for O'Connor can move dissent. Mr Tuckey —In that case the honourable member can object if you rule. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Parkes. Mr Tuckey —Keep going until he rules; then I will move dissent. Mr Holding —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The statement made by the honourable member for O'Connor clearly constitutes a reflection on the Chair and its responsibilities. For the honourable member to suggest that an honourable member proceed in a way which is contrary to the directions of the Chair and then publicly indicate to the House that he will then move dissent seems to me to be a reflection on the Chair. If that is a course he wants to follow, he can; but I suggest that he withdraw and apologise to the Chair. Mr Tuckey —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was intended to be a remark to the honour- able member speaking. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I accept the withdrawal by the honourable member for O'Connor and I call the honourable member for Parkes. Mr COBB —If Australians wanted to go into the Uluru-Petermann area and inspect where these boundary changes are taking place there would be no guarantee that they would even be allowed in. By whose whim will this be decided? Already an Aboriginal adviser is on record as saying that the park may have to be closed altogether to whites for a day at a time. Next it will be for a month. That will be great for the tourist industry in particular. Restrictions seem to be creeping in all the time. Photography is already restricted within the Uluru National Park. No commercial filming is allowed except under very special conditions. Several international and national media organisations have been forbidden to film or photograph Ayers Rock. No doubt if Channel 9 or Channel 10 wanted to film these boundary changes that we are discussing today, they would not even be allowed to do that. Mr Justice Woodward said in his second report: One of the most important proofs of genuine Aboriginal ownership of the land will be the right to exclude from it those who are not welcome. Already those words are proving ominously true. Today we are debating changes to the boundaries of the park. What the Federal Government seems to have forgotten is that these changes in boundaries are taking place within a part of Australia called the Northern Territory. One would have thought that it would be necessary, if not good manners, to consult with the Northern Territory Government before these changes took place. If the Commonwealth had done that previously, the boundaries would have been determined correctly and there would not be the need for this legislation. The Federal Government seems to have deliberately overlooked the fact that it is the Northern Territory Government's Title Office that issues title to the Uluru National Park. The title should not be issued under Commonwealth law at all. In fact, Uluru National Park should be managed by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. The current plan of management is in breach of the law. The Federal Government has issued title to Uluru under Schedule 1 of the 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This was intended for mostly old traditional reserves. It was designed, if you like, to accommodate Aboriginal people already living on their land in 1976. However, to alienate Uluru National Park by extending the meaning of this law in the way this Government has is nothing more or less than a complete perversion of the original Aboriginal land rights Act. I remind the Government that in 1979 Aboriginal Land Commissioner Toohey ruled that the Uluru National Park was alienated Crown land and therefore was not eligible for claim under the Aboriginal land rights Act. As I explained earlier, the Aborigines who have been given this land have not established traditional claim to it. In fact, under the terms of the Aboriginal land rights Acts it is not possible for them to establish such a claim. On top of all this the Federal Government cannot even now be certain that the boundaries described in the Act are the true and proper boundaries until complete consultation with the Northern Territory Government has taken place and a further survey has been completed. But the Federal Government refuses to do that. As well, no survey of the public roads within Uluru has been carried out, which has been a provision of all land claims since 1978. If this is not done in this case we could well have litigation in the High Court of Australia. The boundary we are discussing today is not the only Uluru National Park boundary in dispute. Other boundaries have been questioned and the matter of all boundaries will not be resolved until consultations have taken place with the Northern Territory Government. The Aborigines who live in Uluru should have living areas set aside for them so that they may secure their assets in a more normal and proper way. The way the whole issue has been handled by this Government is not a source of pride. Even the $150m spent to develop the Yulara tourist complex was an outrageously large amount of money. Pushing legislation through this Parliament while completely ignoring the Northern Territory Government's wishes is not consistent with our stated objective to transfer power from Canberra to the Northern Territory. If we are genuine in that aim we will delay this legislation until consultation between the two governments involved has taken place. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.28) —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Petermann Aboriginal Land Turst (Boundaries) Bill, which amends an earlier piece of legislation. I took part in the debate on that legislation also, along with some of the regular speakers on the other side. It is good to see them all back because it reinforces my view concerning their anti-Aboriginal philosophy. It is still there and is still being preached. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said that Aborigines should be put in a place separate from everybody else. It smacks of South Africa if we examine carefully what he is saying. Mr Peter Fisher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask for your ruling on whether these remarks are relevant to the Bill under discussion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Having just come into the chair I will take a little time to pick up the thread of what the honourable member is saying. Mr Connolly —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's comments were perfectly clear. He suggested that the Opposition agrees with the policy of apartheid. That is grossly offensive and I ask that he withdraw those comments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member made a fair debating point at that stage. The point of order is not sustained at this stage of the discussion. Mr HAND —I have been asked to speak in this debate very briefly, but I wanted to touch on a couple of points. The first deals with the amendment, and it is a little hard to understand why it is being moved. When the Opposition was in Government, that Government excluded this land from the land handed to the Northern Territory. That Government or its predecessors obviously supported this land being handed over to Aborigines or set aside for a national park. They did not give it to the Northern Territory Government because they obviously did not trust that Government either. Reference was made to the Northern Territory Government not having been consulted in terms of this legislation. It is little wonder that this Government will not accept the Opposition's amendment when the Northern Territory Government is running filthy advertisements of the sort one sees on page 23 of the Age today and using taxpayers' money for such a purpose. It is an outrageous advertisement and honourable members opposite who are associated with parties in the Northern Territory should be ashamed of themselves for being allied with people who allow thugs and people in the Northern Territory Government to run that sort of advertisement. It is a disgrace and should not be carried in any newspaper in Australia. Mr Cobb —Censorship. Mr HAND —The honourable member for Parkes should not talk about censorship to me. He wants to separate Aborigines from non-Aborigines. That is what he said. Mr Cobb —On a point of order: I did not say that at all. I said nothing of the sort. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes may be misrepresented in his mind by what the honourable member for Melbourne is saying, but he can take that up at a later time, not at this time. Mr HAND —It is interesting to read the debate of 20 May, when this legislation was discussed. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), is not here today and is not taking part in this debate. Indeed, the Northern Territory Government is boycotting the handover. I give my apologies to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) because unfortunately I have another commitment, of which he is well aware, on that date. Mr Blunt —How much is all this costing? It is $22,000 and you miss out on it. Mr HAND —A few Opposition members are going up there, so the honourable member should not scream too hard. However, I will not be able to go. I regret that I cannot attend because it will be an historic occasion. The PetermannAboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill attempts to tidy up an error that was made prior to the present Government taking office. In fact, it arose when the Opposition parties were in Government, which was when the error about the measurements was made. We are attempting today to set aside a narrow strip of land that is some nine kilometres long by some 220 metres wide, with a total area of two square kilometres. Despite all the hoo-ha on the Opposition benches, I emphasise that it was a surveyor's error that was made many years ago. We are now trying to adjust the position prior to handing over. It seems to me to be quite reasonable for the Government to take that action now prior to the handing over. I find the amendment totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant that the Opposition seeks to decline to give the Bill a second reading because the Northern Territory Government has not been consulted. Frankly, who would consult with the Northern Territory? How could one consult rationally with that Government when it runs the sort of vile advertisement that appears in the Press today? Mr Connolly —It is only running ads because you did not bother to try to consult with it. Mr HAND —I read the comments by the honourable member for Bradfield in the last debate here, and I listened intently to his remarks today. He had very little to say on this legislation. If he re-reads his speech tonight before he goes to bed, he will see that there was very little substance in it. Opposition members lack debating points, as is being shown in this debate today. They are going through an exercise, pandering to their electorate out there and putting up a front of opposition to anything that smacks of helping Aboriginal people. It is well known throughout Australia that anything to do with Aboriginal people has to be opposed. The Opposition opposes everything that is put up. Mr Ian Cameron —Nonsense. Mr HAND —That is not nonsense, as the honourable member for Maranoa knows. I have been on a lot of trips with him, and now and again he has a weak moment and agrees with some of the things that might help Aborigines, but most of the time he opposes anything that is likely to assist them. The Labor Party is dedicated to ensuring that Aboriginals andIslander people everywhere in Australia have access to land under secured title in accordance with Mr Justice Woodward's principles, and we are trying to achieve that. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) referred to Mr Justice Woodward, and I would like to mention some of the points raised in Mr Justice Woodward's report into Aboriginal land rights. Mr Justice Woodward pointed out that we must give Aboriginal people a number of things when we look at them as people. He said in his report in 1974: In order to achieve recognition of land rights for Aborigines in the best possible form, it is necessary first to be clear as to the aims underlying such recognition. I have assumed these to be . . . The reason I will state these is that they are relevant to the philosophy behind the Government's decision regarding Uluru National Park and the legislation in which we are now involved. I would have thought the Opposition would be in agreement on these points, too. Mr Justice Woodward continued: . . . the doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation. He then went on: . . . the provision of land holdings as a first essential for people who are economically depressed and who have at present no real opportunity of achieving a normal Australian standard of living. Thirdly, he continued: . . . the preservation, where possible, of the spiritual link with his own land which gives each Aboriginal his sense of identity and which lies at the heart of his spiritual beliefs . . . As on the last occasion we debated this matter, we are talking of an area of Australia with which, for 30,000 years or more, the Aboriginal people have had a relationship in a spiritual way and where there has been a close association involving Aboriginal people in that period. It does Australia proud to see legislation of this type going through. I believe passionately in this land being handed over to the Aboriginal people. I sometimes wonder what is the hidden agenda behind the objections of people who are campaigning vigorously around Australia in opposition to this. Mr Ian Cameron —It is a Commonwealthnational park. Mr HAND —That is right, and people will not be barred from going there. A management body will be set up over the area, of which Aboriginal people will be part. There will be proper representation and people will be allowed to go there. Aboriginal people have been in that area of Australia for in excess of 30,000 years. It would be like taking St Paul's Cathedral away from the Church of England or St Patrick's Cathedral away from the Catholic Church in Melbourne. It is not on and we would not get away with it. Why can Opposition members not understand the spiritual relationship that Aborigines have with that land? Why will they not accept that Aboriginal people have a culture of their own? The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will probably follow me in this debate and no doubt will be critical of me again, as he was most unfairly on the last occasion when he accused me of being a seven-day expert in this area. I do not claim to be an expert, but I have tried in my own way to come to grips with what Aboriginal people think and what they say to me. I have endeavoured to listen to them. Mr Cobb —You have a long way to go. Mr HAND —It is true I might have a long way to go to understand it fully, but I have a shorter way to go than the honourable member for Parkes. The fact is that I am trying to understand. The honourable member is not trying to understand. He is rejecting Aboriginal culture. Mr Cobb —But these are not Aboriginal people who are living there. Mr HAND —They are the people who are living there. The honourable member is distorting the facts again. If the honourable member goes back to the Woodward report and reads it, instead of reading hand-outs from the National Party, he will find that Woodward himself decreed when he handed down his report how many people live there. There were a number of people who live there. The honourable member for Parkes was correct in what he said about the waterhole and its name, but that is the title of a group that has been formed. There are three other groups of people who come under the banner of that name. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the then shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, incorrectly referred on 20 May, as recorded on page 2701 of Hansard, to this area being named after a tribe. Aboriginal people have lived there. In fact, Mr Justice Toohey found that the numbers fell to around 15 people because of illness, drought and a general moving away from the area. So, I put it to honourable members that one cannot say that Aboriginals have not lived in the area, because that is just not true. Most historians and anybody who has studied the area will give us plenty of evidence that they have. I have been unable to understand why honourable members opposite refuse to allow Aboriginal people to have a relationship with the land. Previous speakers on the other side of the House have talked about the Northern Territory Government. In fact, Northern Territory governments are very good at acquiring and changing the ownership of casinos and rorting the system in every way they possibly can. I would have thought that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) would have been in the chamber to participate in this debate. If I had felt as strongly as he does about a deal of this nature in my electorate I would have been here today to have a look at what was going on. Perhaps he still holds the position that he held when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1982 and expressed the belief that Aboriginals should have control of Uluru National Park. Perhaps that is his real position. I hope it is. However, he is not here today. He is probably up in the Northern Territory organising some business deal similar to the casino exercise with which he was involved. I put it to the House that the hypocritical nature of the Opposition has been exposed. Honourable members will recall that in 1978 Kakadu National Park was handed over to the Aboriginals and leased back to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. That arrangement is similar to what we are trying to do in respect of Uluru National Park. However, honourable members opposite seem to have very short memories. At the National Press Club in 1982 the honourable member for the Northern Territory said that such an arrangementas okay, that he would have accepted it. However, there has been a sudden conservative push by the other side and their friends in the mining and pastoral lobbies. There has been a dramatic change from the Aboriginal affairs policy that existed under Fraser to something quite the opposite. Honourable members opposite believe that every single program that is being put through must be attacked, knocked down and discredited in every way. In every area that one might like to think of the Opposition has adopted a philosophy of oppose, oppose and oppose. It questions and it goes out into the community and raises hate that seems to be so easily generated when one is dealing with Aboriginals. Members of the Oppositioin work very hard at doing this sort of thing. They are acting in the same way in regard to what is a very small parcel of land. Again, they are endeavouring to engender hatred and unrest within the community. I, for the life of me, find it very hard to understand why they are doing this. I am bewildered to think that the Opposition would engage in this sort of exercise. I do not know why honourable members opposite do not stand up in this place and be critical of the Northern Territory Government advertisement. Instead, they come in here with a mealy-mouthed amendment which proposes that we should talk to the Northern Territory Government. If they were genuinely concerned about the affairs of Aboriginal people, they would stand up in this place as I am doing and be critical of that type of advertisement. I am sure that their former leader, when in government, would not have had a bar of that type of advertisement. I am positive of that, given his performance at the United Nations and in South Africa in recent times. It is to his credit as the leader of the Government in 1976 that he followed through the Labor Government's proposals of 1975. However, according to what was said by the previous speaker in the debate, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), and what was said by the honourable member for Higgins in a previous debate, the Opposition is committed to overturning the legislation that is now before the House. Aboriginal people are becoming more and more aware every day of the dramatic turnaround in the attitude and policy of the Liberal and National parties. There has been a complete about-face in their policies. It is all right for the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), to smile. I find it very hard to understand that he would find it amusing that the coalition parties have in fact turned their policy around in the way in which they have. I look forward to the shadow Minister joining the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs later this year. I quite genuinely look forward to travelling around this country with him and other honourable members, meeting Aboriginal people and trying to learn about their problems. As I said earlier, I have tried my best to do that. I look forward to joining with the honourable member as I have with the previous two shadow Ministers. I hope that he will have a longer term of office than a couple of other recent shadow Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs had. After a month or two the honourable member may be joining the second eleven on the back bench. The way I see things, there are now more former shadow Ministers on the back bench than there are shadow Ministers on the front bench. I wish that, instead of making a speech of the type he made today, in which he seemed to be going through the motions, the honourable member would make a speech of some substance in which he would put the philosophy of his Party in regard to Aboriginal affairs. Perhaps he has other things on his mind. Perhaps the Australian Bicentennial Authority is taking precedence over this legislation. I am not sure what the position is, but that is a judgment that others can make. If I might say so, the honourable member's amendment lacks the vigour of his predecessor who, when legislation of this type was last discussed, put up what I thought was a reasonable performance in trying to put forward the arguments of the Opposition, which at that time, I must point out, was opposed to what we were doing. I want to say on the record that I am proud to have stood up again and made a speech which, I might point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, has been limited considerably by the terms of the legislation. I have taken note of your ruling and have tried to keep within the confines of the legislation. As a result, I have probably dealt more specifically with the substance of the amendment. I urge the Opposition not to oppose this very simple proposal. It is a fact of life that Uluru National Park will go ahead at the end of the month. The legislation we are now debating is an attempt to tidy up the borders of the park. The support of the Northern Territory Government is not needed in the way that the amendment suggests because the Northern Territory Government has no jurisdiction over the adjustment of the borders of either the park or the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust. I suggest that it would be a great thing if we could get back to a bipartisan approach, as we had in terms of past Northern Territory land rights legislation when in fact one government floated the idea and another government introduced the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.48) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill 1985, which unfortunately has been introduced to include what used to be known as the Petermann Reserve in the new Uluru National Park. As honourable members will be aware, the park is to be given to the Aboriginals and then leased back to the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments. I think it is hypocritical for us to give Aboriginal land rights to national parks and for the Aboriginals then to turn around and lease back the national parks to the government-in this case the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments. If the Australian Labor Party is fair dinkum about giving so-called land rights to Aboriginals, why does it not give them Ayers Rock and be done with it? It is not prepared to do that. Where is the land rights package of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is sitting at the table? For how long has the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) been a member of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee? Is it two and a half years? Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Does that entitle me to give an answer? I have been asked a question. Do you want me to answer it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -Order! Mr Hand —I am quite prepared to answer it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I took the chair when the honourable member started his speech. It is my understanding that despite the best will in the world the previous Deputy Speaker had not been able to keep the debate within the confines of the very narrow limits of this legislation. Therefore, I think I did allow the honourable member to range far and wide over subjects which one would find very difficult to tie back into the narrow confines of the Bill. Actually, I am a little surprised that the honourable member for Melbourne has objected to the speech of the honourable member for Maranoa at this early stage. I will just see how the honourable member for Maranoa develops his arguments. I also remind the honourable member for Maranoa that this is not the type of debate in which one can range freely over the whole Aboriginal matter other than in a limited debate on the Government's policies. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne spent 15 of his 20 minutes abusing me about my speech. I do not think it is unreasonable that my colleague should be prepared to speak in my defence and that the honourable gentleman should be prepared to take what he is prepared to dish out. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In relation to the accusation that I spent 15 of my 20 minutes abusing the honourable member for Bradfield, I would not have spent that much time doing that. In relation to the honourable member for Maranoa, I was replying, which you are well aware of, Mr Deputy Speaker-honourable members opposite were not listening to the debate-because he asked me to explain the Government's land rights policy. I attempted, through you, to say-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! You had no right. There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —This is the best exercise I have had all day. I will not direct my question to the honourable member for Melbourne. I will put it directly to the Minister. Where is his Government's preferred land rights policy? How many preferred options has the Government had since he has become Minister. He has not put any new legislation through this House since the 1976 land rights Act was passed by this Parliament. We in the Opposition stand for equal rights for all Australians and not for specific groups of people being treated any differently from others. That is why we are opposed to giving away a Commonwealth national park-this area of the Petermann reserve and the Uluru National Park. There are only three such areas in Australia-there is a Commonwealth national park in the Australian Capital Territory and there is the Kakadu National Park. For some unknown reason one of the greatest national parks in Australia is being handed back to a group of people who cannot lay claim to it. I point out to the honourable member for Melbourne who has now left the chamber-it is amazing how he makes all those interjections and then leaves-that Aborigines base their allegiance to the land on their place of birth. It is not because they happen to live around the place for a certain number of years. It is because that is where they are born. People who were born at Ayers Rock associate themselves spiritually with that area. That applies to all land claims. Unfortunately, the way the Act is written and the Trusts have been set up, if one happens to reside in a place for a certain number of years one can make a claim. We are all interested in land rights. We all have an affiliation with the land somehow or other. Of course, some are much closer than others to it, but if we dig deep enough we find that we all go back closely to the land. We know that the bulk of the population now lives in and around places like Melbourne which is nothing but sand and bitumen. It was amazing how, when Batman arrived in Melbourne-the electorate which the honourable member now represents-with a couple of axe heads and a string of beads he took over half of Victoria from the Aborigines. Nothing has been said about that. I refer to the electorate of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) who is now the Minister. It is amazing how no land is being given or transferred in that part of the world. No, this land has to be in the Northern Territory where nobody can see it. That is what has happened in the last few years. The Commonwealth has had jurisdiction over the Northern Territory. It has persecuted that part of Australia. What has happened? The Government has transferred more than 45 per cent of that area into the hands of a few Aboriginal people. In my opinion it is apartheid in reverse. We have heard a lot about apartheid in the last few months, but this is apartheid in reverse. I can see no reason why this sort of system should continue. Of course, the Minister and his Government cannot either, otherwise they would have brought in the Acts that they had prepared and were going to bring in 18 months ago. All the Labor States are totally opposed to the preferred land rights option. The National Party Government in Queensland most certainly is. I will reiterate our stance in that regard. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, there has been a mistake in the survey. I guess that can happen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am pleased that the honourable member has returned to the terms of the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —There has been a mistake in the survey. I guess that happens from time to time. There have been a few misquotes, particularly of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) who does not happen to be in the House today. I want to read what he did say. He said: The Northern Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mount Olga, make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a national park- this is what has been left out- and will be administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and traditional Aboriginal owners. But this Bill, and this is why the Northern Territory Government is so upset-I am pleased to see the honourable member for Melbourne return-- Mr Hand —I did not leave. Mr IAN CAMERON —The honourable member moved from his seat. It is important to understand that this Bill violates any self-governing laws that the Northern Territory was given. The issue of title under the Commonwealth law for Uluru is a violation of the self-government laws. The Northern Territory has the right to issue land titles except where the full inquiry procedures have been followed under the land rights Act. This has not happened. That is why the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Tuxworth, will spend the next week or so going around Australia telling people exactly how his Government feels. He went to the people only recently. Mr Hand —A waste of taxpayers' money. Mr IAN CAMERON —It might be a waste of money. I ask the Minister: How many Labor Party members are there in the Northern Territory Government? Only five Labor Party people were elected in the Northern Territory because the people in the Northern Territory oppose what Federal governments, both past and present, have been and are doing with the land rights issue. It is something that is very dear to everybody's hearts. One has only to look at the surveys which have been taken. There was a headline in the Australian, a reasonably reputable newspaper, if any can be described that way. It was about a survey done not by the Liberal-National Party coalition but secretly by the Labor Party to see what the reaction was. It was probably initiated by the Minister, but I do not know. Mr Cobb —What does it say? Mr IAN CAMERON —It says that only one in five Australians support any sort of land rights legislation. Mr Hand —Because of people like you spreading all your- Mr IAN CAMERON —No fear, I will speak my piece the same as the honourable member would. I will distort nothing. I will speak the truth. Who is giving away Ayers Rock? The present Hawke Labor Government is giving away Ayers Rock and the National Park of the people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease responding to interjections. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Maranoa should return to the terms of the Bill. I think he has spent adequate time on land rights. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that. It is an important Bill for the people of Australia and of this Parliament because it gives us the opportunity to express again our opposition to what is happening to a national park in Australia-that is the Uluru National Park. Where are all the conservationists? Where are all the mates from Melbourne of the honourable member for Melbourne? Where are all the people who stopped the building of the dams in Tasmania? Why are they not screaming and carrying on? They are all quiet and down and under and buried. They are nowhere to be seen. Yet a national park is being handed over to a few people who are lying around the bottom of Ayers Rock. They have no traditional ownership to it whatsoever. They were not born there. They have just been lying around there for the last ten years. That gives the Aboriginal Land Commission the right to grant it to them. The Minister knows that. I have been there half a dozen times. I have worked with Aborigines in the Northern Territory for two years. Mr Hand —You ought to take that back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne has had his opportunity in this debate. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want to support the observation you have just made that the honourable member for Melbourne is speaking without reference to the Chair and is interrupting the affairs of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield is only taking up his colleague's time. Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not want to restrict the honourable gentleman's time, but one member of the Opposition was severely restricted, and correctly so, by the Chair because the provisions of the Bill are very narrow. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you adhere to the previous ruling so that all honourable members are treated equally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —As I said earlier, I came to the Chair without having full knowledge of what went on previously. I feel that I gave the honourable member for Melbourne far more latitude than that given by the previous Deputy Speaker. While he tried to restrain debate to the Bill, invariably honourable members said what they wanted to say. I take the Minister's point there. I ask the honourable member for Maranoa, who has strayed far and wide from the Bill and who has had a reasonable opportunity to put his point of view on land rights and to expose the Government's position on land rights as he sees it, to relate his remaining remarks to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your guidance in this debate. I am sorry that the honourable member for Melbourne has again left the chamber. There will be a great celebration once the survey is in place-no doubt the Government will have to do a couple of surveys before it gets the line in the right place-and the Minister hands over the rock to the Aboriginal people in the area. I ask the Minister whether tax will be paid on the amount of money that will be spent. Apparently $22,000 will be spent on catering. Mr McGauran —For lunch. Mr IAN CAMERON —There will be a big lunch and a fringe benefit tax should be paid on that. Some $80,000 will be spent on media liaison and $150,000 on filming. The total expenditure is to be $387,000. I ask the Minister to tell the House exactly what is going on with this celebration and why it is necessary to have such a grand public relations exercise. Most Aboriginal people believe that the money would be much better spent on supplying them with houses. In the great electorate of Maranoa there is a shortage of housing for Aborigines-for example, in Cunnamulla, Charleville, St George, Dirranbandi, Birdsville, Betoota and Windorah. All of those places have an Aboriginal population, and the people I represent are continually seeking houses through their co-operatives. Most of them are very well run and I support them. They are continually looking for funds because there is a great shortage of Aboriginal housing in particular. Traditionally, Aborigines have not had the best of homes to live in. The total cost of this celebration is $387,000. That is the figure I have and I would like the Minister to explain why that amount of money is being spent in this area. Mr Deputy Speaker, I return to the Bill and I know that that will please you. It is important for us to understand that a mistake has been made and that it is being corrected. Mr McGauran —It is only a survey mistake. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is a survey mistake which is being corrected. Some of the land in Uluru is being handed back to the Petermann reserve. The Uluru National Park is being made smaller. Some of us might agree with that. It is a pity that all of the land is not being handed back under this survey. I think that that would be the best thing that could happen to us. As honourable members know, there is an overlap in the survey. Uluru was proclaimed in 1977. This is a direct violation of a Commonwealth commitment. The Parliament cannot be confident that it is giving away the right land because obviously mistakes have been made in the survey. It is amazing that Mr Justice Woodward made a statement only a few weeks ago that he has second thoughts about the land rights policy that has been adopted by this Government and previous governments. He has stated nationally and publicly that he believes there should be a thorough going over of the policies and that the present situation should not prevail. Land rights has been an issue for a number of years and most Australians feel this situation should not continue. I conclude by supporting the amendment that the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because of its concern that the Northern Territory Government was not consulted. This is the story that we are getting back from Chief Minister Tuxsworth and his Government members in the Northern Territory. I cannot see, in all conscience, how the present Government can go ahead with the great celebration that is envisaged and grant the Uluru National Park to the group of Aborigines who just happen to be there at this time. I believe in all sincerity that the Uluru National Park, or Ayers Rock as we know it, should remain a Commonwealth national park for all the people of Australia. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(6.06) —I want to express my sadness at the situation we have before us this afternoon. We are debating the transfer of a very small area of land, some two square kilometres, to rectify a mistake which was made by the previous coalition Government about the boundaries of what is now the Uluru National Park. I express my sadness because I happen to have the honour of being the first Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and for a considerable period before 1973 we had a bipartisan approach in this House to Aboriginal affairs matters. I pay tribute to the very distinguished former honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Wentworth, the very distinguished honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Hunt, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and a whole range of people who served on that Committee and tried to ensure that we did not make issues of importance to Aborigines matters of petty, party-political point scoring in this House. I hope that we can restore some of those values at some time in the future. Aboriginal land rights was brought about very much by the idea that we wanted to enable those people who still had traditional values or who had significant long term associations with a particular piece of land to obtain a secure title to that land. The Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill is about giving these people, through a trust, some secure title. The Opposition has made a number of points that are directed as an attack on the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights. Member after member from the National Party of Australia have made it very clear that they are using this very minor Bill, which transfers two square kilometres of land, as a vehicle to attack the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights. I put it to them that they do not really believe that any Aboriginal land anywhere in the Commonwealth should be transferred to Aboriginal people. Does the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) believe that the Aboriginal people he represents should be given title to any portion of the electorate of Maranoa, even though they and their predecessors may have lived there for tens of thousands of years? Mr Ian Cameron —What about the rest of us? We would like a more secure title. Mr CROSS —We live in more enlightened days. Let me look at the history of this country. Almost 200 years ago we came to an absolutely different sort of society and took possession of the land which we regarded as unoccupied. People died from the diseases which we introduced; they were driven off their land. We are about to celebrate the bicentenary of this country but there is not much for the Aboriginal people to celebrate. Handing over Uluru National Park is a symbol of an earnest between the Parliament and the Aboriginal people of this country to endeavour to rectify in our generation some of the wrongs of the past. It has been suggested that one of the errors in this Bill is that consultation has not taken place with the Northern Territory Government. In the 1970s, as the Northern Territory moved to an increasingly greater say in its own affairs and towards Statehood, it was accepted that it would probably have a government that was unsympathetic to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The previous coalition Government introduced and carried through both Houses-in which it then had a majority-the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I will read several brief paragraphs of the Act because they are pertinent to the debate. Section 3A (1) referring to Crown land vested in the Northern Territory says: Nothwithstanding any law of the Northern Territory, the application of this Act in relation to Crown land extends to Crown land that is vested in the Northern Territory. It says that, notwithstanding any law passed by the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth charter will prevail. Sub-section 2, states: Notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth or of the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth is not liable to pay to the Northern Territory any compensation by reason of the making of a grant to a Land Trust of Crown land that is vested in the Northern Territory. It says that there will be no compensation. That is the legislation of the previous coalition Government. The point has been made that there is no evidence that the people represented by the Petermann Trust can appropriately claim the land. The land within the national park was claimed in the Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus/Luritja land claim. Mr Justice Toohey found in his report on that claim that the land was not unalienated crown land and was therefore not available for claim at that time. However, he noted that two of the estates in the remaining land available for claim had their hearts in the park. He listed the two estates and not less than 104 and 57 traditional owners. In 1977 when the previous Government was in office, Mr Justice Toohey appointed, under legislation passed by the previous Government, the terms for the traditional owners of the land in question. I do not intend to say more than that. The Opposition has used this very minor piece of legislation, which was designed to correct an error made in its time of government, as another excuse to attack Aboriginal land rights. It has been said that the Australian Labor Party has not yet introduced its preferred land model. The purpose of the Opposition's amendment is to try to stop the Labor Party from introducing land rights anywhere in Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —No one wants it. You were not elected with a mandate to do so. Mr CROSS —With respect to the honourable member for Maranoa, I have had the privilege of spending some time in Arnhem Land on outstations. If he cared to spend the time, I could take him to Aborigines in the Northern Territory, Queensland and other part of Australia who fervently wish to have a secure title to land that is of significance to them. Mr Ian Cameron —We want that too. Mr CROSS —That is the first statement that the honourable member for Maranoa has made today which I am happy to endorse. I support the legislation and totally reject the amendment. We should try to get this Bill through the House as quickly as possible. The Governor-General is taking part shortly in an important handing-over ceremony. One would imagine that the Opposition with its respect for the Crown would have wanted these technical matters cleared up before that important event takes place. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(6.14) —The Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill is a simple and technical Bill. It is designed to resolve some boundary difficulties in the Uluru and Petermann reserves. Those difficulties have existed since 1958. Some comments during the debate-I say this with some moderation-reflect the sad position within Her Majesty's Opposition in respect of the whole issue of the rights of Aboriginal people. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), said quite correctly that there was a time in this Parliament when these issues were treated as not being issues for political point scoring. Clearly that situation has changed. It has changed not because of any actions of the Government but because of the quite differing perceptions and attitudes of members of the Opposition. It was best reflected in the speeches made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). The honourable member for Maranoa-I do not doubt his sincerity-was absolutely critical of the land rights position in the Northern Territory. But the position of land rights in the Northern Territory is a result of legislation passed by a previous conservative government. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman was a part of that government. I believe it was to the previous Government's credit. Mr Ian Cameron —It will go down in history as the worst thing we ever did. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for Maranoa's interjection indicates the change in the attitude that now prevails within the Opposition. Only weeks ago the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), when speaking in the Northern Territory, said that he felt a sense of shame that he voted for land rights legislation. At least Aboriginal people will be pleased to know that it is possible for the Leader of the National Party to have a sense of shame. That is some progress. I return to the kinds of statements that have been made during this debate. I say with respect to the new shadow Minister that the Opposition's exercise does not do it any credit. Clearly, members of the Opposition have conferred with their colleagues in the Northern Territory Government and brought before us this somewhat supercilious and ridiculous amendment. I understand that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is under pressure, but I would have hoped that he was not in this Parliament to put the views of the Northern Territory Government. Another shadow Minister does that. He is here to put an alternative Opposition perspective on the rights, needs and aspirations of Aboriginal people. Where was the one Opposition spokesman who could say to this House and the people of Australia: `I actually journeyed to Ayers Rock. I sat down with the people and I listened to what they were saying'. Mr Connolly —I have been there. Mr HOLDING —I am not saying that the honourable gentleman has not been there. The contributions made by many Opposition spokesmen have not included a single expression which reflects the views of the traditional people of Ayers Rock who will be the beneficiaries of the broader legislation. Surely one voice from the Opposition, whatever criticisms those opposite want to make of the Government or me, would have said: `Nevertheless, I am able to say that the Aboriginal people of the central desert areas of Australia have this perception of the Uluru and what this ceremony will mean'. The honourable member for Parkes said that we were giving Uluru to the wrong people. He mentioned the people living around the rock. He wanted to get into the debate, but has he looked at the legislation? If he had, he would have realised that the ownership of Uluru is not to be vested in one, two, 20 or 30 Aboriginal people; it is to be vested in a land trust. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory put forward the specious argument that there has not been a proper lands claim hearing. There has never been a lands claim hearing in the Northern Territory that has not been opposed by the Northern Territory Government. There was a lands claim hearing. What was the view of the Commissioner who heard it? He identified, to use his own term, several hundred people likely to be advantaged by a grant, but the reason that grant could not be made was that the land was vested in the Commonwealth of Australia. It was alienated land. It has been suggested to this House by a range of Opposition spokesmen that, although clearly this land is vested in the Commonwealth and clearly a land commissioner saw that as the effective legal bar to the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people, the Commonwealth Government is not free to dispose of its land-land over which it has a title in terms of its policy and its perceptions. That is what is being suggested. What was suggested by the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) when he was the Chief Minister? There was nothing wrong with the principle of giving it to Aboriginal people, it was just that he wanted it to be given to the Northern Territory first so that the Northern Territory could give its title. That is an argument, and it would be an interesting argument to put in this place because, after all, we all know that the Northern Territory Government is very good at giving away land it does not own. These people who talk about the principle of private enterprise and privatisation should talk to Federal Hotels Limited and to Mr Haddad-and see what happened to them. The Northern Territory Government is expert at giving away land it does not own. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am conscious of the Minister's concern for relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The subject he touched on was raised during the debate. Mr HOLDING —Equally, the honourable member for Parkes-this indicates the extent to which honourable members who choose to speak in this place have studied the matter-raised the spectre of what will happen about the public roads around Uluru. They have not been surveyed. Think of the chaos that will follow! The fact is that there is a general exemption of public roads provided in Schedule 1 land grants. No surveys are necessary in relation to Schedule 1 land. It is as simple as that. Members of the Opposition are more concerned to express their pre-conceptions and prejudices than to look at the facts and to present those facts and their arguments in relation to those facts. I was criticised, the Government was criticised, by the honourable member for Maranoa who quite properly asked for my account, and I am happy to answer him, although it is technically irrelevant. He said: `Tell us about all this money that will be expended'. In respect of the expenditure that is involved in the actual granting of title to Uluru, the figure is about $132,000. There is to be added to that figure, because a general question was raised during a Senate Estimates committee hearing, a further figure of $150,000 in respect of a previous agreement made prior to any decision about the handing over of Uluru. A decision was made to make a film. The Northern Territory Government had also given a commitment to that, and that was completely unrelated. The Northern Territory Government has withdrawn and I have picked up the responsibility for seeing that that film is made, for this reason and this reason only: It is important, I believe, to all the people of Australia that a film should be made so that people will understand the relationship of Aboriginal people to this very important site. It might even benefit the honourable member for Maranoa and some Opposition spokesmen if they saw it. I finish on this note: This Bill is technical. I believe that this Parliament should treat with the contempt it deserves an attempt to deal with those sections of the Australian community in which one can pick up a quick vote, or in which one thinks one can pick up a quick vote, by developing the worst aspects of latent racist prejudice as it exists in Australia. There is nothing in that for the future of Australian people and there is nothing in it for any section of Australian society. I make the point that neither the honourable member for Maranoa nor the honourable member for Parkes, nor any Australian citizen, can point in respect of this decision of the Government to any single disadvantage he will have by virtue of the title to Uluru being given to the Aboriginal people and then being vested in the Commonwealth to operate as a land trust. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I point out to the Minister that it is part of our heritage as well that is being given away. I would like him to remember that point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no substance to the point of order. It is a debating point. Mr HOLDING —I do not know enough about the honourable gentleman's background or legitimacy to know what his heritage is. I say simply that no Australian is losing anything in terms of Ayers Rock. What we are gaining is Uluru. We are gaining a tradition and a culture which will give that very important part of Australia a dimension it does not currently have. When this ceremony takes place the people of Australia and people around the world-the international media is interested in this-will see ceremonies which I believe are of tremendous relevance to all Australians. That being the case, one of the things I suggest to the Northern Territory Government is that its tourist industry is in a hopeless mess. The honourable gentleman is concerned about the waste of public expenditure in the ceremonies at Uluru, but the extent of the commitment to prop up an ailing tourist industry as a result of miscalculation by the Northern Territory Government could reach as high as $250m. Of that $250m, 80c in the dollar is paid by the Commonwealth taxpayer. I am concerned, as is the Government, to see that the widening of the perspective of Uluru will promote the tourist industry so that people will go there and be able to see first hand not merely a great rock, a monolith, but the relationship of that rock, that monolith, to the oldest extant culture in the world. I have been trying to tell the Northern Territory Government for some time that it has a unique tourist package with which no one else can compete. It has a capacity for cultural tourism that no other State can match. That is my belief. It is a matter for that Government how it wants to handle it, but it cannot be handled while the present Chief Minister of the Northern Territory cannot bring himself to admit that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, who comprise 30 per cent of its population, are Territorians like everybody else. He cannot hope to provide a basis for a genuine tourist development. It is no good putting ads in the paper saying to the average Australian: `Go to Uluru or Alice Springs and we will give you a first rate exercise in racism as it is practised by the Northern Territory Government and its administrators'. The time has come, I believe, for the Northern Territory Government to look very closely at its position. This Government tried to involve it in the administration of Uluru. In regard to the Board, when my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has made his nomination, every person on that Board will be a Territorian. Is that not progress? Mr Connolly —You threw them out of Uluru. Mr HOLDING —No, they left. The traditional owners invited the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory to discuss their role and the Northern Territory Government bailed out. The honourable member knows that that is the truth. The amendment that has been moved to the motion for the second reading is without merit for the following reasons: The Petermann Land Trust is not Northern Territory land. The Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park is not Northern Territory land. As such, there was no substantive issue upon which it was necessary for the Commonwealth to consult the Northern Territory Government. The need to amend the description of the boundary arose from Commonwealth legislation and Commonwealth action. It was an issue which required Commonwealth action and we have taken that action. We would have been prepared to have discussions. There were discussions with surveyors which had to take place. There was no consultation at a ministerial level because, as I have been told by Mr Tuxworth, he wants to wage guerrilla warfare. He wants to oppose this whole concept. That is his position. He is entitled to that position. The Commonwealth will not yield to it. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.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.Hunt, R. J. D. Humphreys, B. C. Rocher, A. C.Gear, G. Aldred, K. G.Lindsay, E. G. Cameron, DonaldScott, J. L. Dobie, J. D. M.Hurford, C. J. McVeigh, D. T.Hayden, W. G. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.39 to 8 p.m. Clause 3 (Boundaries of the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.00) —The Opposition will be dividing the Committee on clause 3, which is about the boundaries of the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust, not because it objects to the boundaries of the trust as such but, as I stated in my amendment at the second reading stage, because it is concerned that these boundary changes were in fact instituted without any serious attempt being made to bring in the Northern Territory Government or its Public Service. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) made an observation, among some other less than derogatory comments he made about the quality of the Northern Territory administration, to the effect that, because the land is under Commonwealth legislation, the Government had no responsibility to discuss it with the Northern Territory. While that may be a de jure situation-I do not dispute that-I would have thought that on basic political common sense grounds it is important to ensure that the environment in which the Aboriginal communities at both Uluru and Petermann are expected to conduct themselves and their affairs necessitated some attempt being made to reach an adequate modus vivendi for the Northern Territory Government. From my discussions with it, I am quite convinced that, providing there is some goodwill demonstrated by the Commonwealth, significant progress can be made in this particular direction. I think it is worth noting, for example, that neither Petermann nor Uluru is an island in the desert. They are part of a whole. They are part of the total infrastructure of the Northern Territory. They get supplies of electricity from Northern Territory sources. The Aboriginal communities there often receive services such as health and education from both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. On the edge of Uluru is the Yallara Village, which the Minister referred to as being a financial white elephant at this stage. Maybe that is the case, but the fact is that it represents a very significant investment by the Northern Territory Government and various persons in the development of a tourist centre, which again is essential for the long term furture of Uluru as a national park, even under the administration or the legal control of the Aboriginal Land Trust. For all of these reasons, I do not think there should be any dispute that the Government has been recreant in not making a serious attempt to talk these matters out with the Northern Territory. Its failure to do that has resulted in the Opposition being forced tonight into a situation where it has to maintain a degree of commonality with the approach it took some months ago when Opposition members debated amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act. That Act had significant legal impact in that it took away the impediments which were previously in legislation and which stopped the Commonwealth at that time handing the Uluru National Park over to the Aboriginal Land Trust. The Government went down that road in the full knowledge and expectation that it saw political gain in so doing. It also did it in the full knowledge that it was acting contrary to the claims and declared position of the Northern Territory Government. As I said in the second reading debate, I think the result has been a matter of great concern because there is now a level of political interest in the whole question of the ownership of Ayers Rock which may not have been the case had the Government acted with a little more finesse than it has demonstrated over the last year or so in the lead-up to this situation. In other words the crisis, the real risk we now have of major conflict between what are perceived as legitimate Aboriginal interests on the one hand and what are perceived by the vast majority of Australians on the other hand as being equally their legitimate interest, is essentially a problem which has been created and nurtured by the Hawke Labor Government because of its activities as it has gone down this road. If I may just refer briefly to a comment made by the Minister earlier in relation to the coalition's Aboriginal land rights policy, our stated policy was that we would encourage the States to enable Aborigines choosing to continue to live on their own traditional land and who retain some or all of their traditional association with the land, where consistent with the rest of this policy, to be granted secure title to such land to facilitate the continuation of their life style and culture. Comments were made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) that the Opposition had no policy. He claimed that we had gone back on the position which we had adopted in the days of the Fraser Government. I just want to make it quite clear that our policy stands as it did at the time of the last Federal election. As a shadow Minister it is not my intention to resile in any sense from the traditional rights of the Aboriginal population. That does not mean to say, nor would I think that the Minister would accept it in terms of his own alleged preferred land rights model, that situations developed some years ago may necessarily always be perfect. Legislation does need to be reviewed from time to time to see that it is meeting the interests of the Aboriginal community as well as the interests of the wider community. In this particular context the Northern Territory, being the area of Australia which has both the largest element of Aboriginal owned or controlled land within it as well as the largest population of Aborigines within its total area, is clearly an area where one has to be sensitive to the potential conflicts which can arise. It is the failure of the Government to do this which I think is a matter of great concern. As I said earlier, the Opposition wanted a bipartisan approach to this issue. Regrettably, it has been the Hawke Government which has made bipartisanship in terms of Aboriginal land rights, at this stage at any rate, something of the past and something about which I am particularly concerned, as I know are many other members on both sides of this chamber. Divisions within the community have been created needlessly. We are looking for one Australia and, as many people argue, the whole concept of Ayers Rock is that it is a symbol of a united Australia-an Australia based on a strength of purpose and a determination to try to get the best out of this land for all its citizens, black and white alike. Whatever the causes of the past and whatever the shortcomings of current policies, one thing that is clear is that for many years both governments of this Parliament have spent vast sums of money in an attempt to try to overcome what are seen as major problems relating to our Aboriginal communities. One would have to say that we have not been totally successful and that the spending of money alone has not solved many of those problems. We must go back to the basics and work our way through yet again. It is in that context that the whole issue of land rights, significant though it is, should not be seen as the only issue facing the Aboriginal people and their right to self-determination on the one hand. There is also what I believe to be the right of the vast majority-some 70 per cent who are not traditional dwellers in the normal sense of the term-to be part of and at one with the Australia which their children will grow up in and hopefully make a contribution to. There is no reason why we should divide this nation on racial grounds. As the Minister said-and I agree with him-it is certainly something that we must do all we can to avoid. Racial harmony and not tension must be the objective of our policies. It is because of that that on issues such as this, which have created fundamental divisions between the position adopted by the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth on the question of the Petermann boundary on the one hand or more specifically the future ownership of Uluru on the other, the Opposition has decided that it has no choice but not to be associated with the handover ceremony because it believes that for Opposition members to be there would be inconsistent with the approach it took some months ago when this matter was legislated and debated in this Parliament. It is a matter of the greatest concern to me and my Party that we do what we can to ensure that Aboriginal communities, wherever they may be, can also see in Uluru, in Ayers Rock and in the Olgas symbols of Australia's nationalism, of its nationality, as well as their own historical and legitimate interests in that regard. We believe we took those things into account. For example, the success of the Northern Territory in being able to develop in that area national parks which have the full co-operation of the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities demonstrates, I think, that it can succeed at that level. If it can, why cannot the Commonwealth? The other question which arises from that is why does the Commonwealth have to remain in a position of land controller when every other State of the Commonwealth has now got absolute control over its land administration? The only difference is a legal one; namely, that the Territory is just that-it is a Territory and not yet a State. In the lead-up to full Statehood, which is only a question of time, surely the Commonwealth has a prime responsibility to lead the Northern Territory forward, to support it, to give it the encouragement it needs, and encouragement in relation to issues such as this, is as important as any other aspect. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(8.10) —I welcome the statement made by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), that the Opposition is not going to resile from its commitment to Aboriginal land rights. It is inevitable when dealing with these difficult and complex problems that from time to time it will be necessary for the Opposition to join issue with us and I hope it can do that with some kind of spirit of agreement that what we are about is common objectives. But I cannot accept the assertion that has been made, because I do not believe it is accurate, that the events that currently surround the situation at Uluru are the result of a heavy-handedness or a lack of sensitivity on the part of the Commonwealth. If one looks at the files, at the history of the negotiations in respect of the future of Uluru, one finds that during the period of the previous Government this was as much a problem for Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs as it was for the Prime Minister. The Northern Territory Government asserted a number of things but, reduced to the simplest form, it asserted that the Commonwealth should give the national park, which was clearly Commonwealth titled, to the Northern Territory. There is correspondence on the record wherein the former Prime Minister points out that his Government could not accede to that because it did not and could not accept the undertaking of the Northern Territory Government that in any future development of Uluru proper and adequate concern would be given to the attitude and aspirations of the Aboriginal people. Aboriginal leadership in the Northern Territory is critical of all governments from time to time but it has become quite adamant as a result of the track record of the Northern Territory Government. It says quite openly and frankly that it feels it cannot trust that Government. It says that simply because whenever it suits some of the Northern Territory Government's spokespersons-not all of them-to whip up a bit of racial tension in order to win a vote or two, they will be in it. I accept the sincerity of the honourable gentleman opposite when he says that he believes that on this occasion we ought to have a united Australia. How do we have a united Australia on an issue like Uluru if we preclude the interests of Aboriginal people? Mr Connolly —But you admitted that you did not even try to negotiate on this thing. Mr HOLDING —Let us just go through the record. This matter first arose during the Fraser Government. It was on that occasion that the then Chief Minister, now the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), went on public record to say that if the Northern Territory Government was given the title it would hand it over to the Aboriginal people at Uluru. When pressed about that in this House during a debate on this whole issue, what was his response? By then what had been previous Liberal party policy, a policy which did have some concern for the rights of Aboriginal people, had been subverted. The House voted not to hand Uluru over to the Northern Territory Government for the purpose of coming to an appropriate recognition and accommodation of Aboriginal interests. I remind the honourable gentleman that what was voted for was a motion which said that we hand over Uluru to the Northern Territory Government. How did the shift come about, and how did the present member for the Northern Territory reconcile that with his own previous promise as Chief Minister? It was easy. He only made that promise because he had been stood over by the Federal Government. He did not tell us whether he was being stood over by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser-I doubt that-or the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. If anybody thinks that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) could stand over anybody he would be kidding himself. That is the level of argument that has come from the Opposition. I must say that I think the shadow Minister is trying to lift the Opposition's game, and I welcome that. When he talks about negotiations with the Northern Territory Government one would think that these things are taking place in a vacuum. There is the closest possible collaboration between ourselves and the Northern Territory Government on the range of issues including health and education, excision in the Northern Territory and land rights amendments that have to take place in the Northern Territory. All these issues are currently being canvassed. The Strehlow collection would not have been returned to Australia if it had not been for the close collaboration which took place between the relevant Northern Territory Minister and myself. All those things are the positive aspects. One of the negative aspects is to be seen in respect of Uluru. What happened there? Frankly, the Northern Territory made a set of demands which I do not believe we could meet any more than Prime Minister Fraser could meet. We had not merely to make a decision about the future operation of Uluru but we had to try to provide some kind of effective model for the administration of national parks in the Northern Territory which took into account all interests. Previously, under the Liberal Government, Uluru was operated basically by the Director of National Parks. He had to produce a plan which went to the Minister. There was virtually no local involvement. Mr Connolly —The day to day administration was in the hands of the Northern Territory rangers. Mr HOLDING —The administration was in the hands of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. Mr Connolly —You have thrown them out. Mr HOLDING —No, the honourable gentleman is wrong. They have been pulled out by the Northern Territory Government. We created a board and it is composed of representatives of the Parliament of the Northern Territory, nominees from the tourist industry and Aboriginal people, who have a majority on that board. All of those people will be involved in the formulation of a plan for the future of Uluru; it will be they who determine how the administration works. The honourable gentleman may not have been informed that the traditional owners, because of their personal relationships with officers in the Conservation Commission, approached me to say that they wanted continuing involvement by the Conservation Commission, and they asked what was the Government's position on that. The Government's position was that if that was what they wanted, it was fine by us. It ought to be noted that the bill for all of those rangers working for the Conservation Commission was paid by the Commonwealth. It was the Northern Territory Government's decision to pull out the Conservation Commission. It was negotiating directly with Aboriginal spokespersons, who found that they could get nowhere. The resources that should have been available for a significant and important ceremony were minimised in terms of the normal services and co-operations that one would normally get from the Northern Territory Government. I refer to the black bans. The Northern Territory Government said to its public servants that, even if they intend to go in their capacity as private citizens, they will not attend this opening function. Was there any discussion with us about that? No. When it comes to dealing with Aboriginal affairs, the Northern Territory Government always says to the Commonwealth: `You give us money for education but if you want things done for Aboriginal education, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs must find the money'. On a whole range of services, including the provision of water and electricity, there is no argument about such services being a State or Territory responsibility. When one is dealing with Aboriginal people in remote communities, the Commonwealth and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs have to find the money. In many cases that is appropriate, and I am not complaining about it, but it is this Government that has extended at every point an open hand to the Northern Territory Administration. So fixed is that Administration in its attitude towards Aboriginal people, who are its own citizens, that it was its decision and nobody else's to spend $300,000 on advertisements in a range of newspapers which are designed and calculated to mislead average right thinking Australians about what is occurring at Uluru. The shadow Minister knows that not one non-Aboriginal Australian will have any of his rights limited in terms of his capacity to go there as a tourist, to take photographs, and to do all those things he has been doing for years. If the Opposition, despite the noble intentions of its shadow Minister, simply buckles in behind that program and says `all right, they have put a ban on it, so we will put a ban on it', ask how that fits in with the Opposition's land rights policy? I suggest it is time for much more serious rethinking within the Opposition. Although the shadow Minister says that he stands committed to the Opposition's position on land rights, a number of back bench spokesmen have made it clear in this debate that they want to turn their backs on tradition and history, and the very real achievements that occurred in this area during the period of the Fraser Government. There is time for a rethink right across the board, but it should start with those people in the community who, for cheap political advantage, are the cause of the tension and are endeavouring to mislead and confuse the average Australian on what this Government is about in terms of the future development of Uluru. All we are about, to adopt the term used by the shadow Minister, is a united Australia. We cannot have a united Australia in terms of Uluru if we do not look at prehistory and at the relationships of Aboriginal people and their role in the future planning and development of that very important symbol for all Australian people. To try to exclude it by saying that they have no relevance would be monstrous. I believe that we have taken a balanced and rational approach to see that we have a united Australia, and a management which gives proper regard to the history and traditions of Aboriginal people and preserves the right of every Australian in respect of the future of Uluru. Question put: That clause 3 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J.CBowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neill, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Rocher, A. C.Gear, G. Aldred, K. J.Lindsay, E. J. Cameron, DonaldScott, J. L. Dobie, J. D. M.Hurford, C. J. McVeigh, D. T.Hayden, W. G. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —On behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present the report from the Committee entitled `The report relating to the registration requirements'. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr KLUGMAN —The report which I have just tabled represents the culmination of a good deal of effort by members of the Committee of Members' Interests. It is a unanimous report agreed to by members representing all political parties in this House on what is a complicated and sometimes controversial issue. I am particularly grateful to all members of the Committee who applied themselves diligently to their responsibilities to make this report possible and to Mr Lyn Barlin who is the Clerk to the Committee. The recent travel and hospitality problems involving the now ex-Governor of Victoria may make this report more topical. Before referring to some of the matters of concern referred to in the report, it may be helpful if I were to briefly trace the history of the registration requirements. On 5 October 1983, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution which among other matters: (1) noted that Ministers had provided statements of their private interests, and those of their families of which they were aware, and that these had been presented to the Parliament; (2) expressed the opinion that members should provide similar statements; and (3) requested the Standing Orders Committee to consider what changes to the Standing Orders may be necessary to give effect to these matters. The Standing Orders Committee reported on 6 June 1984. On 9 October 1984 a.m., the House adopted further resolutions requiring the registration of interests by members from the commencement of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. At the same time it adopted a new standing order 28A setting up a Committee of Members' Interests to oversight the requirements. The relevant resolutions are appendices I and II of the report. In the new Parliament the membership of the Committee was not established in sufficient time for it to determine a form to enable members to provide their statements within a period of 28 days from making their oaths or affirmations which was a requirement of the October 1984 resolutions. As a consequence, the House extended that period until 28 days after the forms are forwarded by the Registrar of Members' Interests which, of course, cannot occur until the Committee has actually determined the form. The Committee's report draws attention to a number of matters which need to be settled before the matter can progress any further. First and foremost is the situation where members of the House of Representatives are required to provide statements of interests when their counterparts in the Senate are not so required. The Committee cannot see the justification for the differing arrangements between the two chambers. It has strongly recommended that the House reconsider the registration requirements in view of the anomalous situation that presently exists vis-a-vis senators who have not even bothered to consider the recommendations of the Committee. The report also draws attention to concern that has been expressed to the Committee in respect of the public availability of the proposed register. Whilst the reason for having the register publicly available is understood and appreciated, nevertheless it is conceivable that its accessibility may pose a risk to the person or property of members and their families. The Committee believes that it may be possible to devise an arrangement limiting access to those persons with a genuine need to know and at the same time reducing the risk posed by unscrupulous persons. Very strong resentment has been expressed at the requirement that a member must register not only his or her own interests but also those of which the member is aware of his or her spouse and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. In this regard, the Committee observes that, in a dissenting report attached to the report of the Standing Orders Committee, five members of that Committee objected to this aspect of the requirements stating that they saw it as an indefensible invasion of the privacy of members' families to which the strongest objection must be taken. Allied with this requirement also is the question as to the extent to which a member must go to become aware of the registrable interests of a spouse. The Committee has sought a review of this requirement. The Committee does not, however, dispute the necessity to register any sponsored travel or hospitality received by spouses. Part of the Committee's responsibilities is to consider what classes of persons other than members should be required to register their interests. Whilst the Committee has not yet had the opportunity to give detailed consideration to this question, it is apparent that members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery enjoy particular privileges in this building and are uniquely placed to exert considerable influence in the decision-making process. If the House re-affirms its requirement that members are to register their interests, the Committee will be giving early consideration to the inclusion of members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in the requirements. There are many other matters dealt with in the report. These include the problem of a definition of a conflict of interest; the types of organisations, membership of which requires registration; the effect of the House's resolutions on members who are executors or trustees of estates; the unrealistic nature of the requirement in respect of partnerships; the inconsistent approach adopted in respect of the need to register collections but not household or personal effects which may include valuable antiques or jewellery items; the exclusion of short term arrangements from those liabilities which are required to be registered; and the need for definitions of gifts and hospitality. It would be my personal view that large short term liabilities would be much more likely to be seen to exert pressure on members than most of the other information required under the present proposal. Apart from this, I do not intend to deal with these matters in this statement. I mention them only to give honourable members an indication of the difficulties involved in putting into effect the registration requirements as presently in force. This is a matter of special significance to all members of the House. I understand that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) intends to facilitate a debate on the report and I strongly urge all members to study the report and to contribute to that discussion. Only in this way will it be possible to implement arrangements which will be practical, fair and equitable. I thank the House. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.40) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs, the eighty-sixth series, first report, together with copies of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —I have just tabled deals with item six of the eighty-sixth variation to the plan of the layout of the City of Canberra. The Committee is considering this variation dealing with roadworks associated with the construction of the Tuggeranong Town Centre as a matter of urgency. This is at the request of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) who asked the Committee to report separately to Parliament on variation six as quickly as possible so that the necessary approvals and tenders for the work could be carried out with the minimum of delay. The estimated cost of public works associated with this variation including works, roads, services and landscaping is $3.5m. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The conversation on my left is growing loud again. Mrs KELLY —I appreciate the great enthusiasm and interest of the House in this report. In considering the proposed variation the Committee took evidence from five witnesses representing the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories. Variation six is part of the plan for the expansion of the primary network for the Tuggeranong Town Centre to provide access to major development sites for the retail complex, major government offices, post office, library, college complex, secondary retail uses and a range of private enterprise mixed office and retail development. The Committee in the eighty-fifth series of variations expressed concern that adequate safeguards should be taken to protect the Murrumbidgee River environment from any pollution associated with the construction of the Town Centre. It has received assurances from the Department of Territories that such monitoring will be carried out and that these control measures are adequate. The Committee members have also noted the high cost of developing the Tuggeranong Town Centre and are concerned that development costs be kept to a minimum with a suggestion that perhaps some of these costs could be passed on to the private developers. However, the Committee is conscious that residents of the Tuggeranong area have been deprived of adequate services and retail facilities for a very long time and is anxious that no further delays occur to provide such services. For this reason, the Committee is more than happy to comply with requests to consider the development of the Tuggeranong Town Centre as a matter of urgency and not to contribute to any delays in the process. The Committee therefore approves the variation. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the House condemns the Budget because- (1) it is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problems of tax reform and tax relief; (2) it fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes; (3) it condemns 750 000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (4) it fails to address the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitiveness and the need for further cuts in Government spending; (5) it fails to provide clear direction of the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar and so potentially destroys its employment benefits; (6) if fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians the chance for a job, and (7) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only homebuyers but hit business investment and jobs''. Amendment negatived Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226, the Committee will first consider Schedule 2 of the Bill. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Chair, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the following schedule: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of the Special Minister of State-together. Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Advance to the Minister for Finance-together. Department of Community Services, Department of Social Security, Department of Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs-together. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-together. Attorney-General's Department, Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs-together. Department of Transport, Department of Aviation-together. Department of Trade, Department of Resources and Energy, Department of Primary Industry-together. Department of Education, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Department of Aboriginal Affairs-together. Department of Housing and Construction, Department of Local Government and Administrative Services-together. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Department of Territories-together. Department of Communications, Department of Science-together. The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the Opposition, which has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Schedule 2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $113,667,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $243,624,000 Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.46) —I support the appropriations. I was looking through the very well-prepared booklet of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which is its annual report for 1984-85, and it gave me a few lead-ins. I saw poor old Malcolm Fraser in Hobart. Mr Hodgman —How was he? Mr GOODLUCK —He was good. This was when he was first elected as Prime Minister. I saw him walking down a very quiet street in Hobart. I saw a young lady. She was not a young lady, actually. She threw a rotten tomato at him. I knew the girl. She came from a good family of Hobart. I was disgusted. I thought to myself that the job of Prime Minister of this country is not easy. Whilst many people may not have thought that I supported him, I supported him all the way because it was a very difficult job. It was very difficult on him and his family. He had a department which advised him. I will give it a bit of a serve in a minute. I thought that as Malcolm Fraser had the job he needed all the support we could give him. Mr Tim Fischer —They also advised the Victorian Governor. Mr GOODLUCK —There are a few people here who undermined him, but we will forget about them. Anyway, that is the name of the game in the political arena. One has some people one supports, some people one likes and some people one does not like. Malcolm Fraser was the Prime Minister of the country and I felt very sorry for him because he had a difficult job to do. Mr Hunt —What about Bob Hawke? Mr GOODLUCK —I will come to Bob Hawke shortly. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advises and supports the Prime Minister in his various responsibilities as head of the Government. The functions of the Department are derived from these responsibilities and broadly concern, firstly, government policy decision-making. Of course, Tasmanians are a very unusual group. Mrs Kelly —Yes! Mr GOODLUCK —I say to the honourable member for Canberra that our streets are not lined with gold and we do not have two people working everywhere, so we are a very unusual group. When we came to Canberra we had a dislike for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I think that would be the way to term it. I am not being unkind. I will calm down in a minute. Mr Hodgman —Are you including me? Mr GOODLUCK —Including the honourable member for Denison and all Tasmanians. We felt that the rights of Tasmania had been trampled on as a result of the dam decision. When we saw Mrs Hawke during that campaign with Save the Franklin earrings on her ears my political nous told me that we were up against a formidable foe during that campaign. I knew that the die had been cast and that the Tasmanians had a job ahead of them. I knew that we were going to lose that decision. I knew that the rights of Tasmania were going to be trampled on. I got angry. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) got angry, as did all the other honourable members-the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). We came to Canberra. We were stirred because we are Tasmanians and we are proud of our island. We love our island. We like to think that the Government of Tasmania can make decisions without the interference of the Prime Minister and some of his trendies. Somebody said to me: `Bruce, do not let the sun go down on your wrath. Do not be too angry all the time because that blurs what you are trying to do'. We lost the Franklin dam issue but we decided that we would not lose the next issue and we did not. We again won the five Federal Tasmanian seats. When the Prime Minister was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions he had virtually a captive audience. He was the winner. He was the winner in every strike that finished. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) would agree that it is very easy to play football in a good strong side such as Essendon but it is not too good when one plays for Hawthorn as one is up against it. The Prime Minister of this country had a captive audience. When he was President of the ACTU everybody loved him. I watched him after he became a member of this place. I have read the book by Oscar Wilde and I have seen the picture about Dorian Gray, who sold his soul to the devil. I am not being rude to the Prime Minister but he sold his soul because of the dams issue and I knew that that would be an albatross around his neck with the people of Tasmania because they are loyal. A lot of them support the Prime Minister but, my goodness, there are a lot who do not support him. I knew that he would have this albatross around his neck and that he would be up against it. I am not as young as I look. I study things very carefully. The Prime Minister was popular but I knew that in this arena one makes unpopular decisions and those unpopular decisions come back to haunt one. I come back to the Prime Minister's Department, which must accept part of the blame. It advised him a few times and some of that advice was not too good. I can talk about his Department because it is all in this book. I will talk about the Office of the Status of Women and some of the appointments that have been made. I could not believe that we would have people who have a radical point of view involved in women's affairs. They are all of the same yoke; they are all pushing the same barrow. Many of them were not pushing the barrow for the ordinary mother who stays at home, who looks after her children, who plays the role of mother and provider at home. They did not push that barrow; they pushed the barrow of the radicals. I use the word `radical' in the true sense of the word. That sort of woman seemed to be appointed to everything that this Government was about. I thought that the Prime Minister had made his first critical mistake. I could pursue that matter for a while but I will leave it. Again the Prime Minister miscued when he began to tamper with the affairs of the elderly. A lot of the elderly people do not understand all the forms they receive. They do not understand what is happening when governments tell them that they are going to look at their assets. They do not understand these sorts of things. They worry about them. They even worry about the amount of water they use in their bath. I will explain that. They put only a little water in the bath to conserve power. The point I make is that when one gets older one does not understand certain things in the way that some politicians in this House seem to think one does. The Prime Minister created a worry when he introduced the assets test and this had the effect of his losing popularity with the elderly people of Australia who knew quite well that the Government would tamper with some of their hard earned assets. The elderly had the feeling that they were all being brought down to the same denominator, that they were all being brought down a peg or two. Although they had worked hard, they had the feeling that something would be taken from them. Of course, animosity was created and the Prime Minister felt the first burst. Mr Hodgman —Why didn't he pick on someone his own age? Mr GOODLUCK —One could ask that question. That was the first mistake that he made. The other mistake he made was with the prices and incomes accord. I am sick of hearing the word `accord' used. I would never buy an Accord motor car because just looking at the name would drive me mad. The accord was really just a sellout to the trade union movement. Anybody who had a bit of common sense could see that. The fact is that the Government caved in. It is an ACTU Government; it is a union government. The accord was the Prime Minister's second biggest mistake because a lot of people started to look at it very carefully and say to themselves: `This Labor Government is not ruling this country. It is being ruled by the unions'. A lot of people were starting to ask questions, such as: Who is running this country? Who is the Prime Minister of this country? It is not Bob Hawke; it is the trade union movement which is behind the scene. I could go on and on but I am hitting a few of the hard points. The third issue was petrol. During the election campaign the Prime Minister said that he would reduce the price of petrol. He used it as a lever against Mr Fraser. He said that if he was re-elected he would reduce the price of petrol to the consumers not only in the city but also in the country. Mr Slipper —By how much? Mr GOODLUCK —He said he would reduce the price by 3c a litre. He said that he would also fix the price of imported crude. He was trying to say: `Leave it to me, boys. I will give you back some of the money that Fraser took from you at the petrol pump'. However, he did not carry out that promise and as a result the farmers in this country are starting to say to themselves `We cannot survive', and they are starting to allot the blame to the Prime Minister because he is the captain of the team. He has to accept all the blame. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.56) —Madam Chair, you and honourable members on my side of the House will know that I am normally a very gentle, sensitive woman and you will understand how embarrassed I am about referring to the speech tonight of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) as absolute rubbish. It was one consistent ramble and I am very disappointed that so many people who are here from the Public Service had to listen to that nonsense. I wish to raise one point about the excellent report of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I congratulate the Department on the composition of this report. I refer to the section about the Office of the Status of Women. It was briefly referred to in a very superficial way by the honourable member for Franklin. This report highlights some of the activities of the Status of Women's area of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department. I congratulate the people involved in this work and I shall refer to some of the work that they have done, particularly in the preparation of the women's Budget program. On Budget night 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the first time tabled the report entitled `Women's Budget Program', which outlined for all the women of Australia-not just the women who are working but the women who are home-the impact that the Budget would have on them. That practice has been continued and I think it is very worthwhile. One of the other areas where the Office made a big contribution was in the preparation of a paper on the review of taxation. Quite a lot of work went into looking at this area. I think that is one of the real innovations of the Office of the Status of Women. It does not think of women's issues simply in the traditional way of issues concerning child care. It thinks of women's issues as all issues, particularly economic issues. As I have travelled around Australia I have talked quite a lot to women's groups about taxation and the economy and they are obviously very concerned about these matters because they affect their life style and the management of their affairs. This report pays particular attention to the affirmative action pilot program. I hope to see further reports on this program. I think it is very difficult in Australia to get true equality in the private sector and also in the parliamentary area, as honourable members can see from the Parliament itself. I will watch with interest any further recommendations on the affirmative action pilot program. One of the other major activities of the Office of the Status of Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been to publicise some of the work that it has done. I recommend one initiative to the honourable member for Franklin. He should read the regular presentation of the status of women report which is published quarterly in the Australian Womens Weekly. The next time he is at the hairdressers he could read the report in the Australian Womens Weekly. This is an innovation. It is a very useful way of attempting to communicate with women through a magazine that is read by over a million men and women in Australia. One other point is the reference made in the Department's annual report to repetitive strain injury. The report refers to measures that have been taken in the Department to deal with repetitive strain injury. It states: Despite the Department's continuation of preventive measures on the best expert advice available, the incidence of RSI continues to be a matter of serious concern not only in the Department but in both the public and private sectors. I am very pleased to see that the Government is taking the initiative by establishing a task force and bringing down a report which deals with repetitive strain injury, because RSI results in serious costs not only to the Government but also to the private sector. It is alarming that this area has to be referred to in an annual report. Honourable members should look at the chart on page 56 of the Department's report to see the incredibly high incidence of repetitive strain injury that has been recorded over the last couple of years. I will now refer to the area of youth affairs. As honourable members will be aware, the Prime Minister considered this area to be of such high priority to the Government and himself that he included it in his portfolio of Prime Minister and Cabinet. With the assistance of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has examined the problems as seen by young people and it has made major recommendations. The priority one program before the House is providing a three-pronged attack on the problems of youth in Australia. We have identified basic structural problems in the employment of young people in our community. The report identifies that unemployment levels are very high. Amongst 15-year-olds, the figure is 31.3 per cent and for 16-year-olds it is 25.8 per cent. With this sort of information and the various reviews including the reviews of Australian youth policies which was undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, the Government has made its announcement of the priority one program. I hope that it will have the support of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Franklin who, I am sure, has young people unemployed in his electorate. Three initiatives are being taken. One is the trainee scheme which is being introduced. This financial year $10,000 will be allocated. That will be innovative and of great benefit to young people. The second area is to try to create more places in tertiary education because the unemployment figures show that young untrained people who do not have the educational background are the most likely to be unemployed. The third area, which has long been neglected, is rationalisation of income maintenance programs. It was ludicrous to have a young person gaining more money by being unemployed than by staying on in tertiary education. The Government has a commitment and it has taken the initiative to act in this area. One other area that is supported through the Office of Youth Affairs is the International Year of Youth Secretariat. I have not supported every one of the number of initiatives in that area, particularly in my local area. Some of the publicity was amazing. Perhaps I am too old to identify with some of it but my International Youth Year Committee was not prepared to accept some of the publicity accepted by the National Secretariat Committee. However, the Committee has done some useful things in the community. One of the most important is that of getting young people involved in decision-making processes. Even if we, as politicians, do not agree with every decision made, at least they have learned how the decision-making process works and have been much more involved in deciding their priorities. Special funds have gone into the area of disadvantaged youth. That has been particularly valuable. However, when the year of youth ends this year it should not be the end of our concern as members of parliament for the youth of our community. There are still many grave problems in our community. One of those was addressed at a meeting of Ministers sponsored by the Prime Minister to deal with the drug problem. That problem still exists and the community and parliamentarians should address it. In conclusion, I congratulate the hard-working bureaucrats, not only in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but also in other departments of the Federal bureaucracy, who have served this Government well, as they have served previous governments. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.07) —The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) showed the same lack of ability and judgment in her remarks as does our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so frequently. She did not recognise a telling and good political speech. She wants to downgrade herself in Caucus. Caucus might need her advice some time. She certainly did not show much judgment in saying that the previous speech was not good. We are discussing the expenditure of $140m by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Naturally, the head of that Department is the Prime Minister. His handling of his responsibilities has been under much criticism recently. Today, from his own mouth we heard a litany of incompetence, particularly in regard to the bicentenary which is discussed on page 28 of the statement available to me. It is suggested that payment this year could be as high as $17.5m. No doubt, that includes the now infamous settlement to Dr Armstrong which, of course, is the result of the Prime Minister's instructions to sack that gentleman. We are now well aware that a payment of $504,000 was made when the Solicitor-General has now suggested that that figure could have been as low as $122,600 plus $10 for restraints. It was not necessary to pay $381,400. The Prime Minister must be responsible for that. We all know the Westminster system. We all have a pretty good idea why this Prime Minister wanted to get on the bandwagon and grab some kudos by having under his personal control this grand party, known as the bicentenary. The Government has borrowed $20,000m in the last three years. We might be considering the cost of the bicentenary. There is no question that under the Westminster system the Prime Minister, or the Minister under whose responsibility and control a department is, is to blame for whatever goes on in his department. We are getting an absolutely new definition from this Prime Minister. He wants to control something but when it gets a bit hot he wants to drop it and give it to someone else. It has been brought to our attention that officers of his Department are in the House today. I would be terrified to be in his Department, because if he tells his officers to do something which does not go well, he is likely to drop the axe on them. In my time I have seen trouble of a physical nature and it is always nice to have someone at your back, but I would not like that person to be the Prime Minister. When the big hits started coming, he would not be there. He would be running around trying to do a deal with the other side. The evidence that has been presented to this Parliament over the last few weeks is that the Prime Minister knew the facts. He knew them well. In fact, he would also have known, if he had bothered to look, that since 1979 there has been a copy of the agreement by which Dr Armstrong was employed in his Department. These are the salient facts. From the minute the Prime Minister decided that someone had to be sacked, it was his baby. It was up to him to make sure that everything was right. It was no longer his responsibility to entrust that to someone else. He said: `Sack him'. He had to make sure that the numbers added up. We all know the rules around this place when a person climbs to the top of the ladder. This is good advice for Government members because they rely on the Prime Minister to win elections for them. When a person gets to the top of the ladder, there is only one way to go, and that is to jump. That is what the Prime Minister must do on this issue. He was in control of the situation. He knew that that was it. He no longer had the luxury of trusting anybody. It was his problem. He had available to him limitless sources of advice. He comes into this Parliament 20 days after the damage had been done, days and days after Australian taxpayers, poor people, have seen their money dissipated. It could have been better spent, as could the $400,000 the Government will spend on a party at Ayers Rock when it does not have enough money to build houses for Aboriginal people. What a joke! There are poor people in the community, but the Prime Minister is allowed to write off nearly $400,000 because he did not know how to operate because he was incompetent, and there is a legion of evidence that he has been incompetent before. The advice I give Government members is that he is incompetent. He must be held responsible for what happened. The Solicitor-General's opinion today makes that absolutely clear. It is probable that the Prime Minister, the responsible Minister, approved-it is no good saying that underlings approved it before he did-what is probably now an illegal contract and certainly one that was not necessary. What did we hear from the Prime Minister today? The Australian Bicentennial Authority Act, the Act for which Government members have criticised us, had all the constraints necessary for someone like Armstrong when he left the service. He could have been bought off for $10. Nobody in the Department so advised the Prime Minister, and I will give honourable members a good reason for that: I do not think he asked. He is notorious for not reading his mail. He is doubly notorious for not answering it. On behalf of people throughout Australia I have had to write to him and say: `When will you answer the letter you have received from Mr and Mrs so-and-so?'. It is no longer good enough to be street-smart. The Prime Minister has been street-smart all his life. He is in the big league now. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) gave that advice to someone else. If he does not know how to do it-and there is certainly plenty of evidence of that-it is time he asked the right people to do it. I suppose that honourable members have heard the story that the Prime Minister's office is the quietest office in this place. That is because nothing happens there until about ten minutes before Question Time, when the minders get hold of him. They wind him up as if he were one of the antique clocks owned by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). They shove him in here and then the Leader of the House has to get him out pretty soon after 45 minutes have elapsed before he runs down again. The minders have got him all the time. They have to listen in on his phone calls. That is an established fact. That is lovely, is it not? Imagine being a senior businessman or someone else who thinks he is ringing the Prime Minister to deal with him in confidence. Out of the blue he finds that one of his minders is listening to the conversation. That must be something that has never happened in this Parliament before. The Prime Minister was sent in here by his minders today with a written speech. He was attacked in a matter of public importance and he had his little speech written out days beforehand. Why? Because they could not trust him on his own. When he was in the Australian Council of Trade Unions it was much the same. They had to send someone to hold his arm at lunchtime, and we all know why. That is the sort of person he is. In his efforts to defend himself he is prepared to take anyone with him. He is wading in the blood of the executives of the ABA because he made a decision without proper consultation on something he did not understand and something he could not handle. When he got into trouble- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! It might be appropriate for me to remind the honourable member at this stage that presently before the Committee are proposed estimates- Mr TUCKEY —Yes, like the one on page 28 which concerns the bicentenary. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will remain silent. The proposed estimates before the Committee at the moment are the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. I have listened with interest, but it seems to me that the honourable member is getting perilously close to a personal attack on the Prime Minister. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor- Mr TUCKEY —This is getting a bit tough, Mr Deputy Chairman. You are taking up my speaking time. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I remind the honourable member that, if he wants to pursue that line, it must be the subject of a substantive motion. Mr TUCKEY —I am referring to the bicentenary, at page 28 of the explanatory notes, an amount of $17.5m. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honour- able member should refer to it in terms of criticism of the Government and criticism of the Department, not personal criticism of the Minister or the Prime Minister. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister must be in control of this situation, Mr Deputy Chairman. The facts are that I am demonstrating to this Parliament that he should not be the Minister in control of such a large amount of money. He could not even handle a $500,000 settlement. Of course, the evidence I refer to is that his background is that he made an absolute flop of Bourke's store and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. That is further evidence why the community of Australia should have grave reservations as to the competence of this man to look after the huge budget and the finances for which he is responsible-$140m as is shown in this document. He has made plenty of other gaffs, as in the foreign affairs area in regard to the MX missile. He made a promise to the American people that he discovered he could not keep. This is another classic example of this man's incompetence. I have lost about a minute of my time, but nevertheless we must look at the fact that he has such childish egotism- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will lose more than a minute if he continues on the same line. I remind him that these are departmental estimates. Mr TUCKEY —Page 17 shows that the departmental estimate for Kirribilli House and the Lodge is $1,091,000. We have already been told that this will not be included as a non-cash benefit for the Prime Minister, and I think it is time the Parliament took note of that fact. An amount of $1,091,000, plus $285,000 for capital works, will be spent on Kirribilli House and the Lodge in order to house the Prime Minister. He will get a non-tax fringe benefit. If honourable members can tell me how that works, I would like to know. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(9.17) —I would like to refer this evening to the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and, in particular, to make some comments relating to the Priority One: Young Australia package. Before doing so, I think it is worthy of reflection that when this Government came to office in April 1983 there was an unemployment rate of 10.2 per cent which shortly thereafter peaked at 10.4 per cent. Of course, as every member of this Committee would be aware, the current rate is in the vicinity of 8.3 per cent, which is a significant improvement and one which, along with a number of other significant economic indicators, shows that Australia is leading the world in terms of its economic performance. An overview of the changed circumstances confronting our youth will indicate that for example between 1966 and 1984 there was a decline of almost one-third in the number of full time jobs held by teenagers. A factor which was largely responsible for that decline was that in a competitive labour market environment better trained and more experienced adult workers were taking an increasing share of the available jobs in the economy. Australia, in common with very few other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has a very difficult problem with retention rates. Compared with other OECD countries we have a very difficult environment for students. Almost half of our youth who are above school leaving age have left full time education. As I indicated, we have a very bad record compared with other OECD countries, and it is a significant factor in terms of the problems that have confronted our economy and will confront it in the future. The low retention rates, of course, hit those people from low income families much harder. I think it has been a consistent theme of the last 10 or 15 years that those who have left school at a relatively young age have not had the opportunity for structured vocational training. The many support schemes offered to them by various government agencies have, at least in my submission, been effective only at the margin. Mr Barry Jones —And complicated by regional factors, too. Mr GRIFFITHS —As my colleague the Minister for Science indicates, regional factors are a further complication in the equation. About 100,000 young people are currently leaving school every year before they reach year 12. They enter an economy which, whilst dramatically improved, still offers significant impediments to secure, long term employment for those people. Of course, recently there has been the development of what is called the secondary labour market. Many of these people have gone into unskilled, casual employment. A corollary of that sort of occupational lifestyle is the alienation problems that impact not only on the unemployed but also, in my view, substantially on young people who see no realistic long term future in their areas of employment and no reasonable alternatives available to them. Since the Hawke Labor Government was elected in 1983 there has been a significant and steady fall in all categories of youth unemployment. Indeed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that unemployment amongst 15 to 19-year-olds has fallen from 26.9 per cent when we came to office in March 1983 to 20.3 per cent in August 1985. That is a significant reduction. Certainly it is not good enough, but it is significant. By comparison, in the period 1981-83, under the previous Government and the policies of the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) there was an explosion in youth unemployment of 64 per cent. It is interesting that during the 1981 to 1983 period and, the 1983 to 1985 period, wage relativities in terms of young people remained virtually constant. That brings me to the point I wish to make. The now Leader of the Opposition, immediately after having sacrificed the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), at his first Press conference indicated: You will not seriously tackle the problem of youth unemployment until you recognise that the biggest reason why there are so many young people out of work is that it is too expensive to employ them and. . . until you break down some of those rigidities (in the labour market) you are not going to fundamentally tackle that problem. In the limited time available to me this evening I wish to address the underlying premise in that comment. I hope to indicate to the House the reasons why that course of action ought not to be adopted. It is simply a rhetorical approach to a fundamental problem. It is consistent with a whole range of rhetorical approaches used as a stalking horse in the challenge the Leader of the Opposition to the honourable member for Kooyong. Those policy approaches will now have to be reviewed and, I think, stepped back from prior to the next election. In any event, on the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition is articulating an approach that has the support of the Opposition parties, the question of what precisely the impact of cutting youth wages will be is worthy of comment. Of course, the Howard approach-I add that it is also the Stone approach because the Leader of the Opposition seems to be mouthing some of Mr Stone's rhetoric from a few months ago-has ignored most of the available evidence on how one ought to respond to youth unemployment. Of course, most honourable members will realise that macro-economic policy, educational policy and industry policy approaches are far more important than the simple mechanism suggested. It is important to note that in terms of the empirical evidence the response will be industrial disputation, as evidenced in Western Australia. The threat to adult workers will be evidenced by almost any circumstances in which people of similar skill levels and widely differing wage levels are competing for one job. In my age that will mean a significant decrease in levels of overall aggregate demand. During the 1970s, wages paid to women under the equal pay cases rose quite significantly compared with other sectors of the economy. However, during this period there was a quite significant increase in the number of women in the work force. Fundamentally, the Opposition's approach takes no account of equity considerations. Of course, these are fundamental to the Australian Labor Party's approach and, in particular, the prices and incomes accord. The reality is that not all jobs require extensive training or years of experience and can be, as I indicated previously, performed equally as well by 40 or 50-year-olds as by 15-year-olds. I think the McDonalds experience in Western Australia is a good example of what might come to pass if we were to approach this problem in the context of the policy articulated by the Opposition. The Opposition's approach ignores institutional factors in a whole range of Australian industries. For example it ignores, the first-on, last-off policy and vice versa which is part of fundamental industrial relations reality. To change that in my view would create more problems than it would solve. I refer to the problem of youth labour mobility and the arguments that effectively dismiss the role of education and training in youth employment. I refer also to the fact that structural changes are not an ingredient in terms of the policy propositions put forward. I mention also the failure of the policy to recognise the effect of lower wages and overall economic demand- something which I indicated earlier. My time is running out very quickly but I hope that in terms of these comments- Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.28) —I am very pleased tonight to have the opportunity of speaking in the Committee stage of the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and of addressing my remarks to aspects of the Department of the Special Minister of State and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In particular, I refer to the free issue of Australian flags to eligible organisations-a program all but abolished in the last few days by the Labor Government. We in the National Party of Australia believe that it is important to encourage patriotism and that all Australians should be proud of their history and national traditions. Our Australian flag has been with us since Federation. Recent opinion polls show that the flag is supported overwhelmingly by Australians of all political views. Notwithstanding that, this Government is mounting a concerted attack on the Australian flag with a view to replacing it by 1988- Australia's bicentennial year. I know that the Government does not want to hear about the bicentennial year in view of the disasters which have befallen it and the incompetent discharge by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of his ministerial duties in relation to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Honourable members will appreciate that a week ago the Hawke Government and the Minister at the table, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), decided to ration severely the free issue of Australian flags. This was done to such an extent that in effect the provision of flags to community groups will be virtually eliminated. Mr Hicks —Shame! Mr SLIPPER —It is a shame, as the honourable member has indicated. Organisations such as service clubs, scouting and guiding groups, sporting clubs and churches have been among those eligible in the past to apply for flags. Indeed, this year over 250 such bodies have applied to me for an Australian flag. No one in this Parliament supports cuts in excessive government expenditure more than I do. If the Government's rationing of flags was motivated by a desire to cut costs, this would be more understandable, even if not excusable. Unfortunately, the Government's aim is to discourage Australians from flying the flag in the full knowledge that many small groups are not able to afford to buy a flag and consequently will not have one to fly. The Government hopes that if the flag is out of sight, it is out of mind. Mr Cobb —The Government wants to change it. Mr SLIPPER —The Government wants to subvert the flag and take it away from all Australians. The Government hopes that the flag will be changed however, it has another think coming. Today we heard about the Government's sell-out of the people of Australia with its proposed handing-over of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park and, indeed, Ayers Rock itself-the property of all Australians-to a small group of Aborigines. This Government seeks to dissipate a national symbol of all Australians. I believe that this attitude of the Government will be deplored and condemned by everyone because we believe, and the people of Australia believe, that Ayers Rock belongs to all the people in this country. The Government's double standards and the double standards of the Department of Special Minister of State with respect to expenditure are completely exposed when one considers that the Government has decided to allocate almost $400,000 for an expensive public relations exercise to try to push this sell-out of the birthright of every Australian with the handing over of Ayers Rock. The Government, on the other hand, and the Minister's Department have decided to cut from $100,000 to $85,000 the allocation of funds for the supply of Australian flags to organisations. Mr Cobb —Shocking priorities. Mr SLIPPER —Disgraceful priorities indeed, and the Government stands condemned by all people. Let us look at the breakup of the approximately $400,000 which the Government intends to spend on this expensive Ayers Rock exercise. It has found $150,000 to spend on a film, $50,000 to print a book, $55,000 to spend on pamphlets, $40,000 to spend on consultants, $80,000 to spend on a Melbourne public relations firm and $22,000 to spend on catering. This cannot possibly be justified. In fact, the Government is prepared to spend on this expensive public relations exercise almost five times as much as it is making available annually on the supply of flags to Australian organisations. That is an indication that the Government's attack, the Minister's attack and the Department's attack on the Australian flag are ideological. There is no element of cost cutting in the Government's attitude. The Labor Government is attacking the Australian flag because it wants to replace the Australian flag by 1988. The Government has the audacity to squander the sorts of funds which I have outlined previously on this expensive public relations exercise. Why cannot Ayers Rock belong to all Australians? Why will not the Government consult the Northern Territory Government? Why does the Government insist upon selling Australians down the drain? I know that amongst my colleagues opposite there are honourable members who support the flag and they must join with us in the National Party and the Liberal Party in complete opposition to the Government's attitude in this area. Amongst Government members there are many who hate the flag and who look upon it as perhaps a symbol of the past. Senator Gareth Evans, a former Attorney-General-and I am pleased that he is a former Attorney-General and not the present occupant of that office-has said `We can do much better than the present undistinguished and undistinctive bit of cloth which we have inherited from our colonial past'. Believe it or not, the current Prime Minister mentioned just 12 months ago that he agreed with the senator. He said: `I think there is a strong case for a distinctive Australian emblem'. Are these the comments of people representing the Government of Australia? Are these the comments of people who are supposed to support the traditions and institutions we have in this country? People throughout Australia are indeed worried at this Government's motives and attitude. In fact, countless thousands have already signed petitions urging support for the Australian flag. In my own electorate of Fisher, my constituents have been signing so many petitions on the flag that I have been able to present one to this House every day. National flag associations have been waging media campaigns and have been overwhelmed with public support. I would like to commend Dr Rupert Goodman, the President of the National Flag Association of Queensland, for his work and I would also like to congratulate the members of the Association who have stated: `A flag is a symbol-it speaks for the nation's history and its soul'. The Prime Minister's attempt to treat public opinion with absolute contempt was never more evident than when he suddenly saw fit to force the taxpayers to pay a $3,000 postage bill for Aus-Flag '88 Ltd-a discreditable organisation aiming to deprive Australians of our national flag by 1988. The Prime Minister was directly involved. He cannot claim ignorance and he cannot claim that he did not know. This shocking occurrence happened in the Office of Youth Affairs, which is part of his own Department and one of the departments involved in this debate. Imagine what the men and women of Australia must have felt when they heard that $3,000 had been squandered on an organisation trying to undermine the Australian flag. It is only fitting that a number of States condemned the use of school children in Aus-Flag's competition. Fancy involving children in such a sordid exercise as Aus-Flag's competition! The Queensland National Party Government and the Minister for Education, the Hon. Lin Powell, should be congratulated for stating firmly that the flag competition was not suitable as a school activity. Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen, who, as honourable members will be aware, is a National Party senator from Queensland-and a very fine senator too-in her contribution to the debate on the Flags Amendment Bill in the Senate made a number of relevant points regarding Labor's attitude towards the Australian flag. I quote: . . . the Federal Labor Government's policy on the flag, which was stated in the 1982 ALP platform, is to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag and national anthem which would be more distinctively reflective of Australia's independence and identity . . . The Government should take heed that the flag is supported by the people of Australia. Let us look again at the actions of the Special Minister. The allocation for flags has been slashed to $85,000. The Government has spent almost five times this amount on the Uluru sellout, which is a shocking waste of taxpayers' money. We must maintain our flag. We must support our traditions. The National Party of Australia has no hesitation in doing so. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.36) —I will sum up what some honourable members have said before me. I will deal with the flag first while it is fresh in my mind. I should explain to the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) that the expenditure on the flag-I am not too sure how people in the National Party of Australia do their arithmetic-has been slashed from $73,000 to $85,000! That is the extent of the slash from last year to this year. I do not know how he interprets all that when he talks about slashing. We had $73,000 for flags last year-- Mr Slipper —Last year it was $100,000. Mr YOUNG —No, it was $73,000 last year and it is $85,000 this year. That is the extent of the slash that has taken place. Some years ago the then Minister-Mr McLeay, the then honourable member for Boothby-introduced a system whereby a number of organisations throughout Australia, via their local members and senators, could be issued with a free flag. It was decided to do it through the members and senators so that they could then go around and big note themselves by handing a flag to kids and everybody else. The government of the day was very generous. It thought this was a great move to install conservatism in Australia for a long long time. It expanded enormously the number of organisations that were entitled to a flag. We have tried to keep track of the number of flags issued. As honourable members opposite who have been Ministers know, each year one has to try to come to terms with the amount of money each department is going to need-- Mr Slipper —Why are you spending five times as much on Uluru? Mr YOUNG —But not under the Department of Special Minister of State, you billy goat. It is not happening under my Department. We are talking about the Department of the Special Minister of State. We are not talking about Aboriginal affairs. Last year I went to the Expenditure Review Committee and said: `This is the amount of money I feel we will need for the free issue of the flag. This is the number we have put out in the last couple of years and if we stay at about that number or slightly above that number, we are going to require about $85,000'. I cannot keep going back to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to get more money every time we run out of items or overspend. This is particularly so because of the policies which are being pressed on us by the National Party to stop government expenditure. The fact is that if we had continued to send out the free issue flags at the rate at which they went out in the first couple of months of this financial year, we would have been spending a lot more than $85,000. I attempted to carry through this strain of fairness that I have in me by writing to all the members and senators saying that I thought the fairest way of doing it was to say that there would be so many flags available, in order to see out this financial year with the amount of money we had set aside to do this, which as I have said has been slashed in the terms of the honourable member for Fisher from $73,000 to $85,000. Long before the honourable member for Fisher got to his feet tonight several members from my side of the House-Labor members from all over Australia-said: `We think you had better go back to the old system. We do not like the idea that perhaps we will in some way be curtailed by this new system under which we will be allocated a quota that we have to try to fit in with. How do we explain that to organisations that come to us and are eligible under the criteria? Do we just say that we only have a certain quota and we are sorry but you have missed out?' Understandably, I feel it is my duty to go to the Minister for Finance and say that we might just need a little more money for this financial year to carry through this system. Mr Tim Fischer —There is not much hope with Senator Walsh. Mr YOUNG —There may not be because he listens to what the Opposition has to say and it keeps saying that we must cut Government expenditure. Every time we come in here with some Government program the Opposition tells us to stop spending money. We listen to Opposition members all the time and that is what we find we have had to do. Anyhow, to the delight of all those who sit opposite I will attempt to see whether we can meet all the requirements of members over the next few months and then have a look at the system as it will apply in the next financial year. I will do that because, as I say, yesterday and today many members on my side have been to see me to talk about the matter, about the embarrassment they would face in their electorates if they were confronted with this sort of circumstance. We will see what we can do about it. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) referred to the throwing of tomatoes at Mr Fraser. I am not responsible for that and have no answer. I suppose that at some times in this House I have felt like doing it myself. He talked about the Franklin dam and about what a great mistake our stopping of that project was. Parliament is entitled to know that under agreements reached with the Tasmanian Government this Government had more people working by virtue of the financial resources it put into the west coast of Tasmania than would have been working on the Franklin dam. So our policy of replacing jobs which are done away with because of environmental decisions was carried out to the letter as far as the Franklin dam was concerned. He also suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had made a mistake in relation to the assets test. Things have changed quite radically since the honourable member for Benelong (Mr Howard) became Leader of the Opposition because over the years he has expressed support for an assets test of some sort. There is very little difference now between the political parties on this issue. I do not think that it will be much of an issue at the 1987 election. I know that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) also supports an assets test, and probably a tougher test than the one we have introduced. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) touched on the involvement of the Prime Minister's Department in the calling together of all the Ministers and officials from around Australia to deal with the drug problem. That process has continued. There will be another meeting in Canberra on 18 October with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and myself, to deal with these problems and I should also place on record, because of my responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, two matters which I thought may have been raised by honourable members opposite tonight. My latest information is that we are now working at capacity in terms of dealing with recruits to the Australian Federal Police and are carrying out our promise at the last election to increase manpower by about 300 people. We have also allocated an additional 30 man years as a result of the introduction of the 38-hour week into the Australian Federal Police; so because of the accommodation available it would be impossible at the moment for us to recruit any more people into the AFP than we are doing. Expenditure for the National Crime Authority was, as the Prime Minister promised, in keeping with the requirements sought by the Authority in setting itself up and getting on with its work for this financial year. It has a major responsibility as a result of the work that has been given to it. It is something new and unique in Australia. It has to co-ordinate its work with all the other law enforcement agencies throughout Australia. It is working extremely well. I know that members of the Authority, including Judge Stewart, have had many talks with members from both sides of the House about its work and hopefully, perhaps having overcome the controversies that did exist in relation to its establishment last year, it can now get on with its work. The community does expect it to overcome some of the criminal activity that has been exposed by royal commissions and inquiries that have been held in this country over the past 10 years. I do not think that anybody in this House should underestimate its responsibility or underestimate the importance that this Government places on giving it the resources that it requires. So in the law enforcement area of both the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority we have carried out our promises to the letter. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $588,503,000. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $72,276,000. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $160,000,000. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.46) —In speaking on the appropriations to the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance and the Advance to the Minister for Finance, I would like to refer to the various points of view put forward by the economic commentators who seem to be sold on the so-called success of the economic policy of the present Government under the accord. The accord is the centrepiece of the Government's economic policy, being a deal done between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party before the 1983 elections. The claimed benefits of this economic policy include a growth of 5 per cent over three years. It might be said that this follows from a period of international- Mr Griffiths —Compared with a negative growth rate in the last year of your Government-the first time since the Great Depression. Mr CARLTON —As the honourable member for Maribyrnong is so pleased to point out, and as I was about to say, because of international recession and a drought of the most substantial order it is true that this growth follows on from a period of grave recession, which was not confined to Australia but which was intensified in Australia because of the drought. I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong for that helpful interjection. It is also claimed that the Government's economic policy has led to major growth in employment and to wage and price moderation. However, we ought to look at unemployment under the accord. Unemployment is still running at the rate of 8.3 per cent. Mr Griffiths —Compared to 10.4 per cent. Mr CARLTON —It is at a substantial level indeed. I point out again to the honourable member for Maribyrnong that for six of the seven years of the Fraser Government the unemployment rate was substantially lower than it has been over the period of this Labor Government. It came to a high level in the last year because of the international recession and the drought. The present Government promised to reduce that level substantially but it has not. The unemployment rate for the general population is 8.3 per cent and it is 21.6 per cent for youth. It remains at 21.6 per cent for youth despite all the promises that were made. Unemployment under the Labor Government is higher than for six out of the seven years of the Fraser Government and that last year was beset by international recession and severe drought. Growth over the last two or three years has been based on borrowing. Our overseas debt stood at $3,326 for every man, woman and child as at June 1985 compared with $1,571 for every man, woman and child as at June 1983. We can always have a spurt of growth as a result of borrowing but as a result of over-borrowing our external debt is at a seriously high level. We have a problem servicing this debt, paying for the interest and the capital repayments. It costs 44 per cent of our export income from goods and services to service capital repayments and interest on our external debt. Out of every $100 we earn abroad, $44 is used to pay off this excessive international debt. Devaluation since the Hawke Government has come to office has increased this debt burden. It is claimed that we have industrial peace. That question is very interesting. These days, with sophisticated ways of waging industrial warfare, it is possible to remain paid, on the job, and still have industrial chaos causing grave disharmony and loss of income to the country. The Mudginberri dispute in the Northern Territory for example, has led to nationwide strikes against rural exports. There is a severe threat by the ACTU to export incomes from rural industries arising out of the Mudginberri dispute. There is also the attack on small firms like Dollar Sweets Pty Ltd in Melbourne, where thuggery is preventing people making their own decisions about their working practices. There is continuing strife in the building industry, and further threats over this last day with the release of Mr Gallagher from prison, and there is likely to be further strife in the building industry. The postal system in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, is in continuing chaos. Despite what the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has said in this House, there is no relief from that situation. The Queensland power dispute continues. The Queensland Government has taken the novel view that people who do not deliver power should not be paid. That is a novel view, but that has been accepted by the community in Queensland, and there is likely to be further difficulty there because of the Queensland Government's very sensible views about extending contract labour in this area. We also have peace at a price. We have peace at the price of ACTU control-the deferring of wage discounting, which was necessary to maintain stable economic situations after devaluation. There has been an agreement to so-called productivity increases going into superannuation payments across the board, regardless of whether productivity has been achieved or whether these payments are earned. A tax package has been introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which adds a de facto wage burden to employers in the place of fringe benefits, and there are work practices preventing increases in productivity which are enforced by the ACTU. Inflation is moving towards double digit figures-indeed, we are two percentage points above our trading partners in inflation. That is another economic fact of life which is the result of the present policies. Interest rates are a severe burden on the economy and are standing at their highest in real terms since the Great Depression. Everybody is paying more money in interest rates-business, home owners, everybody. There is international concern about Australia's economic condition. The International Investor magazine, which gives a credit rating based on the views of international banks, has dropped our credit rating 1.5 points over the last six months, 5.6 points since the Hawke Government came to office. The Australian dollar has been falling against the currencies of our trading partners in recent days in a way which further indicates the lack of international investor confidence in Australia's economic management. Mr Punch —What about the stock exchange? Mr CARLTON —I hope the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) will contain himself for a moment. I do not know whether he knows where the stock exchange is. He has within his electorate people who are paying the highest real interest rates in 50 years. He is in a marginal seat and must realise that that is one of his major electoral difficulties. If this Government's economic policies are successful, they will deliver to the honourable member for Barton and his electors lower interest rates. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer in the last election campaign, supported by the honourable member for Barton, promised lower interest rates for 1985, and they repeated that promise in May this year. However, interest rates are continuing to rise. The Government is in a desperate position. It has to maintain high interest rates in order to prop up the dollar. If it does not prop up the dollar, if there is a further devaluation of the dollar, the cost of imports will rise, inflation will go up, and it will be necessary to renegotiate the accord with the ACTU to get a further discounting against the inflationary rise of the dollar due to devaluation. The Government cannot go back to the ACTU and renegotiate the accord for further discounting. The Government is in a desperate position on the exchange rate. It is watching each day the depreciation of the dollar against the trade weighted index of our major trading partners. Watching the dollar fall day by day, it has to maintain increasingly high interest rates to keep it up. If it does not do that, the dollar will fall, the price of imports will rise and inflationary pressures will increase. The Government will have to go back and renegotiate the accord and the ACTU will not be prepared to negotiate again. On the other hand, if interest rates continue to rise, they also will have inflationary pressures and investment will fall off. New private housing starts have already begun to decrease. There are increasing difficulties in the private investment sector because of increasing interest rates and higher inflation. The Government is in a dilemma. On the one hand, it must maintain the exchange rate by pushing up interest rates. If it pushes up interest rates, costs go up and the economy is damaged as a result. The overall economic situation for this Government is a desperate juggling. It has six balls in the air and time is running out. International investors understand that this is a desperate position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(9.56) —In 1985 the Australian Parliament is treated to the experience of the most radical, revolutionary and untested Opposition for many a long year. It is personified in very large measure by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who has just spoken. It is an Opposition that is characterised by simplistic notions, untested theories and, in the last week in particular, a chronic loss of nerve. The great new era when Liberalism was to lead the debate is showing all the signs of a false dawn, while the innovators and new social engineers of the Right have misplaced their tools that were so readily available only a short time ago when the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) occupied room M56A. Notwithstanding all that, again tonight the honourable member for Mackellar has persisted. His view is simple. He and his colleagues want a free labour market, a free home interest rate market, so-called freedom for government enterprises, so-called free negotiations on the shop floor, and, most of all, they want the free business lunch. The Liberals are in love with the notion of free and all its connotations. We have had Fraserism. Now we are being treated to a new round of economic Rajneeshism. The only trouble is that the Bhagwan here does not have the full confidence of all his followers, whatever colour clothes they may be wearing. This Budget is yet another brought down by this Government in the context of growth, for growth, and made possible by growth. It is a practical, realistic document cognisant of the realities of the Australian economic landscape. The alternative policies of the Opposition as they stand rest essentially on two untried policies for Australia-privatisation and deregulation of the labour market. These new ends unto themselves of the dry Rajneeshi Right are clothed in ideological respectability. In fact, they are little more than the policies of greed in more subtle tones. Their proclaimed results are opportunity, freedom and enterprise. In Britain, however, where the theorists have used a nation as a sociological laboratory, the end results, the facts, have been reduced opportunities for millions, greater concentration of sectional interests, inequality and a stagnant economy. I have previously dealt in this place with privatisation. Suffice it to say tonight that privatisation would increase unemployment, lower consumption and hence gross domestic production, increase recurrent public expenditure, smash private investment and place heavy upward pressures on interest rates. I should like to place on record tonight a figure produced by my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). I offer it to the honourable member for Mackellar as the thought for the day. I offer only one at a time. Where is the money going to come from? Where is the $960m contributed to government revenue by statutory authorities in this country going to come from when the honourable member privatises them? That is the thought for the day. It will probably take the Opposition months to work out, cause several faction fights and probably result in a few rude letters from some committee chairman about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). When honourable members come to a conclusion, I would like to know the answer. Mr Carlton —What is your margin? Mr PUNCH —My friend wants to talk about my margin. Let me tell him this: I will be on this side of the House after the next election and he will be still on the Opposition side but back on the back bench. Deregulation of the labour market-the second plank-would revert this country to the industrial battleground that existed under the Liberals. I make the point that the Leader of the Opposition is busy running around the country courting small business with labour market deregulation. I want to know what small business expects from this. Will the unions just lie down and take it? Will they lie down and die? Of course they will not. They will fight. They will fight hard for their rights that have been won over 90 years. The battleground will not be big business, it will not be the Public Service and it will not be the faction-ridden Liberal Party caucus room. It will be small business itself. The Liberals, in the same way as they conscripted mothers' sons for the Vietnam conflict of their own making in the 1960s, will recruit small business in the 1980s for their ideological war. The question is: Why? Strikes are now at their lowest level for 17 years. The Liberals run around the country collecting newspaper clippings in looking for some industrial strife. If they cannot find any they get the Queensland Government or somebody like that to whip up industrial trouble and cause a strike. This is good conservative politics. What about the real unit labour costs? If the honourable member for Mackellar gets his research officer to look that up, he will find that they are at their lowest level since the 1960s. What about economic growth? As the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) has said on several occasions in the last few minutes, it is amongst the highest, if not the highest, in the world. The accord is marvelled at by the rest of the Western world. Yet, because of an ideological obsession, the Opposition attacks it. It attacks the accord because it did not think of it. It attacks it because when it was in government it attempted a similar wages, prices and incomes policy but it could not produce the result. Yet, here we are now-2 1/2 years after its defeat and three spokesmen for employment and industrial relations later-and it still has no wages policy. How are big business, small business or any investors in this country expected to put their money anywhere in good faith when the Opposition has no wages policy? How would they be expected to undertake any investment under an alternative government when the Liberal and National parties have no wages policy? Indeed, I go further by pointing out to the Committee that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) admitted this week that he did not know whether labour costs would go up or down in a deregulated labour market. The honourable member for Mackellar is walking from the chamber. I want to know whether labour costs will go up or down in a deregulated labour market. He is proposing it. I and another 15 million Australians simply want to know. The honourable member for Mackellar went on to say that the accord was peace at a price. He spoke about the extra burden that is being placed on business by the fringe benefits tax. Let me remind him that the context in which the Budget we are speaking about tonight is framed has produced an economic miracle in this country whereby business profits have risen by $6 1/2 billion. The fringe benefits tax and the tax package collectively will take back half a billion dollars. Of course, intertwined with that we have the accord and tax trade-offs. So there is a net increase of $6 billion in profits in this country. The Opposition would dearly like to be in the position of producing that result. Yet again tonight, on a failed record, its economic spokesman stands in this place and criticises the accord and Government policies that are so intertwined in this Budget. To me, such an attitude is amazing. I simply conclude by quoting someone who I think is one of the best economists operating in the mass media, namely, Mr Ross Gittins. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 July he said: I get tired of the way pollies in Opposition always know better. They could always run the country far better than the mugs who actually won the election. And when you point out that they didn't do so wonderfully last time they were in office, they always assure you that while they used to be hopeless, now they're brilliant. I could not have said it better myself. But let me stress once again, in that context and in the context of what has been said here tonight, that I will be back here next time with an enhanced majority and the honourable member for Mackellar will be back on the Opposition back bench. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.07) —The honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) said-I think I quote him correctly-that the economic recovery supposedly achieved by the present Government has been an economic miracle. What the honourable member, or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for that matter, fails to say is that, whatever recovery might be evidenced by statistics in Australia at the moment, it is all based on borrowed money. So I believe that at the moment the Government is pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of Australia by trying to convince them that we have an economic recovery for which it is taking credit. However, what effectively is happening is that the Government is basing any economic stability at the moment purely on borrowed money that future generations will have to pay for. Mr Brumby —What is the relationship between borrowings and growth rates? Mr BURR —What the honourable member is doing is forcing his kids to pay for his debts. I would like to quote some figures to show how misconceived and misdirected this Government's policies are. A paper which was produced recently by the Parliamentary Library sets out the level of Australia's external debt. I would be surprised if my friends on the other side of the chamber have not read this document. The paper shows that between 1981 and 1985 gross external debt as a proportion of gross domestic product increased from 11.9 per cent to 33.1 per cent. The corresponding net external debt has increased from 6.9 per cent to 25.1 per cent. In dollar terms, our gross external debt in 1981 totalled $15.796 billion. In 1985 it is $68.466 billion. That is the way we are living. It is grossly misleading to claim that the Government is ignorant of those figures or in fact has not been culpably taking part in expanding them. The Government knows that during the period it has been in office its borrowings have increased at an enormous rate. To get some indication of the way in which Federal Government borrowings have increased, whether they be external or domestic borrowings, one need only look at the level of the interest rates that are being paid to support those borrowings. According to the Budget Papers, Federal Government interest charges alone will amount to $6,724m this year. That figure is larger than our total defence bill. It is $1,800m more than we are paying for education. Because of our level of borrowings, the interest charges figure is rising at a dramatic rate. So, the supposed economic recovery, the supposed economic miracle that this greatest Treasurer in the world is inflicting on this country, is all based on borrowed money. It is not being based on what we earn overseas. It is not being based on our own productive efforts. If our expenditure of today is borrowed money, this Government is committing our kids to pay for our standard of living now. We are building up massive debts. We are enjoying our standard of living and we are saying to our kids and the kids of honourable members opposite: `You pay because we like to live in the lap of luxury now'. Quite frankly, I think that is repulsive. The people of Australia should know darn well what the Government is on about. It is on about band-aid treatments for the economy so that it can win the next election and so that it can say that everything in the economy is beaut. The deception and what the Government is not telling our kids is that they will have to pay the bills because the Government wants to win the next election. If honourable members opposite can justify that in their consciences they do not deserve to be in this place and they do not deserve to call themselves decent Australians. We are borrowing this amount of money. In business terms one might say that that is beaut. The Government can borrow money the same as we can. My friends, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and I can go and borrow money on our Bankcards if we want to. Mr Goodluck —I can't. Mr BURR —I feel sorry for the honourable member for Franklin. We can borrow money on our Bankcards or take out an overdraft. We can buy our colour telly, our new fridge and furniture and our new car, but ultimately we will have to repay that bill. That is the same position as the country is in. We are borrowing on our Bankcard, but ultimately we will have to repay that. We can look at the other side of the coin and at the capacity of the country to repay the Bankcard. What do we find? We find that for years this country has relied on our traditional exporting industries-our rural and mining industries. We have lived off the sheep's back for years. But our traditional export earning industries, our wealth earning industries, are not in the position thay were in years ago. They cannot carry the economy of this country any longer. We are finding that because of pressure from places such as the European Economic Community and other subsidised countries such as New Zealand our export industries, our rural industries in particular, are having great difficulty competing. Not only do they demand being subsidised and not only are a great many farmers going out of business but also they cannot keep the flow of money into this country which we need to be able to service our foreign debts. If we look at our balance of payments figures-I am sure my friends on the other side of the House are conscious of these figures-we will find that at the end of the last financial year we were $10,000m in deficit on our current account balance. That means that we imported $10,000m more than we exported. That rate of deficit on our current account balance is now increasing at the rate of $1,000m a month. So we are not paying for our imports, let alone repaying all of the external debts we have been building up over these years. Yet the Treasurer and the honourable member for Barton have the temerity to come into this House and say that it is an economic miracle. It is an economic miracle my eye! It is economic deception of the Australian people. There is no question that Australia has two choices. If the Government and the Treasurer are being honest thay will admit this to the Australian people. We have two choices only. We as a country can either live within our means or work harder, export more and, therefore, as a country be more profitable and able to afford the standard of living we want. We have only those two choices. If we say that we will not accept either of those choices and that we will continue with this marvellous rort on the gravy train at the moment with borrowed money, all we will do will be to build up more and more debts for the kids of honourable members opposite and my kids to pay. Mr John Brown —Why don't you separate public debt from private debt and be a bit honest? Mr BURR —I feel sorry for the Minister. If he wants his kids to pay for his standard of living now, I feel sorry for his conscience. That is what he is committing his kids and his grandchildren to do. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.15) —Since 1956 technology in this country has changed the nature of television from that of a luxury to one of life's basic necessities. Television is now an essential medium for information and entertainment. Television news and current affairs have been the doing and undoing of many in this place, and the broadcasting of proceedings of this House is a controversial issue. I have no doubt that it will be even more so now as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) quickly consolidates his supremacy over the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in parliamentary debate. My electorate of Flinders, many parts of which are only 55 kilometres as the crow flies from the Melbourne GPO, is a favourite retirement area and over 22 1/2 per cent of the population are aged 55 and over. Figures obtained from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for 1984 show that the average male aged 55 and over spends an average of 27 hours and 13 minutes watching television weekly and the average female aged 55 and over spends 29 hours and 5 minutes weekly watching television. These figures can be contrasted with the Melbourne average for all ages and sexes of 20 hours and 29 minutes a week and are consistent with Californian research which highlights the correlation between average viewing times and age. There is strong evidence to suggest that the older one is the more television one watches and the greater is the preference for news and current affairs programs. Television reception in parts of Mount Martha and Safety Beach in my electorate has been poor for many years. Some residents have spent up to $1,800 on aerial equipment, only to find that reception is little better. Reception quality has varied in the area but on 10 June 1985 the situation changed dramatically when hundreds of residents lost their television reception altogether. The social implications of this sudden loss of television reception have been widespread and for many traumatic. In reaction to the problem the Mount Martha Hill Television Reception Committee has been formed and is very capably led by the Chairman, Mr Alan Trounson. I pay tribute to the work of Alan Trounson, the founding Secretary of the Committee, Mrs Iris Southby, and the founding Treasurer, Mr Ron Thorne. The Committee has listed a number of problems that have occurred and I will refer to some of them. Firstly, many people who live alone used television as a companion and are now experiencing a sense of loss. The committee has said that this particularly applies to those recently widowed. Secondly, the elderly and infirm are being transported back to family members because life in the area is intolerable. Thirdly, teenagers in particular, who previously enjoyed television-it would be fair to say that many teenagers in our community today have never known anything else-now have the dangerous option of roaming the streets. Fourthly, a loss of buyer interest has been precipitated by the loss of television reception. The Committee is of the view that this has had an adverse effect on property values. Coupled with higher home interest rates and municipal rates this downturn will cause financial hardship. Lastly, the Committee is of the view that primary, secondary and tertiary students are experiencing a loss of resource material usually extracted from documentaries and interview programs. As often happens in situations of adversity, the one good thing to come out of the loss of television reception has been the fact that the local community has banded together in an attempt to search for a solution to its problem. A strong committee has been formed, the Mornington and Flinders municipalities have added their support, a petition has been presented and much publicity has been gained. In sad contrast to this united community effort the Federal Government, which has responsibilities for the maintenance of the national network, has yet to respond to either the petition or my correspondence to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) of mid-August. This is a unique problem. It is not a problem where people have had no television reception for many years and have gone without. It is a problem where people have had something but it has been taken from them. When a government is, quite properly, spending millions on satellite services for remote parts of Australia, my call on it is for it to respond immediately to my representations and make a decision to act with a firm program to solve the problems of television reception in the Mount Martha Hill area. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.21) —I wish to address the question of ethics committees and in vitro fertilisation programs. Australia is the only nation which endeavours to collate nationally the result of every single in vitro fertilisation pregnancy. The completeness of Australian statistics makes us uniquely well placed to monitor the progress of in vitro fertilisation technology. This information is vital for practitioners, who are able immediately to identify areas where further research needs to be done; for policy makers, who are able to see at a glance the real picture; and for members of the public, who are able to have access to complete, rather than selective, statistics. The completeness of this information is symptomatic of the comprehensive nature of the monitoring of in vitro fertilisation and associated biotechnologies in this country. There are 119 institutions undertaking human research in Australia. Every single one of these institutions has its own institutional ethics committee, or the ethics committee of an institution with which it is associated. Prior to undertaking a piece of human research the scientist concerned is required to submit his proposal for approval to his institutional ethics committee. So far 2,000 proposals have been submitted to institutional ethics committees each year. If a particular proposal for research raises serious questions, the hospital or other institutional ethics committee may refer the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council. This was what happened about the proposal for embryo flushing. Embryo flushing is an American invention which involves fertilisation in vitro and removal of the fertilised ovum by flushing for reimplantation in another woman. The institutional ethics committee to which this project was submitted referred the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council, which determined that the procedure was unethical. As a consequence, there have been no cases of embryo flushing in Australia. Nor is there any suggestion that there are any scientists in Australia acting contrary to the determinations of the National Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee on any other subject. It is well worth noting that not only the institutional ethics committees but also the ethics committee of the NHMRC are not simply bodies of scientists determining what it is appropriate for scientists to do. The ethics committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council contains a majority of lay members who are representatives of the broader community. There are also community representatives on institutional ethics committees elsewhere. The completeness of the ethical surveillance of human research in this country is unique. There is no such surveillance elsewhere in the world. The ethics committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council is the only national committee in the world which has organised workshop meetings of all ethics committees of institutions where human research is being undertaken. The report of the ethics committee regarding this very useful exercise will shortly be available. Furthermore, the National Health and Medical Research Council's ethics committee is currently involved in an audit of all institutional ethics committees resources. The audit is a routine investigation, the purpose of which is to ensure that institutional ethics committees are aware of, and act in compliance with, NHMRC guidelines. The results of the audit will be available in due course. I believe that human research in this country is being carried out with due respect to all considerations that are involved and that the ethics committees are doing their work well. I commend their work to the Parliament. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.25) —I raise tonight the subject of wood chipping in Tasmania and, more particularly, the emotional and misleading campaign that Senator Sanders has been involved in. Mr Goodluck — Senator who? Mr BURR —Senator Sanders from Tasmania has been involved in an emotional campaign on the mainland. He has tried to stir up an emotive response to wood chipping in Tasmania. As everyone in the house will know, the re-issuing of wood chip licences is currently before the Federal Government. A very concerted campaign is being waged by the environmental movement around Australia to try to convince the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) not to re-issue the licences or, it they are to be re-issued, to issue them in a very modified form. The campaign being waged by Senator Sanders and his colleagues from the Australian Democrats is very misleading to the Australian people. I will quote a recent interview with Senator Sanders on the Terry Lane show on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3LO, on 5 September 1985. Senator Sanders stated: But the point being that if I told you that 22,000 hectares are woodchipped every year in Tasmania, you'd say, oh yeah, a big number, so what? If I tell you that 125 Victorian Football League Parks equivalent of land are woodchipped every week in Tasmania, maybe it means something. What Senator Sanders in that and other interviews which he has given on mainland media does not mention at any stage is the regeneration that is going on in Tasmania. The regeneration of our wood chip industries is absolutely magnificent, yet Senator Sanders and his colleagues fail to mention it. I will quote the misleading information given by Mr Terry Lane of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: There are few more distressing sights than the blasted landscape left behind by woodchippers. They are, beyond a doubt, amongst the most destructive profit-mongers at present loose in the world. Mr Lane further stated: . . . after the woodchippers have been, it looks for all the world like those dreadful landscapes of Pasquendale and the Somme. This is the misleading information which is being given to mainland people by the media, by Mr Terry Lane, and by Senator Sanders. What none of them mention or impress on the people of the mainland is the magnificent regeneration that is being undertaken by the wood chipping industry and the reafforestation of our forests in Tasmania. In order to educate Senator Sanders better on forest issues and the forest industries in Tasmania, the Commissioner of Forests in Tasmania wrote to him inviting him to inspect some of the regenerated areas and to have discussions with personnel from the Forestry Commission. Senator Sanders, in his reply, stated: Frankly, I have been observing the activities of the timber industry and the Forestry Commission which supports it, in this State for many years. I doubt if there is anything that you could tell me about the Forestry Commission's mismanagement of the State's forests that I do not already know. On that note Senator Sanders refused to take up the Forestry Commission's invitation to inspect the forest regeneration and be better informed about the situation. I will tell the House and the people of Australia what has happened in Tasmania. Over 150 years the best trees have been selectively felled and what is left of our Tasmanian forests is all the rubbish. The twisted rotten trees have been left behind by old foresters. The wood chipping industry is clearing entirely all that rubbish and replacing it with the most magnificent forests that we have in Australia. For Senator Sanders, or any honourable member on the other side of this chamber, to say that the woodchipping industry is raping Tasmania of our native forests is totally misleading and it misinforms the people of Australia. That must be put right on the record. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.30) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House the latest violation of international law by the Government of South Africa. I refer to the recent raid by South African armed forces into Angola, thus violating Angolan territorial rights. The purpose of this raid was to attack a Namibian refugee camp under the care of the South West Africa People's Organisation. This raid has once again drawn world attention to the desperate plight of the people of Namibia. Namibia is a United Nations trust territory illegally occupied by neighbouring South Africa for the purpose of plundering it of its natural resources, including its mineral wealth-especially uranium and diamonds. The people of Namibia have suffered dreadfully over more than a hundred years of foreign occupation, first by Germany and, for most of this century, by South Africa. For the last 40 years the South African regime has sought to impose a system of apartheid on much the same lines as in South Africa. The people of Namibia, through their principle political organisation, the South West Africa People's Organisation, or SWAPO, have in vain pursued all peaceful means at their disposal to have South Africa withdraw from their territory. In 1966 the United Nations assumed full responsibility for Namibia as a trust territory, pending properly supervised elections and the handing over of Namibia to the Namibian people. The United Nations then instructed South Africa to withdraw its administration and its army, and when South Africa refused to do so, it declared South Africa's continued occupation to be illegal. On 4 November 1977, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a lengthy resolution condemning South Africa's continued illegal occupation which in part stated that: The National Liberation Movement of Namibia, the South West Africa People's Organisation, is the sole and authentic representative of the Namibia people. Australia voted in support of this resolution. However, it should be said that the efforts of the United Nations and the Namibian people to have South Africa withdraw have been continually frustrated by several Western nations with extensive economic interests in Namibia. Having in vain, and for many years, pursued all peaceful means of getting South Africa to withdraw, the people of Namibia, through the military wing of SWAPO, have turned to guerilla warfare against the South African Army of occupation. This campaign has been waged so successfully, obviously with the full support of the Namibian people, that the South African regime has been compelled to declare two-thirds of Namibia a security zone. It should be pointed out that the waging of this war has placed a heavy financial burden on the South African Government, a burden which, given its present severe economic difficulties, it is finding increasingly difficult to shoulder. It should also be pointed out that South Africa is illegally occupying Namibia and is able to maintain its presence only with heavy military support. Since the Namibian people have exhausted all possible means of peaceful resolution in international law, the arms struggle conducted by SWAPO is a legitimate form of self-defence against an unjust aggressor and should be recognised as such. As the armed struggle has developed, the South African regime has forcibly relocated many Namibians, especially in the north of the country. Many Namibians rather than being relocated, have fled over the border into neighbouring Angola where they have set up refugee camps, complete with hospitals, schools and vegetable gardens. These camps are under the care and control of SWAPO, whose armed forces also use them from time to time. These camps are subject to repeated attacks from South African armed forces. Not content with illegally occupying Namibia, South Africa has repeatedly violated Angolan territorial rights. Raids on these camps, such as the most recent one, have led to the death of not only SWAPO guerillas but especially of innocent men, women and children. In addition, their hospitals, schools and gardens have been repeatedly destroyed. This latest raid illustrates how intolerable the situation has become. How much longer can the international community allow these acts of barbarity and international piracy to continue? The time has surely come for resolute action. I suggest that Australia has a special role to play. It is a member of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Council for Namibia. We are also in a position to play a leading role at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held shortly in the Bahamas. More than ever, I am convinced that the time has come for Australia, in concert with the international community, to work towards imposing total economic sanctions against South Africa. I believe that we have a most serious and urgent moral responsibility to do so. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.35) —As usual, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has spoken utter nonsense. I wish to speak about the Government's complete and absolute failure to observe its obligations under the Vienna Convention. Recently in the debate on the Foreign States Immunities Bill, I alluded briefly to the illegal Trades and Labour Council picket which has become a permanent feature outside the South African Embassy. This eyesore appeared on about 10 June and was originally to remain for approximately one week. Honourable members will be aware that today is 8 October and that more than 16 weeks have elapsed since 10 June. I have had reports of the terrible situation that the Government is condoning. I have personally inspected the picket and seen the damage which has been inflicted on the South African Embassy building by politically motivated vandals. At that time-and today the situation is not very different-a fire was burning, the Builders Labourers Federation flag was flying, caravans appeared to be permanent fixtures and a mobile generator along with running water and a mobile toilet had been installed. What about the health laws of the Australian Capital Territory? Article 22 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ratified by Australia on 26 January 1968 provides: The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The Australian Labour Party has turned a blind eye to this important document. The Commonwealth Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act implements the Convention in Australia and its external territories. The special duty to protect the premises of a mission set out in Article 22 of the Convention is well established in customary international law. An example of its practical application is provided by an anti-United States demonstration by Russian students at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1965. During the demonstration windows were broken and several hundred large ink splatters were thrown on the building. Soviet troops were called in. The American Ambassador protested orally and in writing about the inadequate protection, requested immediate repairs to the building and sought assurances that adequate protection would be provided in future. The Soviet Foreign Minister handed a statement of regret to the American Ambassador stating that supplementary measures to protect the security of the Embassy would be taken in future and that the Soviet Government would assume the expense of restitution for the damaged property. That case is almost indistinguishable from the situation concerning the South African Embassy in Canberra. Legislative effect has been given to that special duty by Part III of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 which creates offences in relation to assemblies involving violence or the apprehension of violence, section 15; bodily harm or damage to property, section 16; failure to comply with a direction to disperse, section 17; assault, harassment, obstruction or offensive, threatening or insulting behaviour towards a protected person-such as diplomatic staff-section 18; use of weapons, missiles and destructive, noxious or repulsive objects or substances, section 19; and trespass upon protected premises, section 20. Provision is made for arrest without warrant in section 22. Why does the Hawke Labor Government refuse to enforce the law? Let this House consider the disgraceful activities of the TLC pickets. They have stood in front of motor vehicles and blocked access to the Embassy; they have intimidated and interfered with people who have business with the Embassy and they have used insulting language and have threatened diplomatic personnel, Australian employees and their families. Is this all? Of course not. The thugs have tossed paint over an almost new car; they have damaged the Embassy with paint bombs and they have invaded and spray painted slogans on the Embassy building. The damages which must be paid by the Australian taxpayer will run into thousands of dollars. What is this Government doing? It is doing absolutely nothing. As in the Mudginberri dispute, the Government is doing a political Nero-it is fiddling while Australia's international reputation burns. If the Government is not worried about breaching the Vienna Convention, it should be concerned about the welfare of Australian workers employed by the Embassy. Is it acceptable that they be subjected to insults, threats and intimidation merely for doing their jobs? They have approached the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and have been advised that the picket is illegal. Why will not the Government act? Why is it that only left wing demonstrators are permitted to squat or camp on a semi-permanent basis on Commonwealth Crown property in the Australian Capital Territory? Our laws are being flouted with impunity. Our citizens are abused in their own country and diplomats are subjected to outrageous treatment. The police have been told to do nothing. The Australian people demand that the law of this country be upheld. The Government must clear the pickets forthwith, prosecute those who commit offences and ensure that there is no repetition of this disgusting occurrence. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.39) —On many occasions in the past I have voiced concern about Australia's manufacturing industry and the effect of dumping of foreign goods. In particular, I have raised the concerns of Australia's automotive vehicle and components industries, of which there are a number of small and large manufacturers in my electorate. Over the past year, this Government has introduced rationalisation in the automotive vehicle industry which has meant that manufacturers and workers can proceed with stability and confidence in the future. However, I wish to express concern about one aspect of the automotive industry, the massive importation of secondhand engines from overseas-particularly Japan-which is reducing an efficient, highly skilled industry in the reconditioning of engines to almost non-existence. The introduction of stringent vehicle pollution and safety regulations in Japan has created a situation where engines, after a few years of driving under the severe Japanese traffic conditions, no longer meet legal requirements. The engines are discarded and exported to countries such as Australia, where regulations are not so demanding. This practice is already sending our local industry into a severe decline, but the major effects, such as those that have occurred in the United States where the flood of reconditioned engines has all but wiped out reconditioners, are yet to be felt here and must be stopped before a vibrant, employment-intensive and skilled industry is wiped out in Australia. In 1980, Department of Industry and Commerce statistics showed that 96 per cent of the total Australian market was supplied by local engines and four per cent were imported units. By 1982, local engines made up 88 per cent, with imports accounting for 12 per cent of the market. Figures indicate that between 1980 and 1984 the number of imported engines increased by 625 per cent, with by far the largest source being Japan. Efforts by our Government and State governments in Australia to clean up our environment through regulations and the introduction of unleaded petrol are being negated by the thousands of pollutant secondhand engines being fitted into cars that are currently on the road and therefore not subject to any emission control checks. In addition, statistics reveal a dramatic effect on employment in the reconditioning industry. In July 1983 the industry employed 13,420 people in a variety of skilled and semi-skilled occupations. Retrenchments, I am told, are occurring at a rate of 1,000 per annum and virtually no new staff are expected to be hired in the future. This loss of jobs is particularly saddening as many of them represent apprenticeships and positions which require a high level of manual skill, a resource which I believe we should be nurturing and promoting in Australian industries. In Victoria, Richmond Technical and Further Education College statistics show that for the automotive machining apprenticeship course the intake dropped by a massive 50 per cent between 1981 and 1985. In raising this matter tonight I wish to urge the Government to take note of the concerns of the automotive engine reconditioning industry and to take appropriate steps before it is too late. There is no doubt that an ever increasing number of secondhand Japanese petrol engines are being dumped on the Australian market. The number of secondhand petrol engines imported and dumped is nearly 40,000, not to mention the diesel engines. Yet our industry cannot take dumping action as this is a dumping in reverse. Normally, dumping means that importers sell here a foreign product at a price which is cheaper than that in the country of manufacture. However, in this case, the product-the Japanese secondhand engines-are absolutely worthless in Japan as they are a menace to the environment and are unusable and unsaleable. So they are brought here and dumped on the unsuspecting public. The industry has called for the Government to instigate an investigation by the Industries Assistance Commission and to impose tariff and quota protection. I believe the industry has legitimate concerns. It is not asking the Government to prop up an inefficient industry but is seeking to protect consumers from products which are deemed by law to be below standard in overseas countries and to protect a highly skilled industry in Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.44) —Tonight I want to talk about a fair go. I want to talk about natural justice and the rights of Australian citizens vis-a-vis the parliaments of the Commonwealth and the State and the parliamentary privilege which attaches to them. I believe that two very great Australians have suffered injustice in the two weeks since this Parliament last met. I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not place on record at this point the views I hold in relation to both of those people. The debate in relation to the Australian bicentennial is continuing and will no doubt continue for some time. I want to say in this Parliament that in my view Mr John Reid is a very great Australian. I and many others are saddened that he is no longer to be the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I do not claim to know Mr Reid closely. I met with him on several occasions during my term as a Minister in the Fraser Government. I know of his background. I know of his contribution to this country. I know of his dedication to Australia. I say simply that I am worried and concerned that a man who, to me, is a very great Australian has suffered as he appears to have suffered over the last two weeks. I will reserve my other comments until the debate develops further. Let my just place bluntly on the record here and now that sooner or later this Parliament must contemplate what it does to the reputations of Australians when the privilege attached to this chamber is used for the purpose of attacking and denigrating the same. I place on the record that this is the second time Mr Reid has suffered from attack in this Parliament under parliamentary privilege. I will reserve my further comments, but I place on record that in my view Mr Reid is a very great Australian. The other very great Australian about whom I wish to speak is Sir Brian Murray. I have looked carefully at standing order 74 so that I do not contravene the spirit or the letter of that standing order. If ever a person has set himself up as a latter-day midget Oliver Cromwell, it is the Premier of Victoria. What has been done to Sir Brian and Lady Murray has saddened not only the majority of Victorians but millions of Australians. Last Saturday I attended a function at Mount Gambier at which there were a significant number of Victorians from the Portland area, which is the electorate of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I spoke to a large number of them about how they felt. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), was present in Mount Gambier at the time. I have yet to find a single Victorian who supports the actions of a Premier who, firstly, failed to stop a Governor leaving the State when he, the Premier, had the final say-let there be no doubt about that, because no representative of Her Majesty can leave a State unless the chief adviser of that State, namely, the Premier, gives approval so that the Executive Council can make alternative arrangements; secondly, permits Her Majesty's representative to return to that State and, being aware of what the chief adviser, namely, the Premier, considers to be irregularities, does not afford Her Majesty's adviser the benefit of his advice and the opportunity to rectify the situation; and thirdly, brings to fruition a three-year conspiracy to remove Her Majesty's representative. Mr Cain will have to live with this for the rest of his life. The people of Australia are appalled at what has been done to one of Her Majesty's representatives. It is a great tribute to Sir Brian Murray and to the gracious Lady Murray that they opted to preserve and protect the position by resigning. I think Sir Brian Murray has done a very great service, but at very great personal cost. He is a great Australian. Lady Murray is a great Australian. They have been shamefully treated. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.49) —With the United States of America and the Soviet Union in the latest of a seemingly never-ending series of arms talks, which always seem to lead to an escalation of the arms race rather than a reduction, it is worth looking at what Time magazine referred to as `the Star Wars Sweepstakes' in its 7 October edition. It is estimated that President Reagan's star wars vision, or the strategic defence initiative, as it is called in military and political circles, will eventually cost anything from $400 billion to $1,200 billion. Research grants and contracts worth some millions of dollars to each corporation are being allocated rapidly despite the views of many scientists that the star wars concept is technologically unworkable and wasteful. To quote the Time magazine article it is: `Pie in the sky and a pork barrel on the ground'. Although the SDI budget has been reduced it is still aiming for an expenditure of $21 billion over the next four years. The research projects involve satellite surveillance and tracking systems, the development of weapons for destroying attacking missiles and warheads, the development of laser and particle beam energy weapons and an ultra-powerful computer system to manage the whole missile defence system. In order to win some of the lucrative contracts the big United States corporations such as Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes aircraft and IBM have to spend many millions of dollars to develop their applications for the research contracts. Many universities also have become involved with groups of scientists expending all their research efforts into producing the reality out of the star wars vision of President Reagan and the military industrial complex which stands behind the President and pulls the strings. Many academics are rebelling against the military research preoccupation of so many university faculties and departments and petitions are circulating which condemn the star wars program as `deeply misguided, dangerous and enormously expensive'. They have stated the obvious truth that the deployment of the system almost certainly would provoke the Soviet Union into building its own system to match the SDI. President Reagan maintains that the Soviet Union is ahead in the military technology of space which, if the statement were true, makes one wonder what has happened to the many billions of dollars which have already been spent on the arms race in space by the USA if it has not achieved a superiority over the USSR. University scientific critics maintain that the super computer required to control SDI would need to be up to a million times more powerful than current machines. As I pointed out in a previous speech on these matters, the computer system would be so complex that it could not be controlled by humans but only by other computers. With the strong possibility of many errors in such a complex system and with the possibility that it could be tested only in the circumstances of an actual nuclear attack the scientists argue that it is suicidal to develop such an expensive and incomprehensible computer system. Of course, there is no denying that the star wars contracts generate many thousands of jobs and many millions of dollars in business profits. The research produces many technical innovations which benefit industry and the consumer. However, it is surely also true that the funds could be better expended if they were directed to productive effort rather than to non-productive effort of military expenditure. The Time article showed that in 1984 $1 billion was spent on the strategic defence initiative, whereas in 1989 it is proposed to spend $7.3 billion. This huge increase of over 700 per cent in five years will be paid for by the American public. However, people around the world may pay for this horrific program with their lives if SDI provokes a nuclear war. The population of the Third World certainly is paying in terms of lost resources which could be used by the USA to alleviate poverty in those countries. It is clear that President Reagan will do his utmost to avoid coming to an agreement with the Soviet Union on the development of weapons in space. It would seem that the USSR's Mr Gorbachev is more optimistic because he has been reported as saying that the United States thought processes seem to be maturing and that `We have grounds to think that we can achieve some positive results'. For the sake of all the peoples of the world we can only hope that Mr Gorbachev is correct in his view and that President Reagan can resist the siren calls of the huge United States corporations which are making so much money out of the development of diabolical military weapons of mass destruction. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.54) —I rise tonight to address the House on a matter which I believe is the most serious problem that faces Australian society today. I refer to the drug war that currently we find ourselves in the middle of. I call the drug war the biggest problem that Australia faces as a society for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the drug problem is creating a great deal of crime in our society, particularly violent crime. Secondly, it is denigrating a great number of young Australians. Of course, by so doing it is decreasing Australia's potential as a nation. While those problems are the obvious aspects of the drug war I think a less obvious aspect is the huge profits which are generated by the sale and distribution of drugs in this country. I am told that the profits are so huge that the production of $2 worth of poppies purchased in the Golden Triangle is worth $100,000 by the time they get to the streets of Sydney. These huge profits are being used to corrupt and, indeed, rot the upper echelons of our society. When I say the upper echelons I mean the administrative and government aspects of our society. I think that is causing Australians to lose respect for the way in which our society operates and the system that operates our society. Because Australians are beginning to lose respect for the system under which Australia operates we are now finding that fewer and fewer people are prepared to adhere voluntarily to its rules. Because of that we need more laws. We need harsher laws, more police and heavier punishments. If we take a long line from that point we can see that eventually we will have anarchy in this country. It is that very point about which I read recently in the Australian newspaper in an article about the Birmingham riots in England. The article in the Australian was entitled `Drug dealers sparked city's riots, say police'. The article stated: Drug dealers determined to protect their heroin and cocaine trade probably triggered the worst inner-city rioting Britain has seen in four years last week, police have said. The article continued: The West Midlands Chief Constable, Mr Geoffrey Dear, said yesterday . . . `I believe it is these people who were behind this riot, acting in the defence of enormous profits' I believe that the current problems that beset England are the problems that can be generated as a result of people's growing lack of respect for the way in which our society operates. As I mentioned earlier that, of course, leads progressively to anarchy. I believe that the problems which Britain has are problems which Australians will find in this country if we do not act to try to reduce the problems that beset our community as a result of drugs. When I talk about acting to try to overcome these problems I believe that, while the points I have just raised may seem rather negative, we can create some very positive and constructive areas. I refer specifically to the life education centre which has been established at the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross by the Reverend Ted Noffs. I believe this is the most positive way of educating young Australians to avoid the drug problem in this country. It has been so well received throughout the country that I am sure I will find by the end of next year that the electorate of Gilmore, which I have the honour of representing in this House, will have three permanent mobile life education centres. These centres will be created as the result of the people living within the electorate of Gilmore contributing $150,000 to $200,000 to their establishment. People in the electorate of Gilmore are prepared to contribute those massive amounts of money because they can see the benefits of the life education centre and the problems that will beset this country if we do not try to do something about the situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Blunt to move- That this House call on the Prime Minister to intervene to put an end to the industrial disputation affecting Australia Post's New South Wales operations, by immediately taking action to make militant postal employees abide by the Arbitration Commission's decision giving Australia Post the right to structure its overtime system by introducing rostered shift work if it so wished. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to make provision in relation to human rights and in relation to equal opportunity in employment, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Human Rights andqual Opportunity Commission Act 1985, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 and to enact certain transitional provisions and make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1985. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to trade practices. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory in connection with the provision of home and community care services. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to make amendments of various Acts providing for home and community care services, and for related purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security, repatriation and related matters. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, and the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985, and for related purposes. Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee On Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of State Head Office Building for Telecom Australia, Sydney. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit out of Office Space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth use. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Telecom Australia-Resources Management Centre, Clayton, Victoria. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Improvements to on-base housing, RAAF Base, Darwin, N.T. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 October 1985: Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No 260. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No 233. Barley Research Levy Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No 243. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for disclosure of information-1985-No. 5-Provision of classification codes to the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office. Christmas Island Act-Regulations-1985-No. 2 (Motor Traffic Ordinance). Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1985 No. 3. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No 241. Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No 245. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1985- No. 1-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 2-Salary of Reserve Force Members. No. 3-Allowances. Determinations-1985 No.59-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 60-Recreation Leave. No.61-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 62-Service With a Foreign Defence Force (Allowances Not Payable). No. 63-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 235. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 234. Export Inspection Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 258. Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos. 146, 148A. Honey Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 242. Honey Levy Act (No. 1)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 246. Honey Levy Act (No. 2)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 247. Lands Acquisition Act-Land acquired for Defence-near Jennings, NSW. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to sub-section 6A(3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 27 September 1985. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 236. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 237. Meat Export Charge Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 238. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 261. National Health Act-Determinations under sub-section 4 (1) for purposes of- paragraph (db), dated 26 August 1985. paragraph (dc), dated 26 August 1985. paragraph (dd), dated 26 August 1985. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1985-No. 3-Marine, Part 19. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257. Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 244. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1985-Postal-Amendment-No. 5. Proclamations by His Excellency the Administrator fixing the dates on which the following sections of Acts shall come into operation- Defence Act 1903-Section 120B made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-1 October 1985. Shipping Registration Amendment Act 1984-Sections 3 to 7 (inclusive) and sections 9 to 29 (inclusive)-1 October 1985. Trade Commissioners Act 1933-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-1 October 1985. Public Service Act- Appointments-Department- Primary Industry-Hassett, R. J. Social Security- Calgaret, A. P. Creighton, D. J. Sport, Recreation and Tourism-Tighe, L. W. Determinations-1985-Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 239. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Declaration of rates for the purposes of the Rates Ordinance, dated 11 September 1985. Determinations listing fees etc. for purposes of- Adoption of Children Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Betting (Totalizator Agency) Ordinance, dated 13 September 1985. Bookmakers Ordinance, dated 13 September 1985. Building and Services Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Credit Ordinance, dated 2 September 1985. Dangerous Goods Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Lakes Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Machinery Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Motor Traffic Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Real Property Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance, dated 18 September 1985. Sewerage Rates Ordinance, dated 11 September 1985. Water Rates Ordinance, dated 11 September 1985. Ordinances 1985- No. 52-Rates (Amendment). No. 53-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). No. 54-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) (No. 2). Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 262. Trade Commissioners Act- Determination-1985-No. 1. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 240. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 259. Mr Andrew asked Mr Speaker, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: With respect to the sitting of the House of Representatives on Friday, 31 May 1985, (a) how many extra staff were required for duty in or about the Parliament on (i) 30 May, (ii) 31 May and (iii) 1 June 1985, by each of the Parliamentary Departments under his sole or joint control and (b) what was the cost of those extra staff. Mr Speaker —The information for each of the Parliamentary Departments is as follows: Department of the House of Representatives (a) No extra departmental staff were required for duty on the specified days. (b) The only additional staffing cost associated with the sitting of the House on 31 May 1985 related to payment of overtime to some attendants, transport office staff and officers from the Bills and Papers Office and amounted to $196.16. Joint House Department (a) (i) None, (ii) 5, (iii) None; (b) $245. Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff Apart from permanent officers, the only staff employed for the reporting of the proceedings of the Houses are sessional typists. Because the sittings of the Senate continued after the House of Representatives rose on 23 May and the Senate sat from 9 a.m. until 4.44 p.m. on 31 May, the sessional typists were still being employed. Therefore, for the sitting of the House of Representatives on that day no extra staff were required for duty in this Department on 30 May, 31 May or 1 June and no extra staff cost was involved. Department of the Parliamentary Library (a) (i) Nil, (ii) Nil, (iii) Nil; (b) Nil.