Thursday, 14 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos. 2 to 4. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I seek leave, Mr Speaker, to make a short statement relating to these matters which will, of course, be relevant to the nature of the debate. The Bill has been drafted, but there would need to be some explanation as to what arrangements will be made by way of amendment in a Committee stage. I have already given notice of this to the Opposition. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the House. I wish to advise the House formally that at the Committee stage of the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill an amendment will be moved on behalf of the Government to substitute for sub-clause 9(3) of the Bill a new sub-clause which will provide that the rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights do not apply for the benefit of bodies politic or corporate. Sub-clause 9(3) of the Bill was included to clarify that, consistent with the tenor of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Bill of Rights was intended to operate for the benefit of individuals not corporations. The provision was also necessary to exclude the application of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the word `person' in the Bill of Rights would not be read as including a body politic or corporate as well as an individual. It has been argued that the existing sub-clause 9(3) may have certain unintended effects. Whilst doubting that this would be the case, the Government is pleased to amend the provision to ensure that it is no wider than is necessary to give effect to the Government's intentions. Before the Committee stage debate, there will be circulated a list of changes to the explanatory memorandum to cover this amendment and some minor corrections. The changes will include an addition to paragraph 44 dealing with Article 12 to the effect that the right to protection of privacy in that Article is not intended to modify the existing laws on abortion in Australia. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.04) —We have here a package which is meant to deal with rights. Before coming to the package, I want to say something about the history of the development of rights in this country. The rights and liberties that Australians enjoy have been developed over the centuries. In part, they were brought to Australia on settlement. In part they have developed since settlement. The process is as continuous as our democracy itself. What are these rights? Let me list some of them: The freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression; the right to marry and to found a family; the right to rear our children and to instruct them in the religion of our choice; the right to vote and to stand for elective office; the right to question those who seek to invade our rights and invoke the protection of the courts; if charged with a criminal offence, the right to silence, the right to a fair trial, the right to confront and cross-examine those who bear witness against us, the right to call witnesses and the right to refuse to testify against oneself; and, in a serious criminal case, the right to trial by a jury of our fellow Australians and to appeal against conviction. What are some of the other protections? There is the protection of habeus corpus, developed centuries ago; the writs developed over the years to control bodies which override our rights, whether through excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction when they are bound by law to do so, or when they otherwise trample on the rights of Australians; and in this House the right to express our views with complete candour, fearing no one and favouring no one. That is another fundamental right that we enjoy and have enjoyed for so many years; a right that goes back for centuries. These rights are as natural to us as breathing. Many of them have been hard won, but where is the challenge to them? Where is the challenge to them and to many other rights? International covenants may serve useful purposes, but we do not need an international covenant to tell us what our rights should be. No international covenant, nor any law of this Parliament, will save us if we lose the sense of justice and tolerance on which our society is founded. As Sir Harry Gibbs has said: If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. The fundamental protections of human rights in our country are to be found in the courts, in tolerance and fair play, in a sense of justice and a belief in democratic institutions, in support for the rule of law, in respect by the majority for the rights of others and in restraint in the exercise of power. Where are these virtues, so cardinal to democracies, to be found in Russia, Afghanistan and Libya-all signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Most ironically of all, Afghanistan became a signatory in January 1983. Where are the deep and worrying threats to our society, save those presented by this Government and by this Bill of Rights? Where is the groundswell of concern, the groundswell of public opinion asking for reform, protection and remedies of ills-ills imagined by this Government? They are not to be found. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a sham. To call it a Bill of Rights is to pervert the English language. It would be better described as a Bill of violations, as it establishes the basis and provides the power for constitutional and social engineering by stealth; for a massive and unprecedented shift in the balance of power from the States to the Federal Government; for an equally massive and unprecedented level of intrusion, backed by the authority of Parliament and sanctions of imprisonment, into the affairs of individuals, State governments, instrumentalities and local government authorities; and for a system of private inquisition more appropriate to a police state than to a so-called Bill of Rights. These are but some of the ills. The Bill's history demonstrates how cynical and empty this exercise is and how absent in the Government is any real belief that this Bill will advance our rights. Let us recall that history. Attorney- General Evans in 1983-84 devised a Bill of Rights. One might think that a Bill of Rights is something that should be presented to all Australians so that they can examine it, so that they can form their opinions. But no, Senator Evans thought that was wrong. He circulated it in confidence to selected individuals. I applied for a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. The application was refused. Why? It was too secret to be made public; it would disturb the orderly processes of government. Can you imagine anything more positively grotesque than that kind of approach to rights that rights are so secret that we should not know what they are? The next episode was in November 1984 when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the Bill was too political and controversial and would be deferred until after the election to some quiet time when the Australian dollar was sinking so quickly, when the economy was in such a disastrous state, that people would not pay too much attention to it. After the election the Bill passed into the hands of the present Attorney-General, who does not believe in it. Mr N. A. Brown —He is a much better one. Mr SPENDER —I would say a much better one. He said on AM on 12 December 1984: . . . because any rights now attempted by legislation can be altered by other governments. In other words, the rights are not permanent. So we have a Bill of impermanent rights. In the face of this candid admission of the worthlessness of this Bill as a protection of rights how does the Attorney-General in his second reading speech seek to justify this specious exercise? He offers three main justifications, the first of which states: . . . the common law does not offer clear or wide-ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way often only after satisfying complex procedural requirements. How is it that we have managed so far? How is it that through the courts and through the parliament we have been able to develop rights which distinguish this and only a few other societies rights of the kind that I have outlined? How does this condemnation of the common law sit with clause 17 of the Bill, which is a truly remarkable clause in a Bill of Rights? It says: Nothing in the Bill of Rights confers on a person any right of action in respect of the doing of an act that infringes a right or freedom set out in the Bill of Rights. What does that mean? It means that if one's rights in the Bill of Rights are infringed one has no action in the courts to claim protection. Sub-clause (2) of clause 17 says: Nothing in this Act renders any person liable to any criminal proceedings in respect of the doing of an act that infringes a right or freedom set out in the Bill of Rights. That means, of course, that according to this clause, regardless of the criminal conduct that may have been visited upon individuals in violation of these so-called rights, the person involved is to have no redress and the person who undertook that criminal conduct is to be subject to no sanctions. It does not require much imagination to understand that some lawyer in the very near future, if this Bill is passed, will say: `True it is that my client has done whatever it may be alleged, but I really ask you to look at the Bill of Rights and it would not be in keeping with the Bill of Rights to have him charged. He is a government servant and it was done in the course of his duties as a government servant. So he has a defence'. Let us go to the next justification offered by the Attorney-General. He says: . . . the power of the Parliament to confirm or withdraw totally common law `rights'. This may occur unintentionally and even unnoticed by the public at large. Many things occur unintentionally under this Government. But he admits, and it is the incontrovertible fact, that the power to withdraw rights is vested in this Parliament. It applies to common law rights, to statutory rights and to this Bill, so that does not advance the case one bit. His third justification is this: The fragility of community standards and pressures on which so many of what are popularly regarded as individual freedoms rely. We do not judge the electorate so cheaply or share the Government's contempt for the Australian community. How have we managed thus far if our community was as the Government appears to believe it is? Let me instance a few of the excluded rights. They are not hard to find. The Bill does not confer on the family the widest possible protection which many would believe is the natural and fundamental privilege entitled to families. It does not protect the right of parents and legal guardians to choose private schools for their children. It does not protect the rights of individuals to establish and direct private educational institutions. It does not protect the rights of Australians freely and fully to utilise their own natural wealth and to dispose of their wealth as they think fit. It does not protect rights to private property and provide that acquisition of private property may be had by governments only on just terms. It does not protect individuals from discrimination in the work place by reason of their refusal to join a union. None of those protections are looked at by this Bill, nor will they be looked at by this Government. But we can be reassured that the Bill does protect us against a number of ills that our society is notoriously prone to! It protects us against slavery; it protects us against torture; it protects us against medical experimentation carried out on us no doubt with the Nazi regime in mind. But at the same time as it offers these great and far-ranging protections it gives us no right of action if those protections are violated! It gives no rights to the criminal law if those protections are violated. What does that mean? It means that we have to go back to our existing rights; to our existing rights at common law, to our existing rights under statute and to the existing remedies available under criminal law. We could not find a more absurd Bill put forward so cheaply to the electorate than this one under the guise of a Bill of Rights. Mr Rocher —Hear, hear! Mr SPENDER —What next do we come to in this Bill? We come to enforcement by inquisition-- Mr Hand —A live one. Mr SPENDER —I hear an interjection from the Left. I would be glad if the Left had the courage to stand up in this House and express the views that it expresses in Caucus, but it will not. Members of the Left meekly follow the Government because they lack the courage to state their views when it comes to the crunch or to cross the floor. Let us go to enforcement by inquisition and examine this most profound irony. The Bill extols rights such as protection of privacy; of correspondence; of the right, when charged, not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt; the right, when detained in custody, to remain silent and to consult a lawyer; the right to a fair and public trial and various other rights that accused persons presently have under the laws of this country when facing trials. Yet none of these protections applies to individuals ordered to appear before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which is to be carried on under this Act. That body, which is to be invested with inquisitorial powers more appropriate to a police state than a democracy, is both prosecutor and judge under this extraordinary law. It may compel individuals to produce documents which the Commission may keep for as long as it thinks-thereby violating their rights to privacy and to correspondence; to provide, under signature, information in writing; to testify under oath, in hearings from which the public is excluded, as to their actions; and to disclose facts that may render them liable to criminal penalties, all without the protection of legal representation and facts which, whilst the testimony given may not be directly used in courts they may be reported by the Commission in the reports that it makes. Anyone who practises law knows that once one knows the facts one is able to prove the charge by different means. Individuals are to be compelled to attend compulsory conferences, again without legal representation. Refusal to attend and answer questions, to produce documents, to attend a compulsory conference or to be sworn can lead to imprisonment, all in the pursuit of the protection of our rights. There are no protections against the Commission. The Commission is given a blanket charter to make its own rules. The most elementary rules of natural justice, rules which have been developed by the courts and by the common law over the years, may be denied to those summoned before the Commission. I refer to the right at the outset to be told of the charge made; the right to cross-examine those who give testimony against you; the right to call evidence; and the right, when the charge is a grave one, to have legal representation. We must deal with this legislation as it is or as it will be. It is no answer to say that we would always appoint the right sorts of people who would never violate our rights even though they are empowered by statute to do so. We know something of the tawdry record of the Human Rights Commission. The findings of the Commission are beyond appeal to any court. Moreover, the Commission is empowered to recommend the payment of compensation, a function that trespasses directly on the province of the courts, and to do this without hearing argument, without going through the ordinary processes of consideration fairly of the cases for and against the payment of compensation. The end result of a finding by the Commission may be the ruin of careers. This will be done all in the name of justice, all without the rules of natural justice as a protection, in private and without legal representation, unless of course the courts and the common law interfere and say to the Commission: `You shall apply the basic rules of natural justice to your inquisitions'. Would it not be a great irony if the rights which have been developed by the courts to protect people appearing before inquisitions were to be applied by the courts to this Bill and to the Commission which is set up under this Bill? Once again we will find our protections in those somewhat derided bodies-at least derided by this Government-the courts and in the common law system, which this Government appears to hold in some contempt. Next, let me say that the inquisitorial powers are to be found in other Acts of Parliament; they are to be found in the existing Act that this legislation is intended to replace. Let us admit that that was an experiment in inquisitorial inquiries which we should never have entered into, that it was a failure and that inquisitorial powers should be handed over to a body for only the most compelling of reasons. It is preposterous to vest in this Commission the kinds of powers that are vested in the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I now come to intrusion into the affairs of State and local governments and the way in which this Bill, when it becomes an Act and action is taken under it, could alter the constitutional balance in this country. With the consent of the Federal Attorney-General the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is empowered to inquire into acts and practices of departments and statutory authorities of States, and of local government councils as well, for possible infringements and to report back to the Government. The full range of inquisitorial powers applies to such investigations. The Commission, with the consent of the Minister, can make recommendations on State laws, actual or proposed. The Federal Government has already made its position plain. The Attorney-General has been extremely candid. He said in a speech to the Labor Lawyers Convention in Melbourne in August this year that, just because the Bill of Rights legislation does not of its own force override State laws inconsistent with the Bill, it should not be thought that the Federal Government would not legislate to override State legislation on which the Commission had reported and in respect of which the State concerned had refused to make an amendment; that is to say, a State may be so impertinent as to say to the Commission: `We disagree with your views. We will not amend our laws to meet your report'. This statement by the Attorney-General presages a massive and unprecedented opportunity and determination for Federal intervention into State affairs and for a shift of the whole balance of power between the Federal Government and the States. There are no first prizes to be gained for guessing which Acts, which practices and which States will be the subject of investigation. It will not be New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia. But Queensland, Tasmania and, of course, the Northern Territory, which qualifies as a State under this enactment, is where it will happen. Anybody who lives in the State of New South Wales knows that, for example, in areas where the State thinks that rights should not be granted it is willing to move at any time and to override human rights. But we will not find anything directed against that State. The Premier of New South Wales would not allow that to happen, nor would the Prime Minister or the Caucus. Mr Coleman —The Premier will just steal coal mines. Mr SPENDER —That is right; the Premier will just steal coal mines. Let me just sum up the views of the Opposition on these rights. This is no more than a cheap exercise in propaganda. The rights can be overridden-the Bill specifically provides that the rights can be overridden-and, as a matter of constitutional law, Parliament cannot bind future parliaments. The Bill itself allows the rights to be qualified to the point of meaninglessness. I challenge any member of the Government and, in particular, the Attorney-General, to make sense out of this provision. I read Article 3 from the Bill of Rights which states: The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. What in God's name does that mean? I call upon God advisedly since I think he is the only person who would understand what that means. The article then goes on to say: A right or freedom set out in this Bill of Rights shall not be limited by any law to any greater extent than is permitted by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The interpretation, therefore, is by reference to the Covenant, which the Government decided not to express in the Bill apparently because it found the Covenant too difficult to understand. These qualifications, so broad and ambiguous, throw the whole Bill back into the melting pot of inventive jurisprudence and enshrine the courts and not the Parliament as the ultimate determinants of what are or are not to be permissible limitations. Let me say a word or two on the legal confusion and ambiguity that this Bill as an Act will engender. Prior inconsistent Commonwealth laws, including rules of the common law, are deemed to be repealed by the Bill. This applies to all laws, with a five-year deferral so that we can undertake the arduous and astonishing task of examining the whole body of Federal jurisprudence to determine what is in conflict with the Bill and then, no doubt, go to the courts and get rulings for that purpose. Future Commonwealth Acts will be inoperative to the extent that they are in conflict with the Bill unless it is expressly stated that they are intended to override the Bill-which emphasises the meaninglessness of these so-called rights. Where a law is repealed or inoperative, its effect up to three months after the judicial decision which finds that it has been repealed or is inoperative may be preserved in full if the courts think grave public inconvenience or hardship would be caused-whatever the expression of palm tree justice might mean! Where are the rights if the so-called infringements can be preserved because of grave public inconvenience or hardship? This is a rushed proposal. It is a proposal of major importance because it seeks to make, by stealth, changes in the constitutional balance in this country because it provides for a massive intrusion into the affairs of individuals and because of its many defects and the rights which it overlooks. Bodies such as the Law Council of Australia and the Law Institute of Victoria have all requested deferment. We will be moving amendments in Committee to make some basic improvements to this package. Others may be available and, I suppose, would be available if there had been an opportunity for closer and considered examination of this Bill, by many bodies in this country that are interested in our civil liberties. The Bill, in sum, is confused, inept and ambiguous in expression, and dangerous, intrusive, authoritarian and anti-democratic in purport, and, in government, we will throw this package out. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.33) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking today on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, a measure which, no doubt, is of great importance and significance in Australian legal and constitutional history. The introduction of a Bill of Rights which guarantees the liberties of Australians is long overdue. The arguments of its critics have little force, based as they are on a reliance on the common law and the sanctity of the Constitution. It is to the shame of the Constitution's drafters that the real reason for not including a Bill of Rights as was done in the United States of America was the fear they had that equality would be extended to Australian Chinese. It is ludicrous to suggest that the common law protects the rights and liberties of ordinary Australians; it patently does not, as many judgments have indicated. The common law of contracts was used last century to curtail the freedom of association. It remains the position in common law that trade unions consitute an unlawful conspiracy in the restraint of trade. It requires legislation to overcome this position. Similarly, the common law does not protect our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly-certainly, Senator Georges could testify to that-our freedom from arbitrary arrest, our privacy and our equality before the law. All that the common law maintains is that we may speak as long as it is not unlawful to do so and that we may meet together as long as the law does not make such meetings unlawful. It does not limit the kinds of laws which authorise arrest or detention. The common law insistence on a search warrant is a protection of property, not privacy. It does not guarantee the right of representation before the courts. It does not protect us from surveillance, telephone tapping or electronic eavesdropping. It does not guarantee trial by jury. In short, any protection the common law provides has been interpreted in Australia, and in most common law countries, very narrowly indeed. As honourable members will recognise, it is subject to statutory change at any time a parliament chooses to restrict it. Honourable members on both sides of the House have very properly restricted the abuses occasioned by reliance on the common law on many occasions. It is not good enough, in my view, for the critics of the Bill of Rights to argue that the protection of democracy affords us adequate protection for our rights. Voters elected the nazis in pre-war Germany. Voters in many places have elected governments which have been flagrant abusers of liberties. The force of such an argument must be diminished while a minority government in Queensland, elected by a minority of voters in a shockingly gerrymandered electoral system, blatantly disregards such rights as the right to vote in fair elections, the right to assembly and peaceful protest and the right to trade union membership. It is not good enough for the critics of the Bill of Rights to argue that fundamental rights should be legislated for by each generation without prescriptive legislation for future generations. This argument misses two very important factors. First, the Constitution, which conservative critics are so quick to defend, is, in fact, a legislative prescription for all future generations which is extremely difficult to change. Why are States rights, governmental powers, the protection of trade and commerce more important than the protection of fundamental, individual liberties and rights which this Bill of Rights will protect? Secondly, the argument ignores the fact that democracy was unable to protect the victims of fascism and Stalinism, that it is unable to protect those who are victims today in South Africa, in Chile-in dictatorships of the Right and Left which continually abuse human rights. The introduction of this Bill of Rights is not an isolated occurrence. The process began in Australia with the debate about Federation. Mr Justice Murphy, as Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government, introduced a Bill of Rights in 1974. The former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, circulated a draft Bill in 1984. Many noted reformers have suggested the need for a Bill of Rights. The moves for an Australian Bill of Rights are part of a great international movement which gained considerable momentum after the defeat of fascism in World War II. The horrific nature and the extent of the Holocaust based on ethnic, racial, political and deviant views fired the conscience of the world. The international community drew up the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty which this Bill will establish in Australian law. International pressure also led to the establishment of the Centre for Human Rights in Geneva. Mr Justice Kirby, in a recent oration, very succinctly explained why a Bill of Rights is necessary. I hope that honourable members opposite will listen carefully. He said that moves to introduce such legislation: are part of a mosaic of world-wide moves to list a catalogue of basic human rights. In part those moves reflect the reaction to the shocking deprivation of human rights that have so marked our century. In part, they also represent an institutional reaction to a very modern problem. Such is the pace and quantity of modern legislation and litigation that the risk exists most acutely that rights will be eroded not by deliberate oppressive acts of legislatures and courts but by oversight or by reason of the want of a basis for asserting and protecting them. Already we have heard an avalanche of criticism from knee-jerk neanderthals. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before the quorum was called, already we have had an avalanche of criticism from the knee-jerk neanderthals opposite and it was interesting that one of them immediately reacted by leaping up. I intend to deal with some of these criticisms in detail. In the first place, the Government's reliance on the foreign affairs power of the Constitution is claimed to be a means of bypassing the authority of the Parliament and tends, perhaps unconstitutionally, to concentrate more power in the hands of the Commonwealth. This analysis is entirely incorrect. It has been recognised by the High Court since 1936 that the Commonwealth can use its constitutional power in relation to external affairs to regulate conduct within this country. This was recently confirmed by the High Court in the Tasmanian dams case. It is settled law that the external affairs power can be used to legislate to implement Australia's international treaty obligations. The exercise of the external affairs power and the process of ratifying treaties in no way diminishes the authority of the Parliament in respect of the passage of ensuing legislation. Such legislation must proceed through the standard parliamentary procedures of introduction, debate, approval, assent and proclamation. The mere act of ratifying a treaty does not itself create legislation. It is also erroneous to suggest that the Commonwealth Parliament is not the appropriate forum from which domestic legislation protecting human rights should emanate. As early as 1920, in the engineers case, a majority of the High Court said that where affirmative terms of a stated power granted by the Constitution to the Commonwealth Parliament would justify an enactment, it rested upon those who relied on some limitation or restriction upon the power to indicate where that was possible in the Constitution. As the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has suggested, there is no express constitutional limitation restricting the ability of the Commonwealth to legislate nationally to protect human rights. However, the Committee emphasised that it would be undesirable to limit additional State initiatives in the human rights area, and with that view I agree entirely. This Bill certainly does not do that. Another criticism is that the Bill and its associated legislation will open up a legal maze that the layman will not understand and that the clauses on the interpretation and operation of the Bill are likely to breed endless legislation. This critique displays a misconception of how the Bill of Rights will operate. It is partly a symbolic, educative statute, but it will also operate as a guide to the interpretation of Commonwealth and Territory, other than Northern Territory, laws. After five years the Bill of Rights will prevail over existing inconsistent Commonwealth laws and it is also intended that it should prevail over inconsistent future Commonwealth laws. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be empowered to investigate complaints about Commonwealth and State governmental acts or practices which may infringe on the Bill of Rights and to report on Commonwealth, State and Territory laws to this Parliament. These functions are not litigation oriented. This Bill is a shield, not a sword. In court it can only be used as a defence to an action or as a means of having legislation struck down as inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Bill is not intended to create new rights which can be litigated. Any fears about a floodgate of litigation are, in my view, quite groundless. The administrative enforcement model embodied in the Human Rights Commission remains predominant. As I have mentioned, the Bill cannot render invalid State laws which are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be able to inquire into and report on the operation of State laws, Acts and practices with ministerial consent, but it will not be able to alter those laws on the strength only of its reports. This point is missed by those who lament that Article 18 cannot modify the existing laws on abortion in Australia. Some critics have highlighted particular State laws which are alleged to legalise abortion and criticise the fact that they are not rendered invalid under Article 18 of this Bill, but it is not only abortion laws that are directly unaffected by the Bill of Rights; it is all State laws. Moreover, it is inconsistent to argue that the Bill concentrates more power in the hands of the Commonwealth, then to criticise the Bill on the basis that it does not render invalid perceived undesirable State legislation. The main criticism of the Bill is that absolute rights should be created under the Bill of Rights. How an absolute right is to be protected, quite frankly, I do not know. It has been suggested that such rights should be forever beyond the reach of Ministers, public officials and parliaments. By implication this is an argument that the Constitution should be amended to include a Bill of Rights which cannot be amended by Parliament alone. However, the issue then becomes the extent to which such rights will be protected by the judiciary, so the concept of absolute rights seems to me to be totally unattainable anyway. Most commentators appear to ignore the complex interplay between legislative, executive and judicial roles. This Bill does not ignore such interplay and strikes the appropriate balance, in my view. The Bill sets standards for human rights protection and, if passed, and if future laws do not measure up, the courts have been granted the power to rule against them. The Bill also guides the courts as to how statutes are to be construed. The Bill also preserves democratic freedoms by not rendering invalid laws passed by State parliaments. There is also likely to be debate about whether only laws made by democratically elected States should remain sacrosanct. Following the recent release of the Senate Committee report, by not choosing to try by referendum to have the Bill incorporated in the Constitution, the Government has also allowed the Bill of Rights to be amended by future democratic mandate. I would like to make a few comments on Part II of the Bill which deals with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. During hearings of the Expenditure Committee some honourable members opposite, in a disgraceful piece of misrepresentation and misquoting, attacked the Human Rights Commission and in particular its Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, a most eminent Australian who will be remembered long past those opposite. Dame Roma Mitchell was Australia's first woman QC. She was Australia's first woman Supreme Court judge. She is the only woman to have acted as a chief justice of a supreme court in this country. Dame Roma has chaired a number of very important committees of inquiry including the South Australian Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee and the Royal Commission on the Salisbury Dismissal. Both these reports were delivered to me as Attorney-General, and I assure the House that they were of the highest quality. Both have been highly regarded throughout the nation and the first was the basis of major law reform measures in South Australia and is still a widely quoted document in Australia at large. Dame Roma was appointed Chairman of the Human Rights Commission by the Fraser Government. She is also Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, again the first woman in Australia to hold such a post. Her great contribution to this country, the law and education has been well recognised. The scurrilous and cowardly attack on Dame Roma by those opposite is shabby and should be dismissed as the product of the small minds that spawned it. Mr Tuckey —No, she denied someone his rights, you silly man. That is the very great problem; you cannot differentiate. Mr DUNCAN —And the honourable member is one of the small minds. There have been some very good reasons why the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should have a major role along with the courts. Purely judicial activity is expensive, requires the intervention of lawyers and is frightening to many people. Human rights is an area which requires conciliation and community education which the courts are not equipped to handle. The courts cannot aggregate experience as can the Commission, but are limited to the case before them. The Commission is likely to be much more representative of the diversity of the community than the courts. Together, the Commission and the courts will play an important role, which could not be fulfilled only by the courts and which has been unable to be fulfilled by the present Commission without legislative support. We are under an obligation to Australians to ensure that this nation is one in which all its citizens are treated fairly, and with dignity and respect. Abuses of human rights and the subsequent denial of such occurrences are part and parcel of the conservative opposition to human rights legislation. If one does not suffer from such abuse-just as if one does not suffer from poverty or any other deprivation-one is much less aware of the problem and less convinced that a remedy is required. How is it that the reports of Amnesty International and of the Human Rights Commission and the course of history, especially this century, fails to convince those opposite of the need for a Bill of Rights? What they have to realise is that their rights are limited by their obligations to others-that is, the rights of others. That is what this Bill is designed to protect and give. I support the Bill. I hope that it passes speedily through the Parliament and that it ensures that in the future all Australians can enjoy, as far as Commonwealth laws are concerned, proper, effective protection of their human, political and civil rights in this country. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.53) —When the historical records are compiled 100 years from now, the action of the present Government in rushing this highly controversial legislation involving this totally unnecessary Bill of Rights, this whole package, will get much attention. This dangerous Bill is being rushed through in spite of many protests by highly responsible people and organisations within the community. Among those ignored by the Government who have strongly advocated that the Bill be not progressed with, or at least delayed, are these: Firstly, the Law Council of Australia, representing 20,000 in the legal profession; secondly, the Australian Parents Council, representing at least 11 State and Territory organisations; thirdly, the Right to Life Australia, with a large membership including almost the whole of the Roman Catholic Church; fourthly, the New South Wales Council of Churches, representing seven major denominations, with 2,200 congregations; and fifthly, Amnesty International in Australia. I did preface that list by saying not only that these organisations were interested in having it thrown out, but that some expressed interest in having it delayed. That is not to mention the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, who has already been mentioned. Sir Harry Gibbs made a telling point when he said: If society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. That was in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 December 1984. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), whom I greatly respect, himself expressed concern about the Bill of Rights. On the AM program on 12 December 1984 he said: Any rights now attempted by legislation can be altered by any other government. In other words, the rights are not permanent. I am sure that his concerns go much deeper. If the Government continues with the passage of this Bill, I believe, as do many others, that Australia is headed for disaster. The record of history shows that no previous government has led a successful move to introduce a Bill of Rights; and wherever an administration has made such a move, the removal of human rights has always followed. Some of the voluminous commentaries on the wrongs of the Bill of Rights strongly point out, for example, that every Bill of Rights-the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, or the American one-has addressed itself to the abuses of government, and was meant, rather than to define the rights of human beings, to define the limits of governmental power. The Bills arose only after a lengthy period of governmental abuse of the system and were directed at the government, not the people. The Bills were popular moves to limit government. Secondly, on the other side of the coin, Russia has a document, sponsored by the Government, which outlines human rights. The result is arbitrary and systematic abuse of human rights generally and no freedom of religion, speech, assembly or the Press. Thirdly, in France-I am still referring to the history of previous Bills of Rights-a ruling elite of revolutionaries formulated a declaration of the rights of man in 1792. The ultimate result was the bloody reign of terror which within 10 years led to the despotism and tyranny of Napoleon. I will say just a few words on the Bill itself as my time has been limited. It is clearly an effort to change society and remove the old values, and protect the right of individuals to do what they like, even if they can harm society and the family. A country could never be regarded as a Christian country under this proposed Act. Let us look at some of the articles. Article 5 relates to the rights of minority groups. Is the intention here to approve of the principle of plurality and thereby weaken the Christian base in society? Is this Article merely a means of facilitating the transition from the Christian world view and ethic to a humanist one? The humanist manifesto, in its section on religion, clearly indicates the replacement of a God-centred world view with one which originates in man. That is the major thrust of its philosophy. Article 7 relates to freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form without interference and regardless of frontiers. This puts children at the mercy of teachers who want to push political or religious positions, regardless of the views of parents, and it prevents dismissal of teachers. It also seems to me to abolish censorship and to allow free distribution to everyone, including children, of all kinds of pornography and violent and obscene literature, films, et cetera. Article 11 relates to freedom of association. We are given the right to join a union. Are we also given the right not to join a union if we so desire? Article 12 states that criminals have the same protection of privacy as decent, law abiding, caring citizens. I cannot see how the police or Army can function competently under this Bill. It does not protect the well meaning and honest from those with evil intentions. It appears to give equal rights of decision on behaviour to the kind and the cruel, the intelligent and the subnormal, the honest and the lying. It seems that no recognition is given to the worthy citizen rearing a family over, for example, a prostitute's pimp. Article 12 is frightening. Article 14 relates to the rights of the child. Under proposed sub-section (a), the question is whether the term `to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child' indicates that when the child is zero age, that is unborn, it has zero rights. This needs to be compared with Article 31. Article 14 (d), the Christian view, gives the responsibility for and choice of education totally to parents. Is the word `respected' in this context the same as `allowed'? The rights given to children overrule those of their parents without stating what age is to be recognised as adult. This should not be left to regulations. It has not included the child's right to a family and a satisfactory model of living. If recent decisions and suggestions about the age for abortion, contraception and unemployment relief are any example, it could well be that at 14 years a child will be allowed to do as he likes. This is a disastrous philosophy. Article 18, which relates to human beings having the right to life, fails to define a human being. Is it possible in such a Bill? I believe that this Bill, as has been expressed quite strongly by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), must be thrown out. It certainly threatens more freedoms than it adds in our present situation. It weakens the family, exposes adolescents and younger children to potentially damaging experiences and removes protection. I cannot support it in any way. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(11.00) —With great regret I say that the parliamentary rules prevent me from using the right English words to describe the speech of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). We are not allowed to use in this Parliament the language which describes in truthful terms what he said. It was deceptive, to say the least. Mr Cadman —Tell the truth about this Bill; that is all you have to do. Mr CLEELAND —Go away, little ant. The honourable member for Macquarie said that Amnesty International opposed the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. As a member of Amnesty I can say that that is untruthful. Amnesty says that the Bill does not go far enough; it wants an extension. But that is not what the honourable member said; he was totally deceptive. He mentioned the pro-life groups and said that they oppose it. They had one concern, but this Government has met that concern and removed their anxiety. So, deception is the concern of the Opposition. (Quorum formed) The people of Australia listening today should realise that this is a common tactic of the Opposition. When truth is being discussed in this place, when words are being used with real effect, it calls a quorum to shut the speaker up. It is a common tactic and we know that when we hurt members of the Opposition with these truthful words they will try to silence us. They will not succeed because Australia is going to hear what it is all about. The primary concern of constitutional law is the creation and regulation of power within the state. That concern must have a double aspect. The recognition of the rights, liberties and obligations of individuals as against the state is clearly the counterpart of the recognition of those of the state and its organs. To describe the primary concern of constitutional law in terms of state power is not to imply a primacy for the state and its organs or to deny or minimise their importance in this field of individual liberties. State power and individual liberty cannot be separated. Each acts upon the other. Neither can be regarded in isolation, and the rights and obligations of the state on the one hand and of the individual on the other should not be regarded as essentially opposed to each other. Indeed, the rights of the state are in a sense nothing but the communal rights of the individuals who make up the state. When the founding fathers assembled at the end of the nineteenth century to hammer out the terms of a constitution uniting the then six colonies into a federal Commonwealth of Australia, they rejected, though by a fairly small majority, proposals designed to entrench in the new constitution guarantees against the invasion of fundamental human rights by both State and Federal governments. The founding fathers accepted the peculiarly English view, indeed one could say legal doctrine, espoused by the late Professor Dicey of the sovereignty of parliament. One would have thought that Professor Dicey was long dead, but we know that in the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) he is very much alive. According to Professor Dicey's theory of sovereignty, parliament has absolute power. By way of legislation it can, provided of course that the relevant legislation is valid under the constitution, do anything at all, and there is no person or body in the kingdom with power to set its Acts aside. No matter that a purported statute trampled on ancient constitutional principles or flew in the face of the most deep-rooted customs and moral values of the people. No matter that parliament could therefore validly pass retroactive laws-and we have seen recent examples in this Parliament-or could, for example, prohibit the employment of female labour. Ordinary people brought up in the popular belief that the common law is the protector of their rights should be shocked by these propositions. There are many examples in Australia of the application of Dicey's view and nowhere are there better examples than in Queensland. One would hope that every Australian is of the view that the common law provides for equality among citizens, that no one individual has more or less rights than his neighbour. In a democracy it is difficult to comprehend a more basic or more fundamental right. The sovereign Parliament of Queensland has, however, determined that that is not the case. Some individuals in Queensland have, by law, twice the rights of other Queenslanders. Their vote is more valuable, and that minority can elect a government. The Opposition has to explain where is the common law protecting the basic right of one vote one value. That does not exist. The Queensland Parliament, being omnipotent, can outlaw that. More recently we have seen a duly elected member of the Australian Parliament arrested for speaking publicly to his constituents. That is what happened to Senator Georges and that is what the Opposition supports. It supports the view that the Queensland Parliament can pass laws so that a member elected to this Parliament, speaking to his constituents in a street in Queensland, can be arrested. That is what it supports. Where is the common law protecting the right of that parliamentarian to speak in the streets of Queensland? The common law gives him no protection. In Queensland the sovereign Parliament has legislated to remove this right. There is in this country a general, widely-held belief that there is a fundamental right to freedom of religion or education, a right enshrined either in the Constitution or in some other enforceable provision of the law. Certainly section 116 of the Australian Constitution provides that the Commonwealth cannot establish or prohibit religion. But section 116 applies only in respect to Federal law. Let us examine the common law position on this fundamental right to freedom, the common law which the Opposition wants to protect. Let us see what the common law says about freedom of religion in this country, as expressed in a recent Full Bench decision of the South Australian Supreme Court in Grace Bible Church v. Reedham, 1985, volume 36 of the South Australian State Reports at page 376. The facts were simple. The case concerned an appeal against a conviction for conducting an unregistered private school in breach of section 72F of the South Australian Education Act of 1972. Section 72G gave the relevant registration board a wide direction to grant or refuse registration, but it was clear that the discretion had not in fact been exercised in such a way as to interfere with or diminish religious freedom. The appellant's case was that the mere existence of this discretionary power was inconsistent with section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution and with the Human Rights Commission Act 1981-a Commonwealth Act introduced by the present inconsistent Opposition. The appellant then argued that there was an inalienable right to religious freedom at common law-that is fundamental; we all believe that that is the case in this country-a freedom which could not be abridged by any statute of the South Australian Parliament. Mr Justice Zelling, with whom Mr Justice White and Mr Justice Millhouse agreed, rejected this contention, pointing out that to accept the existence of such a right would require a complete rewriting of the legal and religious history of England and Australia. Religious freedom is not complete even today, as the sovereign and the heir to the throne, and their spouses, are required to be Protestants. Mr Justice Zelling largely confined his reasons to countering the proposition that such an inalienable right was known to the law, but in this following conclusion he alluded to the sovereignty issue as well: I cannot see that this State either inherited, or has ever created, an inalienable right of religious freedom of education, nor if it had, that such a right could not be invaded by an Act of the Parliament of this State. So much for common law. The other members of the court likewise held that no such right or guaranteed freedom existed. They then went on to deliver the following categorical dicta about the sovereignty doctrine: The absolute power of the State has been questioned by legal philosophers such as Dworkin and Ely- and, let us face it, by many other philosophers- Questioning does not effect change . . . There is nothing in (the) common law which inhibits or is capable of inhibiting the power of the Parliament of the State to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of this State, including laws which affect the freedom of religious worship and religious expression. Whilst the proposition put forward by counsel for the church has respectable philosophic and academic support, it does not represent the state of the law . . . (T)he opinion of the Parliament as to what laws are for the peace, welfare and good government of the State is paramount and conclusive as a matter of law. Mr Justice Millhouse, after quoting from Dicey, concluded by saying: The citizens of this State do not have rights which may not be overridden by an Act of the South Australian Parliament. What he was saying, of course, was that the common law did not exist; it was a right which was guaranteed to give people freedom. The citizen's only protection was in the right to vote. He continued: Thankfully ours is still a democratic community and that supremacy accordingly may be and often is curbed politically. Let us see what happens in Queensland and whether that right is curbed politically there. Of course, if omnipotence does represent the law-this is what the Opposition is really saying-there is nothing to prevent the Parliament from abolishing democracy itself. So where is the common law protection even for democracy? It does not exist. Mr Tuckey —You are saying that the Parliament is powerless. Mr CLEELAND —I know they are big words, but keep listening. The honourable member might learn something. So much for those who would support the Dicey view and those who would mistakenly argue that individual rights and liberties are protected by the common law. Let us briefly look at some of the nonsense being put by some of these people. The New South Wales Institute of Public Affairs, in other words the Opposition, has circulated a paper under the name of Mr J. K. Bowen. Mr Bowen is said to be a Victorian barrister. On page 4 of the paper entitled `The Proposal for an Australian Bill of Rights, Some Implications for our Society', he points out that similar human rights Bills have been adopted by Warsaw Pact countries whereas England, the home of the common law, has always rejected such devices. On page 5 he points out that totalitarian countries use such declarations as window-dressing and that fundamental rights are ignored. The suggestion is, of course, that we would follow the same path, and that is what we are hearing from the Opposition today. His readers are uninformed and left in total darkness about the fact that the United States of America is a common law country, that Canada is a common law country and that many other Western nations have constitutional declarations of rights, Bills of Rights enshrined within their constitutions. What is the position in the United Kingdom? Lord Scarman, in his Hamlyn Lecture in 1974, said: But when times are abnormally alive with fear and prejudice the common law is at a disadvantage; it cannot resist the will, however frightened and prejudiced it may be of parliament. The honourable member for North Sydney might like to listen to the words of Lord Scarman, who is a very fine legal man. He continued: It is the helplessness of the law in face of the legislative sovereignty of parliament which makes it difficult for the legal system to accommodate the concept of fundamental and inviolable human rights. Means therefore have to found whereby . . . there is incorporated into English law a declaration of such rights . . . these rights are protected against all encroachments, including the power of the state, even when that power is exerted by a representative legislative institution such as parliament. Lord Scarman is far from being alone. Viscount Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, supports the view. I will wind up as I am unfortunately limited by time. I therefore conclude by advising the House that on 29 November 1979 the House of Lords, by a majority of 56 to 30, adopted a resolution urging the Government to introduce a Bill of Rights to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. The very concept that the House of Lords supported, I am proud to support in this House today. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(11.15) —It is with a great deal of concern that I oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and associated legislation. The Bill of Rights Bill, introduced by the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), is based on the United Nations treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed by the Whitlam Government in December 1972 and ratified by the Fraser Government in 1980. If ratifying that agreement in 1980 has resulted in the legislation that we are now debating, I venture to question whether the coalition erred in its judgment by supporting such an agreement. Former Senator Lionel Murphy instigated the first attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights. Fortunately, strong opposition from the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, helped prevent Lionel Murphy from achieving his goal. Sir Robert said: To live in a common law country is in itself the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual. However, the Left has re-emerged again pushing for a Bill of Rights, and for two reasons. The first reason is that the introduction of a Bill of Rights would spell the end of Australia's Federation and the constitutional rights of the States. The Constitution would become a useless anachronism in the process. This Bill of Rights would effectively lead to the Federal Government controlling the ability of the States to govern their own affairs. It gives the Commonwealth the power to override the States in legislative sovereignty in any matter which may be touched on by the 31 Articles. The Attorney-General, in a speech to the Labor Lawyers Convention in Melbourne in August this year, said that just because the Bill of Rights legislation does not of its own force override State laws inconsistent with the Bill, it should not be thought that the Federal Government would not legislate to override State legislation on which the Human Rights Commission had reported and in respect of which the State concerned had refused to make an amendment. This warns of a massive and unprecedented opportunity for Federal intervention into State affairs and for a shift on the whole balance of power between the Federal Government and the States. Now that I have mentioned these 31 Articles, I must comment on a couple that come to mind. Many of these 31 Articles are vague and/or lopsided. For example, Article 11 gives every person the right to form and join trade unions but does not state that every person has the right not to join a trade union. Article 18 states that every human being has the inherent right to life and no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. There is no mention of the same rights for the unborn child or even a definition of when a human being commences to exist. These are just two of the many anomalies which exist in the proposed Bill of Rights. Public statements by members of the Commission leave no doubt that their first target will be the Queensland Government's essential services legislation which, prima facie, conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Dame Roma Mitchell, the head of the Commission, has stated that she concedes that it could be possible for the Commonwealth to direct Queensland to redraw its electoral boundaries, and of course this would apply to other States when it suited. Mr Braithwaite —They hate Queensland. Mr HICKS —The Labor Party certainly does. This is a most significant constitutional change, and one which should be sought only by a referendum. The second reason for the introduction of a Bill of Rights, such as the one we are now debating, based on the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is that it would place the whole Australian governmental system firmly within the context of international law, thus completing the Socialist International objective echoed in the Government's platform, for the new international economic order and world government. Senator Gareth Evans, on his appointment as Attorney-General, had a Bill of Rights package prepared. It was such a bombshell that the first copies were not made public but instead were sent as confidential documents to the State Attorneys-General. Fortunately, Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, was not about to be gagged by such a manoeuvre. He opened his attack in the Queensland Parliament stating that Senator Evans's Bill of Rights was a Bill of wrongs, which would effectively destroy the Federation and dismember the States and all power would be centralised in Canberra. His strong criticisms were later echoed by other States. The Bill of Rights, reluctantly presented in its second toned-down draft by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, will still have the same effect on the Federation and the States. I say `reluctantly presented' because the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, on his appointment to the portfolio of Attorney-General, announced that he did not see the need for a Bill of Rights and that it would be shelved. However, Senator Evans and the Left faction are determined that Australia have a Bill of Rights based on the United Nations charter and, unfortunately, the Attorney-General was forced to back down. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith also claimed that no Bill of Rights would be worth implementing unless it were entrenched in the Constitution. This would mean that the Australian people's yea or nay would decide whether Australia really needed a Bill of Rights. This line was immediately opposed by Senator Nick Bolkus who is the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party Caucus committee on legal and administrative affairs. He was quoted as follows in the Courier-Mail of 13 December 1984: I believe there will be strong Caucus opposition to any attempt to sabotage the Bill. There is no reason for a referendum on the legislation. It would be contrary to party policy to sabotage the legislation in this way. Senator Bolkus concluded that a referendum was just a legal manoeuvre to try to kill it off. Senator Bolkus and the Government are fully aware that what is proposed in this Bill would never be passed by a majority of Australians in a majority of States. With such vast differences of opinion being aired by the present and former Attorneys-General, one really wonders whether a Bill of Rights is necessary. There are still a great many people who remain to be convinced that it is, and I am one of those. There is no successful historical precedent for a Government-led introduction of a Bill of Rights. In fact, history records that wherever an administration has sponsored such a move, removal of human rights has always followed. Every Bill of Rights-the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, or the American one-has addressed itself to the abuses of government and was meant not to be directed at human beings but to define the limits of government power. The Bills came about after a lengthy period of governmental abuse of the system and were directed at government, not the people. The Bills were popular moves to limit government power. The American Bill of Rights, drafted by the colonialists, does not list the rights of Americans but outlines areas in which government cannot enter and in which it has tried to enter in the past. The Magna Carta of 1215 was drawn up not to outline the rights of the people but to outline specific areas of abuse of which King John was guilty and which needed correction. The Magna Carta was a legal document which John signed and under which he was legally bound to cease abuses previously committed by him. On the other side of the coin, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has a document sponsored by Government which outlines human rights. The result is arbitrary and systematic abuses of human rights. There is no freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly or of the Press. Yesterday in the Australian was an advertisement headed `A Declaration from the World Conference on Soviet Jewry'. This refers to a nation which has a Bill of Rights. It states: The condition of Soviet Jewry has continued to deteriorate. Emigration has been brought to a virtual standstill. Harrassment, arrests and the Imprisonment of Jews seeking to be reunited with their people in their historic homeland Israel, or to study Hebrew, have become increasingly frequent. There has been a dreadful upsurge of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The world had, therefore, been left in no doubt that the U.S.S.R. is violating the Helsinki Accords of 1975 and other international obligations which they have signed and pledged to uphold. The summit meeting, thus, begins under a cloud. For humanity's prayers and expectations to be realized, that cloud must be removed. So much for the Bill of Rights; it must be a beauty. Australians need to be careful of accepting any government-sponsored Bill of Rights because, ultimately, that government will arbitrate on what is or is not a right. In a democracy, the people are the arbiters of what are individual rights and a government is limited. Should this Bill of Rights become law-to bypass our Parliament, common law and the Constitution-and confer on a group of public servants who make up the Human Rights Commission the interpretation of extremely generalised rights, it is certain to lead to a surrendering of society's most precious right, parliamentary democracy. In the 1984-85 Budget the Human Rights Commission received an 82.5 per cent increase, lifting its budget from $2.5m in 1983-84 to $4.5m in 1984-85. In the last Budget the Government saw fit to increase its budget again by $0.9m or 18 per cent. I will now explain just what the Australian taxpayers are getting for their money. They are having thrust upon them a commission that will have the power to investigate and report upon the law of and actions of State and local government authorities. The Commission will recommend to the Commonwealth Government what legislation is needed to prevent any conflict between State and local government legislation and the Bill of Rights. The Commonwealth, relying upon the external affairs power, will then legislate to override State legislation. Already this Commission is in conflict with the Government. A statement made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) when tabling a report in the Parliament was reported in the Australian newspaper yesterday as follows: I disagree with the interpretations placed by the commission on the relevant provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights and the declaration of the rights of the child. This was in relation to a case which involved the rights of Australian born children of illegal immigrants. If the Commission believes that a person is capable of giving information relevant to an inquiry being conducted, the Commission can compel any person to attend before it and to produce relevant documentation if requested. A witness does not have the right to be represented by a lawyer nor the right to refuse to answer questions on the basis of self-incrimination. Those who fail to comply with the directions of the Commission will be penalised by a fine of $1,000 or three months imprisonment. I believe that the powers given to this Commission will, in fact, destroy those common law rights of all citizens, namely, the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence and the right to legal representation. The Human Rights Commission, or what will be revamped as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, has been hailed as the protector of human rights. For a body that receives such recognition, it has proposed some odd, even eccentric, notions. In the four months from February to May 1985 it advocated that we should allow homosexual immigration on the grounds of family reunion and it came down strongly against anyone critical of the homosexual community. The Human Rights Commission has attacked the Queensland Government over its new industrial legislation regarding the electricity workers, despite its having a normal rule of not inquiring into State legislation. The Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, was in agreement with the Left on this when she said that she deplores sections of the legislation which amount to virtual slave labour. The Human Rights Commission has called for the repeal of the legislation, saying that it breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was drawn up by overseas socialist countries which have never remotely honoured any of these agreements anyway. I refer, for example, to the USSR through the Helsinki agreement, North Korea, Libya, Chile and Afghanistan, which was the last country to ratify the agreement in January 1983. The Commission has also stated that Professor Geoffrey Blainey has made statements that are racially defamatory and that he ought to be punished. It has recommended that any illegal immigrant couple which has a child born in Australia should be entitled to permanent residence in Australia. This was the case which I mentioned earlier. The Commission supports the right of Women Against Rape to march on ANZAC Day and it banned the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Neil Brown, QC, from having any contact with the staff of the Commission because he dared to criticise its operations following a recent visit. After four months of being denied access to officers of the Human Rights Commission for briefing purposes, the Commission has-and not before time-officially redeclared the honourable member as a citizen with the same rights accorded to other Australians under international covenants. This is the unelected body that professes to protect human rights. In a hard hitting editorial criticising the Human Rights Commission, the Australian Financial Review said: That body has no sensitivity to the real issues of human rights at all, and has totally discredited itself with the campaign which it is promoting to suppress still further freedom of speech on matters of race and community. The Commissioners Report No. 7 `Proposal for Amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act to cover Incitement to Racial Hatred and Racial Discrimination (November 1983)' is a document which is totally shameful in its contempt for basic human rights-to which freedom of speech and opinion is fundamental. The fact that the Commission can publish such a document totally destroys any credentials which it might have as a guardian of human rights. Effectively, this absurdly named body would prevent anybody from expressing views on race or communal matters which were not anodyne. It proposes, for example, that the law should include a prohibition of utterances which would lead to distinction on the basis of race. This is absurd. Let us imagine what an effect such a law would have on journalists and commentators covering an Australian-West Indies cricket test, to take but one example. This is obviously pernicious and oppressive nonsense. The Queensland Law Society Incorporated, in its December 1984 journal, added: The potential exists for the Human Rights Commission to actively suppress the rights it has been created to protect. It is perhaps ironic that by the simple expedient of adopting a complaints-based procedure in lieu of the charging of criminal offence, the work of the Human Rights Commission escapes all those safeguards that Australians are entitled to expect in the judicial determination of a criminal charge and more particularly, that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Law Council of Australia, which represents 20,000 members, in a letter to me dated 31 October, in part requested that the Government delay further parliamentary debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and associated legislation to allow time for the legislation's significance to be more fully explained to the public. The Council expressed concern that the legislation, having only recently been introduced into the Parliament, may progress precipitately. Let us forget the Bill of Rights and perhaps instead develop a charter of responsibilities which would leave men and women free in all things except responsibilities. These are long overdue for recognition and enforcement. The very act of defining rights leads to those rights being limited. As I now point out, rights cannot be limited without being lost. For this reason, I oppose the Bill. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.30) —May I at the outset make a couple of comments in relation to the contribution made by my colleague the honourable member for Riverina- Darling (Mr Hicks). He indicated at the outset of his comments the role that former Prime Minister Menzies played in the securing of basic civil liberties. But it is worth noting that former Prime Minister Menzies is also famous for one of the most fundamental assaults on civil liberties in this country in his supporting the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Mr Cobb —It was put to a referendum. Mr GRIFFITHS —As soon as the word `communist' is mentioned we have interjections from honourable members opposite and particularly from my colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who indulges in the drinking of 2,4,5-T. That is manifesting itself in some rather erratic behaviour. Nevertheless, very few objective observers would embrace the view-thankfully, the Australian community did not embrace the view-that anyone in this society, it being a free and democratic society, ought to be precluded from following any non-violent political philosophy. I am not a supporter of the Communist Party of Australia in any way, shape or form but still I will protect its right to put its point of view whilst we have a democratic system. Mr McGauran —So did Menzies. Mr GRIFFITHS —Menzies, of course, argued right round this country, as the honourable members well knows, that it ought to be banned. Mr McGauran —And then put it to a vote. Mr GRIFFITHS —Nevertheless, he still argued that it ought to be banned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! As this is going to be a pretty long day I suggest that we try to get through it as easily as we can. We would do it better without the interjections. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your much appreciated protection from the rabble opposite. Now that I am allowed to continue my speech unassaulted by my colleagues on the other side of the House I will take up one other point. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling witnessed a recent episode between the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) and the Human Rights Commission when the Human Rights Commission purported to prevent him from attending on its various premises. It would be unlikely in the extreme for anyone opposite to whimper if a member on this side of the House were so banned from any Commonwealth agency. Immediately upon finding out about that episode I made representations to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicating my strong view that that was an inappropriate action for the Human Rights Commission to take. I hope that those representations had some influence on the Human Rights Commission changing its view on that matter. Mr McGauran —What disciplinary action was taken against the Commission? Mr GRIFFITHS —I do not think that, in every field of human activity, it is compulsory that disciplinary action be taken against people who, from time to time, adopt a position that does not have widespread community support. Mr McGauran —That is outrageous. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to move into his own seat. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Gippsland should resume his normal seat. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Gippsland remains in his present seat he will not interject. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike members of the Opposition, I have my time somewhat limited so I will continue my comments. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, indicated quite clearly why we ought not to rely only on the common law history of this country and the common law development of basic human rights in these terms: . . . that the common law does not offer clear or wide-ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best, the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way often only after satisfying complex procedural requirements; He continued: . . . the power of the Parliament to confine or withdraw totally common law `rights'-this may occur unintentionally and even unnoticed by the public at large; He concluded by saying: . . . the fragility of community attitudes and pressures on which so many of what are popularly regarded as individual freedoms rely. I think it is worth noting in that context the current developments in Queensland, where for better or worse in many instances it is possible to whip up a popular community resentment against minority groups. I believe that this is one of the most fundamental threats to a democratic system that we face. The common law does not protect freedom of expression; it does not protect the right to demonstrate peacefully, as is evidenced on so many occasions in Queensland and, I might add, in some of the other States; it does not protect the right to demonstrate peacefully; the principle of one vote, one value is specifically precluded in terms of our Constitution in McKinlay's case; and it does not protect the freedom of movement. Of course, there are a whole range of others. There is no right to legal representation, legal aid, or a speedy trail. There is no guarantee in our system of the right of religious freedom and expression, again fundamental in countries such as the United States of America. In the context of previous comments about the inappropriateness of adopting this legislation, or hanging the coat of this legislation on the peg of the external affairs powers under the Constitution, it is worthy of note that, in 1936, the High Court of Australia originally approved that approach and, of course, it was reaffirmed in the Tasmanian dams case in 1983. It has the status of settled law. Those who argue against the use of the external affairs power can say that it is politically inappropriate. They can put that argument-I do not accept it-but they cannot say that it is improper or illegal, as seems to have been implied in a number of the contributions. Mr Justice Kirby, in comparing human rights in Australia with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, said: We tend to assume that we in Australia have an impeccable system of legal protection for human rights which is second to none in the world. In short, we are apt to think of our legal protections for the human rights of Australians as a happy blend between British justice and the Australian `fair go'. This illusion is a dangerous one. There is no doubt that our legal protections fall short, in many respects, of internationally accepted standards. That is not to say that we are significantly worse than most countries in the protection of human rights. Far from it. But there is no room for complacency. I was not going to use that quotation but I think it is important in the context of the contribution of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. He sought to indicate that there is some implicit relationship between a number of totalitarian governments that have a Bill of Rights and what may or may not happen in Australia. Quite clearly, it is an absurd proposition. It is not the case that, simply because some totalitarian government somewhere in the world has a theoretical Bill of Rights that is abused widely, the same system will follow if we have a Bill of Rights. We have different political traditions. We have people who are alive to offences against basic democratic principles and, if and when that system comes about, we will all be out of this place so we will not be worrying about it so much. A number of governments have taken a whole range of steps to protect basic human rights. All of these, to a greater or lesser extent, were not supported by many members of the Opposition. For example, I can recall that when the matter of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was first debated there were a lot of comments from the conservative side of politics that that was an inappropriate position. I can recall the debate about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act was going to haemorrhage national government. I can recall the debate on the Freedom of Information Bill. Once again, the Opposition had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to embrace the concept of a Freedom of Information Bill. I can also recall the debate on the sex discrimination legislation and so on. When one compares the differences between the United States of America experience and our own it is important to note that a Bill of Rights was opposed by our founding fathers, who wanted common law protections. But it is worth listing what United States citizens have as basic fundamental protections. Of course, they are famous for asserting those rights. They have, unlike Australia, freedom of religion. They have, unlike Australia, freedom of the Press. They have, unlike Australia, the right to peaceful assembly. They have the right to petition, the right to protection against unreasonable searches, the right that due compensation be paid for the compulsory acquisition of land and the right to assurance of due process of law. One reason why they have those basic protections is that they had a revolutionary and not a process of non-violent change as in Australia. My time has almost expired so I shall just make these points that there are some basic protections in the Australian Constitution. Again, in the context of the contribution of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling, I quote again from Mr Justice Kirby, who said: These exceptional provisions aside-- that is, referring to those that were provided for in the Constitution-- it must be said that the Australian Constitution contains few general statements of civic rights, especially when contrasted to Constitutions of other lands. At the latest count, 108 national Constitutions of the world provide for a Bill of Rights after the American model. Thirtynine do not. Of course, the provision of a written Bill of Rights is no guarantee that the rights will in fact be protected. Many of the countries with a written list would not be regarded as right-asserting and right-protecting, according to our standards. The point for present purposes is that our Constitution, on paper, is exceptional in its failure to list the rights of the citizen enforceable in the courts. This does not say that our decision is wrong. It is simply exceptional. Madam Deputy Speaker, my time has expired and I thank you for your indulgence. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.41) —The Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a major step backwards into the Dark Ages of history when small people, common people and the helpless were at the mercy of powerful scheming manipulators, of inquisitorial courts and the Star Chamber. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said, in this proposal before us the Human Rights Commission becomes both prosecutor and judge. The very last thing that this Bill will do is protect the rights of the ordinary Australian; rather it will provide powerful, aggressive and selfish people with a set of parameters from which they will demand their rights. It will not be the weak, the widows, the fatherless, the poor, the patient, the tolerant or the ordinary decent Australian working person who will demand their rights; instead, they will be the very people whose freedoms and rights will be restricted as the articulate and shrewd demand their rights, for as one right is protected, another is infringed. The cunning will always survive, but this Bill, if passed, will help them to survive better. Where are the people who believe that this piece of legislation is of great importance? Where is the groundswell of opinion clamouring for rights to be protected? Is it coming from the employers? No, it is not coming from them. Is it coming from the employees, unionists, farmers, peak councils, families around Australia, teachers, the universities, small business, the manual worker or the skilled artisan? No, it is not. The only people who have voiced their strong support for the human need for the time of this Parliament to be spent on debating a Bill such as this are the intellectual socialists of the Australian Labor Party-those who want to, and believe that they can, control the minds of people by legislating in this way. This form of legislation is totally and absolutely unnecessary in Australia. Unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party believes that these rights can be brought into existence only by legislation. Just as governments cannot legislate people's morals into existence, so too governments cannot legislate rights into existence. I think that this Bill of Rights should have been given more axiomatic and fundamental definitions. What is a `right'? It was rather difficult to find a definition. It is easy to go to a dictionary to find out what is meant by that term, but I looked at the definition given by the Human Rights Commission, which stated that first and foremost a right was a moral claim. So now we have it; this Government wants to legislate moral standards into existence. But worse than that, it has the audacity to believe that it has the authority to legislate what is right and what is wrong. The coalition maintains that no government has that right. The Government may reject that definition of a `right'. If it does, I will be very interested in its definition and in whether it will be acting to give direction to the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to reject that definition. My concern was raised with regard to what was the real significance of such legislation and whether it was a lot of socialist mumbo jumbo or whether the rights expressed were clear and meaningful to the Australian people. Let us take one example from the Bill. I refer to Article 14, since it is relevant to every family that has children attending school. It states: Recognising that every child has the rights to such measures of protection as are required by the child's age- . . . . (d) the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions is to be respected. Let us have a look at the practicalities of that statement and at what the Human Rights Commission, as presently constituted, is actually doing. In Occasional Paper No. 9 of the Human Rights Commission, on page 73 the following statement is made: Joining in the Commission's political project through its reconstructionist educational work will be appealing to many teachers; they will welcome the opportunity to engage in conscientisation with their students in the interest of social justice. That is what the Commission believes our teachers should be involved in-remodelling the consciences of our children. Page 72 of the Occasional Paper also states: Teachers considering adopting Teaching Human Rights should be aware that the program makes no pretence at all of being value free. It is value heavy, has explicit ideological commitments and eschews the notion of neutrality in Education. In other words, the Human Rights Commission scoffs at the idea that Australian education should be neutral with regard to morals and values. Where are the parents who believe that our social structures should allow homosexual immigration on the basis of family reunion or that we would build a healthier community by allowing single parent adoptions? That is the attitude of the Human Rights Commission. A slavish adherence to the rights as determined by this Bill or the Human Rights Commission will cause bitterness and division. Where are the people, and how many are there, who believe that the United States of America and Australia have slaughtered uncounted millions of people through exploitation, as stated in the book Teaching Human Rights that is used in our schools? Where is the evidence that Australian parents promote unhealthy values in their children and what government or government bureaucracy has the right to dictate to parents what values are healthy or unhealthy? Yet the Human Rights Commission and this Government would like all of us just to sit back and let all these falsehoods be inculcated into our children. As I talk to people in this beautiful country of Australia, parent after parent, mother after mother, unionist after unionist and employer after employer tell me that what they want in their children-- Mr John Brown —When was the last time you spoke to a unionist? Mr MILES —About three days ago. Those people tell me that they want their children to be taught reading, writing, numeracy, courtesy, respect, empathy and compassion. Parents know what they want their children to be taught and they do not want what the Commission would like to be taught. They utterly and totally reject the Commission's notion that children need to be emancipated, reconstructed and given a conscience by an unelected set of bureaucrats put in place by the government of the day. I ask the House: From what will the Commission reconstruct our children and to what will it emancipate them? It is not the role of teachers, under the guise of teaching human rights, to manipulate the minds of children. In simple terms it is brainwashing. If there are human rights commissioners and government employees who want to be social activists, let them enter the political arena and use the acceptable channels. Our schools were never intended to be open to social and political manipulation by any group or body such as the Human Rights Commission; yet this is the Commission's clearly stated objective. The concept of the rights of the child is nice in theory but a nightmare in practice. What it will do is undermine the authority of parents, but the Labor Party does not care about structure and orderliness in society. It prefers chaos, conflict and resentment in our families so that it can remould our young people, who would want some security in that situation. Apart from this Bill being totally unnecessary, vague and lacking in definition, Australians are asking two other vital questions; namely, how do we want to govern Australia and who do we want to administer our rights and freedoms? The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech stated that the Government was giving practical expression to Australia being a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the inference being that because we were signatories we were under an international obligation to act. The overwhelming majority of thinking Australians never believed that we should have become a signatory to that document, but now the Australian people are being told that we have an international obligation. Australians find government from Canberra distant enough, let alone being subject to measures decided in New York by the United Nations. Australians do not ask to be and nor do they want to be governed by remote control by the weak-kneed governments in Canberra which, for their own personal prestige in world affairs, are prepared to implement totally unnecessary United Nations declarations. The United Nations is increasingly becoming a stamping ground for nations that wish to exercise power without responsibility. Too many members of the United Nations want to vote but are unwilling to pay a fair proportion of its costs. Too many want to strut and pose on the world stage while at home their own people are subject to authoritarian and corrupt governments. The United Nations had the noble, if naive, goal of enhancing an awareness of common humanity by the peoples of the world, but now it is an organisation heavy with bureaucracy and is a mouthpiece of anti-Western ideologies. The majority of the United Nations member states are authoritarian. They are opposed to democratic rights, individual freedoms, the institutions of an independent judiciary, a free Press, free trade unions and opposition political parties. Yet this Parliament is being told that we ought to be putting into place the minimum standards of a United Nations declaration on human rights. It is absolutely farcical and naive for Australia to legislate for a Bill of Rights, but that is exactly what the Hawke socialists want us to do. Not only is this Government blind to the unnecessary internal bickering and divisions that a Bill such as this will cause but also it is illogical. Why would this Government need to introduce a Bill of Rights when already, according to an independent study, we have an international human rights rating of 93 per cent, the world average being 64 per cent? Other countries I could mention such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which have a Bill of Rights have a rating of 27 per cent. It is absolutely ludicrous and illogical to introduce a Bill of Rights when we have such a high rating. We are only 3 per cent behind the highest rating in the world. Australians have a keen sense of fair play and freedom. No amount of bureaucratic legislation will sharpen the awareness of the Australian people. The Australian people totally reject the notion that their behaviour should be monitored by governments and commissions. Australians do not want to be governed by international agreements. They do not want quasi-courts with inquisitorial powers investigating people's attitudes and values. Yet that is precisely what this Bill, if passed, will do. An emphasis on human rights is destructive to any cohesive, forward looking nation. If people are not being dealt with justly because of outdated laws or changes in cultural attitudes we should fine-tune our systems to ensure that all people are dealt with according to the due process of law. The trend of increasing power to the state at the expense of people will be further enhanced by a Bill of Rights. In so doing, we are saying to individuals: `Give us your freedom and money and we will look after you from the cradle to the grave'. In such a decadent, outmoded system the individual loses his dignity, self-esteem, sense of responsibility and self-confidence. He becomes institutionalised, loses his identify and feels crushed and weighed down by the burden of despair and powerlessness. There is no need to rush into this Bill of Rights. Rather, it should be allowed to lie on the table while the Australian community examines it. The coalition is clear where it stands in regard to this obnoxious legislation. It is totally opposed to it and gives the Australian people a commitment to repeal it on return to government. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.54) —Today we have been debating the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. Honourable members have been exercising their right to support or reject the proposed legislation. The right to speak without fear or favour in this place is based on the Bill of Rights of 1689. So there is a Bill of Rights which still applies to this chamber and gives us the right under Article IX to exercise freedom of speech in parliament. As the late Dr H. C. Currey, a great Australian legal historian, used to say, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Succession were the twin towers on which the British Constitution was built. The Bill of Rights of 1689 has become somewhat outdated. It tended to entrench a political group in power in England at that time. However, many of the Articles of that Bill still apply in our nation. I note that Article 10 provides that `excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted'. In the original Bill of Rights which governs our proceedings today there is essentially the notion that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. That means that no member of parliament can be held to account in any court or tribunal concerning what he or she says in this place or in the Senate. So a Bill of Rights does apply in Australia today. This legislation encapsulates and, in a sense, brings up to date the catalogue of rights that is taken for granted by all Australians. I congratulate the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for bringing this legislation forward. I believe that it has an enormous educational base in a nation in which a quarter of the population was born overseas, and particularly in my electorate where so many people are becoming Australian citizens, are in the school system and have no notion of the common law or what rights they take for granted. They have come to Australia from societies where they were persecuted, to get away from totalitarian regimes. Many of them have come to Australia because they believe it to be a free country. These people will have a Bill of Rights which will not stamp on State laws but which will protect their individuality and their families. The canons of behaviour in our nation have been spelt out clearly in recent times in relation to the behaviour of magistrates in a number of very unfortunate court cases. The educational role of this Bill will be of great benefit to the community. The Parliament is not representative of the population. A third of its members are not born overseas. We have no Aboriginal members. We are not at all representative. We are from a certain group in society which comprises mainly lawyers, aldermen and such people. There has been long discussion on the notion of a Bill of Rights. An alternative was offered to the Attorney that we should use some of the powers which came from the Tasmanian dams case to force the States to change their laws, for example, the gerrymander in Western Australia which affects the upper House which is controlled by the conservative parties, and Queensland's electoral gerrymander. But the Attorney in his wisdom, has decided not to force the States into change. This legislation will not affect State laws in any way. I feel that this is a correct course of action to follow. If State laws are deemed to be unfair and undemocratic, the Human Rights Commission will have a role, to report. However, there will be no overall hammering of State legislation, which is the way it should be in a federation. In 1945 we had the United Nations Charter. In 1948 the nations of the world accepted the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written in simple, inspirational terms which set out fundamental, human, civil, political, social and economic rights. In 1966 Australia and 105 other countries unanimously agreed on the text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was signed, significantly, soon after the Australian Labor Party came to government in December 1972, but it was ratified by the Liberal-National Party Government in 1980. Under the Covenant there are obligations on every signatory state to set up human rights commissions. A former Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, in 1977 proposed the establishment of a human rights commission; however, there was obviously some grass roots opposition to it by the then Government and the legislation for it was not enacted until 1981. Other nations have moved and have enacted charters of human rights. Canada did so in 1982. The Attorney, in his second reading speech, outlined some reasons why a Bill of Rights is necessary. I quote from his speech: . . . the common law does not offer clear or wide-ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best, the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way often only after satisfying complex procedural requirements . . . That is supposing that one can obtain legal aid to get before the courts and so forth. Another point the Attorney-General made was that of the power of the Parliament to confine or withdraw totally the common law rights. This may occur unintentionally or even unnoticed by the public at large. All honourable members are aware that in some parliaments legislation is brought in in the dead of night and no one knows what is in it. No notice has been given, there are all night sittings and the members themselves have not seen the legislation, which is forced through by the government of the day which has a majority in both Houses or, as in the case of Queensland where there is a unicameral parliament, in the one House. The Attorney-General also made the point of the fragility of communal attitudes and pressures on which so many of what are popularly regarded as individual freedoms rely. That is very basic and an issue which has been whipped up into hysteria within the community and governments are either frightened to act or are reluctant to do anything about it. I wish to mention a few other points in relation to this legislation. Some people are concerned about the legislation not going far enough on abortion. Several people have contacted me and asked that the Bill should outlaw abortion in the States. The legislation does not apply to State law at all. I totally oppose abortion, but I do not believe that Commonwealth legislation should be used to change the law in the States and criminal law throughout Australia. The Commonwealth has its role, as set down in the Constitution, and it must legislate within its area of jurisdiction. I have never believed that the Commonwealth should intervene and change State law. Abortion is illegal in every State and this Bill of Rights does guarantee the right to life. The Attorney has made a number of public statements that this legislation in no way affects the abortion law in each State. When I read the Australian Bill of Rights and the articles set forth in it, I cannot appreciate how the Opposition in this Parliament can be so opposed to such basic human rights. They include the right of freedom of expression, thought and conscience, the freedom to have or adopt a religion or a belief, the right of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. Why are Opposition members opposed to the freedom of association? Surely every one of them supports Solidarity in Poland. Every Australian is proud to hear of the success of the trade unions in Poland. Surely Opposition members believe in the rights of the trade union movement in Poland. Do they not believe there should be similar rights in Australia, even in the State of Queensland? Honourable members cannot have it both ways. As Article 11 says: Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of that person's interests. That is a very basic right that has been restricted in Queensland, one of the States which send a number of members to this Parliament. The Bill also includes the right to protection from arbitrary interference. Other members have dealt with that. None of the Opposition members have touched on Article 13 which is about the right to marry and found a family. That is a very basic right. The Article states: Recognising that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State-(a) every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family; When I was a New South Wales State member, a woman came to me and told me that she could not get a housing loan unless she signed an agreement that she would not have children, but would go on working. She was denied her right to found a family. I took that up with the State Minister and eventually it was changed. My time is limited today because there are a large number of honourable members who wish to speak in this debate. I refer briefly to the rights of the child which are clearly spelt out in Article 14. Article 15 deals with the rights of persons in Australia-their rights to leave and enter the country. All of us have heard of people who cannot come or cannot bring their relatives from places such as Vietnam, or East Germany, and of people like the Russian Jews who cannot leave Russia. These things occur in countries on both the Left and the Right. Every night on our television we see the problems of South Africa where the blacks have no rights; they are not equal citizens. We see breaches of rights in Afghanistan and Argentina, which I visited last year. There is a trial going on in Argentina about the 8,000 people who disappeared under the previous government. Article 18 is on the right to life and Article 19 deals with the liberty and security of persons. I could talk about all these sections at great length, but much of the material has been dealt with and we are essentially interested in new matter. I think this legislation is of great moment. It is of great relevance and it has been brought in in the proper manner. It will educate the Australian people in their rights and it will be there as a guide for the nation that we are moulding and welding in relation to civil and political responsibilities. Australia has taken more migrants since the Second World War than any other nation in the world except Israel. This will be a very instructive document for our young people in schools and colleges so they can learn the basic rights within our democratic society. It is important that the young have a knowledge of their rights in going forth out of the schools and colleges into the community. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(12.07) —I am totally opposed to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the cognate Bills before the House. They are not necessary and the Government has not even attempted to demonstrate that there is the least threat to our freedom and liberties under the present system. Pitt the Younger said in 1781: Necessity is the plea of tyrants and the creed of slaves. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pleads necessity as the justification for introducing these Bills, I must ask him: Which is he, tyrant or a slave? The rights of the Australian people are an integral part of our British heritage. These rights and freedoms were bought with the blood and lives of a great many people who, over the centuries, were prepared to sacrifice themselves for what we enjoy today. If the Attorney-General is asserting that these rights, freedoms and liberties are in some way deficient, it is up to the Government to introduce proposals to remedy any specific deficiency. Instead, we are treated to the Attorney piously informing the House that these measures are necessary because the Whitlam socialist Government acceded to an international covenant dealing with civil and political rights and further, that Australia has some sort of moral and international obligation to enact the terms of that covenant. That is an utter nonsense. Australia owes no obligation to the socialist and totalitarian regimes which rule most of the nations of the world. Most of those regimes have the blood of their own people on their hands and for the Attorney to stand in this place and imply that Australia owes a moral or legal obligation to butchers, tyrants and despots is beyond belief. I suggest that these Bills are merely an excuse by the Attorney and his socialist colleagues to stage a constitutional power grab. Veiled in subterfuge, the Government is trying to sneak power away from the people and the States. Clause 12 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill purports to bind all future Commonwealth Parliaments in such a way that any legislation which they may pass which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights will be invalid. No parliament can bind its successors unless it entrenches legislation through an amendment to the Constitution. These Bills are a clumsy attempt to bypass the Constitution-an attempt by legislative bushrangers which will not and cannot succeed. The Bill purports not to bind the States and the Northern Territory. However, clause 27 makes it very clear that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the guardian of the Bill of Rights, may, with the consent of the Minister, examine any State enactment or action and report to the Minister. This is clearly a perversion of federalism and is another Labor attempt to overthrow the powers of the Australian States and, indeed, the Federation itself. The Human Rights Commission has already shown an obsessive hatred of Queensland and one can legitimately ask which State will be next. The Human Rights Commission is nothing but a bureaucratic goon squad committed to enforcing its prevailing human rights orthodoxy. It is important for the House to remember that not just anyone can be employed by the Human Rights Commission. Commission employees-public servants all-must display a commitment to human rights and to the activities of the Commission in this field. This is clearly stated in all Commission advertisements for positions vacant. For Dame Roma Mitchell and other apologists for the Commission to say that the Commission is merely an ordinary arm of the Commonwealth Public Service staffed by ordinary public servants, is far from the truth. Every Australian should be concerned that people can be engaged to work in a specific section of the Public Service because of their commitment to a prevailing social or political prejudice. Whatever happened to public service impartiality? Why does the Government want to bypass the due processes of law? Why is the Government substituting administrative coercion and discrimination by ideological zealots to achieve declared social objectives? Why is the Commission to be placed above and beyond our normal legal system? Clause 14 makes it clear that people may be brought to the notice of the Commission and made subject to one of its inquisitions on the basis of anonymous information or accusation. Any member of the KGB would be quite conversant with these rules for interrogation. As if this were not enough, the Commission has the power under clause 14 (3) to keep secret what passes for evidence before the Commission or any information or the contents of any document which it may receive, should it decide to do so. Hence, there is no necessity for the Commission even to inform the people dragged before it of the details of the matters which have been raised against them. The Bills also do not establish any basis for the onus of proof. It is a poor semantic gimmick for the Attorney and the Commission to say that people appearing before the Commission are not being accused of a crime and are therefore not to be covered by the same rights guaranteed to those who are accused of a crime. Clause 26 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Bill states quite clearly in sub-clause (1) that any person shall not insult, hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with a member of the Commission participating in an inquiry or examination under the Act. In other words, should I advise a constituent from my seat of Cowper to refuse to appear before the Commission or co-operate with it in any way both he and I would be criminally prosecuted for hindering the Commission. Would honour-able members be prosecuted for criticising members of the Commission, insulting them, for the way they conduct their inquisitions? Under this Bill they will be because this will be an insult to a member of the Commission conducting an examination or an inquiry. So much for freedom of thought! So much for freedom of expression! So much for freedom to participate in the political processes of a democratic society! These Bills are yet another manifestation of the familiar process in which the deplorable becomes recognised as the inevitable and is finally championed as positively desirable. Our constitutional and judicial systems have evolved over many centuries and provide adequate checks and balances to the abuse of authority. Those systems have been developed by genuine reforms made by both sides of politics so as to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of the individual and of society from the tyranny of despots or from the tyranny of transient majorities. These Bills are nothing more than an ugly power grab by the aging radicals of the 1960s who are rapidly entering their moral and intellectual dotage. The Bills are one of the last opportunities which these people have for staging their own revolution in Australia because they seek to destroy the free, open and liberal democratic society which exists in Australia today. Let it be recorded in Hansard that I am an implacable enemy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and that I will strive with all my might to see that this cancer is eventually cut out forever from the Australian body politic. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.15) —I often feel that one of the unfortunate aspects of our parliamentary system, despite its very great strengths, and the operation of our parliamentary system on a Government and Opposition basis is the fact that it encourages deliberate falsification and deliberate misrepresentation of the kind we have heard in connection with this debate. I think it is most unfortunate, and those people who have been listening to debate will know precisely what I mean by those comments. What we need to understand is that there have been at least four governments-three conservative governments and one Labor government prior to this Government-and now this Government, the Hawke Government, which have themselves played a very significant role in the development of an Australian attitude towards the introduction of a Bill of Rights and the enactment of a Bill of Rights and associated legislation. Australia was elected a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in the 1950s under the Menzies Government, encouraged by Mr Menzies himself, and as a result it participated in the work of developing and negotiating what became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I do not believe that members of the Opposition understand that. I do not believe that members of the Opposition understand that the Fraser Government was responsible for ratifying the Covenant in 1980. I certainly understand that it was the Whitlam Government on 18 December 1972 which signed the Covenant. So this really has been a bipartisan exercise, and some of those outlandish claims that have been made by members of the Opposition do them no credit; nor do they do any credit for the conservative movement in Australia. I congratulate the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), an outstanding Attorney-General in an outstanding Labor Government, on bringing this legislation forward and on the very clear and concise way in which he gave information supporting this legislation in his second reading speech. The centrepiece of this Bill is of course the self-contained Bill of Rights in clause 8 which further implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. Accompanying this Bill are other items of legislation, one of which is designed to reform and improve the Human Rights Commission, against which again some outlandish, inexcusable and indefensible claims have been made by members of the Opposition. That Commission will be renamed and reconstituted as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. As a result of becoming a party to the International Covenant, Australia bound itself by Article 2 of the Covenant to respect and to ensure to all individuals in Australia the rights contained within that Covenant, and that Covenant itself specifically commits Australia to adopting legislative measures to give effect to the rights it contains. How is it possible, in the light of that situation, for members of the Opposition to make the types of claims they have made? I hope that the quality of this debate improves. I hope that the quality of their understanding of what this debate is all about improves. It is absolutely incredible that one member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), could say something like: `This legislation represents a major step backwards into the Dark Ages of history'. A Bill of Rights is one of the highest expressions of the elevated aspirations of civilised man. It is the ultimate expression of the proudest traditions of liberal democratic society. I am extremely proud of the fact that it is a Labor government, a social democratic government, which has been responsible for bringing this legislation forward. I was surprised and concerned that one of the great criticisms of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-I do not suppose that he would be offended if I said that he was born into and enjoys privileged circumstances-in leading for the Opposition was that this legislation does not ensure rights to wealth, does not protect the rights to private property and does not protect the rights of those people who would prefer to see non-unionisation in Australia. I was very disappointed because I have some regard for the civil libertarian attitudes which have sometimes been expressed by the honourable member for North Sydney. I believe that while those concerns he expressed may be quite legitimate and those rights may be quite important, nevertheless there is within the existing legislative structure in our form of society more than adequate protection for them. In fact, some people would go further and say that the chief purpose of law within Western democratic societies is more to preserve the rights of property and wealth than to protect the rights of the person. Of course, those claims can be very well defended. I believe it should be a long term goal for Australia to achieve a constitutional Bill of Rights containing not only civil and political rights of the kind we are considering now but also economic, social and cultural rights that are appropriately stated, entrenched and enforceable. Because of the type of constituency I represent, I hope that at some time in the future the fundamental right of people to work will be enshrined within a Bill of Rights in this society, and hopefully in a Bill of Rights in all societies across the globe. I am concerned, of course, about the right of people not to have their private property and privacy invaded, but I am concerned too about the fundamental right of people to achieve and maintain a personal position of dignity by having the right to work. Concerns have been expressed about the right to found a family, and people should be able to do that sort of thing with some degree of material security. It has not been so hitherto. If we have a responsibility within this Parliament and institutions of this kind, it is to realise that our responsibilities extend to those areas, people and purposes as well. One of my great aspirations is to have the opportunity at some time in the future, perhaps in this Parliament, to put in place guarantees of that kind. It has been claimed that a Bill of Rights of this kind is not necessary; that the rights it attempts to preserve, protect, maintain and defend are accommodated adequately within the common law. I think people are coming to understand increasingly that this simply is not correct. When human rights are in issue there is usually a clash in the common law between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual. In relation to civil and political rights, the best one can say usually is that such rights are what is left over after all of the exceptions and limitations to them have been dealt with. To a very large extent they become residual rights. For example, the right to free speech at common law is that which is left after censorship, defamation, contempt of court, contempt of parliament, sedition, criminal libel, blasphemy, radio and television program standards and many other limitations have already taken their toll; so it is a residual freedom. To say that freedoms of this kind are protected adequately by the common law is nonsense. One of the great challenges of civilised man in a liberal democratic society has been the task not only of stating, entrenching and providing for the enforcement of the rights of individuals and groups, but also of seeking to ensure that, in the proper exercise of those rights, members of the community will not infringe the legitimate rights of others. Of course, for a long time questions of that kind have been great challenges in the liberal democratic thinking of those people who aspire to achieve the objectives and purposes of liberal democracy. It has been suggested also that the very institutions of parliaments within a society of this kind and the people who represent their constituents within the parliaments will ensure that serious infringements of civil rights will not take place. I wish that I could be as confident. We know that that is not the case. I give a recent example from one of our own States in connection with legislation for the proclamation of a state of emergency in Queensland on 7 February this year. Mr Cadman —Validated by the High Court. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I hope the honourable member does not try to defend it. I thought he had more regard for the civil rights of individuals and communities than was indicated by that remark. I am surprised that the honourable member would interject and attempt to defend that. The civil conscription infringement was represented in Order in Council No. 25D of 8 February this year. Not only that, but also the civil conscription element of section 3(b) of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 authorises the Electricity Commissioner `to direct any person whatever who, in his opinion, is capable of carrying out the necessary work to provide, to maintain or to restore a supply of electricity' in Queensland. Of course, that means regimentation and enforcement of labour against all of the international traditions of civil liberties and human rights. Our own Human Rights Commission, as a result of its inquiry into that legislation, said that it found that that legislation was inconsistent with Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits forced or compulsory labour, and with Article 22 of that Covenant, which guarantees the right to freedom of association. Accordingly, it made certain recommendations. I have said that I am delighted to be associated with this legislation and to be a member of this Parliament who is associated with a Government that I have the pleasure of supporting. I have the greatest regard for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who is responsible for introducing this legislation. I hope that finally, after all of the shortcomings-if there are any-have been identified and corrected, the legislation will become enshrined in the Constitution of Australia. It will stand as a lasting beacon to the quality of ministerial responsibility which the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Attorney-General has brought to this Parliament and this nation. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.28) —For over a year the Government has had a secret Bill of Rights locked away in the Attorney-General's Department and in the office of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Government has been bringing forward and moving towards a Bill of Rights that is so secret that nobody in the Australian community, except a select few whom the Attorney-General nominated, was able to gain access to it. The current Attorney- General has been foisted with the result of that activity, so that the trendy Left pseudo-intellectual socialist prescriptive approach, with which he does not agree, has been foisted on him. He has had to follow it through because of the commitments made by his predecessor and the commitments made to sectional groups in Australia. Copies of this secret Bill of Rights have floated around the nation. One thing that I can say for the Premier of Queensland is that he was able to find one of these secret Bills and produce it for the public. Otherwise, who would have known about it? What a way to approach human rights; to change the rights of the citizens by keeping the process secret! What a way to do it; keeping their rights from them so that they do not know until the last minute what those rights will be! Within a few weeks we have had to consider this legislation. Interested and concerned community groups have not made submissions. Honourable members opposite know that now, right at the last minute, some correspondence is starting to flow. Much of it, I would say, is based on the previous proposals of Senator Gareth Evans, not on the current legislation. What else can people do when the Government has adopted this technique of last minute ad hockery and secrecy? The Government has foisted this legislation on the Parliament and then has said: `We are imposing a Bill of Rights for the good of the Australian people'. What are the identified shortcomings of the present system? The Government has already had three years to act on these shortcomings; why has it not done so? Today members of the Government have raved about these shortcomings of human rights in Australia, but what have they done to correct them? Where have they identified them? If they have been identified, and if the Government has felt strongly about them, I guess it has had time to legislate. The Government has produced legislation on equal opportunities, or intends to. Why has it suddenly decided that there are gross inadequacies in the Australian system and that now it has to move quickly to resolve them? This is not an Australian people's Bill of Rights. One cannot compare its formulation with the process adopted in the United States where those 14 covenants were developed by the community at large. This is an Australian Labor Party Bill of Rights and it has nothing to do with the Australian people. Because members opposite are a political party and are the Government, they say that they have the right to legislate our rights. It is a legislative Bill of Rights; it is not a constitutional Bill of Rights. It has not been put to the Australian people so that they can give it proper consideration. I dare the Government to put it to a referendum to see whether it can make it constitutional. That would truly make it an Australian people's Bill of Rights. Try it. The Government claims that by putting it to the people it would be running with it at the next election. That is not accurate, and not adequate either. Put every clause to the Australian people in a referendum and see how they respond. They would overwhelmingly reject this Bill of Rights because it has not been explained, it has been kept secret, and they do not understand it. With great fervour the Australia Labor Party has produced the Australian Labor Party's Bill of Rights-a legislative process undertaken without effective consultation or consideration of the rights of the people of Australia. What are going to be some of the ramifications? I intend to deal only with principal matters and not the details of this legislation because I believe that this House will not consider the details of it; in fact the work will be done in the Senate and the Bill of Rights will be an Australian Democrats' Bill of Rights. That is what it amounts to. They have the numbers in the Senate; they will control the Government's Bill and they will tell us what that rights Bill will be. That is a risk the Government is taking, and I believe that it is a dreadful risk because the right to accept or reject these proposals has been put in the hands of a few people in the other place. The Australian Democrats will control the Bill of Rights for the Australian people. That is the way this legislation will finish up. Let us look at the position of judges in this process. I believe that the Bill of Rights as proposed will foist on the Australian people a whole process of litigation to which they have not been used. If we were to be critical of the American system we could say that it is a system in which people tend to litigate freely, easily and at the drop of a hat. I believe that that is a process we will see advancing in Australia, not next year or the year after but in five years time. The courts will be full of litigation related to this legislation. Of course we have a Human Rights Commission but these matters will finish up in the courts just the same. I quote Mr Justice Brennan because I believe that he hit upon the nub of the difficulties for our judicial system when he said that the jurisprudence base for social values encompassing social priorities has not been developed in the judicial system: And it has not. In fact, judges have been asked specifically to exclude from their minds the values and issues which this Bill now brings forward. They will be making assessments and judgments in areas for which they have not been trained and which have not been given consideration. Some would say that that is not a bad thing. But we are going to have a process in Australia whereby the Commission and the courts, not the people, will be judging the rights of Australia. This will not be decided by referendum or the Parliament. That is the way in which rights will be settled. The rights of Australians will be settled by commissions and interpretive court decisions, not by the processes which we have today. The Government has a right to bring in amendments to legislation or to introduce new legislation to change inadequacies in our present system. It has the right to go to a referendum. It has the right to have true people's changes, changes to the rights of Australian people. But that will be out of our hands now; it will go to commissions and courts. The rights will be defined by courts as they consider these matters. I guess that honourable members opposite know that despite the long term of consideration of human rights in the United States there are currently before the Supreme Court of the United States 400 cases on church-state relations relating to education-400 significant matters at this late stage of the American development of this process. The United States has not yet finally decided what church-state relations are in regard to education. That is what we are facing in Australia. That is the situation that the Government will bring about here. The religious rights of Australians are in our Constitution and perhaps in many ways we do not need the proposals in the Bill of Rights. Look where it is leading. If we look at the example of the United States we would have to say that in the United States it is by litigation that rights are decided. So I have to consider whether this is a democratic process or a foundation for procedures which will take away from people their democratic rights. The Australian Labor Party has the democratic right to bring in legislation, but in this Bill of Rights it is claiming to speak for all Australians. It says that this is a people's Bill of Rights. It is not. It is a narrow, politically inspired process that speaks for a few people. No consideration has been given to alternatives. The representations and the objections will start to flow now. Within a few days, perhaps a few hours, we will pass this significant legislation. It is being dealt with by the Australian House of Representatives, where the Government has the numbers. It will flow to the Senate, which may very well decide to have a committee on this matter, and then it will vote. The Australian Senate, controlled by the Australian Democrats, will decide what our Bill of Rights will be, and that is a dreadful thing for Australia. It will not finish up as the Australian Labor Party's Bill of Rights, it will be the Democrats' Bill of Rights. The whole democratic process that I would have thought could be adopted for a Bill of Rights will be lost. I would not mind a Bill of Rights if we could write a clause a year, after properly considering and gradually, through proper consultation and community awareness, improving the processes in Australia. I would not mind that at all, but the Government is going to throw the whole book at the Senate and say: `Fix it up instantaneously'. The Government is destroying the democratic process because it fails to recognise that it has a responsibility to the entire Australian nation, not to its political supporters. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(12.38) —The Bills before the House today to create an Australian Bill of Rights are, in my view, among the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before the Australian Parliament. This is truly an historic moment for the Australian Parliament. It had been my hope that this Parliament could have a serious and intellectually honest debate about the merits or otherwise of an Australian Bill of Rights. Such was not to be. At the first opportunity, the so-called small `l' liberals in the Liberal Party of Australia jumped on the bandwagon and allowed themselves to be dominated by the National Party of Australia in this Parliament. They came forward with some of the most intellectually insulting denunciations of the Bill of Rights that one could possibly imagine. If there is a need to give any proof of what I am asserting, just have a look at the speeches that have been made by the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). He was reported in a prominent national newspaper as asserting that the Bill of Rights did not contain a provision relating to the compulsory acquisition of property because this was some sort of machiavellian plot by the Australian Labor Party to have total and wholesale compulsory acquisitions of privately owned land for national Aboriginal land rights. As any first year law student would be able to tell honourable members, there is quite clearly in the Australian Constitution a principle, which has been there since Federation, that the Commonwealth cannot acquire property except on just terms. More importantly, the honourable member for Kooyong knows that in relation to the Government's national Aboriginal land rights program not one square inch of Australia has ever, under any of the Government's proposals, been the subject of any suggested claim by Aboriginal people. Yet the former Leader of the Opposition stooped into the gutter for short term political capital and stands condemned for it. However, that pales into insignificance when one looks at the statements made by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), the Liberal Party spokesman on industrial relations. I do not think that anyone, in seriously debating the Bill of Rights, could put forward the proposition that he put forward. He said in a news release-it is almost demeaning to repeat the comments as they make him the laughing stock of the Press Gallery-that the introduction of a Bill of Rights would mean `the end of local government in Australia as we know it'. In the brief time that I am allowed I hope I can make some serious comments about the Bill of Rights and take up some of the arguments which have been put forward by honest Liberals and honest people in the community, who do have some concerns about a Bill of Rights. I plead for this Parliament to have an honest debate about the Bill and to get out of the gutter, to put it frankly, and seriously debate the merits of the legislation before it. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his comprehensive second reading speech, went through an exhaustive analysis of the Bill. I do not propose to go over the same ground. Rather, I seek to highlight some of the important background matters and some of the history leading up to the Bill of Rights. It seems to me that this is really what the debate is all about. First of all it should be said that the guarantees of human rights in Australia are almost non-existent. Importantly, the Australian Constitution not only fails to enshrine basic standards for the protection of human rights but also it contains a grossly offensive provision in the form of section 25. It amazes me, with all the common ground existing in the Parliament in opposition to the general principle of racism, that we have a provision in our Constitution which is truly a national disgrace and one that I believe the Government, by referendum, ought to remove at the earliest opportunity. I hope the Opposition would join with the Government in so doing. I refer to section 25 of the Australian Constitution which provides that, for the purposes of deciding the members of the House of Representative in any one State: . . . if by law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. That means that if, for example, any State government passed a law some time in the future stopping Jewish people, Greeks, Italians or Aboriginal people from having the right to vote- Mr McGauran —It has not happened in Australia. Tell us the facts, not hypothetical things. Mr TICKNER —Once again members of the National Party of Australia are big on interjections but short on any factual evidence. If they examined the history of the treatment of the minorities by State governments and by our own Commonwealth Parliament, they would know that in this very chamber both sides of the House, to their eternal disgrace, for years championed the principle of the white Australia policy. Throughout the States of the Commonwealth Aboriginal people have, by all independent standards and analyses, been discriminated against by State governments. Honourable members opposite do not want to listen to the substance of what I think is a bipartisan argument. The Australian Constitution actually says that if a State government prohibits a race of people from voting in a State election for the more numerous House of the Parliament, we, as a nation, will recognise that and give effect to it in determining the number of members of the House of Representatives that will be elected from that State. In 1967 the Australian people voted, by a landslide majority of 92 per cent, to remove that discriminatory provision in section 51, and there was bipartisan support for that amendment. I call on the Government to initiate a further amendment to remove section 25. I have no doubt that the Liberal Party, and I hope, the National Party, would strongly support the removal of that provision. I quickly move on to what I believe to be the important reasons for supporting the enactment of a national Bill of Rights. It is clear that Australia has no effective protection and guarantees of human rights. I believe the first argument in support of a Bill of Rights will be that we will thereby honour Australia's international obligations. If Australia is to play a responsible role in the international community and if it is to enter into international obligations in the form of conventions or treaties, it is my belief that Australia has a legal and a political obligation to honour those treaties within Australia. I would like to give one very dramatic and very relevant example of where, to the shame of the Parliament and the Liberal and National parties, international conventions entered into by former Liberal and National Party governments as conventions binding on the Australian Government have been disowned by the current extreme right wing leadership of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Tangney, the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, has gone on the record as saying that the International Labour Organisation's conventions, to which former Liberal governments made Australia a party, `are irrelevant' to the current breaches of those conventions by the Queensland Government. I find that an extraordinary proposition, not only because those conventions were entered into by former coalition governments but because members in this Parliament today, including the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), have actually spoken at the International Labor Organisation in Geneva and defended not only the conventions but the need for those conventions to be given force in Australia. So once again: Double standards; internationally presenting a proper, a respectable, legal face for Australia, but on the home front grubby politics. I believe that a credibility gap will open up unless we implement the conventions to which Australia is party. The Attorney-General highlighted in his second reading speech that Australia is a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and participated in the work of developing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on which the Bill of Rights is based. Both the Holt and Menzies governments participated in the development of that covenant, which was signed by the Whitlam Government in 1972. There was bipartisan support for the ratification of that covenant, and it was ratified by the Fraser Government in 1980. It was, of course, the Fraser Government which established the Human Rights Commission which is being renamed and reconstituted as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the legislation before the House. The thrust of my first argument in support of the Bill is that by Article 2 of the Covenant Australia is bound to respect and ensure to all individuals the rights in the Covenant. Article 2.2 of the Covenant specifically commits Australia to adopting legislative measures to give effect to the rights in the Covenant. That is a specific international obligation. Clearly, any failure to implement a Bill of Rights would render the Covenant a Mickey Mouse treaty. If we are serious about creating a new world order in which totalitarian governments would be forced to honour human rights-and in this case there ought to be bipartisan support-then we must honour our obligations to set an example for the world by enacting a Bill of Rights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.49) —I move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement, and (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance by sectional vested interests including some members of the medical profession. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Blanchard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and formally reserve my right to speak in the debate. Mrs KELLY —The Hawke Labor Government, through the establishment of Medicare, has firmly established two important principles for health funding in Australia: A universal entitlement to a basic level of health service, and income related payment through the taxation system. These two principles have been accepted and praised by the Australian electorate and provide a delivery of health care in this country which is second to none. That is not to say that the Government or the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) are complacent about their success, and that is not to say that they are not looking for ways to improve the system, especially in encouraging efficiency in health care delivery systems. While the Minister is in the House, I should like to congratulate him on the great attention that he has given to this very important area of trying to ensure that the Australian taxpayer's dollar is spent most efficiently in the health care area. Australians spent $17 billion in 1984-85 on health care in Federal and State Government outlays and in private expenditure. In terms of the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health, this is not excessive by comparison with such expenditure in other advanced industrial countries. A much greater proportion is spent in Scandinavian countries, in West Germany and in the United States. The breakup of expenditure paints an interesting picture of where the money is being spent. The latest study we have, which is a 1980-81 study, points out that the breakup is: Hospitals, 44 per cent; doctors, 21 per cent; pharmaceuticals, 10 per cent; and nursing homes, 8 per cent. There is probably little difference in reality today. So it can be seen that there are fairly rigid proportions of spending in this area. There has been a steady growth in the overall medical budget over the past 20 years. Health economist Paul Goss apportions 60 per cent of this due to rises in prices and increases in wages, 30 per cent due to rates of rise or intensity of use for contacts-and we know who is responsible for that-and about 10 per cent based on aging and increasing population. The Opposition, of course, always ready to come on the attack with a very negative approach, says that there has been an 11 per cent increase in medical costs in 1985-86. But as the Minister said on 21 August, 6 per cent of the increase was due to increases in fairly arbitrated doctor's fee increases-I presume the members of the Opposition do not object to that-and 5 per cent to utilisation increases, 2 per cent being directly related to aging of the population. So it is a gross oversimplification, and it demonstrates the very shallow thinking of the Opposition, just to produce the glib statistics-or the glib interjections that we were getting at the beginning of my speech-on health costs, as the Opposition has done. Mr Porter —The rate of increase is now 16 per cent. Mrs KELLY —Well, what is your solution? What does it say?-`We will not look at ways of curbing costs. What we will do is simply transfer all expenditure'. Instead of the Government having any role in relation to it, what Opposition members propose is that the individual and the private funds will pay for it. That is a very simplistic approach and it will not work. The Opposition's policy abandons any income related payment for basic private insurance. Mr Porter —They are paying more than that now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will have his opportunity shortly. Mrs KELLY —Everybody will be paying it, whether they are process workers, whether they are the Prime Minister. One of the key differences is that our approach is related to income; it is more equitable. Also, the Opposition's glib comments do nothing to concentrate on the real concern-the total cost to the community of health care. There is no point in just shifting the burden around. What we really have to do is to look at the total cost to the community of health care. The Liberal Party's answer to health policy is to debate it by slogan rather than substance; to turn the clock backwards towards the days when we had the private funds and hospital means testing. That was not the answer in the period from 1975 to 1983, and it is not going to be the answer today. The centralised statistical material available now through Medicare is providing particularly useful information for the first time on expenditure patterns in health. I have been involved in this particularly with the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the pathology industry. Prior to March 1985 there was no system to effectively review Medicare pathology benefits claims. The information now available enabled this Committee of the Parliament to profile the pathology industry in a way which demonstrated the oligopolistic nature of the industry, the patterns of services and the entrepreneurial characteristics of the industry. That is not to say that the development of large entrepreneurially run practices is in itself undesirable. In the United States, for example, the growth in vertically integrated organisations providing primary services, referral and diagnostic services and in some cases hospitalisation, has proved to be very cost efficient. However, in the United States this is occurring where health services are pre-paid as health maintenance organisations. I welcome the Health Minister's inquiry into the establishment of such a system in Australia. In Australia, where fee for service is the norm, the linking within the one structure of all these services is a clear recipe for cost maximisation. A patient is easily referred from one level of the corporate structure to another, with only marginal-but just enough to be legal in many cases-benefit to be gained from a chain of specialist or diagnostic referrals. Given the benefits that can apply through the linking of complementary health service providers in a vertically integrated structure, it would be counter-productive to try to make such arrangements illegal. Such a move would also probably be an exercise in futility; the Public Accounts Committee report documented that informal practices grow up of kick-backs or fee splitting, and they create an unpoliceable common interest between the referring doctor and the diagnostician. The ultimate solution for this dilemma may prove to be change in the system of payment, especially in a situation where there is little patient contact and a very high technical and capital component in the service provided. I think it is very useful that the Minister for Health has discussed this issue on many occasions. Obviously changes of this dimension have to be carefully discussed and should not be a subject for any quick action. We need co-operation between all sectors in the medical profession, and we have learnt that unfortunately that is one area in which it is very difficult to achieve. Part 3 of my motion refers to the attacks on the universal health system by vested interests, and we have seen plenty of them in this country. The health care system abounds with very vocal and tenacious vested interests. The competing interests are highlighted in Dr Sidney Sax's recent book A Strife of Interests. In the book's preface, Sax makes it clear that: Health service planning is not a gentlemanly exchange of information between actors sharing a common consensus about what needs to be done. It has been described as planning by decibels because powerful vested interests dominate the policy making process. The system is much more complex than the Government on one side and the medical profession on the other. There has been a proliferation of doctor's organisations. There are private doctors, public hospital doctors, general practitioners, specialists, surgeons, procedural specialists-all of these groups are pushing their own barrows. But apart from Government and the medical profession, there are also other significant interest groups. There are the nurses, the dentists and other service providers; there are hospitals, public or private, and their administrators; public health funds; trade unions; and universities. At any one time, extraordinary alliances are formed between these groups in order to protect a shared interest. That, of course, is not necessarily in the best interests of the general community. That is the real problem in this area. Some members of these particular lobby groups see themselves as a law unto themselves. They see themselves as the high lords of the profession and they do not like having rules made for them. They think that they should be able to run the profession in the way they think appropriate. One example of that was brought to me recently in my electorate. A very elderly patient was in Royal Canberra Hospital for a fair period, from February 1984 to June 1985. During all of that time, her visiting specialist refused to sign the 3B certificate-which would allow the patient to remain in hospital for acute hospital care. So what happened? Just because this doctor decided he did not like that form and did not like the system-he was consistently asked by the hospital administration to sign the form, but he ignored it-my constituent, this elderly woman in her seventies, now has a bill of over $5,000. Who is going to pay it? She cannot do so. She has been subjected to enormous worry just because this one particular doctor said: `Those rules don't apply to me. I don't like them; so, we can forget about them. Rip them up'. But it is the patient who is subjected to the worry and concern. Of course, that is not new. This struggle between all vested interests has existed since 1910, when there was the first attempt to introduce universal free hospital care in Australia by a State Labor government in New South Wales. The Curtin Government attempted to introduce a scheme for free prescribed medicines in 1944. The Chifley Government attempted to introduce universal health care just after World War II. The first success of any kind came in 1975 with the Whitlam Government's introduction of Medibank. But this was only after a bitter fight with the medical profession and the repeated rejection of the legislation in the Liberal-controlled Senate. Medibank was only introduced through the passage of legislation of the parliamentary Joint Sitting that followed the 1974 double dissolution. Medicare has now become the most recent episode in the struggle between the Labor Party and the medical profession. Obviously, there is a common thread that binds the Curtin, the Chifley, the Whitlam and the Hawke governments. They are all very different Prime Ministers leading very different sorts of governments in different eras. This common thread was described by Peter Smark in the Sydney Morning Herald in the following terms: They-- meaning the surgeons-- . . . have thus continued to insist on their power to accord as a gift of favour services to patients they regard as underprivileged. To the Labor Party, even to its most pragmatic and conservative elements, all Australians are seen as having a right to the best possible medical treatment, not the right to be accorded charity. And nor to be accorded it by the surgeons. This is the fundamental principle of Medicare and is the principle which this Government is determined to preserve. I commend my motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(1.04) —The action of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), especially today, in congratulating the Government on its health policy must be the most dishonest, deceitful, cruel, sick and uncaring action ever to be taken by a member of this House. For today in Canberra we are seeing a continuation of the worst government-generated industrial chaos the public hospital sector in this city has ever seen. Hospital nurses, community nurses and social workers are on strike or have bans in place in this city. The Professional Officers Association is protesting on the steps of this House today. Of course, this action follows the numerous strikes by laundry workers in the hospital sector. For the honourable member for Canberra to have the gall to come in here today and to congratulate the Government on its health system when the public hospital beds in this city and around Australia are closed, industrial chaos is at its worst and the queues of people waiting for hospital beds are the worst they have ever been, is the height of hypocrisy. Instead of congratulating the Government, the honourable member for Canberra should be trying to do something for her electorate. She should be pressing the Government to change Medicare and to resolve the worsening hospital crisis. With the introduction of Medicare, many people gave up their private insurance because the Government told them Medicare would look after them; and many, of course, could not afford the cost of private insurance over and above the cost of the Medicare levy. The result has been a shift of patients from the private sector to the public sector, and this has led to a massive growth in queues for public hospital beds. Those queues are growing, and they are growing because the Government has not increased the funding to public hospitals to cope with the increased demand. In fact, this year the Government has reduced funding in real terms for recurrent public hospital expenditure, which, of course, has further aggravated the situation. How bad are the queues? In Victoria there are some 26,800 people waiting for a public hospital bed. According to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the queues under the previous Liberal Government amounted to around 8,000 people. In other words, the situation now is three times worse. It is three times worse under Labor than it was under the previous Government-and the honourable member for Canberra moves a motion here today saying that this is fair. Fair! Those in the queues, of course, are pensioners, the disadvantaged and others who cannot afford private insurance and who are, therefore, denied access to the empty hospital beds in the private sector. The Government has replaced the balanced private and public health care delivery system with a two-class system. If one can afford to pay the Medicare levy and take out private insurance, one has guaranteed access to high quality health care. If one is a pensioner or a low income earner and one cannot afford private insurance, one gets second class health care under Medicare. Instead of access to a hospital bed, one gets on a queue-a queue, which is growing longer and longer, for a bed in a rapidly deteriorating public hospital system where the standard of care is also now falling. And the Government has the gall to suggest that this is a fair health system. It is a grotesquely unfair health system. Until Medicare, those who relied on the public hospitals could expect a very high standard of service and they were not disadvantaged by being a public patient. Today they are disadvantaged. This is not a political statement by me; it is a fact. Independent commentators all round the country agree. Let me pick one. The Melbourne Age-hardly known as a supporter of the coalition on welfare issues-said on 19 October: It is surely an indictment on our health system that private insurance and money can buy you lifesaving surgery. It is an indictment of Medicare, which we were told was designed to do away with one sort of medical care for the poor and another for the better off. In fact . . . Medicare has just made the divisions worse. The Labor Government promised people they could, if they paid their levy, just come along-- and in the case of the Melbourne Age, to the Royal Melbourne- and have the treatment they need. The Government encouraged people to get rid of their private insurance. The waiting lists and the industrial turmoil have been the result. They are not my words. That is not a political comment by the Government's political opponents. It is a comment from the editor of the Melbourne Age. It just happens to support everything we have been saying for the last two years and the honourable member for Canberra comes in here today and says that we have the fairest, most efficient, most equitable hospital system. No one in Australia agrees with her. The Government, Health Minister Blewett and this motion suggest that our health system is fair. It is the most unfair and cruel system this country has ever seen. I genuinely wish that some of the champagne socialists who now lead the Labor Party would get out of Canberra; get out of their ivory castles, and see the effect of their commitment to the nationalisation of health-see the effect it is having on the poor, the elderly and the chronically ill and see the dreadful cases of hardship, where very sick and disabled people are having to wait months and, in some cases, in excess of a year for surgery. It really highlights the pathetic face of socialism. As a result of the introduction of Medicare which has led to increased pressure on the public hospital system, nurses have said they are not prepared to continue to work under such stressful circumstances. Over 10 per cent of nurses in public hospitals have resigned since the introduction of Medicare. That is not just my claim but it comes from the head of the nurses federation. Those resignations have led to more public hospital bed closures and that, of course, has led to increased queues. Now the nurses have been forced to take industrial action. In Victoria, the week before last, and in Canberra today, when this well-timed motion was brought forward by the honourable member for Canberra, the nurses have been forced under these circumstances to take industrial action to improve their lot under the new Medicare arrangements. They had problems before Medicare; I accept that there was a lack of appropriate career structures, and that there was a problem in relation to their pay rates. But Medicare has been the last straw. Medicare has forced 10 per cent of them to resign. Medicare has forced them into industrial action. Industrial chaos has never been worse in the hospital sector than it is now, since the introduction of Medicare. Medicare is not fair on the patients and it is not considered fair by the nurses, or by the doctors who resigned or withdrew their services, or by laundry workers. The honourable member for Canberra ought to know about the chaos in this city. The laundry workers, the social workers, the hospital nurses, the community nurses-they are all out today or have applied bans. As I said earlier today, outside this very Parliament, the Professional Officers Association's physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists are protesting about their terms of employment. How in the hell the honourable member for Canberra can come into this House today and argue about the fairness of this Government's health system when health professionals from almost every area are protesting against the system and when patients cannot get a hospital bed is absolutely beyond me. Since Labor introduced Medicare, the cost to the Government for the provision of Medicare and hospital benefits has increased by $3 billion. The problem is we are paying more and getting less. Medicare and bulk billing have encouraged a rip off of taxpayers' funds the likes of which this country has not seen before. And the Government suggests that that is fair and efficient. It is outrageous. It is not fair to the Australian public to be misled into thinking that the levy pays for Medicare when in fact it pays for only about a third of the cost of Medicare. It is not fair for those who choose private insurance to have to pay twice for their health cover. It is not fair that people of marginal or low incomes should be forced to rely on a second class health system which is available under Medicare because the Government's policies have put private insurance beyond their reach. It is not fair for public hospitals to be forced to provide care for an ever-increasing demand generated by Medicare with no increase in funding to meet that demand. It is not fair for those needing Government assistance to have to compete with the better off for the limited public hospital resources. The motion suggests that Medicare is efficient. Consider the doctors' resignations, nurses' strikes, mass resignations of at least 10 per cent of nurses in the public hospital work force, continued industrial turmoil, and hundreds of closed public hospital beds in the face of growing waiting lists for those beds. If the honourable member for Canberra and the Government and the Australian Labor Party suggest that simplicity and efficiency is represented by those factors, then undoubtedly Medicare is a success. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(1.18) —I rise to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). I shall deal with the empty and emotional rhetoric of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) later in my comments. What I want to do now is to look at the situation in respect of the health insurance scheme of this country in a historical context. One of the tragedies of health care in this country in recent years, and certainly since the introduction of Medibank in July 1975, has been the way that the Opposition, when in government, attempted to make sure that a comprehensive health scheme did not become a reality. Between 1976 and 1983, the Liberal-National Party coalition restructured the insurance scheme so that little of the original Medibank remained. Those opposite who still hanker after the days of voluntary private health insurance should remember that a committee of inquiry into the operations of the voluntary scheme under Mr Justice Nimmo in 1968 found that the then system was: . . . unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many. It was generally found wanting. In particular, many people were not covered by insurance. It was as a result of the inadequacies of the existing system that the Medibank scheme was introduced in 1975. For the first time, every person in the country had adequate health care. I remind the House of promises made by the Liberals in the 1975 election campaign: . . . to maintain Medibank and ensure that the standard of care does not decline. Those words were spoken by Mr Fraser in his policy speech in 1975. Promises from the Liberals and their National Party allies are not, as we all know, to be taken at their face value. Subsequent events proved that, because once having obtained office in 1975, the Liberals and their coalition partners attempted to dismantle Medibank. The 1976 changes to Medibank were based on the rationale that whilst Medibank had achieved universal coverage, this was at the expense of the economy and efficiency. Certainly, there were increased costs. This was because over a million were previously without cover, many of whom were in the low income brackets yet still needing medical care and attention, which at least they were able to obtain under Medibank. Of course costs went up. The 1976 changes made the scheme more complex and confusing to the public and more expensive to administer, and it was a deliberate attempt to shift contributions back to private insurance. The 1978 changes to Medibank again showed the inability of the then Government to foresee the consequences of its legislation. I just refer briefly to one issue to illustrate the inadequacies of the changes of that year. This was the operation of bulk billing arrangements for the `socially disadvantaged'. `Socially disadvantaged' was not defined in the legislation. It was left to the doctor to define whether the patient was a disadvantaged person. If so defined the doctor was able to bulk bill. Naturally this drew criticism-based upon such problems as securing equity for patients in similar circumstances attending different doctors, or the possibility of hardship because patients were unwilling to raise the matter of being declared a socially disadvantaged person; and one can understand their motivations in not doing so. There were further modifications in 1979 and 1981. These had the impact of worsening State-Commonwealth relations in this area of health care. In other words, during the period between 1975 and the advent of the present Government to office in 1983, there was a deliberate attempt to downgrade the universal health scheme introduced by the Whitlam Government. This was done more for ideological reasons than for reasons of economy. It is against this background that Medicare was introduced by the present Government. It brought Australian health insurance arrangements more or less back to the original Medibank principles, except that a levy is used instead of revenue funding, which was made necessary in 1975 by the Senate's rejection of the then levy legislation. Despite what the honourable member for Barker has just said, there is a greater public acceptance of Medicare because it is seen as being based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency. It is because Medicare is fair, simple and efficient that we on this side of the House urge the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement. It is because of the success of the scheme that certain sectional vested interests, including some members of the medical profession, have thought fit to attack the scheme. Although the medical professions throughout Australia express many reservations about the Medicare proposals, the greatest and strongest opposition to the scheme since it began operating on 1 February 1984 has occurred in New South Wales. This, perhaps, can be related to a number of facts, among which are the closures of several well known inner city hospitals, and the movement of services to suburban hospitals which aroused opposition. In New South Wales there are private hospitals but many people enter the State hospital system as private patients. So any Medicare rule which affects the work of visiting doctors and specialists will have great effect and impact in New South Wales. Again, in New South Wales there are more doctors per head of population than in any other Australian State, so competition is greater. Therefore, any change of arrangements which could lead to a reduction of public hospital generated incomes provokes immediate and well organised opposition from the medical profession. Of course, whilst members of the medical profession have a philosophical opposition to Medicare, for many in their ranks it has been a financial bonanza. If we examine the health expenditure in recent years, we find that one of the major avenues of increased expenditure has been medical benefits being paid for diagnostic services such as pathology and radiology. In July 1983, a conference of Health Ministers resolved to proceed, through amendments of section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, to provide that medical benefits would be payable for services to private patients in public hospitals only if certain conditions were complied with. One of those conditions was that no more than the schedule fee would be charged for each service provided to a private patient in a public hospital. This led to the first doctors' strike for many years. The Government responded to the strike by establishing the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. Negotiations were then entered into by the Commonwealth and the Australian Medical Association, and agreement was reached for settlement of the dispute. On 22 February 1985, the AMA issued a Press statement which was published in all New South Wales daily newspapers. An extract from that statement, which was signed by Dr Lindsay Thompson, President of the AMA, states: It would not be productive to invite Dr Bruce Shepherd and Dr Michael Aroney to join the negotiating team. Their beligerent and divisive posturing and unrealistic demands have failed to achieve a resolution to the dispute. It is time for constructive negotiations to begin before the potential for harm to patients spreads to other States. He went on to say: The standing and welfare of the medical profession depends on two basic principles stated in the Code of Ethics: `I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity. The health of my patient will be my first consideration'. Dr Thompson finished up by saying: These principles are in jeopardy. This was about the strike in New South Wales. What an indictment it is on certain members of the medical profession that the President of the AMA had to refer to their `beligerent and divisive posturing'. Let us look at some of the statements made by one of the persons named, Dr Bruce Shepherd. In a Channel 10 Eye Witness news interview on 9 January 1985, in answer to the question, `Is this dispute worth a life?', he responded by saying: I can only say that if we don't prevent this Government from pursuing this present folly there will be many, many lives lost and many, many maimed people left, as there has been in any nationalised country. What he is really saying is: `I do not care a damn about those suffering from serious illnesses'. But that is not all. However, because of time constraints I will have to finish on this note: A few days later he made the following statement: The only thing this Government understands is someone standing with one foot on their throats and the other kicking their private parts. That is from a leading specialist. What a shocking comment to make. That is why we condemn attacks on the universal health insurance scheme by members of the medical profession. I support the motion. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(1.31) —Listening to the contributions of the honourable members for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and Moore (Mr Blanchard), one cannot help but feel that one is stepping through the looking-glass of a Lewis Carroll world. The unreality, or, at best, the naivety, of both those Government members is staggering. I invite those two honourable members, and indeed, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is in the chamber, to accompany me, at the rise of this Parliament in early December, to Melbourne. Come and visit the hospitals, see the waiting lists, and see the distraught and distressed people waiting in that queue of 27,000 people in Melbourne alone waiting for surgery. The irony of the honourable member for Canberra moving this motion should not be lost on either this chamber or the people of Australia. In the first place, the honourable member for Canberra has an electorate which is in a privileged position. It has more beds per head of population than anywhere else in Australia. So whilst beds are closing down all over Australia-at least 1,000 beds in Melbourne and Sydney have to be closed-in Canberra they can be closed almost at will and there would still be sufficient beds for the demand. But the irony goes further than that. The irony is that not only did the honourable member for Canberra step through the looking glass in entering this chamber, she had to step across picket lines outside this chamber. Moreover, the list of those involved in health care on strike or applying bans in Canberra is quite extraordinary. Hospital nurses, community nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, speech therapists and occupational therapists are either on strike or applying bans, thereby expressing their total dissatisfaction with the inadequacies of the present system. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) the Leader of the Government in this House, has had the stupidity to assign to the House for General Business a motion by the honourable member for Canberra congratulating the Government on its excellent health care. It is just absolutely ridiculous, and worse-it is callous. Each person in Australia has as his or her No. 1 priority good health. So it is very easy for governments and, for that matter, oppositions, to cynically trade on this simple fact of life. They can promise; they can engage in hyperbole; they can engage in exaggeration-as did members of this Government prior to the 1983 election and as the Government has since the introduction of Medicare. Where one has unlimited demand for free health but with a limited budget, one will necessarily have a decrease in the standard of services. That is essentially Medicare's fatal flaw, which cannot be corrected-except by abolishing the system. Bulk billing allows for unlimited free care, which allows for unlimited underwriting of a number of unscrupulous entrepreneurial doctors who milk the system, and milk it to the detriment of taxpayers. People forget who pays for health care. It is the taxpayer. If persons seeking health care are not made aware of the cost to the taxpayer, then of course there will be an excessive increase in the utilisation of that health care. Why is it necessary for this Government to try to re-invent the wheel? This system has been tried all over the world-in the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. In each of those countries it has been an unmitigated disaster. Why can we not learn the lessons? Any doctor who comes to this country or anybody who has been to those countries overseas knows the terrible problems. This is why I accuse the Government of being callous and indifferent to the suffering of so many individuals. The bottom line is that the standard of care provided diminishes tremendously. As we know, the Government has a role, obviously, in health care. Basically, there are four divisions in health care services. Firstly, there is preventive medicine. Government has a role in it: Then there is medical education. Government has a role in it: Then research; Government has a role in that. In those three divisions of health care, government has the dominant role. But with the fourth division being curative medicine, then the private role is necessary so as to lift the burden off the Government; to ease, in consequence, the burden on taxpayers. It is the total involvement of government in curative medicine, to the exclusion of the private sector, that has given us the mess that Medicare unquestionably is. Health care starts off as a social problem and then develops into a budgetary problem. Casualty wards have closed in Melbourne. There are hundreds of beds that also have had to be closed. The reason is simple: It is that public hospitals have been starved of funds, not only for patients, I hasten to add, but also for research and teaching. Doctors and nurses have been striking, and that is unheard of in the history of those very noble professions. The reason is the excessive Government intrusion into their industries. But such strikes by doctors and nurses are quite common in those countries overseas which have this type of nationalised, socialised health care. The precedent is there again: We fail to learn from the overseas experience. Labor has said on a number of occasions that health care is too important to leave in the hands of doctors. How ridiculous-because who else really cares? Who else can provide the service? It is absolute lunacy to exclude doctors and to engage in the anti-doctor bias that this Government relishes. Prior to the big Government intrusion into health care in this country, prior to this socialised system of health care, we had a health care system that was the envy of the world; make no mistake. Any furphy put up by any member of the Government that the previous coalition Government did not run an efficient, caring, health care service is engaging in semantics, or, worse, disinformation. At the risk of stating the obvious, there were faults in the previous system. But there will always, in a human institution, be faults. Our responsibility as legislators is to work to correct those faults and improve the system as best we can. It was the envy of the world, because that previous coalition system cared for the great number of disadvantaged or pensioners throughout this country; and the few-and I hasten to add that it was a few-that were not covered by medical insurance, were in the process of being subsidised in medical insurance when we lost the election. Make no mistake: This is Medibank 1 replayed as Medicare. It has done nothing more than place misery on those people that it so proudly proclaims it will protect. Medicare is a lame duck; but more than that, it is a very costly lame duck. It does not live up to its promises of basic public hospital treatment to the disadvantaged. It is expensive because it allows and, in fact, encourages, the use of expensive and unnecessary medicine. Let us have a look at the Budget summary of Medicare. The first thing to notice about the Budget of August 1985 is that medical benefits, that is, the payments to doctors, have increased by 11.4 per cent. Bear in mind that the inflation rate is estimated at 8 per cent. Secondly, hospital services, that is, payment to hospitals, are down, because the increase to hospital services is only 7 per cent, which is less than the 8 per cent inflation rate. Moreover, the Budget reveals that the private sector has been further squeezed. The private hospital subsidy was cut from 6.5 per cent in real terms, allowing for the inflation rate, and private funds have had their reinsurance pool stripped from $100m to $5m, which can only add to the further increase in private health costs. Just look at the figures. Neither the honourable member for Canberra nor the honourable member for Moore addressed the three basic problems with Medicare: Firstly, the cost, which involves bulk billing principally; secondly, the lowering of the standard of health care throughout this country; and thirdly, the problem of overservicing. This system allows overservicing to a great degree. Let me deal again with the cost of Medicare. After its first full year of operation we are able to estimate its cost. It is a staggering $2.2 billion. The figures for that year, to June 1985, show that more than 15.8 million Medicare cards were issued, and-wait for it-more than 113 million claims were processed. Direct billing by the doctors accounted for almost 40 per cent of those payments by the Government. Is it any wonder that Australians are being misled by the Labor Government as to the true cost of Medicare. To say that one per cent levy on all income will meet the cost of Medicare is dishonest. The Government knows-and any Government member can correct me if I am wrong-that the true cost of that $2.2 billion is far more than one per cent. It has been estimated at about 1.7 per cent of people's income. But of course, the Government takes the money away from the more indefinable Consolidated Revenue pool, so that, for political reasons the true cost of Medicare is not conveyed to the taxpayer. After all, no less an authority than Professor Penington, who is a respected and close adviser to this Government, has called for the scrapping of bulk billing. One of the main architects or one of those who has had a great deal to do with the development of this Government's health policies, Professor Penington has called for the central plank of Medicare to be abolished. There is no better authority, although I must say that the figures stand for themselves. When questioned by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) on 12 September, about Professor Penington's calls to scrap bulk billing, the Minister's response was quite incredible. He simply said that he did not yet have any evidence of the damaging effects of bulk billing. The evidence, Minister, is that some 40 per cent of the payments under Medicare, $2.2 billion is attributable to direct billing. What further evidence does the Government wish? There has been an increase in the number of those seeking health care in this country since the introduction of Medicare, and that increase in utilisation of medical services cannot be attributed to an increase in illness. Instead, it is directly attributable to the free health unfettered provision of Medicare payments, and the apparent enormous increase in illness is linked to the bulk billing. I wish to touch also on the increase in the size of the bureaucracy charged with administering Medicare, and that is in health insurance. The number of health insurance staff in 1983 was almost 1,700. It has increased, to 4 October 1985, after Medicare has been implemented, to almost 4,500-an increase from 1,700 to 4,500. It is the same everywhere throughout the world. When countries nationalise and socialise to a central health care system, the bureaucracy expands, in the same way that the cost to the taxpayer does; and on a different graph, the standard of services to those actually ill decreases. Medicare is simply an open invitation to dishonest doctors to manipulate it for excessive gains. I have served on the Medicare fraud inquiry and I can assure the House that I am not satisfied with the genuine attempt by the Minister to tackle that problem to date. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Dr Blewett) agreed to: That the time for discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(1.46) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the motion which has been moved by the member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). Medicare is, unquestionably, one of the Hawke Government's most significant social reforms. When we were elected to power in March 1983, we won an undeniable mandate for the introduction of our Medicare health insurance program. We introduced Medicare, on schedule on 1 February 1984. It is a program under which no Australian is denied access to medical treatment in the community or in public hospital services. It has put to an end the unacceptable and discriminatory situation which occurred under the previous Government when up to two million largely poor and underprivileged Australians were without any form of health cover or insurance at all. It is a simple, fair and an affordable health insurance system that provides basic health cover for all Australians. In the debate that has been conducted so far on this motion, Opposition members have made a number of claims-none of them, I am pleased to say, based on any semblance of fact at all-about the operation of Medicare. They have claimed that Medicare represents an attack on the poor. I find it astounding that an Opposition which conducted three or four different dismantlings of Medibank from 1975 and which operated a health insurance system in which two million Australians had no cover-those who did paid a flat rate through private insurance with a regressive impact on people on low incomes-can claim that Medicare is an attack on the poor. Contributions to Medicare are income-related. I point out to members of the Opposition that, on the basis of the income thresholds that were set this year, a family in Australia with three dependent children needs to have an income in excess of $17,000 per annum before it contributes towards Medicare. Equally, most pensioners and beneficiaries, on their income levels, are exempt from any contribution at all to Medicare. Yet, despite his or her exemption from any Medicare contribution, each and every Australian has full access to medical and hospital treatment. I compare that with the record of the Fraser Government. Under its policies a family on an income of $12,500 a year, taking private insurance at a flat rate, paid in excess of 5 per cent of its income towards health insurance whereas a family on $32,000 or $35,000 a year paid only 2 per cent of its income towards health insurance. I make it clear that from the mandate we received to introduce Medicare, there is no question that the general public supports an income-related Medicare levy system which levies at one per cent of income. The second claim that has been made by the Opposition is that Medicare has resulted in a cut back of funds for hospitals and that that has resulted, amongst other things, in waiting lists for public hospitals. Again, I point out for the benefit of the Opposition-it seems to lack access to information in Budget Papers or Medicare documents-that in some of the States mentioned by the Opposition, in Victoria for instance, since Medicare was introduced in 1984 the Federal Government has provided more than $400m. It has not provided $40m or $50m but $400m in payments for recurrent grants to hospitals in Victoria. It has paid more than $600m to New South Wales. To South Australia it has paid almost $200m. They are Commonwealth grants towards the recurrent cost of running hospitals. In other words, the States are getting very substantial funding from this Government for hospital and health programs. The funds more than compensate for the revenue lost by the States by the removal of charges to public patients since the introduction of Medicare. The Opposition has attempted to claim, despite the fact that about $1.6 billion has been paid by the Commonwealth to the States for public hospitals, that Medicare is responsible for hospital waiting lists. I can only say to Opposition members that I hope that in developing their policy over time they do a little more research than they have done in this debate today. The Victorian Minister for Health recently concluded a government inquiry into waiting lists. It did not show that Medicare is responsible for waiting lists in Victoria but that a number of factors have affected hospital throughput, in other words hospital efficiency, and demand. I have the report here which the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) might like to look at. It shows that in Victoria three years ago hospitals had a throughput of 148,000 patients. They now have a throughput of 133,000. That has nothing to do with Medicare and if the honourable member thinks it has he is plainly stupid. It is a question of hospital throughput. The report lists a number of reasons for the decline in throughput in hospitals. It says that there is a shortage of some nursing staff, that there was a 1.5 per cent budget cut by the Victorian Government in 1984-85 and that the decline has also been caused by industrial action. The report also lists a number of factors which have affected the demand on public hospitals. Contrary to the honourable member's amazingly ignorant assertion that the increase in demand for public hospitals has all come about because of Medicare he would be interested to know that other factors are at work in the community. For instance, he might be interested to know-we can lend him a report on this-that the population in Australia is aging. As people age they tend to get more frail and demand more medical services. The Victorian report says that one of the major reasons for the increase in demand and waiting list problems is the demographic nature of society-our population is aging. It also states that improved technology has resulted in increased demand for joint replacements. That is a big cause of the waiting lists. It states that there have been epidemiological changes, such as pre-carcinoma of the cervix and drug addiction, and, of course, higher community expectations as a result of the heightened awareness of services offered, such as cosmetic plastic surgery. They are the factors that have affected waiting lists, not Medicare. It is preposterous that the Opposition asserts that. There have been declines in hospital throughput for a number of reasons and there have been increasing demands. The honourable member for Barker can smile smugly. I will lend him the report after the debate so that he can educate himself a little. A few other claims have been made. The Opposition has suggested that Medicare has resulted in cost increases. What an absurd assertion. One would really have to be an idiot to make such an assertion. The only cost increase that has occurred under Medicare is that for the same level of care, in terms of total utilisation, more of the cost is met by the Government than was previously met by people privately. All the honourable member is saying is that under Medicare there has been a shift to the Commonwealth via a levy system which picks up a greater proportion of the cost and less is being paid by people through the private insurance system. Of course that is what has happened but the overall cost has not increased, it is just that the proportions shared between the public and private sectors have changed. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that there have been cost increases. If the honourable member wants to use the cost argument he should look at the efficiency at the Health Insurance Commission. It is able to operate the whole Medicare system for about $130m a year in administration costs. In 1982-83 the 60 private funds that administered the previous Government's system had administrative costs of $163m. We have saved $50m to $60m just on operational efficiencies through the health insurance system. The honourable member has also claimed that under Medicare there has been an 11 per cent increase in medical benefit costs. As the honourable member for Canberra explained, 6 per cent of that is due to arbitrated doctors' fee increases. The remaining 5 per cent can be said to represent utilisation, of which some 2 per cent represents demographic changes. The honourable member's assertion that the increase in utilisation is due to bulk billing ignores all the historical evidence on the use of medical services that has ever been assembled. The increase in medical services, per capita, over the past decade has been of the same order from year to year. It has been the same under Liberal or Labor governments. It has been the same under Medibank or any of the five different schemes that followed it. Regardless of whether there was universal bulk billing, no bulk billing or partial bulk billing, that utilisation of services has been the same. The Opposition ought to know that all the historical evidence shows that the increase in medical services has much more to do with increases in the number of doctors per head than any other single factor. Page 203 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts report on medical fraud and overservicing-of course, the Opposition was represented on that Committee-stated quite clearly that the only statistical evidence that has been carried out on bulk billing shows that there was no greater use or abuse of services where doctors bulk billed compared with patient billing. I point out again for the information and benefit of the honourable member for Barker that the same evidence was presented to the former Liberal Government's Health Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), in a briefing from the Health Insurance Commission way back in 1978. Let us get to the cost control question because that is fundamental to this issue. The Opposition spokesman has come in here today and suggested that Medicare has no cost control mechanisms. I wonder whether he has ever looked at his own alternative policies in health care. One of the things which the Opposition promises in the future if it ever gets back into government, and that is many years away, is 100 per cent medical insurance. If Opposition members bothered to read Professor Penington's report they would see that he recommended against 100 per cent medical insurance. When Andrew Peacock was Leader of the Liberal Party, he said that the Liberals' basic scheme would cover those who were unable to take out private insurance and the remaining numbers-about 90 per cent of the community-would be insuring privately. The Liberals would introduce a scheme, if they ever got the chance, that would virtually abandon any income related payment. Everyone from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down to process workers would be forced to pay over $20 a week for basic private insurance. That would drive up the consumer price index and lead to increased inflation. Because of the regressive flat tax which is paid to health funds, it would hit ordinary working Australians on average earnings hardest in exactly the same way as the Liberals' previous policy did. In simple terms, the promised abolition of Medicare's fair and income related way of paying for health care would be the catalyst of high inflation. It would erode living standards for ordinary Australians and, as I said, it would hit hardest those who can least afford to pay. To conclude, I say that the motion before us today asserts that Medicare is a fair, simple, efficient and affordable health insurance system. I know that every member of the House and the majority of the Australian people believe that Medicare is fair, simple and efficient. It is fundamental to the beliefs of the Labor movement. It has been fundamental to the Labor movement since 1900. It is a belief that all Australians, irrespective of their wealth, their privilege, are entitled to the best possible health care. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence for General Business has expired. The honourable member for Bendigo will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr ANDREW —I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to the fact that one of the four major savings banks, which provide in total over 50 per cent of housing loans in Australia, has announced that it intends to cut its housing loans by 70 per cent and that two other savings banks have indicated their intention to curtail severely lending for housing. I ask the Minister: What does the Government intend to do to ensure that savings banks will continue to be a major provider of housing loans? Mr WEST —What the honourable member has to understand is that any reductions that may take place will take place from a base of record lending. I will just give some of the figures because they are very interesting. Back in 1981-82 the crowd opposite had achieved only 229,000 loans across the whole of Australia. By 1984-85 that figure had been kicked up to 323,000 individual loans. In total dollars the figure was up from $2.6 billion to $6.6 billion just three years later in 1984-85. One can see that in 1984-85 we had achieved not only a record number of loans but also a record amount of loans in dollar values. For 1984-85 savings banks' deposits have increased by 12.6 per cent. Having looked at comparisons over the last three quarters, I want the House to understand the position with regard to depositors' balances. In the September quarter depositors' balances with savings banks had increased by 1.2 per cent. That compared with 2.07 per cent in June and 1.26 per cent back in the March quarter. Those figures illustrate that any reductions that might occur for the rest of this financial year, both with regard to the total number of loans and their total dollar value, will occur from a very high base. That is what Opposition members do not seem to understand. As for statements that Mr Clark of the National Australia Bank Ltd was supposed to have made this morning, I understand that at a Press conference yesterday, which was called to announce a 30 per cent increase to $300m in the National Bank's profits, Mr Clark made an off the cuff remark that the total amount of lending for housing this year by the National might fall from $1 billion to $0.3 billion. I make the remark in passing that it might seem a little distasteful to some low income earners that the chief executive of a bank that had just announced a record 30 per cent increase in its profits to $300m-achieved as a result of the actions of this Government-would in the same breath suggest that a 70 per cent reduction in the amount of housing loans might be called for. I understand that the same bank told the Government earlier this week that its lending would not be $300m but in fact $850m. Mr Howard —That is not what he said this morning. Mr WEST —Let us just see what Mr Clark said this morning. It was slightly different from what he said yesterday on AM. This morning Mr Clark said: I mentioned that the statement was not a deliberate statement, but a response to questions at the announcement of our profit results. I informed the Treasurer that the context was, that if the National Australia Savings Bank took its current deposit gathering experience forward into the new year, the new business year, it would only have the capacity to increase its new lending by about 30 per cent of this year's experience. He was saying that, if a certain number of assumptions stayed in place, the bank might be-not would be-able to lend only a certain amount of money for the rest of the year. It remains to be seen just what the economic assumptions are for the remainder of this year, so anything else said by the National Bank would be entirely premature at this stage. Mr MILTON —Can the Minister for Science advise the House of any further developments about the Nella Dan being stuck in pack ice and scientists stranded on Heard Island? Will these events interfere with our summer program in Antarctica? What implications do these hazards have for the Greenpeace expedition? Mr BARRY JONES —The M.V. Nella Dan has been stuck in pack ice off Enderby Land since 23 October-a period of 22 days. The pressure of ice has forced the stern of the vessel out of the ice so that the ship cannot use its engine power to force itself free. This raises some serious supply problems. There is a possibility that the Nella Dan, if not freed in two weeks, will have insufficient fuel to return to Hobart at normal speed and, if not freed in five weeks, will have insufficient fuel to return to Hobart at all. I point out that the Nella Dan has an extraordinary record in the Antarctic of nearly 100 expeditions-far more than any other ship in the history of exploration. It has only been stuck in the ice for any length of time previously in 1960-61. I reassure the House that there is no suggestion of danger to life. There is no shortage of food but there is a major shortage of fuel. Alternative measures are urgently being investigated and the House will be kept advised of developments. Alternative provisions- Opposition members interjecting- Mr BARRY JONES —Opposition members may think it is a laughing matter but I assure them it is not. In addition the Icebird has been redeployed to Heard Island to pick up the 14 expeditioners who went for a 25-day scientific and conservation survey. They were to be picked up by the Nella Dan but that will not now be possible. This underlines the point I made in the House in October about the proposed Greenpeace expedition to Antarctica. Greenpeace has still not provided the essential information as to the safety requirements, the training of the crew and its capacity to get itself out of difficulty. The crew is going down, not with a dedicated Antarctic craft but with a tug designed for Baltimore. I appeal to the Greenpeace people and to those who may have influence with them. They are undertaking a quite unacceptable risk. There may be risk to life where we will be unable to provide any assistance at all. I say to them that it is not worth it. Remember that the most experienced ship and the most experienced crew in the history of polar exploration are in serious difficulty. With a crew of amateurs the risk is totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, under the Antarctic Treaty proceedings, we have no power to stop them. The most that we can do is to warn them, and I do that as emphatically as I can. Mr WILSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that 12 months ago new home buyers could obtain savings bank loans of $50,000 at an interest rate of 11.5 per cent with repayment commitments of about $500 a month? Is it also a fact that, due to the Hawke Government's high interest rate policies, today's new home buyers are unable to obtain such loans from savings banks even at the much higher savings bank interest rate of 13.5 per cent and that they are now being forced to obtain combined savings-trading bank loans at interest rates on the trading bank component of 17.5 per cent, involving a 40 per cent increase or an extra $50 a week- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sturt has been here long enough to know that he is allowed to give enough information to make a question intelligible but in fact he is making a speech. The honourable member should come to the point of his question. Mr WILSON —Is it a fact that these home buyers are faced with a 40 per cent increase or an extra $50 a week repayment requirement if they wish to purchase a house today that they could have purchased 12 months ago for a much lower repayment commitment? Mr WEST —Three years ago the savings banks lent $2.6 billion. In 1984-85 they lent $6.6 billion. A record number of people-323,000-have got into new homes or have bought existing houses as a result of our policies. As I have said before, any reductions come off an extraordinarily high base. As to the question about interest rates let me say: that the interest rates that the savings banks are charging today, that is, 13 1/2 per cent under our regulation, is exactly the same as that charged under the former Government throughout 1982. As to what is occurring-this has occurred only over the last few weeks-concerning any sets of conditions that the banks are currently applying, I understand that there are two sets of conditions, depending on which bank is involved. One relates to the size of the loan. Some banks put a ceiling on the loan ranging between $50,000 and $70,000, and some banks put on an extra condition that a deposit equal to a certain percentage, ranging between 25 per cent and 33 per cent of the loan required, should have been kept in that bank for a period of 12 months before the granting of the loan. So that is not a stringent set of conditions. Mr BLANCHARD —Can the Minister for Defence inform the House of operations undertaken recently by Australia to monitor the Soviet cruiser the Frunze? What does this operation illustrate about the Government's commitment to defence co-operation with the United States of America and to its strategic role in our region? Can the Minister comment on statements by the Leader of the National Party that the Frunze deployment makes a mockery of the South Pacific nuclear free zone? Mr BEAZLEY —A soviet naval task group comprising three ships has recently transited the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. The group is headed by the Frunze, a Kiev class guided missile nuclear powered cruiser and it is the first nuclear powered Soviet surface warship to be deployed to the Pacific. Australian intelligence authorities assess that the group is en route to join the Soviet Pacific fleet based at Vladivostok and represents a significant increase in naval surface warfare capability in this fleet. Since the task group arrived in our area of strategic interest Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol aircraft have conducted surveillance operations commencing in the eastern Indian Ocean and following the group through the Malacca Straits to the South China Sea. The Royal Australian Navy also participated. During a routine deployment to the area the guided missile frigate Canberra undertook continuous surface surveillance operations over a period of five days. HMAS Canberra met the Soviet naval group on the morning of 1 November at the north-west entrance to the Malacca Straits and stayed with the group until it approached Vietnamese waters on 5 November. This surveillance effort by the Australian Defence Force is a part of agreed and co-ordinated arrangements with the United States of America for strategic surveillance in our region. United States military assets also participated with our forces in the surveillance effort. This co-operative activity illustrates the sound working defence relationship that this Government maintains with the United States and the way that relationship works for the benefit of both countries and our neighbours in South East Asia. I might also add that this strategic surveillance effort mounted by the Australian Defence Force very effectively refutes suggestions that appear from time to time that this Government's defence policy is isolationist. On the contrary, the Government is well aware of the important strategic interests we share with neighbouring countries for the security of our region. We also recognise, however, that developments in South East Asia and elsewhere in the last 20 or 30 years have rendered inappropriate the type of forward defence doctrine preached in those days. The strategic surveillance effort of the Frunze group is a good example of the contemporary way in which the Australian Defence Force can contribute to operations in which we share important strategic interests with our neighbouring countries. Finally, let me get to the last part of the honourable gentleman's question. He asked about the claim by the Leader of the National Party that the transit of the Soviet task group somehow made a mockery of the South Pacific nuclear free zone. Obviously the Opposition's grasp of certain facts of geography and its knowledge of the nuclear free zone leaves something to be desired and we must assist it in this regard. The Frunze task group did not transit the South Pacific. In fact, at its closest point, the group was still approximately 3,000 kilometres from the South Pacific nuclear free zone. Vladivostok, the home port of the Soviet Pacific fleet, is some 5,000 kilometres from the zone. So the claim made by the Opposition defence spokesman that the transit group has somehow destabilised the South Pacific is plain nonsense. The point that I come back to is this: Firstly, I want to congratulate the members of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force on the work they have done. They constituted the bulk of Western surveillance of the movement of that task group for some considerable period. They did a very effective job. Their reports to me were excellent and the intelligence gathered will be particularly useful both to our allies in the region and to our principal ally, the United States. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to his refusal last night to comment on the impact of the lift in Australian savings bond interest rates on lending for housing. Has the Minister now had sufficient time to reflect on the impact on home lending of the Government's high interest rate policies? Mr WEST —Yes, I have had time to reflect and, of course, I completely support what the Treasurer has done. It is certainly necessary to encourage people to stay with the ASBs rather than take their money out of them, and that will mean that over time it will be necessary to raise less money than otherwise would have been the case. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of increasing media censorship being imposed by the South African Government on the reporting of events in South Africa? What are the implications of this censorship for the prospects of peaceful change in that country? Mr HAYDEN —The practice of censoring the media is a practice resorted to more appropriately by authoritarian totalitarian regimes. The more difficulty that the Government of South Africa experiences internally, the more it tends towards authoritarianism, and totalitarianism in the practices it imposes in an effort to try to conceal the nature of its difficulties. We are aware of the actions of the Government of South Africa in its efforts to censor the media. Under the emergency regulations of July police can regulate or prohibit the taking or sending of news. Police orders issued in October under the emergency regulations make it a forbidden practice for journalists to go to Soweto to report unrest. The police order concerning Soweto was extended to all areas covered by emergency regulations. This means that all black urban areas in the east and west Cape and around Johannesburg and Soweto are covered. Of course, this action has been widely condemned by the world community and by the International Federation of Journalists. Honourable members would be aware that on 8 November the editor of the Cape Times was charged under the Internal Security Act with publishing an interview with Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. The editor is liable to be gaoled for up to three years. The interview he reported with Tambo would hardly be regarded as inflammatory by any reasonable standards. For instance, it was pointed out that Tambo does support economic sanctions. He said: All of us in the ANC have always considered and accepted that the whites like ourselves belong to our country. It would be in the interests of all of us that everybody feels secure. Everyone's property is secure. Everyone's home is secure. Mr Tambo called for: . . . much-needed communication, especially at this time, because at some point we have to agree on what to do about our own future. He continued: There would be no violence at all if we did not have the violence of the apartheid system. The remarkable situation is that although serious journalists generally have been prohibited from entering South Africa for purposes of covering developments there, the honourable member for Wentworth, posing as the editor of a magazine called Quadrant, recognised, by repute, more for its prejudice than the content of what it publishes, said, after discussions with the Leader of the Opposition on 13 November, that he was going to South Africa as the editor of that journal. I trust that he will make public in South Africa an effective protest about censorship of the media in general, about the charging of the editor of the Cape Times and express his concern about the safety of all journalists in South Africa. I trust that, as did the honourable member for Goldstein on 19 August, he will press for communication between the South African Government and black leaders such as Mandela and Tambo. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that since making his promise in November 1984 that interest rates would fall in 1985, firstly, the prime lending rate is about 5.5 per cent higher; secondly, the overdraft rate for small business is 4 per cent higher; thirdly, the Bankcard rate has risen to 21 per cent; fourthly, the borrower of a savings bank mortgage of $50,000 has experienced a rise of 2 per cent in his interest rate or a repayment rise of $75 a month; and, finally, Australia is now experiencing the highest real interest rate since the years of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Is the honourable gentleman prepared to renew the prediction he made a year ago in November 1984 that interest rates would fall in the coming year? Mr HAWKE —I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has at last got to his feet today to ask a question on interest rates. I would think that if one question is uppermost in the minds of the people in Australia with regard to interest rates it is: What is the real position of the Leader of the Opposition-that is, to the extent that he can speak for the Opposition-on what the Opposition would do with regard to the critically important question of the mortgage rate? The Leader of the Opposition has been implying, at least, that this Government should scrap the ceiling on the mortgage rate. I take the opportunity in responding to the question from the Leader of the Opposition to say, as the Treasurer and I have said on a number of occasions, that we will not scrap that ceiling. It is the case that due to a conjunction of circumstances which are well understood there has been the undeniable increase in interest rates to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. This is one area in which this Government is making it quite clear that it will not allow interest rates to rise. What the people want to know is what is the position of the Leader of the Opposition. He would scrap the ceiling. People realise that every increase of one per centage point in that rate would mean an increase of $30 per month on the burden of those in possession of such mortgages. It is a one per cent increase that the Leader of the Opposition would like to impose upon the people of Australia so they would have to pay another $30 a month or is it a 2 per cent increase, which would mean they would have to pay another $60 a month? Would he be content to sit back and see an increase of 3 per cent, meaning an impost of another $90 a month upon those people? They understand the impact of the unstated position of the Leader of the Opposition. Not only would he hit them with this massive increase in their repayment burden but also, if he could, he would impose a significant reduction in real wages. That is the real question. As I said yesterday in answer to another question, the people of Australia look at the overall economic impact of the policies of this Government. They welcome the fact that we are now experiencing the third year of high economic growth; that we now have over 460,000 new jobs; and that we will achieve the half a million new jobs target that this Government set itself at the beginning of 1983. The Treasurer, this Government and I are not going to waver from adhering to the basics of this economic policy which have produced this massive positive turn- around in the Australian economy. I make the observation that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about pressure on interest rates. If any pressure is operating in this country at the moment that the Leader of the Opposition ought to be thinking and worrying about, it is not the pressure upon interest rates; it is the increasing pressure upon his leadership. This provides an interesting opportunity to refer to just some of the observations that have emerged in the media today. The honourable member for Kooyong has not been able to withstand the pressure either. I say that without any criticism, of course, of the honourable member. Why should I criticise him? He has been under some pressure in the current circumstances to say something about the leadership of the Opposition. In an exclusive interview with Niki Savva in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial today, the honourable member for Kooyong had some interesting things to say. I recommend the article on page 8 of that newspaper to all honourable members. Let me refer to a couple of passages. The article states: Mr Peacock says he `assumes'-- that is interesting-- and he puts it no higher than that-that John Howard will lead the Liberals at the next election . . . He does not put it any higher than that. The interview gets a little more interesting. The article goes on to say: In the light of the criticisms of Mr Howard's performance as leader, all Mr Peacock can manage to say is: `I think he's doing his best'. All one would want to say about that is that his best is obviously not good enough. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously worried, because in the Sydney Morning Herald today we read the following words: Mr Howard's supporters are blaming part of their problems on leaks from the Peacock camp. Government members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —Is it not terrible? The article in the Sydney Morning Herald goes on to say: In response to a question on a Sydney radio interview, Mr Howard said Mr Peacock would never lead the party again. Obviously he is very worried. This is perhaps best summed up- Mr Goodluck —Answer the question on interest rates. Mr HAWKE —I can assure the honourable member that the rate of interest in this issue is rising in his Party! The increasing rate of interest in what is happening in the Liberal Party is best summed up by the following quotation from an article in the Canberra Times today of the words of a fellow who, after all, because of his long experience can speak with great authority. I refer to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Donald Chipp. Senator Donald Chipp said-- Mr Tuckey —You paid him. You bought him out. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, is that remark not something that the Standing Committee on Privileges should look at? The honourable member for O'Connor interjects and says what have we paid him. The interjection goes straight to the integrity of the Leader of the Democrats. The suggestion that we have bribed or paid the Leader of the Democrats will be treated by the people of Australia with the contempt it deserves. However, it does not take away in any shape or form the substance, strength and thrust of the telling observation of the Leader of the Democrats, this ex-Liberal. The article in the Canberra Times states that Senator Chipp: described the Opposition . . . as the `most pathetic' he had ever seen in 25 years in the Parliament . . . There are significant Liberals now talking about a palace revolution to tip little Johnny Howard out very soon. As I say, if there is an increasing rate of interest in this country about which the Leader of the Opposition should be really concerned, it is the increasing rate of interest in the total inadequacy of his leadership. Mr LANGMORE —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the South African National Procurement and National Key Points Acts? What are the implications of these Acts for Australian companies operating in South Africa? Is the potential effect of these Acts to eliminate the capacity of Australian companies to operate in South Africa without giving direct support to the present South African Government? Does the Australian Government's draft code of conduct for Australian companies operating in South Africa take the Acts into account? Mr HAYDEN —I am aware of the National Procurement and National Key Points Acts operating in South Africa. These Acts give the South African Government a wide range of powers, including the power to direct companies to supply goods and services and to require the owners of installations designated as key points to take steps to ensure the security of those installations. Indeed, in making this observation I must say that I am indebted to the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, for drawing my attention first-- Mr Sinclair —He was Prime Minister for seven years and did a good job until you made a mess of it. Mr HAYDEN —I am sorry, I did not hear the right honourable member for New England. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister ignore the interjection and continue with his answer. Mr HAYDEN —As I was saying, I am indebted to `my good friend' Malcolm Fraser for drawing my attention to these facts, not in Damascus but in New York when I was there quite recently. He illustrated them by giving me the following practical examples of the way in which the authority under the National Procurement and National Key Points Acts could be invoked. He pointed out that, in the event of what the Government determined was a national security situation, it could direct-I repeat, under the authority of these Acts-for instance, a manufacturer of motor cars to produce a particular type of motor vehicle which had attributes exclusively of use to the military services. It could require the company to undertake this production no matter whether it was economic or not. It could require a company, for instance, the same manufacturer, to equip and train a militia force comprising members of the work force of that corporation. Members of the work force would be required to co-operate in that direction. In the event of some national emergency being declared, that militia force could be called out and integrated as part of the national defence system of South Africa. All of this is the paraphernalia of tyranny, the oppressive tools of a country whose leadership has lost its conscience. I well understand the outrage of the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, when detailing these matters to me. Australian companies operating in South Africa are not exempt from the provisions of these Acts or other South African legislation. I have to admit that, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no instances in which Australian companies have been obliged to respond to directions given under the Acts so far, but I stress `so far'. They are liable to fulfil any direction under the National Procurement and National Key Points Acts which the South African Government might give at some later time. The draft Australian code of conduct has been designed to ensure that companies operating in South Africa do not pursue commercial activities which exploit the peculiar employment conditions which exist in that country as a consequence of apartheid. The code makes it clear, however, that companies adhering to it are not expected to breach South African laws. Mr HUNT —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Further to his answer to my question on Tuesday, will the Government support any application by the National Farmers Federation to oppose the incorporation of the latest 3.8 per cent wage increase into the awards covering rural industries in light of the record farm debt, the record high interest rates and the 26 per cent fall projected by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the real net value of rural production? Mr WILLIS —As I said in answer to the honourable gentleman on Tuesday, there is a capacity under the arbitration system for employers who believe that they do not have the capacity to pay a national wage increase to ask the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to give them an exemption from providing that increase in whole or in part. As the National Farmers Federation believes that the farmers are in that situation, it may make such an application. It is not normal for the Government to intervene in such cases and it has no intention of intervening in any such application that may be made by the National Farmers Federation. I am sure that if the National Farmers Federation believes that the farmers situation is such that employers cannot afford to pay the wage increase, it should be able to stand on its own feet and put that case to the Commission. Mr STAPLES —Is the Special Minister of State aware of today's Press statement by the Australian Federal Police Association that the resources of the Australian Federal Police are at a critical stage, that his response to the resources review is a whitewash and that the national campaign against drug abuse is absolutely pointless? Mr YOUNG —Yes, I am aware of it; in fact, the Australian Federal Police Association representative turned up at my Press conference to hand out his release, so I was able to do him that favour as well. This comes about as a result of a review of the resources of the Australian Federal Police which I initiated from the Department and also from the AFP Commissioner because we have had no major review since the AFP was established in 1979, although there have been many allegations made and inferences drawn about the force's resources. I thought it was about time that we had a proper look at the substance behind those allegations so that the Government could plan ahead for five or 10 years, knowing what was required. The report has thrown up a number of inadequacies in the operations of the AFP, particularly in the light of the separation of protective services, which was carried out under this Government although it was started by the previous Fraser Government. There are still a number of duties that are carried out by 300 or 400 AFP people in the protective service area of guarding. The report says that this work should return to some other source and that the police should be able to go about proper policing duties. Those matters will have to be attended to, as will the impact on the manual resources required by the AFP by the upgrading of the computer services, which will cost the Government $7m in this financial year, together with the additional $10m which we have granted the force as a result of the election promise by the Prime Minister last year. That will give the force an extra 300 policemen between now and 1987. However, this will not overcome the problem altogether. The report has revealed that there is some shortage in the drugs area which, according to the charter that I tabled in the Parliament a few weeks ago, is now the number one priority of the AFP. I directed a letter to the Commissioner this week as soon as I received the report, asking how senior investigative officers could be reallocated into that area in order to ensure that we can eradicate that criticism. One of the major problems is that the AFP is a very young police force and, to some extent, it is very inexperienced. Taking on hundreds of new recruits does not overcome the criticism that at the top end senior people are needed, and it takes some years to train them. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the work that has been done by the Commissioner and the Department. They do not tell us in bold terms that they are short of a certain level, but there is a whole range of work that must be done. According to the report, one of the major inadequacies is the amount of work that can be carried out by the AFP into fraud against the Commonwealth. According to the report a substantial number of police would be needed if we wanted to follow up every bit of fraud against the Commonwealth. In fact, this would require a whole new generation of police. However, I have talked to the Director of Public Prosecutions who has just returned from the United Kingdom and the United States and he says, that compared with forces in those countries, the AFP is doing very well. We send out something like 60 million cheques a year under our social welfare system in this country and the amount of fraud against the Commonwealth last year amounted to about $2.7m. I have asked the Department to initiate within the Government ways and means by which we might counteract this fraud against the Commonwealth, so that before we make any decision or before I go to the Cabinet and say that we need substantial funds for increasing the number of police in Australia, these avenues will have all been looked at and we will have a foolproof case showing the numbers that will be required to carry out the duties. By and large, I think that morale in the AFP is very high and the results we have seen in the last few weeks have shown what a good job it is doing. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister for Communications to the indefinite ban which Australian postal workers have placed on mail to and from South Africa, a ban which, incidentally, is also affecting Zimbabwe and eight other southern African and island nations. Has the Minister had any discussions with Australia Post on means of circumventing the bans and having them lifted? If so, what was the result of those discussions? Has Australia Post directed postal workers to process South African mail and if so, are Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union members still being fully paid despite their refusal to work as directed? Finally, are those postal workers in breach of section 94 of the Postal Services Act, which provides for a penalty of up to a year's imprisonment for anyone who wilfully obstructs or hinders the conveyance of mail by Australia Post? Mr DUFFY —I am aware of the matter referred to by the honourable member for Goldstein. In relation to the Government's attitude to the bans, I have already indicated that it is clearly understandable why a union should take such an attitude to the regime in South Africa, and if honourable members had listened to answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier today, that would have been confirmed. Having said that, however, I stress that the bans are not endorsed and that the situation has clearly reached a stage where people are being affected who should not be affected. In fact, the bans are not having the effect that the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union anticipated. Secondly, the bans applied by the APTU initially were part of an Australian Council of Trade Unions campaign, but the APTU is now the only union, as far as I can ascertain, that is continuing to apply the bans. In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member, I find it extremely interesting that he is suggesting that action be taken under the Postal Services Act. There seems to be considerable confusion on the opposite side of the House about the powers of the Act. I refer the honourable member particularly to his own Press statement of 5 November 1985 in which he said that the Federal Opposition would introduce legislation to enable private mail contractors to take over postal services to and from South Africa. He also said that the Opposition would act to remove Australia Post's monopoly on letters during mail disputes. Subsequently in the same Press release in what was described as a `background note for editors', he said this: The amendment will give the Minister for Communications the power to suspend the monopoly provisions when, by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason, the Australian Postal Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services. The honourable member knows as well as I do that the provisions of the Postal Services Act are not there to cover industrial disputes. The interference with mail to which he has referred is not in the area of industrial disputation. If that is not the case, why has the Opposition made this statement? Is it just a bit of cheap, political grandstanding? Is that why the Opposition has taken a Bill into the Senate which purports to give to me powers which the honourable member now says I already have. The honourable member cannot have it both ways. He says that the amendment will give me the power to suspend the monopoly provisions when, by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason, the mail is not getting through. In fact, in my view there is not the power under that Act to take action. In relation to the final part of the honourable member's question, the bans are still in place-- Mr Macphee —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister has misread my Press release and, apart from the misreading, he has not answered the question as to what he has done about this matter. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr DUFFY —In order to clarify that matter, I will read the Press release in front of me. It says: The Federal Opposition is to introduce legislation to enable private mail contractors to take over postal services to South Africa. It will also act to remove Australia Post's monopoly on letters during all mail disputes. In a background note, the honourable member then goes on to say exactly what I said he said: The amendment will give the Minister for Communications the power to suspend the monopoly provisions when, by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason, the Australian Postal Commission is unable to operate . . . That is precisely what the Press release says. I did not misread it in any way. That was the honourable member's Press release of 5 November-unless he issued numerous Press releases on the same matter on the same day saying different things. Finally, the bans that have been applied by the APTU are still in place. The union has been asked by Australia Post to withdraw those bans. Australia Post at this stage has not taken action in relation to the application of those bans for the very reasons that the honourable member is well aware of-the difficulties that that would create and the possibility of extending the present industrial dispute. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.50) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from bringing on for discussion a matter of public importance in the following terms: The prospective home loan drought now facing middle Australia as a result of the Government's high interest rate policies. Mr Speaker, in accordance with the normal procedure under standing order 107, I submitted a letter to you today in which I proposed that the House should discuss a matter of public importance in the following terms: The prospective home loan drought now facing middle Australia as a result of the Government's high interest rate policies. Mr Young —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because the practice is for you to decide each day between letters received by you about matters of public importance, I raise with you whether the Leader of the Opposition is actually moving dissent from your decision. Mr SPEAKER —The motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved is for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow him to move a definite motion. Provided he does not reflect on the Chair for the decision that the Chair has taken in accordance with the practices of the House, he may proceed. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I repeat: In accordance with the normal procedures, I submitted a letter requesting that a matter of public importance be addressed today. You, Sir, in accordance with the authority that you have as Speaker, chose a matter of public importance that had been submitted by the Government. It ought to be remarked that this is the first occasion since the Hawke Government came to power that a matter of public importance submitted by the Opposition has not been accepted by the Speaker, and the reason why the-- Mr Keogh —Mr Speaker, a point of order-- Mr HOWARD —They do not really want to have a discussion on interest rates. Mr Keogh —I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on the Chair by his statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I take it as no reflection on the Chair. He may even quote that 13 per cent of matters of public importance come from Government back benchers. Mr Keogh —He has suggested that for some ulterior reason-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bowman will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, in accordance with the authority that is vested in you by the Standing Orders, you chose the matter that had been submitted on behalf of the Government, but I think it entirely appropriate for me to point out that this is the first occasion on which, during the time that the Hawke Government has been in power, a matter of public importance submitted by the Opposition has not been accepted. Of course, it does not escape the attention of the Opposition, nor ought it to escape the attention of the Australian public, that on a day when there is absolutely unbridled and record criticism of the high interest rate policies of this Government the Government should choose the strategy of submitting an alernative matter of public importance to the Speaker. I do not cast any reflection on you, sir, but I draw attention to the fact that so sensitive is the Government about the question of interest rates that it should choose the day that there has been record discussion in the Press-- Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I ask for your ruling. The presumption that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition is that matters of public importance are the exclusive province of members of the Opposition. As I understand it, under the Standing Orders they are the province of any member of the House. I ask you so to rule. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may make any presumption he likes. The practice of the House is quite clear. They are the property of the back bench, whether Government or Opposition side. The Leader of the Opposition has not offended. Mr HOWARD —One of the two presumptions that I make in bringing forward this motion to suspend Standing Orders is the proper presumption that members of the Government are extraordinarily sensitive about the question of interest rates, and that is the reason why the Government has submitted a matter of public importance in anticipation of the fact that we were going to submit a matter of public importance on the question of interest rates. There is absolutely no reflection at all on you, sir, and I do not dissent for a moment from the judgment that you have made. The only way therefore that is open to the Opposition to bring before the Parliament discussion of the matter which even the Prime Minister said at Question Time was the most important thing facing the Australian public, which he said in answer to a question that I asked him-- Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am compelled to pursue the point of order that has been raised in connection with this. My understanding is that the Standing Orders are quite specific that the Speaker has the absolute right to determine which of those matters of public importance submitted is the one to be selected. I understand, according to the blue sheet, that you have made your decision. This is contempt for your ruling and an attempt to circumvent it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. It is quite clear that what the honourable member says is correct. It is the practice that has been followed. The Leader of the Opposition is not reflecting on the Chair or suggesting that I had no right to make that decision. In fact, the very point of order raised by the honourable member may be seen as a reflection on my ability to rule in this House. Mr HOWARD —The real reason that I brought this matter on-- Mr Robert Brown —My point of order is that the Standing Orders quite clearly indicate that the Speaker has the right to determine which of those two matters of public importance submitted to him is the one to be selected. The point of order quite clearly is that this is an attempt to circumvent your ruling and to show contempt for the Chair. Mr SPEAKER —It may be an attempt to circumvent a decision made by the Speaker, but the course being followed is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. Mr HOWARD —The most important economic issue facing Australia at the moment is the record high interest rates which have been brought about by the policies of the Hawke Government, and the Prime Minister, no less, in answer to a question that I asked him during Question Time, said that the really big thing that the Australian public wanted to know was the respective policies of the Government and the Opposition on interest rates. The only way in which that matter of great importance to the Australian public can be debated right here and now in the Parliament is for the House to agree to the suspension of Standing Orders that I am now putting forward. If the Government believes, as the Prime Minister says, that the respective policies of the Government and the Opposition are so important; if the Government is prepared to defend its high interest rate policies; if it is prepared to defend an interest rate regime that has put up the prime lending rate by 5 1/2 per cent over the last year; if it is prepared to defend a regime that has put up the Bankcard rate to 21 per cent; if it is prepared to defend policies which are about to inflict a drought of housing finance on middle class borrowers in Australia; if in fact the Government is prepared-- Mr Duncan —I raise a point of order. My point of order is that quite clearly the Leader of the Opposition is debating the merits of the proposition he is putting up. Facts and figures are being used in the argument he is putting. Quite clearly, that is a breach of Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has not gone as far as to offend against the Standing Orders. Mr HOWARD —The only way that this matter of great national importance, which the Prime Minister has said is of great interest to everybody in the House, can be debated is for the motion to be supported. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time of the Leader of the Opposition has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.01) —I second this motion because there is a very clear alternative for this Parliament in the course of the next half-hour. We can do as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has told us all we should do-that is, talk about the contrasting policies of the Government and the Opposition on interest rates-or we can talk about a matter which the Labor Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said is a matter that is not the responsibility of the Federal Parliament. The important point about the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is that all members of the Government know that they have made a mess of economic management. They know that interest rates are exploding. They know that the Labor side of the House has a policy of high, accord-related interest rates, and a government economic policy dominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which has led to a record high in Bankcard interest rates of 21 per cent, an increase in overdraft rates of at least 4 1/2 per cent and an increase of overall interest rates of 5 1/2 per cent. It has led to farmers being pushed into a position of walking off their farms, to individual home owners now being subjected to greater pressure than they have been for years-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the National Party is using argument more appropriate to the motion than to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr SINCLAIR —It is necessary in suspending Standing Orders to look at the contrasting arguments on the matters that now need to be before the House. We have been called on by the Government, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, for the first time since the election of the Hawke Government, to debate a matter of public importance. That matter, as the Attorney-General has said, is not a matter of Commonwealth responsibility. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that he is doing what the Leader of the Opposition did not do; that is, reflect on the decision made by the Chair. I ask him not to proceed on that line. Mr SINCLAIR —The point I was making was not in any way a reflection on your judgment, Mr Speaker, but on the Government which has made a submission on a matter which its own Attorney-General-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the National Party that the submission I received was not from the Government but from a Government back bencher, as he was entitled to do, and which has been a common practice in this House. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, there is no question that in terms of this House's debating priorities, the judgment is for you, but in terms of the public's priorities it is important that the people of Australia know that we seek to suspend Standing Orders so that we can debate a matter of public importance relating specifically to the Government's high interest rates policy and its impact on home owners, farmers, small businessmen and the community generally. It is important that Standing Orders be suspended so that the matter of public importance that the Leader of the Opposition raised, which is of critical importance to Australians, can be debated in this place. During Question Time today the Prime Minister highlighted the significance of this issue. It would be quite proper, after this matter has been set aside, for the Government to debate the other matter of public importance should it wish. We seek to debate a matter which is of prime interest to all Australians. Interest rates are too high and that is caused by Australian Labor Party policy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has brought no solutions into this House to rectify the collapse of the Australian dollar. It is essential that there be an opportunity for Labor and coalition alternative policies on economic policy and interest rates to be debated in this place. The only way we can do that is for Standing Orders to be suspended. In trying to avoid a discussion on this debate the Labor Party has shown how little alternative it really has to offer for the proper management of the Australian economy. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.06) —The Government does not agree to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that we uphold the rights of all back benchers, both in the Opposition and in the Government. The Government today has been awarded the matter of public importance for the first time after almost three years in office, which contrasts very sharply with the allocation of matters of public importance during the regime of Speaker Snedden when the Government was given 17 matters of public importance against the Opposition. The Opposition is not concerned with interest rates, because honourable members will have noticed that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was not even asked a question today. There was no motion on the Treasurer, no questions to him. The reason for this motion is that the Opposition cannot find two speakers in the coalition to talk about the redistribution in Queensland. I tell the Opposition that I do not care if we have to sit here until 4 o'clock in the morning, but it will have to draw names out of a hat to give us two speakers. I hope-God, I hope-that the names of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) come out. It would be a great contrast to have the Leader of the National Party, who on Monday of this week was quoted in the Townsville Daily Bulletin as saying what a great redistribution it was in Queensland, and the honourable member for Boothby who on Tuesday night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said that it was the worst gerrymander Australia has ever seen. Mr Carlton —I raise a point of order. The Minister is addressing the substance of the matter and not the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Leader of the House to return to the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —This morning, when members were sitting having their breakfast and Opposition members were wandering out with cups of tea, we asked what was going on and we were told: `They have a tactics meeting. They are going away to discuss and debate and develop their tactics'. Here are their tactics. They have to avoid a debate on the redistribution in Queensland because the Speaker has had the temerity to accept a proposal from a back bencher from the Government instead of a back bencher from the Opposition! Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order. I would like to know what the redistribution in Queensland has to do with the Federal Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —I have news for the honourable member for Maranoa: Queenslanders are Australians. The honourable member may not think so, but it is a view we take here and it is a view that a lot of Queenslanders take. It is pretty obvious from the customs and conventions of this House, which the Opposition over the years has tried to destroy, that over the next 13 or 14 years that we are in office members of the Opposition will get the majority of matters of public importance. They will, quite possibly, get a debate on a matter of public importance tomorrow when they send their letter in and you select it, Mr Speaker; and it can be on interest rates. We debated that subject yesterday and we will debate it tomorrow. I cannot see why they are so upset because you have selected a matter raised by a member who has every right to put in a letter to the Speaker. Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has not quite caught on to the fact that we are not objecting to the matter of public importance continuing; it is just that we want initially to debate the matter for which we seek the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —It is not for me to instruct the Leader of the House in his understanding. There is no point of order; we are within the Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —The MPI is coming on; Opposition members need not worry about that. But they tried to circumvent the conventions of this House by deciding that they would lay down what business was or was not going to be debated in the House. Why did they not ask questions of the Treasurer? Did they not discuss that at their tactics meeting? Are they frightened to ask the Treasurer any questions? They received such a bagging in the newspapers this morning; God knows what they would have been talking about at their tactics meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to some of the Press coverage of the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Let me refer to another Press article, because I did a bit of research on the Leader of the Opposition. I read in the last issue of the Women's Weekly-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am having great difficulty in relating the Minister's remarks to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —This is very important. Mr SPEAKER —It may be important, but I have to be sure that it is within the Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —The Women's Weekly said that the Leader of the Opposition likes dinner by candlelight. It said that candles do wonderful things for him. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought I understood you to say that the Minister should move back to the substance of the question. He has persisted with the line he was pursuing when you gave that ruling. I ask you to involve yourself in this matter again, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I did draw that to the attention of the Minister. He said one more sentence and talked about candlelight; I thought that he was probably trying to enlighten me. I invite the Leader of the House to return to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —I thought you had already made a very enlightened decision today, to which members of the Opposition seem to be objecting. If they want to talk about the economic expertise, let us look at that. We took over in March 1983. Who had been Treasurer from 1977 to 1983, when we took over? The honourable member for Bennelong had been. What unemployment, interest rates and inflation did we have then? What about the $9.6 billion deficit? That was a product of the present Leader of the Opposition. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister is not addressing himself to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I ask you to get him back to the motion. Mr SPEAKER —I think that some passing reference to economic circumstances was made by speakers for the motion. I have to allow the Leader of the House a little leeway. I will wait for him to get to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —The Leader of the National Party of Australia suggests that we should be discussing housing and housing interest rates. It is interesting to note that housing commencements in the last year of the Fraser Government totalled 105,000, whereas the last figures officially available for this Government show a total of 152,000 commencements. There seems to be a bit of a difference in the economic vitality of this country since this Government took over. What never ceases to amaze me about members of the Opposition is that they say that they are never going to commit again all the sins that they committed between 1975 and 1983. They are at the altar telling the Australian people that they are never going to do these things again. I cannot help it if the Opposition is in a shambles as a result of the decision it made on 5 September. Someone said to me in Melbourne: `What is this: One, three, seven, 11 and 15?'. I said that I did not know what it was and the person said: `That is Reg Withers counting'. Members of the Opposition just got it all wrong on 5 September. They do not know how to unscramble the egg. They have as Leader the honourable member for Bennelong, whom they have never wanted, and they have the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) waiting to come back into the chair; and we are supposed to put up with all this nonsense arising out of the Opposition's tactics meeting. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am having some difficulty in relating the comments of the Minister to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —It is obvious that all this has to do with the fact that members of the Opposition have fractured their standing in the community. The newspapers have been tearing them to pieces. The back benchers do not know where they are heading. They had 14 factions in the party room on Monday trying to decide what they would do about tax and they have 10 factions trying to decide what they will do about wages. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), the honorable member for Boothby and the honorable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) are all sitting around waiting to come back on to the front bench. For God's sake, the Opposition should clean up its house and come back and give us an opposition. That is really what we need in this place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allocated for the debate on the motion has concluded. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Adermann. A. E. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V. Child, J. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House-report relating to the planning for the Senate and House of Representatives chambers in the new Parliament House. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr PETER MORRIS —(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)-Pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981 I present the Independent Air Fares Committee annual report for 1984-85. 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 assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Duffy,Mr Halverson,Mr Holding,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Lamb,Mr McArthur and Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet earth; (c) the 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 Halverson,Mr Hawke and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to 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 for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. 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 sewerage-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 giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding,Mr Jull,Ms Mayer,Mr Porter 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,Mr Holding,Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in 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. Any 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 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 effect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduce 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 and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the 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 Baldwin and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. 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 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 Beddall and Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space: The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will: propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 Rocher and Dr Watson. 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 sheweth 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. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we 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: 12 1/2% Consumption 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 expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that we protest the proposed relocation of the Artillery and Infantry Schools from North Head, Singleton and Holsworthy to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales, and the Cobar district. We humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the current investigation being carried out in the Central Tablelands is ceased forthwith and that no Military Establishment be located in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. And in duty bound, do we pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to include private psychologists services in medicare, when those services are conducted by clinical psychologists recognised as qualified by the Clinical Board of the Australian Psychological Society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable 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 Preschools and 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 Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Programme established as the centre-piece for national youth policy, addresses the educational, social and employment needs of twenty-two thousand unemployed Australian youth. The intended 50% funding cuts will directly affect at least ten thousand already disadvantaged young people, denying them access to further education and potential employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That the decision to cut the Participation and Equity Programme funding be reversed. (2) That the Participation and Equity Programme be guaranteed funding for 1987, and beyond. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That pensions be adjusted fully to reflect the total increase in Consumer price Index (CPI); and That the ceiling for pensioners incomes be increased to provide for an adequate ``living standard'', before any consideration is given to the introduction of reduced pensions and the fall of benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken by the Government to implement these proposals immediately, and not November 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we being persons connected with and employed in the building industry within Australia deplore the attempts to enforce compulsory unionisation within the Architectural profession and in particular to oppose all attempts at compulsory unionisation, particularly by the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees and base such opposition on the conflict with the essence of a professional standing, a conflict with the Architects Acts and a conflict with basic Common Law interests, particularly in respect of the Architect being independent in supporting the interests of his client, and further that if an Architect is directly involved with a Building Industry Union that this would be a conflict of interest in the role of the Architect as a Quasi-Arbitrator between Proprietor and Builder. Any such proposal to require compulsory unionisation of Architects discriminates against and inhibits progress within the profession and the building industry and curtails employment throughout the Nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled reject proposals for compulsory unionisation within the Architectural profession and support the profession and the building industry in its independence and standing for the promotion of independent and high standards within the profession and the building industry. 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 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 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 if the personal income tax-sharing arrangement is 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 representative of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. 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 O'Neil. 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 assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of Servicemen and Women and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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 there is a great need for an access, in the form of a Ramp, to be provided for the elderly, disabled and parents with young children, at the Goulburn Post Office, Auburn Street, Goulburn. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure access, in the form of a Ramp, is included in the restoration of the Goulburn Post Office. 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. 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 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. We the undersigned concerned Australian citizens respectfully point out: That we recognize the Commonwealth Government's genuine concern and respect for United Nation's initiatives and policies. We, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organisation has stated that `All seeds and other plant breeding material is the heritage of all mankind, and should be freely available to all'. 2. That by the granting of Plant Variety Rights and Patents thousands of plant varieties and plant genetic diversity has been lost forever and many countries now regret having legislated for such patents and rights. 3. That we reject the principle that P.V.R. Legislation is either just, necessary or desirable for Australia. 4. That you will remember the U.N. statement as outlined above and reject any moves to have P.V.R. Legislation enacted by your government. 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 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 and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deed to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australians citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received letters from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Capricornia, namely: The public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. I therefore 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 WRIGHT(Capricornia)(3.33) —As the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) said-- Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the procedures under which we are considering this matter of public importance. Standing order 107 states: A member may propose to the Speaker that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. There is no further amplification of that until one turns to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. I draw your attention to chapter 15 which goes into some detail on those matters that might properly be considered by the Parliament. I will refer briefly to it. It states: The public importance procedure is characterised by a number of features which are summarised as follows: I will not quote the first one but the second one states: the matter proposed is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility; I draw your attention to this particular matter of public importance, having in mind the fact that it is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility. The proposed matter of public importance refers to `public alarm'. In nobody's mind could it be suggested that in any way the community has an alarm. If the word was `concern' it might be a different-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party should come to the point that he is making. Mr Sinclair —I am, Mr Speaker. I am suggesting to you that the words `public alarm' are incorrect in that public alarm does not exist other than in the mind of the honourable member for Capricornia. The second-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —There are two issues, Mr Speaker, and I think it is essential that I address them. They are the elements of this matter of public importance-- Mr SPEAKER —But under what heading is the Leader of the National Party addressing this matter? I am required by standing order 107 to make a decision. I am aware of the contents of House of Representatives Practice. I have made my decision on that basis. That is a decision within the Standing Orders. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I am putting to you that the matter that has now been put to us is quite contrary to the words of the House of Representatives Practice which I quoted to you. I put to you that there is no Federal responsibility for the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. In those circumstances it is not within your power to select a matter which contains an element that does not relate to an area of ministerial responsibility. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party may make those points in debate. I have a responsibility to make the decision under standing order 107. I have made that decision. Mr Sinclair —Under what item of ministerial responsibility does it fall? Mr SPEAKER —I have no need to respond to reasons raised by the Leader of the National Party. If he wishes to discuss it, I will discuss it with him privately. Discussion interrupted. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I wish to move dissent from your ruling. Mr SPEAKER —What ruling? Mr SINCLAIR —Your ruling on this matter of public importance, namely, `the public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals'. The matter does not fall within standing order 107 as interpreted by Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice in that the matter is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility. This matter contains no element of ministerial responsibility for the Federal Parliament and it is therefore outside the ambit of this place to consider the matter in debate. Mr SPEAKER —Can I have the motion of dissent in writing? Mrs Darling —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 100 which states: If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once . . . I put to you, Mr Speaker, that the decision regarding the matter of public importance was made earlier today and it would have had to be dissented from at that point. Mr SPEAKER —No, there is no substance to the point of order because actually the decision on the matter of public importance is not a ruling; it is an action required of the Speaker by the Standing Orders. That is why I am waiting for the motion of dissent from the Leader of the National Party to see from which ruling he is dissenting. Mr Sinclair having submitted his motion of dissent in writing- Mr SINCLAIR —The ruling, which I have interpreted in the motion, is that the matter of public importance submitted to the House is within the interpretation by House of Representatives Practice of standing order 107. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the National Party to move his dissent motion. Mr SINCLAIR —I move: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. The matter of public importance procedure is designed so that this Federal Parliament, which has a power defined by the Australian Constitution, can determine matters that relate to Federal responsibility. Accordingly, standing order 107 has been interpreted by Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice in the manner which I have described, that is, that any matter proposed is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility. The two elements that are within this matter of public importance are, firstly, the public alarm and, secondly, the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. Nobody looking at the reaction in Queensland or around Australia could see any public alarm. If there is public alarm it is about the alternative matter that has been submitted for consideration as a matter of public importance today; namely, the level of interest rates. Mr Hollis —What about the electors in Queensland? They are alarmed. Mr SINCLAIR —My friend, do not worry. I know that we are alarmed about interest rates but the honourable member may not be. I am delighted to know that he can maintain the rage because he cannot maintain anything else. Mr Speaker, the thing that is important is that you have ruled that this matter contains an element of ministerial responsibility. The Queensland electoral redistribution proposals- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I do not like to interrupt the right honourable member but I have not made a ruling of that nature. I have made my decision in accordance with standing order 107 without commenting on the elements which are in that decision, of which I am well aware and of which I am not required to give an explanation. Mr SINCLAIR —I rose to speak on the Standing Orders. I said that there seemed to be, within Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, a conflict with the matter of public importance that has been submitted to us. Mr Speaker, you ruled, in response to my submission, that this matter of public importance was in accordance with Standing Orders. If it is not in accordance with Standing Orders-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I said that I had made my choice as required by standing order 107. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I am not in any way questioning your choice. It is not your choice that is at issue. The point that is at issue before the Parliament today- Mr SPEAKER —I think the right honourable gentleman is attributing to me things that I did not say. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, in raising this matter we are not questioning that you have an option before you when two matters are presented. We moved dissent because you have ruled that this matter of public importance comes within standing order 107. It does not come within standing order 107 if Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice is to be accepted. Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice states: The matter proposed is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility does not apply as far as individual State redistribution proposals are concerned. There is no responsibility within this Commonwealth Parliament to determine the basis on which redistribution is carried out in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia or Tasmania. Mrs Darling —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I respectfully draw attention once again to standing order 100. From what the right honourable gentleman has just said, the only ruling which you have made this afternoon regarding this matter of public importance is based on standing order 107. That ruling was made earlier. Standing order 100 states: If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once . . . An objection must be taken at once at that time. I point out that the right honourable gentleman missed the call. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party did move dissent from my ruling at the first opportunity. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is simply this: For a dissent motion to be in order it has to relate to a ruling. Let us look at the requirements upon you, Mr Speaker, under standing order 107: A Member may propose to the Speaker that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. The obligation is that it be a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed. Mr Speaker, let me remind you of these terms: . . . and if the Speaker determines that it is in order, he shall read it to the House. The proposed discussion must be supported by 8 Members, including the proposer, rising in their places as indicating approval. That process has been carried out. The standing order states further: The Speaker shall then call upon the Member who had proposed the matter to speak. Mr Speaker, you have not given a ruling outside that which entitles the right honourable gentleman to move any dissent motion at all. I put it to you that the dissent motion is out of order. It is obligatory, under the Standing Orders, that once eight members rise in their places-that is common practice and is referred to in House of Representatives Practice-we then proceed to debate. If the Leader of the National Party had some point of order he should have made it prior to members rising in their places. Mr Speaker, I ask you to so rule. Mr SPEAKER —Firstly, the Leader of the National Party did not really have a chance to raise a point of order because I rose to state that two matters had been submitted. I then announced the decision I had made in accordance with standing order 107. Honourable members supported the proposition. The Leader of the National Party then rose on a point of order and I had some difficulty in getting him to get to his point of order. I then- Mr Porter —You didn't give him a chance. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member reflected on the Chair, I suggest that he apologise. Mr Porter —I do apologise, Mr Speaker, but- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I responded to the Leader of the National Party and asked him exactly what his point of order was. It seemed to me that it did not go to order. It was not a matter that a Speaker would be required to respond to. A Speaker has not been required to respond to a matter such as this in the history of the Parliament. However, I have accepted the motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling in regard to the matter of public importance to be considered today within standing order 107 more as a dissent from my ruling that there is not a ruling to be made. I am not prepared to quibble at the terms. I accept that the dissent motion is in order and I think we may as well get on with the debate on it. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, let me make it clear that I am in no way questioning your judgment as to which of the matters of public importance should be debated. The importance about the question, however, is that standing order 107, which is the basis by which matters of public importance are canvassed, is interpreted specifically by Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. It is interpreted in this way: The matter proposed is expected to contain an element of ministerial responsibility. I repeat that the matter of public importance must contain an element of ministerial responsibility. Mr Speaker, I dissent from your ruling that this matter of public importance comes within the terms of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice and our Standing Orders. I believe that it is outside that interpretation. I believe that there is no element within this matter of public importance which in any way relates to the responsibility of any Federal Minister. Right across Australia we understand that there are various electoral laws that differ from State to State. The responsibilities of this Parliament are determined by the Australian Constitution. There is nothing within the Australian Constitution which confers the Federal Parliament jurisdiction with respect to matters that are specifically for the States themselves. We have around Australia a number of State parliaments. Decisions taken by many of those parliaments are frequently disagreed with by members on both sides of this House. If there is to be in this place a Minister responsible for State electoral redistribution it should be a matter that is determined either by the Constitution or by a law of this Parliament. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that there is neither. There is certainly no constitutional power that gives to the Federal Parliament the right to lay down a resolution that in any way dissents from a decision on a matter that is within the States' electoral responsibility. No law has been passed by this Parliament that states that the Federal Parliament has the right to determine the electoral boundaries within the States of the Commonwealth. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that it is not just a question of the matter of public importance relating to Queensland; the point I make would apply equally to any one of the other originating Australian States. We need to remember that at the time Australia was federated the powers that were divested from the States were transferred by means of the Statute of Westminster and were powers that lay within the States themselves. The specifics of our constitutional and legislative power essentially rely on that originating document and on that originating legislation. The Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian and indeed the Tasmanian electoral redistribution proposals are quite outside the specific ministerial responsibility of any Minister in this place. There are opportunities for the Parliament to consider such matters, but that is not the same as saying that they are a Minister's responsibility. Parliament might well discuss matters that pertain to individual States or local government issues, but that is not the question here; the question is ministerial responsibility. Having looked at the constitutional position, there has to be a specific legislation under which the Special Minister of State may act and which confers on him the power to determine State electoral redistribution proposals. There is no such power. There is no such ministerial responsibility. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that in those circumstances it is not within our Standing Orders for you to rule that this matter of public importance is in accord with them; indeed, it is quite to the contrary. It is apparent that this matter is outside the ministerial responsibility of the Special Minister of State. Of course, he has responsibility for our Federal electoral laws. We know that under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) a committee has examined our Federal electoral proposals; there is another committee but I am not too sure who is its current chairman. The point is that in this Parliament we have a Minister responsible for Federal redistribution and a committee responsible for considering Federal redistribution. There is no Minister and there is no committee responsible for considering State redistribution. Well may that failed Queenslander, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), contend that in some way he wants to get his name forward. The honourable member failed miserably when he was in Queensland. Nobody in Queensland knew who he was. I was in Queensland the other day and somebody asked me who was the honourable member for Capricornia. I frankly did not know. Could one blame me? When one has heard him and seen him, would one want to know him? He certainly has not made a mark here. Mr Speaker, as far as your ruling is concerned, there is only one basis on which this House can accept this matter as a matter of public importance and that is if it fits within the interpretations applied by Pettifer and is within our Standing Orders. There is no doubt that there is no ministerial responsibility for Queensland electoral redistributions. There is no doubt that the issues introduced in Parliament by way of matters of public importance must be in accord with the procedures that are laid down by the Parliament and by those who advise you, Mr Speaker, those who have advised your predecessors and those who will advise your successors, and this matter that is before us today falls quite outside them. On that basis, I put to you that your ruling is not one which this House should support. It is important that there be formal ways by which we can debate matters that are of significance to us. If there is a matter that is entirely within the ministerial responsibility of somebody elected to another parliament, it is not appropriate that we in this place deal with it as a matter of public importance. It is essential that our Standing Orders and our parliamentary practice be complied with. Mr Speaker, you are their custodian. During the time that you sit in the chair as the representative of this Parliament, it is important that you in no way make a ruling or give a judgment on matters that are outside the parliamentary practice. The reason that I have raised this dissent from your ruling is that it is with very considerable regret that I see this matter-- Mr Griffiths —You are scared of debate. Dr Klugman —You are scared of discussion. Mr SINCLAIR —That will be the day. I think that it is quite outside anyone's interpretation to say that State redistribution proposals are within the ministerial responsibilities of any Minister in this place. It is important that there be a difference between the two. We need to understand that this question is a matter of ministerial responsibility, and that no Federal Minister under any Commonwealth statute has the power to intervene with the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. I question very seriously whether there is any constitutional power for a law to be passed that would affect the redistribution proposals. What is quite apparent, Mr Speaker, is that the matter of public importance that has been submitted to you is one that should not be entertained in this place. If this matter were raised perhaps as an item on the adjournment debate or perhaps during General Business, that may well be different. This is a specific matter, Mr Speaker. You have to interpret whether or not it fits within standing order 107. It is a matter of whether standing order 107 as interpreted by Pettifer applies. In no way would I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that a matter which applies specifically to a State electoral redistribution proposal can be so interpreted. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, we dissent from your ruling. We believe that this matter is not appropriate for debate as a matter of public importance. We believe that you should not have accepted it as a suitable matter. In that it is now before us, I submit to you that the only proper, fair and equitable interpretation of our Standing Orders and of the parliamentary practice under which they are applied is that the matter is outside the responsibility of any Federal Minister. There is no Federal law that applies to a State redistribution. There is no Federal law that applies to any State electoral law. In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, I put to you that your ruling is wrong and I put to the members of this House that your ruling be dissented from. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.58) —Mr Speaker, I second the motion. Government members interjecting- Mr N. A. BROWN —With respect, Mr Speaker, I ask you to keep honourable members opposite in order. I do not wish to reflect on the Chair, but it is appropriate to have some decorum from honourable members opposite. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I was not conscious of any interjections. Mr N. A. BROWN —I will not pursue it, Mr Speaker. I second the motion of dissent from your ruling and I say in support of that motion that there are simply two points to be made. The first point is that, in our submission, it is abundantly clear that the element of ministerial responsibility that must be established in a matter of public importance before it is brought before this Parliament must be a matter of Federal ministerial responsibility. It is clear, if the procedures of this House are to have any ambit and any sense at all, that the matters we are dealing with must be Federal matters. Does anyone on the Government side seriously contend that we should sit here day after day debating Bills to change State laws or Bills to change municipal council regulations and by-laws? Of course not. It would be utterly absurd to pretend that we should sit here passing State laws or amending State or local council laws when we all know full well that there is no Federal responsibility in those matters. It is utterly absurd for the Government to contend that the proposed matter of public importance has anything whatsoever to do with the Federal Government, the Federal Parliament or any of those responsibilities vested in the Federal system under the Constitution. The proposal that the Government wanted to put before the Parliament by means of a discussion of a matter of public importance therefore has no Federal content whatsoever. The second point, Mr Speaker, is simply this -let us assume for the moment that I am wrong on my first point; let us assume that there is some doubt-- Mr Griffiths —What an assumption! Mr N. A. BROWN —Let me, in the course of what I have to say, answer the loud-mouth, the honourable member for Maribyrnong-- Mr Griffiths —You would not even get a glass of beer in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will cease interjecting. Mr N. A. BROWN —The honourable member kept trying to interject during the speech of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) that there were international matters with which the Federal Government must concern itself. Mr Griffiths —You would not get a glass of beer in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr N. A. BROWN —Perhaps I am wrong about this, but let us go to the opinion of the first law officer of the Crown. Mr Griffiths —You would want to take an esky or you won't get a beer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr N. A. BROWN —We can always rest on governments to help oppositions-it is an immutable rule-and I am grateful for the help. If there is any doubt on this matter, let us go to the first law officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Not only is he the first law officer of the Crown but also he is a Minister in the present Federal Government. What does the responsible Minister have to say about this matter that the Government now proposes to raise to divert attention from economic matters, interest rates and housing loans? I shall quote from what the Attorney-General has said about this so-called Federal matter that the Government now says should be debated here, the State redistribution in Queensland. What does the Attorney say? He says that he dismisses any possibility of Federal intervention. Let us listen to his exact words. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), in particular, who is so keen on international matters, should listen to what his responsible Minister has to say on the matter. Honourable members opposite should listen to this because it is important. On 8 November he said: The Federal Government has national and international responsibilities and cannot enter into a State matter that has always been a State responsibility. That is what the Government's man says. That is what its first law officer says. That is what its Attorney-General says. He would be appalled if the Government asked him whether there was any Federal content in this matter to justify bringing it before the Parliament as a matter of public importance. He would agree with us if he were asked. It is not a Federal matter. No Federal responsibility is involved. The Government's Attorney-General has said so. Government members should be ashamed of their synthetic, diversionary tactics. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.02) —I oppose the motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). First, I should say that I am not surprised that the National Party should take the attitude that has been expressed by its Leader. National Party members are very anxious that this matter should not be raised in the national Parliament. However, I must say that I am somewhat shocked that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), would lend his good name to the frustrating of a discussion, for a mere 50 minutes, of a matter that has been raised in almost every editorial in every newspaper throughout this land. Mr Ian Cameron —Let me assure you that the Premier has the support of the Queensland people. Mr YOUNG —I can understand Cunnamulla's position. He does not want to talk about the matter. However, it is a matter of importance that a government in Queensland might make laws for the governing of 100 per cent of Queenslanders when it is elected by 35 per cent of the voters. That happens to be of some significance around Australia. The Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continue with the argument that the Government has put up this matter of public importance to divert attention from other matters. Let me repeat: This is not a matter for the Government to put before the Parliament. It is a matter for a member of parliament. In this case, for the first time in three years, the matter of public importance proposed by a government back bench member has been selected. Because of the matter that back bench member raised with the Speaker, the Speaker chose his matter of public importance over and above the matter that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Let me also repeat, for the benefit of the record, that during the period of the Fraser Government no fewer than 17 occasions- Mr Conquest —That is not the point. Mr YOUNG —It will have a point. The honourable member should hang on for a second. He has not been here for very long. There will be a point and I will come to it. On 17 occasions Speaker Snedden selected matters of public importance raised by Government members in preference to matters that had been raised by the Opposition. Mr Cobb —Not State matters. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member says: `Not State matters'. Let me refer him to one. The New South Wales fuel strike was a matter selected by Speaker Snedden. Why do honourable members opposite think the matter was raised? It was raised by members from New South Wales in order to condemn the New South Wales Government. It is interesting to go through these exercises because the Parliament keeps setting precedents. It would be a gross miscarriage of the conventions of parliament for us to decide that a matter such as the electoral redistribution in Queensland, which is possibly the worst gerrymander ever seen in that State, cannot be raised in this Parliament, the national Parliament of Australia, which has the responsibility for all Australians. We are not expected to be able to speak! Senator Macklin is sitting at the back of the chamber. He has introduced a Bill into the Senate to deal with the electoral redistribution in Queensland. I can understand that National Party members do not want to discuss the matter, particularly the National Party members from Queensland and the Leader of the National Party because it is going to be very embarrassing. They know that when the matter is raised in the Parliament they have to find someone either to defend it- Mr Tim Fischer —No problems. Mr YOUNG —That is right. National Party members will defend it. However, I have a feeling that, on the other hand, the National Party is in such a disarray that if some members of the Liberal Party were given the opportunity to speak, they would tell the National Party members that they are wrong. I do not think the matter is of concern only to Government members. Overwhelmingly, the majority of members of the House of Representatives are extremely concerned about what the Queensland Government is doing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that there is no ministerial responsibility involved and that we should not be trying to amend State laws. This matter is not a Bill. It is not a motion. One does not even have to vote on it. It is just a matter the Speaker has selected as a matter of public importance. If honourable members opposite do not think it is a matter of public importance, they cannot be reading the newspapers, listening to the radio programs or watching television. Everybody in Australia is aware of the matter. We do not need the constitutional knowhow of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell us that we cannot alter State laws. What really shocks me is that he lent his name to the argument by a back bencher for cutting off discussion in the national Parliament on this issue. Opposition members give the impression that they are very scared of having these issues raised. We never run away from matters that are raised by honourable members opposite who might want to condemn Labor governments. Honourable members from South Australia have not stopped talking about South Australia since the election was announced. That is the sort of thing that can be responded to in debate. That is what we are supposed to do here-raise matters and debate them. This is one of the very few occasions on which two back benchers on each side of the House are given the opportunity to debate a matter. They are not bound by their Party as to what views they express. Obviously there is a grave difference between the views- Mr Ian Cameron —Let us talk about the CWA. Mr YOUNG —That is all right. The honourable member for Maranoa says: `Let us talk about something else'. Why does he not write to the Speaker? Can he write? He should put a letter in to the Speaker tomorrow morning. It has also been brought to my attention that the matter of racial conflict in Western Australia was raised in the House on one occasion as a matter of public importance by virtue of decisions that were made by the Western Australian Government. Anyone who has been a member of this House for any time at all knows that matters reflecting on the administration of State governments, on what they are doing and matters outside this country, irrespective of what the views of honourable members may be about them, may be selected by the Speaker. On occasions we may not have been happy because the Speaker selected a matter proposed by the Government over and above a matter submitted by the Opposition. Never have I read such a crass attempt to restrict the rights of members of parliament as that which has been attempted today. The national Parliament of Australia, the House of Representatives, is told that it has no right to debate this matter because, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, according to page 503 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice and its interpretation of standing order 107 about the selection by the Speaker of matters of public importance, the matter proposed is expected to have some relationship with ministerial responsibility. This question has not been raised previously. Overwhelmingly the matters which would be raised in the House would bear some relationship to ministerial responsibility. However, Opposition members are really drawing the long bow. I ask members of the Liberal Party why they keep being led by the nose by the Nationals on this matter. They are not going to do their own base any good. The people who live in the cities who vote for the Liberal Party do not want 35 per cent governments. Yet that is what has happened in relation to the Liberal Party in Queensland. Because the Liberals in Queensland went along with Joh Bjelke-Petersen for so long, they found that he rubbed their noses in the dirt. Now the Liberals are doing it again with the National Party in this Parliament and they are doing it in the worst possible way-they are doing it to restrict the right of a member of parliament to put forward a matter of public importance which has been selected by the Speaker. Now the Opposition is moving dissent to try to cut it off altogether. That is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Braithwaite —Send him back to Queensland. Mr YOUNG —I can understand the honourable member for Dawson being critical of this motion because obviously he does not want to speak. In fact, the Opposition might have difficulty in getting two speakers to say the same thing. It might have to produce two speakers from the Liberal Party or two speakers from the National Party. Perhaps the Opposition should be like Joh. He does not care very much what anybody in the world says. He would not be concerned. Of course in his own Parliament he would chop off all this discussion. There would be none of this nonsense of discussing any matters relating to the Queensland Goverment. This is one of the few places where one can discuss what is going on in Queensland. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What has the Premier of Queensland got to do with the question of whether we debate this subject at this time? Mr SPEAKER —What has that question got to do with a point of order? The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG —I think that overwhelmingly members from both sides of the House would be critical of this attempt by the Leader of the National Party to cut off this discussion. Let me reiterate that this is not a vote on a Bill, it is not a motion upon which members have to vote; it is a discussion comprising four speakers, two from each side. The Government can select its two members and the Opposition can select its two. Perhaps the newspapers will report what has been said in the national Parliament about the expressions on the Queensland redistribution. This is a matter of importance. If we are going back into the dim dark ages where a government can make laws for all the people without being prepared to let the majority of people elect it, that is of enormous consequence to this country, not only to the people of Queensland. Commonwealth Government Ministers have to meet Queensland Ministers frequently on a whole range of issues-- Mr Ian Cameron —Not on the question of redistribution. Mr YOUNG —Not on the question merely of the redistribution, but if the redistribution has been done in Queensland merely to preserve the power of the National Party then, as all the commentators throughout this country have said, the Queensland Government is obviously wrong in what it is doing. It deserves the condemnation of the people of Australia and of the majority of people in Queensland. It is a nonsense to say that the national Parliament of Australia should not spend 50 minutes discussing a motion which calls the attention of the Australian people to the Queensland redistribution. The matter raised by the Leader of the National Party is just another attempt not only to cut off debate, but worse than that, to set in train a precedent for which future generations of parliamentarians will condemn us if we carry it. The Speaker is obviously correct in what he has done in selecting the matter of public importance. It is within his right under standing order No. 107 and that is the procedure which should be followed this afternoon. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R.A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron Donald Millar, P.C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Child, J. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Discussion resumed. Mr WRIGHT —Despite what the Opposition has said, it is timely and I believe it is indeed proper that this House should discuss the public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. I suppose it is to be expected that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland would react angrily to any change in the electoral boundaries which unfairly favour the minority National Party in that State. I suppose also, to a lesser extent, one would expect and understand that the Liberal Party, having been politically and electorally obliterated at the last election, would express its concern. But no one expected or anticipated the breadth and depth of the criticism and the condemnation that have poured forth from every aspect of the Queensland community over this latest savage attack on democracy in Queensland. The Daily Sun, in its editorial entitled `Electoral overkill' on 6 November, said: For one party to require more than 50 per cent of the vote just to be in the race for government reflects badly on our State . . . The situation is compounded when the ruling party needs only 35 per cent of the vote to stay in office. One of Queensland's top journalists and respected political commentators, Ian Miller, said: If the Labor Party did it, it would be an outrage; if the Liberal Party did it, it would be an outrage. The National Party has done it, and it is an outrage. He went on to say: What the Queensland Government has done in its electoral redistribution is to reduce parliamentary representation and democracy to an irrelevancy in this State. Cabinet rules. Political writer Andrew Stewart points out that the redistribution handsomely favours the National Party and went on to indicate the various electorates which show a true gerrymander. Since Tuesday, 5 November, when the electoral redistribution was made known, politicians, party leaders, political commentators, public affairs programs, political scientists and cartoonists have castigated and condemned this blatant denial of the basic political rights of Queenslanders. It has been described as `a denial of electoral justice'; as `the greatest rort in Queensland's political history'; as `a savage attack on the electoral rights of the 65 per cent of Queenslanders who do not support the National Party'; as `an undemocratic system which sponsors a one-party state style of government'; and other comments have talked about dictatorship and totalitarian regimes. The major comment, the best comment, the hardest hitting comment which I have seen and which stresses the public alarm is this: The National Party did not even have the decency to blush when the electoral redistribution proposals were released last week. Under an already preposterously unfair zonal system, the redistribution still managed to benefit the National Party and disadvantage seriously the Labor Party . . . The electoral system in this state does democracy and the cause of good government a great disservice. No argument about the harshness of life in the country or the requirement to compensate rural dwellers can justify an unfair and unreasonable electoral system. No amount of special pleading can excuse a system which values a city vote at half or one-third that of a country vote. The National Party has no interest in electoral reform. Mr Ian Cameron-On a point of order, I would like to ask the honourable member for Capricornia, if he is so concerned about Queensland, why he came down here-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat and do not take another frivolous point of order. Mr WRIGHT —The article goes on: The National Party has said repeatedly that it does not believe in the concept of `one vote, one value' and has no intention of introducing a system based on this elementary tenet of democracy. It sums up with this comment: It is enough to make people lose faith with democracy. This is an article not written by some ALP politician. It is not written by some left wing academic. It is not written by some journalist who supports the ALP. It is the official editorial opinion and comment of that most respected and widely read weekend newspaper, the Sunday Mail. This is the paper that does not have a reputation for supporting the Labor Party. Like the Courier-Mail, it has a reputation for arguing issues on the basis of what is true and just. Honourable members will appreciate that a newspaper such as the Sunday Mail would not launch such a devastating and critical attack on electoral redistribution unless it had valid and sustainable grounds. These grounds are available as shown by Dr Peter Coaldrake, a senior lecturer at Griffith University. He sums up much of what has happened in this redistribution, a redistribution based on four zones-a south-east zone, a provincial city zone, a western and far northern zone and a country zone. The malapportionment in the value of votes in these zones is clearly shown by Dr Coaldrake's figures. In the south-east zone almost one million people will elect 51 members of parliament with an average of some 20,000 voters in each electorate. Mr Slipper-What about Hanlon? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will resume his seat and cease interjecting. Mr WRIGHT —In the provincial city zone 243,000 Queenslanders will elect 13 members in electorates averaging about 19,000 voters. But in the country zone, 226,000 people-- Mr Slipper-What about Hanlon? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Fisher. Mr WRIGHT —He has been kicked in the head by John Howard at the last party meeting; we know that they are after his head anyway. But 226,000 people will elect 17 members in the country zone. Then we find that in the far western zone a miserable 69,000 people are going to elect eight members of parliament, with an average of some 8,659 people per electorate. Honorable members also have to keep in mind that the new rules say that the 20 per cent margin does not have to apply in the far western zone, so there could be an electorate out there containing as few as 3,000 or 4,000 people, but in the south-east areas there could be as many as 25,000 people per electorate. It is also important to realise that the real criticism is not about the zonal system. We need to have a hard look at the way in which the actual boundaries of the individual electorates have been drawn. The main thing to have happened is that throughout the State Labor voting areas have been grouped together to form, wherever possible, one or two safe Labor electorates, thus leaving the surrounding electorates up for grabs for the National Party. In central Queensland the mining areas of Moranbah and Collinsville, though miles and miles apart, have been grouped together in a new electorate called Bowen, thus making the surrounding electorates of Peak Downs, Flinders, Burdekin and Whitsunday much safer for the National Party. In the Wide Bay area, which takes in the three seats of Bundaberg, Isis and Maryborough, the Labor seat of Bundaberg has been strengthened but the traditional ALP seat of Maryborough has been turned into a fairly safe National Party seat by the addition of a pro-National Party shire council area. In far north Queensland the Labor Party seat of Cook has been strengthened by taking out the Labor areas of Mount Isa and Barron River in order to safeguard National Party Minister Tenni and also in an attempt to knock off politically the ALP member for Mount Isa, Bill Price. The Labor voting area of the Aboriginal mission of Wujil Wujil, which is geographically within the National Party seat of Barron River and has no contact whatsoever with Cook, has been put into the Cook electorate. In the western area the State seat of Warrego, a marginal National Party seat previously held by the ALP, has had the very strong Labor area of Cunnamulla clipped off it and put in the blue ribbon seat of Balonne. It now runs from the southern border to the central Queensland town of Springsure. In Townsville three Labor seats have been changed drastically. The Labor seat of Townsville South has been abolished. The Aboriginal area of Palm Island, previously in Hinchinbrook, has been put in the Labor seat of Townsville West. A new seat of Townsville East has been created by incorporating and gathering together all the Labor strongholds. Why? Because the new Townsville seat is up for grabs by the National Party. The National Party seat of Peak Downs, held by the Industrial Relations Minister, Vince Lester, who has had a running battle with the mining unions for the past two years, has had the mining towns taken out of his electorate-typical gerrymander. In the south-east zone the story is repeated over and over again. On the north coast the seat of Landsborough has been changed to make sure it includes the area in which the Minister, Michael Ahern, lives. In contrast, in the seat of South Brisbane the area in which Jim Forrest lives, West End, has been purposely cut off. It has been put into another Labor Party seat on the other side of the river. Labor electorates on the south side of Brisbane have totally disappeared, been completely changed or been cleverly weakened by removing the strong Labor areas and placing those parts in already safe Labor seats. In Salisbury, Wayne Goss has had his seat totally reshaped so that it is now a Liberal or National Party electorate. Deputy Leader Tom Burns has had all the Labor areas of his electorate shifted into other areas. ALP front bencher Eric Shaw has had his electorate removed. He now has to go to another one. The very marginal seat of Redlands, which was recently won marginally by the National Party, has had all the safe Labor Party areas taken out of it to make it a safe National Party seat. The ALP seat of Bulimba has had all the safe ALP areas added to it to make the adjoining ALP seats marginal and to strengthen the non-Labor seats. Labor's only woman member of the Queensland Parliament, Anne Warner, has had her seat abolished so that she will be thrown into pre-selection battles against other sitting ALP members. Eight new seats will be created in the south-east area by combining the newer and outer areas of Brisbane with surrounding rural fringe areas. The Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast have been restructured to give the National Party at least four, if not five, new seats by combining urban areas with these large rural fringe areas. (Quorum formed) Mr Ian Cameron-Put a bit of Bundaberg in that glass of water and give us a decent speech. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member certainly can recommend it; we know about that. Let us look at some of the Liberal seats that have been strengthened to keep the Liberals quiet and reduce their chances of regaining the 12 seats they lost in 1983. The Independents have been wiped out. The seat of Ithaca has gone and in central Queensland the Independent expelled National Party member has had his seat cut in two. It does not matter which way one looks, one sees the gerrymander. I start to wonder why. In conclusion, I make one comment as to what I think is really an assessment of electoral redistributions. I quote from a recorded comment on electoral redistributions which states: It is a `bill of sale' over the lives of the majority of people of this State for the benefit of this Government and the minority they represent. Truly these are grave days for the people of Queensland, not so much because of the enemy without as because of the enemy within. Little do the people realise the grave injustice that is-- Mr Ian Cameron-Go back to Queensland. Mr WRIGHT —Listen to this, Cameron; you ought to. I return to the quote: Little do the people realise the grave injustice that is silently being inflicted upon them. In a most subtle way their freedom to select the Government they want to represent them is being taken away from them. Do you agree with that, Cameron? Mr Ian Cameron-No. Mr WRIGHT —I am glad you said that, because these words are recorded on page 2331-- Mr Slipper-I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Capricornia should refer to the honourable member for Maranoa by the name of his electorate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Honourable members have heard me read the words of criticism of an electoral redistribution. Those words are recorded on page 2331 of the Queensland Parliamentary Hansard of March 1949. They are the words of the then member for Nanango, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. So it would seem that history has certainly repeated itself in 1985 in a most hypocritical way. The test now is on the Liberals, because we know where the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) stands on this. We know that he sold out his standards and principles when he was in north Queensland recently. The test will be on the Liberals in this House as to whether they are prepared to back this Government in its condemnation and criticisms of this electoral distribution. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.38) —Every member of the community who is listening to this broadcast should understand that the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was a member of State Parliament. We know why he is no longer a State member. Anybody who leaves a State parliament, having performed as abysmally as he has here, leaves not because he will enhance the other place but because he failed in the last place. The wording of this matter of public importance is very interesting because it refers to public alarm. I would have thought that a measure of public alarm would have been the facts that are concerning the people of Australia. Let us look at the newpaper headlines: `Bond Rate Up-Home loan limit to stay'. The public alarm at the Queensland redistribution proposals is not there. Other headlines state: `Home Loan Hike Looms-$60 a month rise'. Is there discussion of a matter of public importance on the public alarm at the recently announced Queensland redistribution proposals? Not on your sweet life! Other headlines state: `Home Loan Hike Looms'; `Home Funds Drying Up-Bond Shock'; `New Round of Interest Rates'; `Lending Slashed by $750m'. Is there public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the National Party should quickly come back to the matter under discussion. Mr SINCLAIR —What on earth is this about? We have here a matter of public importance that refers to `public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals'. Public alarm is measured by the way the community reacts to matters that are before it. Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This has nothing to do with the matter of public importance that is before the House today. I would ask you to make the Leader of the National Party direct his words to the matter we are discussing today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I uphold the point of order. Before I call the Leader of the National Party I remind him of the terms of the matter before the Chair. All I have suggested so far is that I would expect him to return quickly to that matter. Mr SINCLAIR —Unless I am mistaken, Mr Deputy Speaker, the matter of public importance concerns the public alarm caused by the Queensland electoral redistribution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have not called the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —It is very important that we understand what it is all about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. I now call the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, surely public alarm is measured by reaction in the newspapers, in the media, to matters that are before us. We are talking about public alarm. `Bond leap to hit home cash'. Public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals? There is no reference in any of the newspapers I can find to Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. Public alarm? `Home rates lift looms. 15.25 per cent by Christmas, building societies warn'. Where are the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals? Mr Chynoweth —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Dunkley will resume their seats. I have already indicated to the Leader of the National Party-he may care to listen to the Chair; it would be in his interest to do so-that he should quickly get back to the motion before the Chair. If he is not prepared to do that he will resume his seat. Mr SINCLAIR —Come on; hurry up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will not accept that `come on; hurry up' from you or anybody else. Mr SINCLAIR —It is an attempt to stop me speaking. That is what it is all about. Mr N. A. Brown —You are taking up his time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has referred by interjection to something that he well knows is not the matter before the Chair. I call the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, this debate is about public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. Unless there is a recognition by the community of Australia that this Government is trying to generate alarm falsely, inaccurately, we will not be able to address this motion properly. Public alarm means that there is an indication in the media about the extent to which there are problems with the subject matter of this debate. The subject matter of this debate is not mentioned in any of the print media that I can find today. If we look at the headlines we see `Home rates lift looms', `Interest rates rise'. Public alarm about this matter is not demonstrated in that way. If we talk about public alarm it is necessary to understand that there are two elements to the matter of public importance. Mr Robert Brown —I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 97, which says: Any Member complaining to the House of a statement in a newspaper, book or other publication as a breach of privilege shall produce a copy of the newspaper, book or other publication containing the statement in question, and shall be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher. I request that the Leader of the National Party indicate the name of the printer and publisher of each of the newspapers to which he has referred. Mr SINCLAIR —I would be delighted to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. I have not ruled on the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order. I call the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —We are talking about public alarm, and there are two elements to this matter. The honourable member who has just been thrown out of the Queensland Parliament because of his ineptitude is not in a position to comment on any matter that pertains to that State. This matter is certainly one that must not be allowed to rest without proper and adequate consideration. It is important if public alarm exists that the people of Australia know why and how it exists. It is important that they understand the issues before them. It is important that they know that the print media in no instance contains any reference to this matter of public alarm or to the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. Mr Hunt —What is the headline? Mr SINCLAIR —`Interest rate jump hits home buyers'. It is important that we understand in this place that if there is public alarm it is not to be generated artificially by some group of people who come in here and talk about nothing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. Mr N. A. Brown —What has he done now? Are you not going to let him speak at all? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party that he cease interjecting when the Chair is endeavouring to address the House. Mr N. A. Brown —We feel strongly about this. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not mind what you feel strongly about. I would like you to feel strongly about respect for the Chair. The Leader of the National Party, whether knowingly or unknowingly, continues to flout the ruling by the Chair that he is not speaking to the matter before the Chair. He suggests to the Chair that because the words `public alarm' are contained in the matter of public importance he has the right to suggest that the public alarm contained therein refers to public alarm on a range of other issues. I interpret that as a deliberate flouting of the ruling of the Chair and if I have once again to tell him to get to the matter before the Chair I will ask him to resume his seat, and he will resume his seat and not be called again. Mr SINCLAIR —I thought that we were discussing a matter of public importance. You are taking my time, Mr Deputy Speaker, deliberately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have not called the Leader of the National Party. He will resume his seat until he is called. I now call the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I presume that the Queensland newspapers are a way of measuring the alarm referred to in this matter of public importance. Everybody in the community needs to understand that in this Parliament today we are trying to assess the degree to which there is a matter of public importance which is supposedly related to public alarm over the Queensland electoral redistribution proposals. What does the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, no less a person than the first law officer of the Commonwealth, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), have to say? An address he made to an audience in Brisbane-and Brisbane is before us; we are talking about Queensland affairs; not about Commonwealth affairs but about matters that have nothing to do with this Parliament-is reported as follows: Mr Bowen, in Brisbane for a Queensland Consumers' Association dinner, also dismissed any possibility of Federal intervention. `The Federal Government has national and international responsibilities and cannot enter into a State matter that has always been a State responsibility,' he said. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important that the people of Australia know that even in the Courier-Mail, which one would have thought is a paper distributed in Queensland, in Brisbane-we are talking about the Queensland electoral redistribution-I can find nothing to suggest anything to do with alarm being shown by any member of the public. It is important, therefore, that we put the whole of this matter in perspective. There is no public alarm. We are talking about a matter that lies in the minds of somebody who is no longer a member of the Queensland Parliament; somebody who is a failed leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Labor Party; somebody who could not perform in Queensland; somebody who comes down here and tries to assert to us in some way that there is public alarm about a matter that has nothing to do with him. Mrs Darling —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 76, which says: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I put it to you that the present speaker has erred in regard to that standing order in the comments he made about the honourable member for Capricornia. Mr SINCLAIR —I apologise to the honourable gentleman if I have offended him, but I rather thought that he was a failed member of the Queensland Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would expect that the Leader of the National Party would show some respect for the Chair. Mr Hunt —How could you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will deal with the Deputy Leader of the National Party in a few moments. The honourable member for Lilley has raised a point of order and I understand the point that she made. I think that while the Leader of the National Party was getting very close to breaching that standing order, he had not actually reached that point. I believe from the remarks he was making that he was endeavouring to link the honourable member for Capricornia with the matter before the House. Before I call the Leader of the National Party I ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party to withdraw the reflection on the Chair. Mr Hunt —I have every respect for the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party to withdraw the specific reflection that he made on the Chair. Mr Hunt —If I cast any reflection on the Chair, I withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I just want the Deputy Leader of the National Party to say simply that he withdraws the remark. Mr Hunt —I withdraw the remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that we understand-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not called the Leader of the National Party. I now call him. Mr SINCLAIR —If there is public alarm it is rapidly generating on this side of the House because of the way in which the proceedings of this House are allowed to be conducted. I think it is important that we have a look at this matter of public importance and understand that within it, firstly, there is not any public alarm and secondly, there is no reference to the main subject that is supposed to be before us. The failed member who has just come along and made a presentation should also comprehend that if he cares to have a look at the analysis that has been presented on other occasions about the percentage of votes required to obtain a majority in parliament, his case itself has no substance. Indeed, if we look at the record we will find that while it is true that in 1983 the Queensland Government required 20.21 per cent of the vote to get a majority, the redistribution requires 21.55 per cent. In Western Australia-a State which is now under a Labor government-18.03 per cent is required. In our case, only 24.14 per cent of the vote is required to elect a government. In those circumstances, not only is there no public alarm but there is no substance in the issue. I put to the House that the matter is raised only because the Labor Party finds itself unable to answer those very substantial issues which are genuinely matters of public alarm, such as the level of interest rates, the collapse of the Australian dollar, increasing inflation and rising unemployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I move for an extension of time? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa would know that an extension of time must be moved before the point when he rose to move it. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —The House will not need to be reminded that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in the whole course of his contribution to this House, did not once address the fundamentals of the abuse of the democratic process that is currently being carried out in the State of Queensland. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Considering your previous rulings, I read to you the words of the-- Mr Wright —Speak quickly. You are wasting time. Mr Tuckey —I am speaking equally as fast as others have spoken. I am about to read to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the terms of the matter of public importance. It states: The public alarm at the recently announced Queensland electoral distribution proposals. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order- Mr Tuckey —I am on a point of order. The Minister cannot intrude on my point of order. Sit down; go on, sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I call the Minister on a point of order. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is out of order for the honourable gentleman to take a point of order on a matter which took place during a speech which is not currently before the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. Mr Tuckey —May I respond to that point of order? The point of order is that the debate is subject to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold that point of order. Is the honourable member for O'Connor taking a point of order on the honourable member for Maribyrnong? Mr Tuckey —Yes. I am taking a point of order on the honourable member for Maribyrnong on the point of relevance. That honourable member is not being relevant to the question of public alarm. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member for O'Connor come to the point of order? Mr Tuckey —The point of order is that the matter, as you have pointed out, refers to public alarm. The honourable member is not talking about public alarm, and that has been a clear ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not uphold the point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The term `gerrymander' had its genesis in Governor Elbridge Gerry's removal of political opponents in a particular electorate in the United States of America in the 1800s. The particular shape of that electorate was very much like a salamander, hence its place in our political lexicon. It is important to note that Queensland's proposed redistribution is, in terms of basic democratic principles, a worse gerrymander than that from which the term got its name; that is, it is more of an offence against basic democratic principles than that applying under Governor Elbridge Gerry's proposal. Prior to this redistribution being finalised, some 39 per cent of the total vote was required by the Queensland National Party for it to govern. Under the current proposals it will require only 35 per cent. Compare this with the requirement for the Australian Labor Party, which will need to achieve 55 per cent of the vote before it can attain government. A country voter gets 2.09 votes for every voter in a city electorate. By any definition this gerrymander is an extreme one, and henceforth the term in Australia for an extreme form of vote-rigging ought to be `Bjelkemander'. The zonal criteria are not democratic. The principles do not encompass-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, which is the same as the one just raised by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) about reflecting on an honourable member. The Premier was reflected upon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. He knows that that refers to a member of this House. That is the second point of order that he has raised. They were both frivolous. If he raises any more frivolous points of order I may have to deal with him. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —Well might the Opposition take frivolous points of order. The Leader of the National Party did not have the intestinal fortitude to put his views on this aberration. It is a disgrace to basic democratic principles and it shames most members of the Opposition. You should not come into this House talking about probity. You bring the same degree of probity to the conduct of this House as you bring to your own personal financial accounting methods. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw those remarks. I take strong offence at them. They are wrong, as were the remarks he made before, and I request that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the National Party is raising something that the honourable member for Maribyrnong said that was offensive to him, I must say that with the noise coming from honourable members I did not hear anything, but if there was anything that the honourable member for Maribyrnong said that was personally offensive to-- Mr Hunt —You are not only one eyed, you are one eared. You heard what I said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —For the moment I will deal with the matter I am referring to. The Deputy Leader of the National Party would be well advised to gain a bit of respect for the Chair. If the honourable member for Maribyrnong has said anything that was a personal reflection on the Leader of the National Party, he should withdraw. Mr GRIFFITHS —I do not know why the Leader of the National Party thought that my comments related to him, but if he does make that nexus out of my comments, out of respect to the Chair only, I withdraw those remarks. The public record speaks for itself. The current Premier of Queensland in the Queensland Hansard of 31 August 1950 at page 253 said: The Premier said the will of the people must be paramount politically and I ask any honourable member on the Government benches whether he can by any stretch of imagination say that the redistribution that was carried out had in mind the need of the will of the people must be paramount politically. Nobody can stand up and show that the electors would be able so to vote that no dice would be loaded against them, that the will of the people would be given full expression politically. I say with all sincerity- I emphasise the word `sincerity'- that taking all the aspects of the matter into account no-one can stand up and say or show that the present electorates are designed to give the will of the People full expression; (Quorum formed) Because the Opposition has taken up my time with frivolous points of order and the calling of quorums I simply say in winding up that the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) was fully supportive of the proposals adopted by this Government and there was a degree of bipartisanship across the board-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Robert Brown —What has happened to liberalism? Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(5.03) —I will tell the honourable member what has happened to his currency in a moment, if he will listen. We are talking here about the state of alarm in the Australian community. Of course, a number of questions arise about matters on which Australians at the moment are alarmed. I must say that I was alarmed to find that in the last 12 months the Australian dollar has depreciated against the Indian rupee by 22 per cent. That is the situation with the value of our-- Mr Chynoweth —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This person has not spoken one word relating to the matter of public importance. He has not even mentioned it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr N. A. BROWN —It is obvious that this matter arouses strong feelings. We have heard some arguments from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) about what he maintains is a-- Government members interjecting- Mr N. A. BROWN —We had an address from the honourable member for Capricornia which I was about to say that I found particularly interesting. If he really wants to know, it was an interesting speech. Those who subscribe to his view maintain that there is proposed to be what is called a gerrymander in the State of Queensland. There are other people outside this Parliament and inside it who take the contrary view. I was always brought up to believe that when one is faced with that situation-- Government members interjecting- Mr N. A. BROWN —Those opposite are not really interested in debating this matter. If they would just be quiet for a moment, they might be better informed, if no wiser. I have always understood that, if one has conflicting views on a subject of this sort, particularly conflicting views on a matter in which people have a direct interest of their own, it is helpful to have an independent opinion, to look at what someone who is not committed to one side or the other has to say about the issues involved. I have done that because I have a view which basically is that I believe in fair redistributions and a fair allocation of voters between electorates, having regard to all the relevant factors. Government members interjecting-- Mr N. A. BROWN —It is quite extraordinary that members cannot shut up for 30 seconds and listen for a change. I have sought an independent opinion. This independent opinion is set out in a transcript of what was said by Dr Victor Prescott on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. Dr Victor Prescott is the reader in geography at the University of Melbourne. As far as I know, he is not committed to one side of politics or the other. What we do know about him is that he is a widely respected political commentator retained by the ABC. Government members should listen to what he said about this matter and they might learn something. He said: The arguments used in favour of this system- that is, the system now proposed by the Queensland Government- by the National Party today are exactly the same as those used by Mr Hanlon, the Labor Premier when he introduced the system in 1949. Mr Griffiths —And shame on him, too. Mr N. A. BROWN —I understand that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is saying shame on a former Labor Premier of the State of Queensland. Dr Prescott continued: Briefly, it is asserted that Queensland is a large, diverse State, where most of the population lives in the metropolis, and where much important economic activity and investment takes place in remote areas. To ensure adequate representation of the population and economic interests of the non-metropolitan area there should be variation in the numbers of electors in individual seats. This represents a different view. As he is an independent commentator, Government members would be well advised to listen to what he has to say. Government members interjecting- Mr N. A. BROWN —I really wonder which side it is that does not want this matter debated. Dr Prescott went on to say: That is a perfectly respectable argument and is the principle on which the Australian Senate is elected. Last December each Tasmanian Senator was elected by about 32,000 voters. In New South Wales each Senator had to attract 381,000 votes. Effectively, Western Australia- this relates to one of the Government's flock- has had a zonal system- the very system Government members are criticising- since 1914, and Victoria had such an arrangement in the 1960s. Electoral variation is also known overseas, including some American States and the European Assembly. It is very apparent that there is a different view. That view is that of course one wants to obtain a fair, reasonable and responsible redistribution but, in the course of doing it, one must have regard to the economic situation of the State, the size of the State, the distribution of the population throughout that State and, above all, the importance of individual people having adequate representation and adequate service from their members of parliament. Let us look at the issue of fairness of elections. If Government members would look at what independent people say about these things and would keep an open mind, they might find that they do not have all the answers. Professor Colin Hughes has looked at where the fair elections take place and where they do not take place. Mr Simmons —Federally? Mr N. A. BROWN —No, across the Commonwealth, if the honourable member wants to know. Professor Colin Hughes has said that he has had a look at the figures-we know his position-and found the seven fairest elections that have been held in the Commonwealth and the three largest mainland States since 1949. Queensland accounts for three of the seven. Under this system that honourable members opposite abuse, Queensland accounts for three of the fairest elections having taken place in the Commonwealth. New South Wales, one of the States where honourable members opposite have had control of the electoral process accounts for only two, the Commonwealth one and Victoria, which is a Labor State, also only one. So if we look around the entire country we find that not all the fairness is on Labor's side. If we look at the State of Western Australia, where the Labor Party seems to have some influence over affairs, we see that that is the greatest gerrymander. Labor needs only 18.03 per cent of the vote to obtain the theoretical minimum percentage vote required to produce a majority in the Parliament. I am concerned not so much about the ratbag issue which the Labor Party has raised in this Parliament in an attempt to draw attention away from the very serious economic problems such as interest rates, housing loans and our declining balance of trade and the other horrendous features of the deteriorating Australian economy. I am not so much concerned about those diversionary tactics. I am not even so much concerned about the fact that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said that this is not a Federal matter; it has nothing to do with the Federal Parliament or the Federal Government. It is a matter about which he said: The Federal Government has national and international responsibilities and cannot enter into a State matter that has always been a State responsibility. If honourable members opposite have a problem and they are looking for an answer to the problem their own Attorney-General has given them the answer. He said that the remedy to the disproportionate distribution was a State referendum. So the solution to the problems of the honourable member for Capricornia are in his own State-the State that, incidentally, rejected him as a major political figure in that State. But it is not these matters that concern me above all. What concerns me is not so much the fact that this is not a Federal matter; what concerns me is this-- Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Menzies has made a comment about a referendum in Queensland. He ought to know that, under the Constitution, we cannot have a referendum in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr N. A. BROWN —It is no wonder that Queensland threw the honourable member out. Who would listen to him there or anywhere else. What concerns me is that the present Federal Government has some intention of seeking control over State redistributions. It seems that the Federal Government has some intention to intervene in this matter federally. First of all, it is proposing a Bill of Rights, which is presently before the Parliament, which gives the Federal Government great powers over State government matters. The question arises: Does it give the Federal Government power over redistributions? The Chairman of the Human Rights Commission says that it possibly does. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —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 layout of the City of Canberra and its environs-eighty-sixth series, second report-together with copies of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.15) —Before the debate was interrupted for the discussion of General Business, I had spoken briefly in support of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. I was in the process of making a number of points that I think ought to be raised in the context of this debate in support of the enactment of a Bill of Rights. The first point that I made was that it was vital for Australia to maintain its international credibility that we honour the obligations that we entered into in the area of human rights. I contrasted the rather sad and sorry record of the Opposition parties in relation to living up to this very important principle. The second reason I advance for supporting the enactment of a Bill of Rights is the failure of the common law to provide adequate protection for human rights. I believe that this proposition is incontrovertible. As any first-year law student would know, the doctrine of sovereignty of Parliament means that, within the constitutional limitations imposed in any sovereign legislature, the government of the day has the power to make or unmake any law that it sees fit. The reality is that the common law and the courts are simply powerless to intervene to overrule any law of the Parliament no matter how much that law may transgress fundamental human rights standards. In support of this view I would like to refer to the right honourable Lord Scarman, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, a distinguished English jurist, who said in the ninth Wilfred Fullagar Memorial Lecture delivered at Monash University in September 1980: English law lacks a coherent basis of principle upon which it can tackle the problems of human rights in their modern setting. To this extent clearly the common law has failed. A new Bill of Rights could establish, and will establish, guiding principles which will set standards for politicians, administrators and judges. A third reason why I support the Bill of Rights before the Parliament is that it could be a major educative force. I do not assert for a moment that the enactment of a Bill of Rights will, of itself, guarantee either the establishment or the enforcement of human rights. But it can play an important role in lifting public awareness, in lifting consciousness about the importance of defending human rights. I want to quote, in support of this proposition, not a member of the Australian Labor Party but a prominent member of the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Haddon Storey, who has written in support of an Australian Bill of Rights that such a Bill would create an awareness of the right to liberty in the community which would tend to inhibit any movement away from such liberties. What a tragedy it is that we do not have more Liberals of the calibre of Mr Storey in the Parliament today. A further argument supporting the enactment of a Bill of Rights is that many Commonwealth countries have already enacted such legislation. The list is quite substantial. Canada adopted a Bill of Rights in 1960 which enumerates individual rights along the lines of the European conventions and, of course, the position in the United States of America is well known. Even within the United Kingdom citizens have the right to take complaints of human rights violations to the European Commission and to raise human rights questions where there has been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom became a party way back in 1969. In my concluding remarks I would like to express my deep disquiet about the double standards displayed by the Opposition in relation to this matter. I have not seen a media release by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-I have listened to his comments in relation to an Australian Bill of Rights-in which he condemned the Bill as harmful, dangerous, divisive and unnecessary and denounced the proposal at great length. I find his remarks somewhat bewildering in view of the fact that Senator Durack, speaking in the Senate on 19 April this year, said: The Opposition does not have any particular view as to whether in theory there should- (Quorum formed) I was in the process of concluding my remarks on the Australian Bill of Rights. It was the rather sensitive response of the Opposition in calling a quorum that highlighted its vulnerability with repect to its total lack of consistency on the Australian Bill of Rights. The shadow Attorney-General put out a news statement and he has lined up with other Liberals in this Parliament- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In these debates each speaker, save for the first speaker, is allowed 20 minutes. Where there is an agreement between both sides that agreement, as I understand it, should operate as an amendment to the Standing Orders. There was a 10-minute agreement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is no point of order. Agreements that have been made between the Government and the Opposition are nothing to do with the Chair. Mr TICKNER —I am in the process of winding up. It is regrettable that the shadow Attorney-General has as much acumen in taking points of order as he has in carrying out his duties as shadow Attorney-General. In conclusion, the point I seek to make is that despite the fact that Senator Durack said months ago in the Senate that the Opposition did not have any particular view whether or not in theory there should or should not be a Bill of Rights, we now find that every single Liberal, even those who once used to pride themselves on defending the principles of liberalism, now are lining up with the rump-the reactionary and extreme discredited National Party of Australia. It is my view that this Australian Bill of Rights, while not representing all that many of us would want in terms of far-reaching reform is in fact an historic Bill. It is a Bill which in the longer term will be the foundation for the effective defence of the enhancement of human rights in Australia and I believe that Australia will be the better for it. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.22) —I will keep to the agreed 10 minutes, despite the fact that the honorable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) took 20 minutes to speak on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and cognate Bills, in breach of our agreement. It is appropriate that at the very time the Government is celebrating the Whitlam years this House should be debating one of the Whitlam Government's grandest, silliest and potentially most dangerous ambitions. This Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that it creates are in the grand tradition of the Office of the Status of Women, the office of the Commissioner for Community Relations and the various anti-discrimination boards, commissions and tribunals of Australia's thought police who so zealously are determined to change the free and tolerant way of life of ordinary Australians. This Bill and the proposed Commission are more than another example of the thought police at work; they are their corner-stone. The first point to make about this Bill is that there is no serious public demand for it. Australians know that the best guarantees of their rights are independent courts administering the common law and statute laws passed by elected parliaments-laws which were designed to correct shortcomings in existing laws. Australians also know that Bills of Rights are very popular with tyrannical governments. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics probably has a beauty, as do such brilliant democracies as marxist Afghanistan. Taking the Bill of Rights before us, can the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) tell us of the groundswell of public opinion demanding an end to slavery in Australia, as Article 20 promises? Has the House received a vast number of petitions demanding an end to torture in Australia, as is promised in article 32? Is the Attorney-General being pestered by Australians demanding the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family, in accordance with Article 13? Are Australians demanding that Article 6 be accepted so that they can at last take part in public life, or the acceptance of Articles 16 and 17 so that they can at last leave or return to Autralia? Of course they are not. There is no public demand for this Bill. It is being introduced not for the public good but to appease the thought police who believe, no doubt rightly, that despite the vagueness of the Bill of Rights, or perhaps because of it, they can use it in time to limit the freedoms of ordinary Australians and to change the Australian way of life. The Bill's history began in the days of Attorney-General Murphy. It was then put aside for several years until Attorney-General Evans revived it in a very secretive manner. It has now been revived again by the present Attorney-General, who described the Evans Bill, if I can call it that, as a mess that should be scrapped. Yet the Bill that he has re-revised is the Evans Bill with only a few changed and of course, it remains a mess. Let us look at the Bill of Rights and at the rights which are not protected or even mentioned. There is no reference to the right not to join an association; that is, not to join a trade union. Almost every member on this side of the House has large files in his office on people who were forced to join trade unions against their wishes, who felt very resentful and who looked to parliament to make it possible for a person to opt not to join a trade union. At the moment that can be done only if one can prove that one has a conscientious objection to joining a union, comparable to a pacifist's objection to war. That is a step with which people have great difficulty. So countless numbers of people have been forced to join a union, but the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to say to them. There is no reference to property rights. Of course, Labor governments do not like property rights. The New South Wales Labor Government appropriated private coal in New South Wales. If that State had had a Bill of Rights that protected property rights, the Government would not have been able to do that. There is no reference to property rights in this Bill. Property rights are of tremendous importance. They are a necessary condition of democracy. Wherever there is a democracy there are property rights, and it is extraordinary to have a Bill of Rights without any reference to them. There is no reference to the right to establish private schools, despite the fact that there is a very significant movement in our society to abolish them. People associated with those schools value the right to establish and maintain them, but they would look to this Bill of Rights in vain. There is no reference to the right of parents to send their children to a private school. There is no reference to a right to freedom from indoctrination in schools. In these days of courses in lifestyles, peace studies and what not, the threat of indoctrination in schools is very great. No reference is made to that freedom. This is a very inadequate and feeble Bill of Rights. The rights that are actually in the Bill are so vaguely worded and so ambiguous that it is hard to see that they will do any real good, although it is likely that behind their vagueness other forces will be able to use them. Article 7, on freedom of expression, refers to: . . . the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form . . . So it proposes a complete abolition of any censorship, whether it be of child pornography or whatever. One takes the words of that Article to mean that there would be complete freedom for indoctrination of children because it allows the giving of information of any kind and in any form. Article 7 of the Bill is much wider than the corresponding article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on which the Bill of Rights is based. Commonsense limitations are placed on freedom of expression in Article 19 of the Covenant. It is ironic that freedom of expression is even referred to in a Bill that is to be administered by the Human Rights Commission, which is most famous for its determination to retrict freedom of expression if it involves what it considers to be racial taunts. In article 11, which deals with freedom of association, there is no reference to the right not to join a trade union. As I have mentioned, there is a reference to the right to form and join trade unions but there is no reference to the right not to join, even though the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that `no-one may be compelled to join an association'. Article 11 is a very vague and unsatisfactory freedom of association article. Article 14 refers to the rights of the child. It states: Every child is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child . . . That is an extremely vague statement. It gives all the rights referred to in the Bill of Rights, whether they are rights of association, freedom of expression or whatever to the child to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child. One can see a vast number of contentious disagreements arising out of that article. Article 21 states: Any person who is arrested shall be informed at the time of the arrest of the reasons for the arrest, and shall be informed promptly and in detail of any charges in a language which that person understands. That is fine. However, let us say, for example, that there is a crowd of Ethiopians or Afghans demonstrating outside some consulate or embassy and the situation becomes riotous. The police turn up and if no one is able to speak in the appropriate Ethiopian or Afghan language, assuming that the crowd is not fluent in English, presumably the police are in breach of this article. In addition, we have the limitations set out in Article 3 which subject all of these rights to `such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said, goodness knows what that means. However, it adds further to the vagueness of the whole thing. There is no question that ambiguities exist in this Bill. We have a new Article 13. The present Attorney-General amended the article in the Evans Bill he inherited. Article 13 now states: Every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family . . . The original version talked simply of the right to marry and found a family which some people interpreted as meaning that it supported homosexual marriage and adopted children for the purposes of founding a family. The articles are vague and unsatisfactory in every way. They contain serious omissions. However, above all, my criticism is that the legislation is to be administered by the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission has a bad name. It made a fool of itself by excluding the shadow Attorney-General, as he then was, the honourable member for Menzies ( Mr N. A. Brown) from its offices. It has only recently let him back in on very strict conditions. It made a fool of itself over the racial taunts legislation it proposed. It made a fool of itself over the Pine Gap torture case and in suppressing the Moens report entitled `Affirmative Action, Concepts, Justifications and Practice' which it had commissioned. It suppressed that report because it did not like its results. The new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be able to receive anonymous complaints, hear them in secrecy and impose the holding of compulsory conferences at which the parties involved have no rights to representation. To have a human rights commission of this kind administering Bill of Rights legislation is the sickest joke the Attorney could think of. Professor Lachlan Chipman said about the Human Rights Commission: If ever I was the subject of a complaint, I would have serious difficulties in conscience in co-operating with the requirements of the legislation. The last thing I would do is appear before the Human Rights Commission. I would urge others similarly to consult their consciences. If Professor Chipman said that of the Human Rights Commission, what on earth would he say about the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission? I strongly oppose the legislation. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.34) —In joining the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985, I find it appropriate, having regard to the arguments put by the Opposition, that I follow in the debate a member of the Opposition who is about to depart for South Africa as a guest of the South African Government, presumably to look at the question of human rights there. Mr Coleman —You would presumably forbid such a trip. Mr HOLDING —No, I do not forbid it at all. I believe that people should be free to travel. However, if a member of this Parliament, knowing what every member of this Parliament knows about the nature of the South African regime, chooses to be a guest of that Government and then purports to stand up in this Parliament and lecture us on human rights, he must forgive us if we feel that his comments have to be treated with some degree of cynicism. Equally, if we look at the total position of the Opposition-- Mr Cadman —Do you remember your attitude on Afghanistan? Mr HOLDING —My position on Afghanistan? I think what has occurred in Afghanistan is an outrage. I have publicly condemned the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem with the honourable gentlemen opposite is that they are always concerned about human rights somewhere else other than in Australia. I have heard the most eloquent pleas from the other side of the House for the right of trade unionists in Poland to form a union and to go on strike. I have heard eloquent pleas from honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House for the right to assemble to speak on human rights issues. I have heard that plea put eloquently by members of the Opposition on behalf of people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, it is different when it comes to the question of enlarging the rights of the average Australian citizen. I say to the honourable gentlemen opposite that we are talking about the rights of the average Australian citizen, not the rights of the shadow Attorney-General. Every member of this Parliament, by virtue of his position, has a few more rights than the average citizen. I assure the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is attempting to interrupt, that if he is to be picked up on an allegation of inebriation in some of the places in the far north of Australia he will be far more placidly treated than an Aboriginal who might find himself in the same predicament would be. I refer to the pages of our history books. I am talking about contemporary Australia. I am not differentiating between any political party operating in any State. We know that the people at the bottom end of Australian society do not have the privilege of being Queen's Counsel, shadow Ministers or members of parliament. Their rights are not protected by a charter such as the one before us. The only argument we have had from the Opposition has been a commitment that, even if we were to accept all its amendments, its members would still vote against the legislation. To that extent the Opposition's amendments are a sham, just like its pleas on behalf of the rights of unionists to assemble in Poland and just like so many of its pleas on these sorts of issues are a sham. What in essence is the Government endeavouring to do? We are endeavouring to take as our own conventions which have universal ratification and which establish basic rights and freedoms which we all know from time to time have been abused in our nation-not grossly abused, but certainly there are individual cases of justice not being done. For example, I did not think that in Australia in 1985 I would see a member of the national Parliament, exercising his right of assembly to speak to a group of people who were on strike in a public place, find himself subject to arrest and detention. I did not believe that in Australia in 1985 we would see a gerrymander of the sort we have seen in Queensland which basically denies every citizen the right to equal treatment under the law in casting his vote for parliamentary democracy. I did not believe that I would see that gerrymander being defended by people who know intrinsically its nature and that is it is wrong. Therefore, the Government is endeavouring to adopt a charter which basically is a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of philosophy which we on our side believe encourages and respects the rights of individuals. We, as a government, are prepared to legislate to protect those rights from the arbitrary interference of government, because on many occasions the rights of individual citizens have been abused by government process. Is there anything intrinsically wrong with that as a proposition? Opposition members have traditionally seen themselves as representing not merely the conservative side of politics, but also those people who believe they are born to rule. Such people believe that inherently they have all these privileges. It is not for them to have to worry about the arbitrary processes of the law because they see themselves as being able to manipulate the situation so that they will never necessarily be subjected to those processes. There is a perception among Opposition members that we do not need this legislation because it does not affect them, their interests or those groups in society that they see themselves as representing. That is the measure of the philosophic difference between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. The Opposition argues from a specious basis. It says that it is all right to talk about conventions and propositions. It gives general support to them. But it does not believe in making them law. It does not believe in creating a situation even in the narrow context of this legislation-and there are members on this side of the House who would argue that it does not go far enough-where these concepts are accepted. Opposition members then trot out a whole series of amendments and talk about all the other rights in Australian society which they believe should be protected. Having produced those, they say that even if the Government were to adopt the amendments and put them into the Bill, they would still vote against it. There has never been a more specious or dishonest argument. This Bill will be carried by the Government because the Government adheres to its philosophy and belief that in Australia in 1985 there are enough reasons to produce legislation which will enshrine basic conventions and protect and enlarge the rights of individuals-the great majority of Australian citizens who do not believe that they were born to rule and who often find themselves the victims of arbitrary government processes. That is the philosophic difference between this Government and the Opposition. That is why the Opposition behaves in this way over this legislation. I commend the legislation to the House because I believe that any legislation, whether it is passed by a State or Federal parliament, which enlarges the rights and privileges of citizens and gives due regard to those rights and to the protection of citizens in the legal process, deserves the commendation and support of parliamentarians. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.44) —In considering the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill I have always been struck by two elements. The first is the unmitigated arrogance shown by the Government and the second is the Government's obvious lack of pride in Australia. Let me examine both those threads. The first is the Government's arrogance. It is arrogant to think that this Government can lay down in one sweep of its hand the rights of all Australians; that it has the wisdom to encompass the rights that Australians hold most dear to their hearts. That is despite the fact that little time has been allowed for interest groups or the general public to consider or participate in public debate on this Bill of Rights. That arrogance is misplaced when one considers the rights that have been left out of this Bill of Rights. Leave aside for the moment those that have been incorporated and which I, and I believe most Australians, would have difficulty in accepting. What is left out? The right to own private property is left out; the right not to be coerced into joining a trade union is left out; the right to send children to a private school is omitted; the rights of the unborn child are also omitted. I am thunderstruck that this Government can believe that it, more than any other government since Federation, will decide and then encompass in legislation the rights which Australians have always taken for granted and which flourish in our free and democratic society. That leads me to the matter of pride in Australia. It has often been said that democracy has many faults but it still remains the best system devised by man. That is true. For members of the Government to stand up and highlight weaknesses in our Australian democracy is legitimate and these are weaknesses we wish to tackle and to remedy. We will always strive to perfect an imperfect democracy. But that is no reason for a lack of pride in Australia and in the development of our values, traditions and, in this context most importantly, our institutions. Those institutions are first and foremost a freely elected parliament-both in the States and federally-a Constitution and a common law. All those institutions together with an unusual social harmony in Australia give individuals a great many rights, rights that I believe are the envy of every other country in the world. I support the view of Mark Twain, who said: Any country which needs to pontificate and then enact a bill of rights is not going to enforce it. We do not need to lay down in legislative form what is already accepted. One only has to look at a number of examples of countries which do have a Bill of Rights, particularly the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. They do not enforce in any way imaginable the rights conferred under their formal legislation. One has to look only at the 32 articles which set out our so-called rights. Frankly they are an insult to any Australian who loves his country and knows that most of these articles are simply restating what has developed or was given to us at the time of settlement of this country. I could choose 20 articles, but I will quote from Article 25 which concerns the presumption of innocence. It says: Any person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. That is a basic plank of our common law system. I turn the page and choose Article 32 which says: 1. No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The common law could deem that to be assault. A person can be assaulted with a feather so I suspect that torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment amounts prima facie to assault. We then have to ask this question, which no member of the Government has properly addressed: Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? In my view the answer is no. We have our most fundamental institutions-parliament, common law and the Constitution which develop and maintain our basic rights and freedoms. To by-pass these institutions and to confer the interpretation of extremely generalised rights on, in the first instance, public servants who make up the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and, in the second instance, a court of law, both of which are made up of unelected officials, is surrendering the Parliament's rights. Parliamentary democracy is the most important human right in Australia and it is being weakened by the abdication of responsibility to unelected officials. These unelected officials in the case of the Human Rights Commission have, quite frankly, a very unsatisfactory record. For example, the Human Rights Commission advocates homosexual immigration on the grounds of family reunion. It also recommends that any illegal immigrant couple who have a child in Australia should be entitled to permanent residence. This is the same Commission which supports the right of Women Against Rape to march on Anzac Day. No group in society has an unfettered right unless that right does not infringe on the majority. As long as we confer on unelected officials a generalised power to espouse the cause of any strident minority group, regardless of the inconvenience caused or the harm done, we are, I believe, betraying democracy. That same Commission is empowered under this legislation to compel the attendance of any witness, the production of any document and the answer to any question. Furthermore, a witness does not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, nor the right to refuse answers to questions on the basis of self-incrimination. It is the most ironical matter to come before this Parliament in my three years here. We are considering a so-called Bill of Rights which confers on a Human Rights Commission, with at best a dubious track record, inquisition powers unequalled in the history of this country. Where are the rights of a person dragged before the Human Rights Commission star chamber? The second question is whether or not the Bill of Rights will establish or protect any rights not already safeguarded by the Parliament or the common law. Some of those articles of rights at first sight appear reasonable and no doubt, as has happened during this debate already, the Labor Party will seek to portray anybody who opposes this Bill of Rights as somebody who opposes freedom. However, I utterly reject that tactic of the Government which seems so transparent and so consistent among Government speakers as to be organised. I say this to the Parliament: I do not believe that the human rights outlined in the Bill are under such threat as to warrant such a radical change to our existing democratic process. Indeed, the Bill does not make mention of so many of the rights that I believe are most cherished by Australians and are most under threat. I referred earlier to the fact that the right to refuse to join a trade union and the right to own a property will not be protected under this legislation. I hasten to say that, just because most of the articles are so self-obvious as to be ridiculous and an insult to the traditions of this country, it is important not to assume that there are not some rights enunciated which will not cause a great many problems. I believe that a whole new industry will arise out of this legislation based on interpretation and use of these articles, these so-called rights, by lawyers. In fact, one wonders whether or not one ought to be in the Parliament when one could become a lawyer specialising in the Australian Bill of Rights. As one honourable member said earlier, at present some 400 cases are before the American Supreme Court dealing with the relationship between the state and private schools. So the American Bill of Rights, after 200 years, has failed utterly to resolve what are immensely difficult questions. Nonetheless, this Bill of Rights seeks to confer very wide powers on children, teachers, criminal suspects and prisoners which I believe, and which in the opinion of a great many lawyers, will lead to a dramatic weakening of the family and of the education and legal systems. Many of the articles enunciating rights are so broadly drawn as to be used and, in the process, abused by people who have an interest in doing so. Those who can afford great legal minds will use the broad and generalised wording to present a case against the lawful and proper discharge of the laws, traditions and values of this country. I do not believe the Federal Parliament has had to consider legislation more serious or more detrimental to the great rights and values that we in this country hold dear and that we have developed through a process of sacrifice and endeavour over many decades. Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 103, the 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Debate resumed. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(5.55) —The introduction of this legislation is an event of historic significance. It is historic in two respects. Firstly, it records the occasion when the Australian Parliament has finally seen fit to put into law the fundamental rights which are indispensable and essential to democracy, for the very concept of democracy involves the recognition of certain inalienable rights for all persons. The concept of rights has been embodied in all the substantial discussions of the meaning of modern democracy. It is therefore long overdue that these rights be incorporated in a Bill before this House. But there is a second aspect of the historic significance of this occasion, for the Federal Opposition, the so-called Liberal Party, has today indicated that it will oppose the Bill of Rights. Let me say that this is a sad day because, in recording its opposition, the so-called Liberal Party has hereby severed all links with the philosophical tradition of liberalism. In so doing, my view is that it is no longer entitled or justified in using the word `liberal'. Indeed, because of the policies it has adopted in recent times, but especially because of the position it has taken on the Bill of Rights, the so-called Liberal Party, if its members are honest, should really describe itself as a conservative party or a tory party, and certainly not as a liberal party. There is no question that if the great John Stuart Mill, the father of modern liberalism, were here today he would be in tears to see what has become of the great liberal tradition, for it was Mill who identified the essence of modern democracy as being intertwined with fundamental human rights. As he said in his book On Liberty: Society can and does execute its own mandates: And if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. In this eloquent passage John Stuart Mill identified the absolute and crucial need for rights and the guarantee of rights in the constitution and laws of any country that is a genuine democracy. Mill went on to establish the now famous principle of rights: . . . that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. It is a disgrace that the people who mislead the Australian nation by adopting the label for themselves as liberals have moved so far away from the philosophy of liberalism and the principles of Mill that they find no qualms in opposing the introduction of an Australian Bill of Rights, for there is no doubt that the Bill before us and the accompanying legislation is entirely in keeping with the general principles enunciated by Mill and refined by others concerned with human rights. There is no doubt whatsoever that Mill would have supported the general principles of this Bill. We should recall that the general principles involve the implementation not of a philosophy developed by the Australian Labor Party but of a philosophy which has been refined and adopted by the United Nations for implementation in the constitutions of all nations of the world. I refer here to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This International Covenant embodies within it the finest thinking in relation to the philosophy of human rights that has been developed in the recent history of mankind. As against that, speakers from the other side of the House have said that it is a meaningless document which does not give substantial rights, and things such as that-when it has been developed by some of the finest minds in the modern world reflecting the whole tradition of human rights. The 53 Articles of the Covenant embody such principles as the following: Article 6, the right to life; Article 7, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment; Article 8, freedom from slavery, servitude and forced labour; Article 9, the right to liberty and security of the person; Article 12, the right to freedom of movement; Article 13, the rights of aliens in respect of expulsion; Article 17, the right to privacy; Article 18, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Article 19, the right to freedom of expression; Article 21, the right to peaceful assembly; Article 22, the right to freedom of association; and so on. Some Opposition speakers today have tried to imply that we do not need a Bill of Rights because, after all, all fundamental rights are incorporated in the Australian psyche, the Australian legal system and the Australian Constitution. The comment displays ignorance, of both the constitutional provisions and the concrete facts. Consider, firstly, the constitutional provisions. Obviously members opposite are clearly unaware of the severe inadequacies of the Australian Constitution as drawn up at the end of the last century. Unlike the American Constitution, the Australian Constitution does not refer to fundamental rights. More importantly, it does not refer to the concept of democracy. The word `democracy' does not appear in it. To suggest that we can rely on the protection of our rights based on conventional understandings is a sheer nonsense, especially coming from members opposite. Members of the Liberal and Country parties illustrated in the events leading up to November 1975 that they had no respect whatsoever for either the Constitution or the conventions. Nor is that an isolated incident. The conservatives who rule the far north of Australia in a totally undemocratic and totalitarian process would have their position and their gerrymander outlawed in any other Western nation, yet they flagrantly abuse the democratic traditions. Not only that, but also they have no respect for the rights of citizens. We have seen that citizens can be arrested in Queensland for, for example, no other reason than exercising simple rights of association and freedom of speech. The Opposition is mistaken also in its understanding of the concrete facts surrounding human rights in this country, for even in cases where there are formal and informal understandings for the protection of rights, those understandings are often not met. Although formally in Australia we are all committed to a society based on equal rights and treatment, nevertheless in practice we have many cases of discrimination against people on the basis of race, ethnic background and religious preference. Article 5 of this Bill is thus of crucial importance. It is headed `Rights of Minority Groups' and it states: Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. This clause is of crucial importance if the development of Australia as a multicultural society is to proceed, for there is no question that one of the greatest inhibitors of this development has been and continues to be direct and indirect discrimination against people because of their racial and cultural backgrounds. If the Bill of Rights achieves no other purpose than to end this discrimination, it will have achieved a great deal. The Bill of Rights will achieve much more than this, for it will also guarantee the fundamental poilitical rights of participation in public life, peaceful assembly and freedom of association under Articles 6, 10 and 11. These freedoms are an indispensable element of democracy. They are necessary to keep a democracy honest so as to ensure that the will of the people can emerge through genuine, rational discussion, associations and peaceful meetings. It should be noted that in one State of Australia it is illegal to have these peaceful forms of assembly in certain cases. That is a negation of one of the essential elements of democracy and it is a blight on the international image of Australia that this situation is allowed to continue. In this connection it is not suprising to hear opposition from honourable members opposite, not merely because they wish to defend the immoral behaviour of the Premier of Queensland, but also because they are constantly trying to undermine an important form of freedom of association; the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of persons' interests. It is a concrete fact that in modern Australia there are still instances in which the right of association, especially in relation to unionism, has been and continues to be undermined. Finally, perhaps the most important of the clauses is the precious liberty of thought and discussion. This is referred to in Article 7, freedom of expression, and Article 8, freedom of thought and conscience. The enshrining of those two fundamental freedoms, one would have thought, would have been a major consideration that should have led members opposite, rather than rejecting this legislation, to support it strongly and to show for once that they can get above petty party politics and vote for an historic Bill that will implement principles which will help many generations of Australians in future. Mr REITH(Flinders)(6.07) —This is one of the most important debates that we have had in 1985. I want to put on record from the word go my dismay that the Government has severely limited the time available to members to discuss the issues. This time restriction, the fact that there are very few Labor members currently in the House and the fact that as late as this morning the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) foreshadowed a last minute amendment, only heighten my concern that the Government has embarked on this legislative package with very little concern for its ramifications. It is clear that the Government believes that it is in the nature of politics that simplistic and superficial arguments, such as we have just heard from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), are the easiest to sell. The debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill unfortunately has followed these predictable lines. In order to conform to the rules of the game, I state unhesitatingly that I support many of the rights which appear in the Bill, but the real question is how we go about securing those rights for Australians and how we go about defining exactly what those rights are. The starting point for my objections to the Bill of Rights is that in spirit it is quite substantially out of step with the manner in which the rule of law in this country has evolved. Democracy in Australia and the individual freedoms that go with it have evolved over centuries through the Westminster traditions. Our rule of law is like a giant tapestry with different colours and textures woven over the years by the accumulative processes of statute law, common law and practice. It represents the collective wisdom, bringing to us a rich fabric tested over time. It is this accumulation of experience and the determination to maintain and expand individual freedoms that have given us the freedoms we have today. There is a certain arrogance in this Government which assumes it can walk in here at any old tick of the clock and introduce and legislate for a utopian state in one day of the parliamentary sittings. My total opposition to the Bill comes from four general areas. Firstly, the Bill gives too much power to the judiciary. The Bill of Rights essentially is a statement of motherhood, but the motherhood is undefined. The Bill proposes to give the job of definition to the judiciary and to that extent it represents an abdication by this Parliament of the power and responsibility for the legislation and good government of this country. The power that we have to legislate for good government is not ours just to give away willy nilly; it is ours to hold on behalf of our constituents. The Bill gives the judiciary a blank cheque to determine what it all means and is therefore a negligent substitute for an effective and detailed legislative program. The judicial system has evolved over the years to adjudicate between adversarial parties on specific subjects within strict legal guidelines. The judiciary system has never been a system for the policy formulation which this Bill would require it to undertake. In addition to politicising the judiciary the Bill hands to our judges a power free of supervision and free of the accountability that we as parliamentarians have to the people through the ballot box. Secondly, whilst the Government couches its motivation for this Bill in terms of protecting the rights of the individual, one of its real motivations is to hold a gun at the head of the States and to bring about a considerable shift in power from State and local government to the Federal Government. This Bill is a back door means of achieving a fundamental redivision of powers in the federation. The right to inquire into State and local government legislation is simply opening the door, as has been confirmed by the constant bleatings from members on the other side of the House as they poke their noses into Queensland's electoral arrangements. Reports of the Human Rights Commission will be used to justify the later extension of the Bill of Rights, and the Attorney-General has said as much. I am opposed to Labor's plans for concentrating power in Canberra because it denies the right of citizens to have accessible, responsible government at the State and local level. Thirdly, the Bill is not necessary. The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that the Bill is essentially to regulate the protect the rights of individuals against the laws or actions of government. But of course this justification is very tenuous when one looks at the controls that have been built up over the years to protect individuals against the state. The primary protection that the individual has against the state is through the ballot box. No Bill of Rights can ever attempt to provide better protection than that. Russia, Libya and Afghanistan have Bills of Rights but they offer no protection against the concentration camps and the midnight disappearances of their citizens. In fact, when one looks at the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights one wonders why we should be adopting a covenant the drafting of which was undertaken with the help of Marxist, communist, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The other controls over government by individuals include the system of ministerial responsibility, the Freedom of Information Act, the ombudsmen, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act, as well as a whole range of State legislation, the international covenants themselves, the fact that parliament can legislate specifically on many of the areas covered by the Bill of Rights, the existence of the Law Reform Commission to point out breaches of human rights, and the common law remedies that individuals can obtain with legal aid publicly funded through the courts. My fourth general objection is that the legislation is based in part on the foreign affairs power. The Tasmanian dams case was decided on only a 4-3 majority of the High Court of Australia and I personally am not in favour of a carte blanche extension of the Commonwealth powers through that device. Whilst human rights have a broad enough definition in the legislation as it is, I note with concern that the Attorney-General can unilaterally declare other relevant international instruments for the purposes of the definition of human rights and thereby extend the operation of this Bill. Australia has already ratified many other covenants, and I wonder why the Government felt it useful to give itself such unprecedented scope to extend the Bill. I now turn to some of the details of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Article 3 is meaningless and will be a solicitors' and barristers' paradise. Article 20 solemnly rids us of slavery for all time, so that is a complete waste of time. Article 4 is highly subjective and is open to all sorts of interpretations. Article 5 could be interpreted as giving special rights to minorities which would not be enjoyed by the majority of the population and could allow separate development, sometimes known as apartheid, at taxpayers' expense. The Bill of Rights significantly omits to state the right to hold private property and the right to refuse to join a trade union. Far from being open-ended generosity, giving Australians rights that they already have, many parts of this Bill and the supporting legislation will in fact limit and restrict people's rights and place them in jeopardy. In particular, the Commission has wide powers of inquisition-ironically without the fundamental qualification of the rights of natural justice. Whilst not quite matching the Spanish Inquisition, by modern Australian standards this Bill certainly goes a fair way towards it. The right to form trade unions for the protection of employees' interests is explicitly recognised, but of course the right to form a company as a vehicle for providing employment and creating growth is left out in the cold. There is no protection of the family, no right to hold property and create wealth, and no right of freedom of choice in education. Many other rights are also excluded. Behind the Government's gloss of good will the reality is that this Bill will not protect rights but will be a vehicle for the Government's program of social engineering. The States and local government will be in the firing line and we will have yet another bureaucracy feathering its own nest. The rights of a free people to elect their parliament to pass laws which have the force of law is to be denied. The right of free citizens to be free from Government propaganda is to take another blow and the right of decent, honest, hard working Australians to a system that requires less of their hard earned dollars is to be crushed again by a socialist government which is forever giving us more commissions, bureaucracies, boards and reviews. The Government does have a choice. It has a choice between this divisive, dangerous and unnecessary piece of legislation and specific legislation on different topics which can be of real use to people and which members in this place can debate, with adequate opportunity to go over the many issues raised. It is time that the Government got on with the real job, stopped the rhetoric and provided a detailed legislative program with some expenditure restraint which really would benefit the rights of all Australians. This Bill is a sham. It is no wonder that Labor's Bill of Rights was kept secret during the last election campaign, kept from the people because the Government was concerned about the electoral ramifications if people knew about it. I am pleased to be able to say that, along with my colleagues, I will be voting against this Bill and the coalition will repeal it upon its return to Government at the next election. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(6.17) —It is my view that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is one of the most important Bills to be debated in this House. Together with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Bill of Rights will ensure that Australia carries out its obligations on human rights, which we are bound to do under the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Commonwealth Government ratified in 1980. It is worthy of note that whilst the Commonwealth Government has been able to conclude agreements with Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia on human rights matters-all States with Labor Governments, of course-no such agreements have been concluded with Queensland, Tasmania and Northern Territory. As is typically the case with conservative governments and as is exemplified by the strident criticisms of the Bill by Opposition members in this House, they are unwilling to enact human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In Queensland in particular we have witnessed over the years of the Bjelke-Petersen Government a series of transgressions of human rights which bear comparison with many Third World dictatorships. Not content with attempting to destroy the rights of trade unionists to organise in defence of their wages and working conditions, the National Party Government of Queensland is now proposing to depreciate the voting rights of the majority of Queenslanders by introducing a most blatant gerrymandered electorate boundary redistribution. I am quite sure that if the original Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, who gave his name to all maladjustments of electoral boundaries to suit one particular party, had been alive today, apart from his amazement at having reached the ripe old age of 241 years he would have admired the cunning regional manipulation of electoral boundaries in Queensland which makes a mockery of the basic democratic principle of one vote one value and ensures a virtual National Party monopoly of government in that State. Mr Lloyd —He would also have corrected your misuse of the word `gerrymander'. Mr MILTON —Nothing the honourable member can say will excuse what has happened in Queensland. Mr Lloyd —I am just making reference to the point that you don't understand the term `gerrymander'. Mr MILTON —I understand it all too well. I will not dwell on this matter as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) dealt very well with this issue in an earlier debate-and we witnessed the despicable attempts of the Opposition to gag that debate. It is interesting to note the views of a Victorian barrister, Mr J. K. Bowen, published by the Institute of Public Affairs, New South Wales, which is typical of the ill-informed criticisms of the proposed Bill of Rights. Mr Bowen said: We have strong institutions to protect our rights and freedoms in Australia. Totalitarian countries like to have `window dressing' such as a human rights Bill, but behind the facade there are no institutions such as an independent judiciary and a democratically elected parliament, to protect the rights and freedoms declared in such `scraps of paper'. What nonsense to talk about independent judiciaries and democratically elected parliaments when we witness every day the infringement of human rights perpetrated by the Queensland State Government on unionists and even honourable senators. Let us consider what happened to Senator Georges, who was arrested on 11 November in Brisbane while trying to explain to 150 sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board workers on a picket line that the police were having difficulty in implementing sections of the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act, passed earlier this year after a prolonged strike over the use by the South East Queensland Electricity Board of contract labour. It was the fifth occasion he had been arrested for his involvement in this continuing protest. Senator Georges has said that the police were reluctant to arrest him on the direction of an official of SEQEB who emerged from the building during the protest. Eventually he was arrested by an officer of the Special Branch and taken to the Brisbane lock-up. Senator Georges was particularly surprised that he had been charged under the Vagrancy Act, not under the special legislation. At the lock-up Senator Georges refused a police request for his fingerprints, pointing out that the police had a discretion not to take them and that his identity was well known. He said there appeared to be a division among the police officers over whether it was necessary to take his prints. In his account of the event to me he said: `I was threatened with violence and told that they could use force to take my prints'. After some discussion the police said that because of his age they would not use force. As the Attorney-General has said in this House, the treatment of Senator Georges by the Queensland police was outrageous. It was certainly a clear transgression of human rights and it was even more appalling that it was the rights of a Queensland senator which were so blatantly abused. Dame Roma Mitchell, who heads the Human Rights Commission, pointed out recently in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Pressure Point that a Bill of Rights will cover matters which are presently not fully protected, such as: . . . certain rights which relate to people who are convicted of offences, the right not to be submitted to punishment which is cruel, inhuman, degrading; the right to human dignity being preserved; some of the parts of the right to freedom of expression. These are fundamental and basic human rights. I fail to understand the strident, almost hysterical, opposition to a Bill which is so fundamental to the preservation of liberty and individual freedoms that comes from the people on the other side of the House. They are always championing the rights of the individual, and yet, when the Australian Labor Party proposes legislation which will set out the rights of individuals, as the Attorney-General indicated in his speech, `in positive declaratory form' they oppose it. It is obvious to all of us on this side of the House that members of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia are being hypocritical when they profess to champion the cause of the individual. The causes they are really championing are those of power and privilege, which a Bill of Rights will challenge. The main objects of the Bill are made clear in sub-clause (D) of clause 3 of the Bill, which states: (D) to promote, enhance and secure as paramount objectives the freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of opportunity for all and full and free participation by all Australians in public affairs and public debate. Ultimately, the Bill of Rights will be tested through the High Court of Australia in various court cases which will give an interpretation to what is actually meant by the invasion of a person's privacy, as indicated in Article 12 of Division 4 of the Bill. Of course I am aware that Amnesty International in Australia is concerned that many of the rights and freedoms of Australians are insufficiently described and detailed in the Bill so that too much will be left to judicial opinion. However, the responsibility of the Government, as Amnesty International must know, is to attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights is approved by the Senate. Whilst I have every sympathy with its view that the proposed Bill of Rights does not cover, for example, the death penalty, compensation for persons whose rights have been transgressed, and the allowing of appeals to the United Nations, the plain fact is that there would be little chance of the Bill passing through both the House and the Senate if the Bill contained all the details requested by Amnesty International. In this respect the following comment by Professor Enid Campbell, in an address to the International Commission of Jurists in Melbourne in 1969, is as relevant today as it was at that time: Those who argue against Bills of Rights on the ground that they have the effect of investing too much censorial power in the courts and involve the courts in decision-making processes for which they are ill-fitted, sometimes forget that questions of the kind which may be raised for judicial determination under a Bill of Rights include questions which courts in the common law world have dealt with independently of constitutional guarantees. So much of our present law relating to individual rights and freedoms is of judicial origin. In that same address Professor Campbell went on to say: I share the scepticism of those who maintain that a Bill of Rights cannot be expected to work like a magic wand and by its mere existence bring about a great transformation in the ordering of society. The critical issue I think is what legal effect is to be attached to a Bill of Rights and how it is to be administered. In this respect the provisions of the proposed Bill of Rights in relation to the judicial and administrative enforcement of the Bill are relevant. The Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech that with regard to Commonwealth laws the Bill of Rights will act as a guide to construction and interpretation so that later Commonwealth laws which are inconsistent with the Bill will be inoperative and earlier Commonwealth laws which are inconsistent after five years from commencement also will be inoperative. State laws and practices may be referred to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for inquiry and conciliation, where appropriate, and for study and report to this Parliament. One of the difficulties, as is so often the case, is that human rights is mainly the responsibility of State governments. The proposed Bill of Rights must be seen to act in conjunction with a number of other bodies both at Federal and State level. I have mentioned the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, but to name a few of the more important, there is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Law Reform Commission. Each of the four Labor State governments has also passed a number of Acts which provide anti-discrimination and equal opportunities measures. The proposed Bill of Rights must be seen to operate alongside these Commonwealth and State Acts and agencies. I commend the Bill to the House. Unfortunately I must now end my remarks because I have been limited in speaking time so that other members on this side of the House can contribute to this important debate. I conclude by saying to those critics who wish to see a stronger Bill of Rights that this is only the beginning and given time and more electoral support we will come back and strengthen the present Bill if, in our experience, the implementation of its measures are found wanting in redressing human rights transgressions. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.00) —The Opposition has examined the question of the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill into this Parliament as a matter of very great concern, as my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who has carriage of this legislation for us, has emphasised in his opening remarks. Despite the alleged advantages which the Government claims for this legislation, we are firmly of the view that it is in fact nothing more than a rather prosaic and insensitive attempt to establish in legislation what is said to be a Bill of Rights for the Australian people. Quite simply, we believe such legislation is not needed. It will certainly lead to significant legal confusion and further ambiguity throughout the legal system. It confers on what is already a Human Rights Commission of doubtful capacity the role of enforcement by inquisition, which is contrary to the very basic notions of justice as we understand it in this country. Furthermore, it applies only against governments and ignores violations of human rights by individuals or organisations outside government, as was so vividly illustrated in the Northern Territory with the Mudginberri episode some months ago. In addition to that, the proposed legislation overlooks or ignores what in fact are many basic human rights which are enshrined within the Australian Constitution or Australian legal practice which we have had passed down to us over many hundreds of years of evolution. It does not provide for any means of enforcement of the alleged rights of people at law-again something quite contrary to the basis of common law which is one of the elements of the legal system of this nation. It raises the basis for deliberate massive and unprecedented Federal intrusion into the affairs of State governments, instrumentalities and local government bodies and certainly will add greatly to the costs and the delays in the courts of this land. For all of those reasons the Opposition is firmly of the view that the Bill is unwarranted and is in fact little more than an example of the Australian Labor Party's social engineering. It does not represent a reasoned or needed reaction to the groundswell of public opinion of which we have seen so little evidence. That is borne out specifically by the fact that this legislation has been introduced into this chamber and is meant to be debated over the next few hours-and probably well into the night and early morning-and yet the people of Australia, who we are told need to have a Bill of Rights, have not been given the opportunity, by having this legislation tabled in this House for a number of months preferably, to see for themselves what it involves. The Labor Government is seeking to impose an amateurish, haphazard and irresponsible package of legislation under a somewhat romantic notion that Australia needs a Bill of Rights-a Bill, incidentally, which is to be based in part on the foreign affairs power, an issue which has been raised by the Opposition on many occasions in the past and which goes to the very fundamental basis of the Australian Consitution as we know it. For these reasons the Opposition will oppose the legislation because, contrary to what has been said by Government members, we see ourselves as the champions of the rights and freedoms that are fundamental to our society and have been developed over the past 2,000 years. The rule of law under which we abide is based on statute law, common law and above all precedent. It is backed by freely elected parliaments in this land. All of that is a tradition and history of the legal and democratic system of Australia. While countries other than nations which have had the benefit of the Westminster system may well look for and need a Bill of Rights, the issue has not been satisfactorily argued here as to why Australia in 1985 requires on the basis of our sophisticated system of justice yet another system of legal rights and privileges which will only negate in many cases those which already exist. The Government has introduced this legislation in a haphazard and autocratic manner. It has not given the community adequate opportunity to understand and to evaluate its full implications. It is ironic that this Labor Government should be prepared to breach that fundamental democratic principle by imposing a Bill of Rights. But this is the conduct that we can nonetheless expect from the left wing reformers of this Government. If one looks at international comparisons, the fundamental protections of human rights in our country are to be found in our courts. I refer to the protections of tolerance, fair play, a belief in the democratic system, support for the rule of law which is basic to our community, respect by the majority for the rights of others and restraint in the exercise of power. Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor of England, if I may paraphrase his words, put it rather aptly when he said: `My rights end when another's begin'. Surely in a democracy the Government must have the consent of the majority if it is to govern and that consent will not be guaranteed except by the rights of the people through the ballot box. They cannot necessarily be covered adequately simply by putting them into one piece of legislation, a so-called Bill of Rights. As has been said by many other speakers, the names on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-those of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Libya, Chile, Afghanistan and many others-are hardly examples of democracy in the modern world and yet theyhave ratified the international covenant and we know from what is a fact of history that day after day states of that ilk have done everything they can to trammel and walk on the very rights which the Australian people take for granted but which nevertheless are enshrined in our legal system. Clearly, merely the application of a so-called Bill of Rights will in no way guarantee the protection of the individual in society. This Labor Government seems intent on introducing compulsory unionism in this proposal and fails to recognise the right of the individual not to join a union. That again is one of the rights not covered in this Bill. We have seen an example of this recently in a directive from the Public Service Board to departments and statutory authorities which are now instructed to identify eligible officers to union representatives. Surely this move takes the right to join a union increasingly out of the hands of the individual and even distorts the role of the employer. Is this the basis of a Bill of Rights? Is there not a right not to join a union just as we are told that there is a right to do so? Where is the freedom of choice and, above all, where is the right to work? That is not covered in this proposal. Perhaps this Government will tell us that we have a right to work only if we wish to become unionists. How does this Government, in relation to its own Senior Executive Service, face the fact that it is currently doing all in its power to discourage the Senior Executive Service from forming its own union. Members of that service do not want to be part of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. We are told in this Parliament that this proposal enshrines the right of people to join unions. But in terms of its own employees the Government is specifically doing what it can to prevent those senior officers of the Public Service from being able to apply their legitimate right. The legislation also proposes the establishment of a Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This body is to be given extraordinary and inquisitorial powers to enforce what it dictates as so-called human rights. It will be the Star Chamber of human rights. It will tell people what are their rights. It will have the full coercive powers of the Commonwealth and be adjudicated by a group of unelected social law lords who are not responsible to the Australian people. The Bill extols rights such as the protection of privacy in correspondence, the right when charged not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt, the right when detained in custody to remain silent and consult a lawyer, the right to a fair and public trial and various other rights of an accused person when facing trial. All of those rights are already enshrined in traditional and customary law in this nation. But none of these protections apply to individuals ordered to appear before the Human Rights Commission. That body, which is invested with inquisitorial powers more appropriate to a police state than to an Australian democracy, will be given the powers of both prosecutor and judge. It will be able to compel individuals to produce documents which the Commission may keep for as long as it thinks necessary, to provide under signature information in writing, to testify under oath, in hearings from which the public is excluded, as to their actions and to disclose facts that may render them liable to a criminal penalty-all without the protection of legal representation which is something our legal system has always taken for granted. In addition, there are requirements to attend compulsory conferences, again without legal representation. Refusal to attend and answer questions or to produce documents, or to attend a compulsory conference, or to be sworn, can lead to imprisonment. The Commission is given a blanket charter to make its own rules. The most elementary rules of natural justice which have been established by the courts of this land over the years and over the centuries may be denied to those summoned before the Commission-for example, the right at the outset to be told of the charge which is being laid, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to call evidence, and the right when the charge is a grave one to have legal representation at all times. There is no appeal from the Commission's decisions to a court of law. Moreover, the Commission is to be empowered to recommend the payment of compensation-a function that trespasses directly on the province of the Australian legal system and the courts. The end result of a finding by the Commission may be to ruin Australian people's careers. We are told that this is all because this is human rights, this is justice. Certainly I have yet to see how we can have justice without adequate legal representation. In addition, the Bill has no application against militant unions, against corporations, against the actions of groups of individuals or against individual actions regardless of how deeply they may offend basic notions of justice. Furthermore, the legislation confers on the Human Rights Commission the power, with the consent of the Attorney-General, to inquire into acts and practices of departments and statutory authorities of States and other local government bodies. This could and will lead to a massive and unprecendented opportunity for Federal intervention into what has been known characteristically as State affairs and for a shift of the whole balance of power between the Federal Government and the States. These matters were never considered by our founding fathers, yet we have seen in Australia a legal system which has had the capacity to evolve over time to meet the requirements of change. We are now putting into a legislative situation a position where that arrangement will no longer be in place. The Bill of Rights must be opposed before the Human Rights Commission is given draconian powers which will have not only the power to destroy federalism but also the potential for massive abuse of the rights of the individual, abuses which may be greater than the rights the Bill is alleged to protect. Surely it is remarkable that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should be moving for such unnecessary and damaging legislation. It is none other than the Attorney-General who expressed concern over an earlier draft of this Bill in quite unequivocal terms when he said: The legislation raises enormous issues . . . it ought to be scrapped. That statement was reported in the Age of 8 December 1984. While there have been amendments, regrettably, as far as the Opposition is concerned, those amendments are not adequate. I conclude by emphasising that the Bill does not confer the widest possible protection on the family in accordance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It does not protect the rights of parents and guardians to choose private schools for their children. Where is this freedom of choice? It does not protect the rights of individuals to establish and direct private educational institutions. It does not protect freedom for research and creative activities. It does not protect the rights of Australians to utilise freely and fully their own natural wealth and to dispose of their wealth as they think fit. It does not protect the right to private property or provide that acquisition of private property may be had only on just terms. It does not protect individuals from discrimination at the work place by reason of their decision not to join a union, or generally protect them in their employment opportunities and advancement when they elect freely not to be a member of a union. Therefore, it does not protect the right to work. It does not protect, in relevant fields, the rights of corporate bodies and other forms of organisations. In the face of all this, how can we seriously debate and pass a piece of legislation which is so manifestly weak in all those key areas where Australian people take those rights for granted? They are all rights which are not enshrined in this proposed legislation and, for that reason among others, the Opposition opposes the irresponsible measures of the Labor Government to undermine the established rights upheld by the Australian people in our democracy. Surely the best insurance of human liberties is to be enacted by an independent judiciary and democratically elected parliament. This so-called Bill of Rights is merely window dressing on top of the democratic institutions that have been developed in this nation for the last 200 years. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(8.15) —I know that it is the role of an opposition to oppose, but goodness! Every time the Hawke Government proposes legislation which will benefit all Australians certain Opposition members allege that the legislation is designed to cause the end of the civilized world as we know it. To assuage the fears of those Jeremiahs opposite I assure them that this Government has a respect for traditional values. We aim to improve society by making it more fair. We are not intent on destroying civilised values. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the Bills that are now being debated cognately. It is important to recall that the United States of America has had a Bill of Rights enshrined in its Constitution since 1868. One hundred and seventeen years later it is time that we had a Bill of Rights for our country. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 enshrines principles of fundamental human, civil, political, social and economic rights. However, because this Universal Declaration was not a legally binding treaty this, in turn, led to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is important to recall that Australia in the 1950s, under the Menzies Government, participated in the work of developing and negotiating this Covenant, and in fact the Australian Government, under Mr Fraser, ratified the Covenant in 1980. However, before the Covenant was ratified by Australia, former Attorney-General Murphy introduced in 1973 an Australian Human Rights Bill designed to implement the Covenant. At that time, the then Attorney-General had this to say: I believe that the Australian people are entitled to a Bill of Rights to protect them against infringements of their fundamental rights and freedoms. It is not to secure any partisan advantage that the Australian Government has introduced the Human Rights Bill. It has taken this action because we believe it is time that the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual, recognised and declared by the community of civilized nations in the Universal Declaration of 1948 and in many subsequent international treaties-were firmly enshrined in our law. We are legislating now for the protection of human rights because too often in the past our courts and our parliaments have let us down. The legislators have told us to look to the common law for our protection. The judges have excused themselves by pointing to the enactments of `responsible legislatures', and between the two of them a series of grave injustices have been perpetrated, mainly on those groups in the community who lack the power or the popularity effectively to answer back. Attorney-General Murphy went on to say: Even where our fundamental rights and freedoms apparently depend on the Common Law, the Common Law, because it is subservient to statutory enactment, is often powerless to protect those rights and freedoms. That is a rather pertinent comment, and that is what this Bill of Rights seeks to redress. At the time of introducing his Bill, Attorney-General Murphy said: The Human Rights Bill does not expand the powers of the Australian Government, what it does do is to set limits on the power possessed by State and Federal governments to interfere with fundamental rights and liberties. Although the Murphy Bill did not progress, it marked the commencement of the debate about the feasibility and form of a Bill of Rights for Australia. In 1977 Attorney-General Ellicott introduced a Human Rights Commission Bill as an alternative means of attempting to fulfill the obligations of the Covenant. But again, the 1977 Human Rights Commission Bill did not progress, and it was not until 1981 that the Human Rights Commission Act was passed, establishing the present Human Rights Commission. However, the powers and functions exercised by that Act varied according to whether it was acting under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Under the Bills before us now these disparities are reduced; they are almost identical. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill will administer both the above Acts and will also be the vehicle under which Australia's obligations under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958-International Labor Organisation Convention No. 111-will be implemented. It is also important to recall the comments of Liberal Attorney-General Ellicott in 1977. He had this to say: Honourable members will know that in Canada there is a declaration on human rights. It is, in effect, part of Canada's constitutional documents. It would be a good thing in this country if we were able to use the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to formulate legislation in this Parliament and in every other Parliament in the country. It could, in effect, be a broadly based, broadly stated document . . . It would be a step-a very significant step-towards getting a broadly based system in this country. I respectfully suggest to some honourable members opposite that they would not use some of the terms they use in referring to our Attorney-General when referring to former Attorney-General Ellicott. Two Attorneys-General from opposite sides of the House have advocated and supported a Bill of Rights for Australia, and I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition is fumbling and is in such a panic about the issue. The Australian Bill of Rights is broader than the human rights legislation now operating. And it does not affect the abortion laws operating in each State. What this Bill does is spell out for Australian citizens and residents the legal meaning of the obligations assumed by the nation as a party to the International Covenant. The Parliament is the forum to which the Commission will report. The Parliament will also have the role of acting on reports of the Commission which identify areas of law or governmental practice which breach the Bill of Rights, and the Parliament will be able to frame specific laws as necessary to ensure compliance with our obligations. This is a fundamental philosophy and should be borne in mind by honourable members Opposite. The impact of the Australian Bill of Rights on the States is limited to allowing the Human Rights Commission to investigate, conciliate or report to the Federal Attorney-General, who in turn will send the report to the relevant State Attorney-General, about alleged infringements of the Australian Bill of Rights by the acts or practices of State or local governments or bodies. Under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, existing but disparate State specialist legislation-for example, State anti-discrimination, equal opportunity and handicapped persons Acts-will be retained but efforts to establish co-operative networks between the Human Rights Commission and specialist State bodies will continue. The Australian Bill of Rights will operate as an inspirational charter for the Australian community. Inherent in its principles are the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed equally by everyone. The enactment of a Bill of Rights has a vital educative function. It has the capacity to inspire respect for fundamental freedoms and liberties by setting out rights in positive, declaratory form. Legislative protection of human rights is of fundamental importance in assuring full democratic processes in Australia. It guarantees the right of religious freedom and expression. While it was the Fraser Government-not a raving, socialist ratbag government as some honourable members on the opposite side would infer-which in 1980 ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is the Hawke Labor Government that is implementing the principles of that Covenant in this Bill of Rights for all Australians. This Government is committed both internationally and nationally to promoting the fundamental and civil rights detailed in the Covenant and implementing those standards in Australia. It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights will not be able to override existing Commonwealth or Territory legislation until five years after the commencement of the Bill. This has been done to allow an orderly examination of Commonwealth and Territory legislation to see whether it might be in breach of the Bill of Rights. The Bills before us today are strikingly similar to the provisions of the 1981 Human Rights Commission Act, so why now is there so much Opposition from honourable members opposite? I am sure that the majority of members of our migrant population-many of whom have come to us from terribly oppressed countries where they had no rights whatsoever, where it was possible for them to be tortured and imprisoned without cause, where they had no right to express their views or to live their lives without fear-will welcome this Bill. They will know that the conditions which drove them from their own countries to our shores, can never happen here. Mr Speaker, my time has expired. I congratulate the Attorney-General, and I commend the Bills to the House. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(8.26) —It is clear to me and the greater number of Australians that this piece of false legislation-the Australian Bill of Rights Bill-will, in finality, destroy our federal system of government. There are inherent dangers in this legislation which cannot and must not be ignored if we in Australia are to ensure the continuance of our way of life. It is difficult to imagine a piece of legislation that could prove more harmful. It does no more than bow to the pressures of those in our society who desire to see a program of social engineering. Those people are so alienated from the mainstream of the Australian way of life that it is difficult to understand, let alone believe, they can hold such persuasive powers over even this Labor Government. To believe that through this Bill of Rights we can improve protection of the rights of the people is crass stupidity. Members of the House who support this Bill are abrogating their elected parliamentary responsibility to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-a non-elected body of questionable accountability. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill stated: It is with great pleasure that I move the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. That statement is contrary to his earlier assertions. Following the transfer of Senator Gareth Evans from the position of Attorney-General after the 1984 Federal election, the Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by this Attorney-General, who is reported as stating that the Bill raised `enormous issues' and ought to be `scrapped'. A report to that effect appeared in the Age on 8 December 1984. Despite these apparent early misgivings about the proposed Bill of Rights, he has now produced his own, slightly modified version of the Evans model. It is basically still the same obnoxious proposal. The modifications are designed to deflect some of the criticism which the first model attracted, but the people of Australia are not convinced-nor should they be. One of the great dangers in this legislation is in the administration of the Bill by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Its members will be government appointees and much will depend on the nature and persuasion of those appointed. It is not unrealistic to deduce that their determinations will be a reflection of the ideology of the government in office. I do not want to place the future of Australia at risk under the philosophical directions of this socialist Government or any subsequent government embracing ideology so alien to Australians. The Commission is to be given powers far in excess of those of any other body established by this Parliament. With these powers, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will indeed have power to commit flagrant abuses of civil rights and, in the light of past performance, will have no hesitation in doing so. The prospect of giving to public servants not answerable to anyone and not acting within clear guidelines the power to conduct inquiries into any actions which, in their opinion, may be contrary to their interpretation of the Bill of Rights is an appalling proposal. The dangers to civil rights are indeed dangerous when we look at the powers available to the Commission. One can be required to appear before it and to answer questions. Failure to do so can result in punishment by a fine or imprisonment; yet one cannot demand the right to be represented by a lawyer or indeed by anyone else. Refusal to give information or produce documents or answer questions that may incriminate one are common rights now about to be denied under this ridiculous Bill. The potential for causing massive abuses of the rights of the individual is more apparent than the protection of rights so righteously promoted in this debate by those misguided individuals on the other side of the House. An unelected body, such as the Human Rights Commission, conducting what are virtually secret trials and inquisitions, will have more power than the once infamous Star Chamber. Not only should the Bill of Rights be thrown out, but also the Human Rights Commission should be dismantled. Certainly that Commission should not be given any further powers if we are to protect civil liberties. The Attorney-General was reported in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard McGregor on 18 May 1985 as being keen to point out the dangers of putting too much power for interpreting the Bill's provisions in the hands of judges, particularly of the High Court of Australia. I find that a rather strange observation to come from an Attorney-General. Another Mr Bowen, a Victorian barrister, has made these observations: . . . a Bill of Rights is part of the package of social engineering laws of all kinds currently being introduced throughout Australia. The purpose of these laws appears to be to modify the behaviour (if not the values and attitudes) of most Australians. In place of a broad freedom to act as we please until we break a law or commit a civil wrong, the Bill of Rights creates new enforceable legal rights, and attaches sanctions of various kinds for breaches of those rights. You may well ask-who wants these new rights and freedoms declared by the Bill of Rights? You will almost certainly find that the Bill will be promoted most aggressively by the alienated and disgruntled members of our society, including the ideological extremists, those with an obsessive distrust of all forms of authority, criminals, and those who would be classified as sexual deviates under existing laws-in short, most of the misfits in our society, who would like to see their distorted concepts of how a society ought to function imposed upon ordinary well-adjusted Australians. The Bill will virtually become a licence for the misfits in our society to emerge and claim a legal right to engage in behaviour that is unacceptable to most Australians. I cannot but agree with this more enlightened appraisal by Mr J. K. Bowen. The proposed Bill before us will be defended by people who say that we cannot have too many rights and freedoms in a democratic society. I warn those people that the legislative creation of a right for one person imposes on another a corresponding duty to respect that right, no matter what his free choice or discretion. Honourable members opposite, I suppose be- reft of sufficient argument to support this Bill, have spent a considerable period attacking Queensland and the electoral weightage system in operation there. They have, in effect, not attacked Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen but one of their great Labor Premiers, Ned Hanlon, who was the architect of the system in operation in that State. The system introduced by Ned Hanlon gave greater weightage to country Queensland than the system in operation today. The weightage system provides the balances that are provided in other States through upper Houses. The upper House in Queensland was also abolished by a Labor government in its quest for absolute power in that State. Any reference to the total percentage of votes received by the National Party of Australia in Queensland at the last election should also be qualified to the extent that the National Party did not contest all seats-a significant factor which honourable members opposite choose to ignore. Their frustrations have promoted many attacks on Queensland, which is clearly evident in many speeches in this House. We have much to thank this Labor Party Government in Canberra for in consolidating the National Party's popularity in Queensland and contributing to the failure of its comrades. I refer to the electoral weightage system in operation in Queensland. One has to go back a long way to find figures representative of a Labor government in that State. In 1956, after a Labor electoral distribution in Queensland, there were nine seats with an enrolment of fewer than 6,000 voters. The number of electors varied from 4,367 in Charters Towers to about 5,500 in the western shearer seats. These seats were called shearer seats because almost invariably they were won by Labor. If we consider the metropolitan areas we find that Mount Gravatt had an enrolment of 26,307; Kedron, 19,675 and Chermside, 17,708. The Queensland Labor Party was asked to justify this large variation in figures. This was its answer: `You have to consider these western seats. You have to consider the geography of the area, the vastness of the area, the sparsity of population and the difficulties that members have in representing these areas'. That was the reason the Labor Party in Queensland gave for the gerrymander which operated there for 25 years. Every Bill of Rights in the Western democratic tradition has been introduced to deal with the abuse of power by governments and was not directed to the people. The Magna Carta of 1215 was drawn up, not to outline the rights of the people, but to outline specific areas of abuse for which King John was reponsible. Under the Bill of Rights, the Commission, through the Government, will arbitrate on what is or is not a right. In a democracy, the people should be the arbiters of what are individual rights and government powers are thus limited. The coalition believes that this Bill is undemocratic. Some authorities believe that it is unconstitutional. It is so full of pitfalls that the final result will be a gross erosion of civil liberties, yet the naive members opposite piously exhort the people of Australia to trust them. I am totally opposed to this Bill of Rights and no amendments will give it an authority which I can respect. Those who vote against the Bill are the real protectors of the rights and civil liberties of all Australians. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.35) —I am very pleased to be able to speak tonight on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provision and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 which are designed to reform and improve the Human Rights Commission, renamed and reconstituted as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Successive governments from both sides of politics in Australia have placed significance on human rights at both the international and the domestic level, and on the importance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the aspirations and obligations it embodies. However, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in his second reading speech, this Labor Government came to office pledged to implement the terms of that International Covenant and commenced preparation of a draft Bill of Rights for that purpose. The Attorney went on to say that the International Covenant specifically commits Australia to adopting legislative measures to give effect to the rights it contains-a request, if you like, for us to put our money where our mouth is. The debate on these Bills today is evidence that this Government has been willing to honour its pledge, unlike the Opposition which has decided to make political issue out of this important legislation and oppose its passage. Contrary to the claims of honourable members opposite in this debate, common law does not offer a comprehensive protection of an individual's freedoms and liberties. It does not guarantee freedom of expression, movement or peaceful assembly or the right to a speedy trial or legal aid. As mentioned by the Attorney, it has been held that common law does not contain, and never has contained, a fundamental guarantee of the right of religious freedom and expression. Such a right is contained in the Bill before the House. The Australian Bill of Rights provides legislative recognition and protection and judicial enforcement of human rights. Furthermore, it provides administrative measures for investigation and conciliation by the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The objects of this Bill are set out in clause 3 and bear repeating at this stage of the debate. Basically they are: to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without discrimination . . . to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms . . . are infringed . . . has an effective remedy; and to promote, enhance and secure, as paramount objectives, the freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by all Australians in public affairs and public debate. Accordingly, the Bill sets out 32 articles which relate to separate and necessary rights of people living in Australia. Among these is notably Article 1, which deals with entitlements to rights and freedoms without distinction. It says: Every person is entitled to equality before the law and to the human rights and fundamental freedom set out in this Bill of Rights, irrespective of distinctions such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. This article also ensures that men and women have the equal right to the enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights. Article 4 provides for equal protection of the law and Article 5 specifically protects the rights of minority groups by stating that persons who belong to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language. Fundamental political rights are provided for in articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. These cover the essential rights of participation in public life, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief, together with rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, which I previously mentioned. The expression of these fundamental rights in legislative form will serve to protect the democratic way of life that Australians expect and desire to retain. Whatever else our opponents may claim, I am sure that they will not claim to be anxious to deprive Australians of their existing political freedoms. Mr Gear —They do. Ms JAKOBSEN —I think they might, actually. However, without this Bill of Rights there is the possibility of some of these rights being infringed by governments in the future, as indeed they have been in the past. Other articles of the Bill of Rights provide for privacy and family rights, including the right to marry and have a family. These rights recognise the fundamental importance of the family unit and extend the protection of law to it by specifying that every man and woman of a marriageable age has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family. It also says that no marriage shall be entered into without a free and full consent of the intending spouses. While the rights of children are protected by the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child, the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions is also respected. Previous speakers have referred at some length to the articles contained in this Bill which relate to life, liberty and criminal process. I shall simply mention in passing that Article 32 has special significance to certain members of our community who have lived under an undemocratic, unrepresentative or totalitarian regime of any kind. This article stipulates that no person shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and that no person shall be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's free consent. My reference to undemocratic regimes is not meant to imply that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot also occur in countries where democratic processes of government appear to prevail. This Bill will give greater security to Australians in the face of such possible conduct in the future. As the Attorney-General points out, the scope of the Bill of Rights is designed to protect individuals against violations of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of governmental institutions. He stresses that this does not affect the rights of individuals in relation to each other. However, the existence of such a Bill of Rights, as was mentioned previously by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), will serve to make Australians more aware of their rights and thus render infringements of these rights correspondingly more obvious and more difficult. The rights and freedoms established as a result of this Bill are an internationally accepted minimum. How can members of the Opposition, for all their reactionary rhetoric, possibly think that the majority of Australians will thank them for opposing such an important and historic piece of legislation which properly deserves the bipartisan support of Parliament. I am personally dismayed by the pettiness of their actions in this regard. I extend my sincere congratulations to the Attorney-General for his dedication to the presentation of this significant Bill and commend it to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.45) —While the world passes judgment on Australia's poor economic performance, we come here tonight to debate legislation, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, which is not only unnecessary but aims, through a questionable exercise in social engineering, to change the way in which we act and believe. This Government should be diverting its energies to encouraging the Parliament to help it dig Australia out of the economic mire into which it has led our great nation, rather than wasting our time and taxpayers' money in putting up leglislation which has in- sidious and far-reaching implications for all Australians. But then, this Government is not really the body running the country. We all know that it is the commandants in the Australian Council of Trade Unions who have influence over the decision-making process of this Government. This legislation provides even further evidence, if it was necessary, of the ever-increasing power of the unelected bosses in charge of our destiny. Article 11 of the Bill spells out `the right to form and join trade unions', but no right is spelt out for an individual not wanting to join a trade union. The individual's right to remain outside the union movement is further threatened by section 47 of the Conciliation and Arbitation Act, which exerts compulsion over the individual to join a union; which restricts the freedom of choice of the individual on what union he may join; and in contradictioin of the clause in the Bill of Rights, limits the rights of workers to set up new unions. One could be forgiven for thinking that a Bill of Rights would enhance the freedoms of the worker, but the combination and contradiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and this Bill restrict the workers' freedoms. It is worth remembering where this legislation first emerged. Senator Lionel Murphy could fairly be described as the father of the Bill of Rights movement in Australia. He initiated the Bill when Attorney-General, but it appears that even Whitlam found it too difficult because, upon Murphy's appointment to the High Court of Australia, the Government lost interest in the controversial proposal. In 1983 Attorney-General Evans resurrected the Bill, declaring that a Bill of Rights was needed to safeguard the liberties of Australian citizens. It is interesting that the original proponents of this Bill were lawyers, who obviously had no faith in their own profession, as the traditional safeguard of liberties has always thought to lie in a strong and independent judiciary. In any case, had the rights of ordinary Australians become so eroded or threatened that such a Bill was necessary to enshrine rights? Of course, the idea for a Bill of Rights did not originate entirely with those two social engineers. Human rights Bills have been adopted by Warsaw Pact countries, but England-the home of the common law-has always rejected such devices. So once again we find this Labor Government basing legislation for Australians on some spurious international covenant. We have just had the Bill to establish a Health and Safety Commission, which originated from International Labor Organisation covenants out of Geneva. This legislation before the House and about to be imposed on the people of Australia implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. Why should we be devising laws which dictate the way in which we think and act, based on some questionable international standard? Is this Government not capable of any original thought which would work to improve the lot of Australians? What rights will it give the 550,000 unemployed to work or businesses and families going broke to remain solvent and productive? None, of course, because that's not what it is interested in. It is ironic; while we are discussing the rights of individuals, one would think that the rights of all Australians might be advanced. Not so; this Bill will reduce an individual's right to control his or her or their children's own destiny. Article 14 of the Bill grants `fundamental rights and freedoms to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child'. Such declarations sound harmless but raise practical implications of parental authority over children. Articles 21 to 31 deal with our law enforcement system but, rather than legislating to protect the rights of the vast majority of Australians who are law abiding and who are increasingly threatened by criminal acts against their persons and property, this Bill will weaken the role of law enforcement authorities in their job of protecting citizens and property. At a time when the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) says Australia is experiencing an increasingly serious problem with organised crime, he introduces a Bill which will make the fight against organised crime that much more difficult. The wording of the legislation is so ambiguous and imprecise as to provide a gold mine for lawyers involved in its interpretation and a field day for criminals and cheats who seek to benefit from the system against the interest of our law abiding citizens. Article 3, for example, says: The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I ask: How could the courts interpret this? An Age article of 8 October refers to a United States judge quoted in the definitive critique `Disabling America: the ``Rights Industry'' in Our Time' who said: Our procedure has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream. What we need to fear is the archaic formalism and the watery sentiment that obstructs, delays and defeats the prosecution of crime. What we should be on about is working out ways in which this country is made safer for the law abiders and harder for the criminal to flout the rights of others. I wonder where the national Operation Noah would stand under this Bill? We have seen the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and State police Ministers promoting a campaign against drug traffickers which has been declared a huge success, resulting at the latest count in 10,000 calls giving information on drug offenders. Would this legislation protect the rights of the traffickers over the informants? The Government has proclaimed through its package of Bills relating to the Bill of Rights that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is the body given wide inquisitorial powers to act on the Bill. Other honourable members have detailed some of these unwarranted and unprecedented powers not bound by the rules of evidence. Time prevents me from elaborating further. However, the Country Women's Association of Western Australia has said: The composition and powers of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is perhaps the most potentially dangerous area of concern. The Commission has the power to undertake `research and educational programs'. One has only to look at the so-called educational literature that it currently perpetrates to see what it is on about-material that states that the teaching of human rights need make `no pretence at being value-free', that `the ultimate intent of the curriculum is emancipatory and reconstructionist' and that teaching human rights `has long term goals to do with social transformation'. This means `changing the consciousness of the political nature of education and its influence on social reproduction'. This clearly implies that this Labor Government lacks the confidence to promote its own socialist ideals by the normal democratic means and needs an insidious commission to indoctrinate those children and adults proceeding through the learning process. I take the view that it is my responsibility as an elected representative to argue my point of view rationally and that it is up to the people I aim to influence to come freely to their own conclusions on the matter. I reject the use of subversive techniques to change the individual consciousness. The Senate Standing Committee's exposure report highlights the many submissions which referred to the comment attributed to Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs: If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. Finally, one can only conclude that this Government lacks the courage of its own convictions in relation to this Bill which the Attorney-General is reported as saying raises `enormous issues', otherwise it would have allowed plenty of time for free and wide-ranging discussion in the community as so many, including the Law Council of Australia, the Returned Services League and the Australian Parents Council, have demanded. Do we wish to fall into line with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Libya, Iran, Chile and Afghanistan, who have all ratified the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights? If they are setting the agenda for human rights and freedoms, all the high-sounding legislation in the world will not save us. I am pleased that the Opposition will repeal the legislation when we form the Government after the next election. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(8.55) —The reasons the Opposition has advanced in oppo- sition to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the human rights group of Bills should now be clearly understood. It is only necessary for me, therefore, to recapitulate them briefly, which I shall do. The first matter of concern that we have about the Bill of Rights is that it is not necessary. We do not believe-no evidence has been put forward to us to suggest it for one moment-that basic human rights are under attack in Australia. Certainly the matters with which the Bill is concerned are not under attack in Australia. Is there any allegation that slavery has broken out in this country, that torture is a widespread practice of the police or other au- thorities, except in the Australian Labor Party, where it seems to be a particularly appropriate means of extracting confessions? Is there any suggestion that we engage the country in scientific experiments on prisoners? Of course not! It is ludicrous to suggest that. The concerns that the Bill of Rights has are not the concerns of the ordinary, average Australian. There is no fundamental attack on basic liberties in this country. However, there are matters of great concern about which people should be concerned, such as the form of dragooning people into unions in Australia. It is all very well for the Labor Party to promote, at the behest of its union masters, a Bill guaranteeing the right to form trade unions and join trade unions; but if one suggests that there should be a right not to join a trade union, members of the Labor Party throw up their hands in horror and say: `No, no. We cannot have that. The unions are paramount. They are all powerful'. Mr Slipper —They are paranoid. Mr N. A. BROWN —And they are paranoid about the whole thing. They would say that we cannot possibly take any action to prevent compulsory unionism in this country. That puts the whole matter into prospective. The legislation is concerned with this massive, trendy, left wing issue which has mesmerised the new Labor Party over the last 10 years and touches nothing which is of concern or of real or immediate need to the average Australian. We have a second concern and that is that the proposals contained in the Bills will do fundamental damage to the structure of government as we know it in this country; that is, the Federal system. We all know that since the recent conversion of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the cause of a Bill of Rights he has been going around the country saying: `It does not affect the States or State laws; it does not affect any area of government other than the Federal Government'. We know, because we can read, that that is not the case. The Bills, if passed, will do very fundamental damage to the delicate balance that exists between Federal, State and local government. Let me make it perfectly plain that that is the case and give four reasons why it is so. Firstly, the Bill of Rights gives power to the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into any act or practice not only of the Commonwealth but also of State or an authority of a State. Secondly, the Commission will be given power to examine Acts of parliaments, not only Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament but also Acts of a State parliament. If that is not an intrusion into the proper area of responsibility of the State Governments, I would like to know what is. Thirdly, the Commission will be given power to examine Acts that have not even been passed but are proposed to be passed by not only the Commonwealth Parliament but also the State parliaments. Clearly, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that must be a quite unjustified intrusion by the Federal Government and a Federal authority into the proper workings of State governments and State parliaments. Fourthly, and this is one of the great potential dangers of this sort of legislation, the same body-the Commission-is to be given so-called educational powers. It will have the power to educate the community in the way in which the employees of the Human Rights Commission think it should be educated and to mould society not in the way in which elected representatives of the people want it moulded, but in the way in which the Human Rights Commission and the left wing forces behind the Labor Party want it to be moulded. The Commission will be given power to engage in propaganda campaigns of the sort that we have seen mounted against the Queensland Government. Irrespective of the merits of whatever the Queensland Government does, it is for the Queensland people to do whatever they wish to do in Queensland. It is not for the Federal Government to campaign against Queensland legislation. This is the evidence for that if anyone has any doubt at all about it. The Government did not have any qualms about taking the industrial and electricity legislation of the Queensland Parliament and subjecting it to examination by a Federal Government body. The Human Rights Commission produced this synthetic undergraduate nonsense that it calls a report in which it equates, believe it or not, the provisions of the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 with forced or compulsory labour. It said that a Queensland Act, which seems, so far as I can tell, to have the almost overwhelming support of the Queensland parliament, is introducing slave labour. One only has to read it to see what a synthetic, superficial, juvenile exercise it is. It is an extraordinary thought that the taxpayers' money should be wasted on this sort of rubbish. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr N. A. BROWN —Five million dollars this year and no doubt more next year. It is quite absurd that the taxpayers' money should be wasted on prosecuting the causes and issues which these self-appointed zealots want to pursue to change society into their own mould. If there were any doubt about whether we should be giving this sort of power to the Human Rights Commission, we should look briefly at the way in which it has conducted itself. I mention a case concerning a man who is not very well known, but I will do my best to make sure that he becomes better known. His name is Frank Marrett. He was, until recently, a fitter employed by Petroleum Refineries (Aus) Pty Ltd at Altona. He had worked for that company for nine years. Mr Marrett did a dreadful thing: He refused to contribute to an illegal levy which was imposed on workers of that refinery to raise money to send to a strike fund arising out of the Queensland electricity dispute! He objected to that because there was no provision in the rules of his union for the levy of $10 a week which they tried to impose on him. The rules of his union provide for a levy of up to $2 a week. Secondly, the levy sought to be imposed on him was not a levy from his union; it was moved by a rival union also in the works. He objected also on religious grounds because he is a member of a church that believes that charitable donations should go through the church. What happened to Mr Marrett as a result of that? He was sacked by his employer because the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union, a communist controlled union, said: `If you don't sack him there will be continual industrial trouble at this establishment'. Mr Marrett went to the great Human Rights Commission, the body that is supposed to preserve our rights, and asked: `Why should I be pushed around and threatened with the sack by my employer because I will not contribute to an illegal levy?'. The Human Rights Commission, in the letter sent to him in reply, said: `I am sorry, we cannot help you. It is not a Federal matter and we are a Federal Government body'. Of course, that did not deter it from subjecting the Queensland legislation to this undergraduate diatribe to try to establish that the Queensland Government was instituting slavery, or forced or compulsory labour, but it could not care tup- pence about the human rights of an individual who had worked for a company for nine years and whose employer was forced to sack him because a communist trade union threatened continued industrial action against the company if it did not sack him. It is extraordinary that some members of the Labor Party, including the Attorney-General, should allow themselves to be influenced to go along with this nonsense of giving new powers to this body and widening its authority so that it can intrude into the affairs of State governments and local councils. It wants to give more power to those zealots who want to change society to their own ways. I venture to say that the Labor Party will regret in a few years that it did not take our advice on this. It will start off a hornet's nest of trouble for itself if it gets into this sort of argument. When Federal governments have got into these arguments with State governments in the past, it has led to their undoing. The Government should not come back to us in two years and say that it was not warned. That is the sort of thing that the Human Rights Commission has been engaging in. But it gets worse than that. Let us look at the sort of propaganda that the Human Rights Commission has been spreading throughout this country. It engaged in this so-called educational campaign. The Commission has published a book, which is used as part of a teaching kit in schools, to reform society in the way in which it wants it reformed. In this book on human rights-this is human rights we are reading about, if you please-the Commission tells us this about life: There has been mass assassination- notice that- too, by more covert and indirect means. The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and misdevelopment of global resources. The United States and other erstwhile `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. That is the normal Human Rights Commission and left wing zealot diatribe that is directed against free enterprise, trade, the development of raw resources and, of course, inevitably the United States, the arch enemy of the Labor Party. Mr Gear —Rubbish. You don't know what you're talking about. Mr N. A. BROWN —If the honourable member thinks it is rubbish I will give him a copy of the book and he can read it himself, if he is capable of reading it. If he thinks that is rubbish I think he ought to go to his constituents and tell them that he thinks it is rubbish. They will deal with him quick smart at the earliest opportunity they get. This Bill is not necessary. It will lead to a restriction of human rights and not an expansion of them. It will not guarantee the preservation of the sorts of rights that people want to see preserved such as the right to be free and not to be forced to join a trade union, and the right to hold property without having it confiscated by governments such as the New South Wales Labor Government which just seized private property and the coal mines that were associated with it. They are the sorts of rights that are at stake and issue, if there are any challenges to human rights in Australia. It is time the Labor Party woke up to itself. The Bill is not necessary: It will do more damage than good. The Labor Party will rue the day that it ever introduced it. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.07) —I have great pleasure tonight in joining this debate. It is always interesting to listen to what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), has to say. He never seems to talk about what the House is talking about. He seems to go off on a tangent of his own and talk about irrelevant matters I support the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. This is an historic Bill which, for the first time, will provide Australians with significant protection of the rights and freedoms which we all take for granted but for which, in reality, there exists only limited guarantees through our legislative and judicial framework. Those opposite say that we have no need to enshrine these rights and freedoms in separate legislation, that they form a part of the mosaic of our liberal democratic tradition. But I ask honourable members to reflect on just how, at different times in our history, we have undermined the validity of that tradition through policies such as a white Australian policy and through the treatment meted out to groups and minorities such as Aborigines, homosexuals, the unemployed, single parents, members of the Communist Party, migrants, et cetera. As the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, when arguing in support of his Bill in 1973 said: We are legislating now for the protection of human rights because too often in the past our courts and our parliaments have let us down . . . and between the two of them a series of grave injustices have been performed, mainly on those groups in the community who lack the power or the popularity effectively to answer back. What he said then is still true today. Furthermore, while we may find it difficult to imagine in a country such as Australia, we cannot totally overrule the possibility of a political crisis of such proportions that it results in a declaration of a state of emergency where violations of human rights would become the norm rather than the exceptions. One only has to go to Queensland to see that point illustrated. It is all right for honourable members opposite to rant and rave, but significant things are taken for granted throughout the rest of Australia which people are not allowed to do in Queensland. Examples are standing on a street corner, as they do in my electorate in Melbourne, congregating and preaching religion, politics or any other matter. In Queensland they are gaolable offences. Mr Slipper —You don't believe that. Mr HAND —That is true. I have been there and seen it. I have been there and done that. I have taken part in some of those events in Queensland. It has become all too commonplace for this to occur in our supposedly stable country. Although Queensland is not a country, at times I think it is on another planet. I put it to those opposite, as Amnesty International argued in a submission-on the Bill of Rights-to the Standing Committee on Constitution and Legal Affairs: Is it not better to act now and build a dam rather than wait for the flood? While Senator Murphy's Bill never progressed through the Parliament it marked the commencement of the debate. Like many of the proposals first mooted by the Whitlam Government the concept of a Bill of Rights has taken time to evolve and develop. During the dark years of Fraser it was put on the back-burner, but the flame never quite went out. This Government has turned up that flame in recognition of its fundamental policy commitment to implement a Bill of Rights for Australia. Since 1969 the Australian Labor Party has supported the introduction of a Bill of Rights. If anything, the argument in support of that policy has grown. In particular, I refer to our obligation in international law to enact a Bill of Rights as a consequence of our action ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This action, which came into force on 13 Novembver 1980-five years ago yesterday-was of course initiated by the previous Government. From that day the Australian Government had an obligation to take the necessary steps, in accordance with constitutional processes, to adopt legislative and other measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant. While enactment of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 was an important step in this process it did not entirely fulfil our obligations under the Covenant. As the present Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission- Mr Slipper —Chairperson? Mr HAND —That is right; what is wrong with that? The present Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, Dame Roma Mitchell, said on Pressure Point earlier this year: Unless we have the means of enforcing our obligations under the convention, ratification is meaningless. I just remind those opposite that it was they who ratified the Covenant, even if it took them five years to do it, yet now they will not accept the responsibilities which go hand in hand with that action. Mr Slipper —No, it was Fraser. Mr HAND —It is interesting to hear that interjection from a member of the National Party of Australia. He said that it was not them, it was Fraser. That is the now changed attitude of the coalition. I want to turn now to the substance of the Bill. The rights and freedoms established by the Australian Bill of Rights are those expressed by the Covenant. By and large, those rights have been stated in the same terms as they are stated in the Covenant. This structure ensures that the Bill will not be the subject of any constitutional doubts. Because the Covenant is itself the outcome of intergovernmental compromise the rights to be protected are heavily qualified. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, the Bill of Rights enshrines in law, minimal and fundamental human rights. It should be seen as providing a starting point on which we can build. Because we have chosen to adopt the rights in the Covenant as the basis of the Bill I find it extraordinary that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) can describe the Bill in terms such as a Bill of `violations' and as a Bill to set up a `system of private inquisition'. Mr Spender —I said `inquisition', not `private'. Mr HAND —I was quoting from what I took down in shorthand. I am sorry if I misquoted the honourable member. I also find it extraordinary that the honourable member's knowledge of the purpose of the Bill is so limited that he does not understand that its essential purpose is to prevent infringements of individual rights by governments. It cannot nor does it deal with infringements by individuals against other individuals. As such, there is no scope to incorporate the amendments on trade unions that the honourable member and others have foreshadowed. As I have already said, for constitutional reasons we must follow as closely as possible the terms of the Covenant. The Covenant does not include a right to property or a freedom from compulsory acquisition, as the honourable member would know. Therefore these other proposed amendments are inapplicable. In the time remaining, I would just like to canvass the issue of application to the States. Under this Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have no power actually to right any wrongs alleged in the State or private arena. But it will have some scope to have an impact on the States though the power to investigate, including a power to `inquire into any act or practice of any governmental agency or authority (Commonwealth, State or Territory) which may infringe the Bill of Rights'. That is covered in clause 25 of the Bill. The issue of the extent to which the Bill should operate on the States is central to its effectiveness in protecting the rights of all Australians equally. What the Government is really trying to do is to establish a better society in which all Australians are in fact equal. If we look at the reality, most of the laws which are inconsistent with the rights set out in the Convenant and in the Bill emanate from the States. Most of the laws that infringe upon freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, criminal process rights and the treatment of prisoners are State laws. I remind honourable members of the abysmal record in these spheres of the Queensland Government. I could go on forever talking about the infringements of people's rights by the Queensland Government. Mr Conquest —Keep it up. Mr HAND —The honourable member says: `Keep it up'. There are significant rules and regulations that are applied in Queensland which exist in very few other places throughout the world. What happened in the last couple of days is a classic example. Senator Georges, a member of Parliament, was arrested for addressing a group of people at a political rally. Honourable members on the other side constantly remind us, as did the previous speaker, about what happens in other countries. I ask the previous speaker as a Liberal member, not as a National member, to think about what occurred to Senator Georges in Queensland. I do not know whether the fact that he is nodding his head means that he is thinking about it or that he agrees with it, but the fact is that addressing a political rally in Queensland on a public street is against the law. When people say that is allowing people the freedom of expression, I am amazed. I do not believe that the Liberals really believe that. I know that members of the National Party believe it. I know that they support the gaoling of people for attending political rallies. We all know that. However, I hope that the Liberals opposite do not believe that. Another option which I mention for the imformation of honourable members is that proposed by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report entitled `A Bill of Rights for Australia'. That option is to have a Bill of Rights which automatically applies to the States unless and until a State government, by an Act of parliament, expressly declares that it is exempt from the operation of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States would have to stand up to their elec- torates and say: `We do not believe you are entitled to the same rights as other Australians. Under this process, the States are not bound by a Bill of Rights and the issue of federalism is not in question'. The States will still have the right to get out, but if they do so they must answer to the people and stand up at election time and say that. Article 50 of the Covenant says: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of Federal States without any limitation or exceptions. Whether or not this approach is considered in other places, adoption of this Bill marks a great step forward for the people of Australia. I have talked about Queensland. However, it seems to me that this Bill and this proposal are things that the whole community wants. The community wants to see a freer Australia. The community wants to see trade unions allowed to go about their business without being infringed upon by people such as Bjelke-Petersen. People from minority groups will be able to have much more influence within the process that they do not have now. Again I hear interjections from honourable members of the National Party. I know their attitude to minority groups such as Aboriginals, migrants and other people within our society. I know all of that. This Bill will overcome for people such as those who I have mentioned the problems that they now face. Mr Shipton —What about the rights of individuals not to join a union? Mr HAND —It is the right of individuals not to join a union. That is true. There are also rights for other people not to work with those who choose to take that course of action. That is a fundamental right which people have. I agree with the honourable member for Higgins: If you do not want to join a union, do not join it. However, other people equally have the right to refuse to work with such people. Surely that is fair and proper. I look forward to joining in the debate later during the Committee stage because the amendments that have been proposed in a number of areas ought to be rejected and will be rejected. It may save honourable members opposite a lot of time if they know that we are going to oppose them. I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate the Attorney-General. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.20) —I am extremely disappointed that a man of the calibre of the present occupant of the office of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), has seen fit to bring before this House such a package of disgusting Bills-the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and cognate Bills. Today is the fourteenth day of November 1985, just three days after the tenth anniversary of the sacking of the Whitlam Government for illegality. The Australian Labor Party at that time falsely cried out that democracy was ravished, destroyed, and that it, as a government, had been robbed. The former Labor Prime Minister exhorted Australians to maintain the rage, and maintain the rage they did, at least until election day in December 1975, when Whitlam and his cronies, including the former unlamented Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, were consigned to the political wilderness where most Australians decided they belonged. This Parliament should stand for a minute's silence today because if the Government successfully uses its numbers to ram through this House the Bills before us, democracy will not merely be ravished but will be well and truly dead. Mr Miles —As a door nail. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member has said, democracy will be as dead as a door nail. Let us consider briefly the history of Bills of Rights in Australia. Murphy, the man who, as Whitlam's Attorney-General, plotted the infamous raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, initiated the proposal for a Bill of Rights. When the Whitlam Government got rid of him to the High Court of Australia it seemingly lost interest in this divisive rubbish. Alas, for Australians, the concept lingered on in the Left of the ALP and, like a phoenix which emerged from the ashes, the Attorney-General who was subsequently sacked, Senator Gareth Evans, pronounced that Australia needed a Bill of Rights to safeguard the liberties of its citizens. What complete and utter nonsense for a man, who was sworn in by the Governor-General of this country to uphold the law, to utter. The people of Australia completely opposed the actions of the then Attorney-General as far as that was concerned. Unfortunately the nonsense which he pronounced is now contained in a marginally watered down form in the legislation we are debating. Senator Evans was so frightened of discussion on his proposals, his iniquitous plans, that he tried to prevent details being released before the 1984 election because, in his view, it would not be possible to have a calm and rational debate on the Bill in the climate of an impending election. He was terrified, and correctly so, of the reaction of the Australian people. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the greatest Premier in Australia's history, would not be fobbed off. He exposed the Labor Attorney-General. He told the people of Australia what the Labor Party wanted to inflict on them and he announced what was going to happen. Of course there was then a massive backlash and reaction against Labor. The nation undoubtedly breathed a collective sigh of relief when the current occupier of the office of Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith referred the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, claiming that it raised numerous issues and ought to be scrapped. How right the Attorney was and how wrong he now is. What caused the Attorney to make a 180-degree turn? I am very disappointed in the Attorney, a man who I respect. Why is he coming into this House with this terrible Bill? The Bill before us tonight is a draft or a version of its predecessor and, to use the words of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown)-no doubt in due course he will be the right honourable member for Menzies-it is simply a respray of the same vehicle with a new coat of paint. It contains the same ability to destroy utterly our Federation and system of government which has served us well. Why is it that Labor always demands the right to grab all power unto itself? We know on this side of the House, from observing Labor, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This Bill proves that the Labor Government is corrupt beyond measure. This Bill represents a surrender to the extreme left wing faction of the ALP and is truly evil. It claims to be a Bill of Rights, but in reality it is a Bill of wrongs. It seeks to subvert the rights of all Australians. It is alien to our history and our tradition. This Government has the audacity to announce in this place that a body to be known as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will administer the Act. This Commission is to be the successor to the current Human Rights Commission, a left wing biased commission which in fact should be abolished forthwith. It is a Commission which has banned the former shadow Attorney-General from its offices. What utter disregard it had for his rights. The Commission is staffed by people who are motivated, who are left wing, and who have a committed interest in undermining our society. In fact, it is chaired by Dame Roma Mitchell, a person who if she had any decency or honesty would resign forthwith. The Human Rights Commission is one of the greatest blights in Australia. In fact, it has destroyed or sought to destroy everything that is good. It seeks to undermine, to erode, to destroy the traditions we have had in Australia since Federation. I draw the attention of honourable members to a publication entitled `Teaching For Human Rights: Activities for Schools', which has been produced for the Human Rights Commission. Mr Webster —It should be a banned book. Mr Hicks —It is subversive. Mr SLIPPER —It should be a banned book-and I am not someone who supports censorship, unless it is warranted. Certainly, honourable members would find that this publication is so despicable that a very appropriate case could be put forward for doing away with it. As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling has pointed out, the publication is completely subversive. I quote from that publication: The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and the mis-development of global resources. The United States and the other erstwhile `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. This publication, funded by the Government of Australia, undermines the United States; it undermines the principles we stand for. That book goes on and on and on. It includes a section on the family. We in the National Party and our coalition colleagues also support the principle of the family. However, the Human Rights Commission states: In Australia-a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a highly stratified class structure, a value system that is secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. Mr Webster —A shocking attack. Mr SLIPPER —It is a shocking attack. In fact, the Human Rights Commission is utterly unworthy of continuing in existence. The Australian Labor Party Attorney-General has recognised that in many ways the Human Rights Commission has failed Australia. On a number of occasions he has been motivated to disassociate himself from the Human Rights Commission's decisions. Notwithstanding this we find that the extreme Left in the ALP has been able once again to control the Government. We remember the National Taxation Summit and the way that option ACTU emerged from that. I am sorry for the Attorney-General. I am sorry he has been forced to come into this House with such a despicable piece of legislation. I am certain there is a great deal of compassion in the Opposition for the Labor Attorney-General. The rights and liberties of the people of Australia are safeguarded by the fact that we in this country have strong institutions. We have a democratically elected Parliament. We have courts which are independent. We ensure that people are protected as far as their rights are concerned. There is no need to introduce such an un-Australian piece of legislation as the Bill of Rights. It is completely contrary to everything we stand for. Why is it that the Government has seen fit to emulate the example of those countries in the Warsaw Pact? They all have human rights Acts; they all have legislation which allegedly protects the rights of ordinary people. We know that their puppet governments and their puppet institutions ensure that their human rights Acts are not worth the paper they are written on. Why is it that the Commonwealth Labor Government sees fit not to copy the United Kingdom, from which we have inherited our Westminster system and so many of the traditions we value? Why has this Government seen fit to take a leaf out of the book of Poland, of East Germany, of all those countries which stand for totalitarianism which we despise? Or does its motivation come from Russia or other Marxist states? The Bill mentions freedom and rights such as the right of freedom of movement, the right of freedom of expression and the right of peaceful assembly. It prohibits, and rightly so, scientific experimentation upon persons, as well as slavery and torture. Some people might say that this is acceptable. Big deal! These are the same sentiments which are, in fact, contained in Bills of rights in the Warsaw Pact countries. We do not need a Bill of Rights. We are opposed to a Bill of rights because we believe that the rights of Australians are protected by the ordinary institutions in this country. What does the Bill not include? It fails to protect the right to own private property in keeping with our philosophy, compulsory unionism is encouraged, but the right to refuse to join a trade union is not protected. The rights of companies are ignored, as indeed are the rights of the unborn child. This Bill is a complete and utter disgrace. This Bill will ensure that this temporary Government of Australia stands condemned in the eyes of the Australian electorate and will ensure that it is swept from office at the next election. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.31) —I think we really have to cut through a lot of the rhetoric that we have just heard from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). I do not know whether it was the voice of the 1930s in Germany that was speaking about banning books-it did ring of the 1930s; we all have to admit that-or whether it was the voice of the 1950s talking about the Cold War and totalitarian Russia. The problem is that members of the Opposition are weighed down by people such as the honourable member for Fisher. I fear for the rights of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), when he has to carry with him people such as the honourable member for Fisher because he made no contribution to the debate with what he has just said. I think we have to recognise that. We also have to recognise that the contributions to this debate by honourable members on the other side, with one or two exceptions-I will acknowledge those presently, particularly the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-have not been about rights at all; they have been about ideology, about the way Opposition members see the world, about the way they want to condemn people and about the way they see power being organised. That is all right. We recognise that. But, sadly, many of those opposite-some of them really have a lot to wake up to; the electorate understands that as well-are just idealogies of the old sort. They are hard line about seeing threats everywhere and see these sorts of statements of principle and policy as being threats to people everywhere. The problem that they face is that that personal paranoia does not translate into policy. The community well knows that. There are some members opposite who I respect for their contributions on matters of debate concerning personal liberty. I recognise that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has had a long concern from his days at the University of Sydney about civil libertarian movements and I recognise that. But some of his colleagues, I am afraid, certainly do not contribute to the debate. They are talking about old style ideology. The Australian community listening to the debate well understands that and will make its judgment in time. Another problem is that in arguing the case members of the Opposition try to resolve the situation by saying that we have institutions that determine the way people's rights shall be established. There are many different institutions in this country that perform many valuable roles. Let us look seriously at the way they work and at the role of the courts. Anyone who says that in Australia everyone's rights are guaranteed by the courts does not have an understanding of how unjust the due process of law can be at times, particularly when decisions are made not on the basis of the justice of the situation but in terms of the amount of money one can spend to employ counsel. Those opposite who try to argue that the court system will always determine matters of justice certainly have no understanding of how unjust the court system can be. Another matter we have to address is the institution of parliament. Many honourable members have come into this place tonight and have said: `Everyone's rights are guaranteed by parliament'. They should try talking to the people whose rights were denied in this Parliament in 1975 by the king hit of the Governor-General and one or two of the plotters opposite. They should talk to those people in Queensland whose rights are denied by the Queensland Government. They should talk to the people in Western Australia whose vote in upper House elections in that State is worth about 25 per cent of a vote in another electorate. Is that a clear and equal distribution of rights? That is nonsense, and honourable members opposite know it. I really wonder whether honourable members opposite understand the international perspective. The United States of America is not threatened by having a statement of rights. The people in the United States, which is an effectively functioning democracy, are not upset by having a Bill of Rights. They have resort to that. Many people in the Australian community are worried when those in the Opposition, the conservatives in Australia, say that all the institutions can look after everyone's rights. They have many recollections of institutions letting them down. I suggest that Opposition members talk to those who were living in the town of Wittenoom in Western Australia when people in institutions were saying that everyone's rights there were guaranteed and yet citizens of that town died of mesothelioma, as did some of my constituents, in 1983, 1984 and 1985. Let Opposition members talk to the Director of Public Health in Western Australia, who assured us all on a radio program that all rights were guaranteed because investigations had been done. The people's rights were not secure at all. The Director of Public Health was misleading them. The so-called faith of honourable members opposite in institutions is just a blind commitment to a status quo. They are not really concerned about rights. We have only to look at what happened under the Weimar Republic. The people of Germany thought their rights were established as well. Look at how those rights were overturned by someone who was ruthless enough and manipulative enough to destroy people's rights. I really wonder whether many of those opposite are aware of anything with respect- Mr Ian Cameron —What about Russia? Give us a run down on Russia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are one or two opposite who also resort to the jackboot mentality. It does not take much to stir them up, I notice. They are always here; sadly, the National Party is hung with them. They represent the albatross around the neck of the Opposition-the jackboots. The Australian community understands that well. We have just heard from one and we are about to hear from another. All we get from them is the thundering roar of dogma. I return to the subject. The issue at stake is whether institutions guarantee people's rights. Clearly, on an historical analysis, they do not, because those institutions may be manipulated and controlled. We can see that happening in Queensland. They may not be operating properly, in the way that people who operate within the framework of the law may not always stand up to scrutiny. There are many opposite who would recognise that if they looked inside themselves. There is another thing to which we have to address ourselves. No one opposite, with a few exceptions, has been talking about the ethical situation underlying a Bill of Rights. There are some rights that we believe people ought to be guaranteed. Somehow, there are those opposite who do not think those rights are worth a guarantee. If we challenge these issues, if we look at them in those terms, what do we hear from those opposite? We have heard of threats, of people from the Soviet Union, of underlining and of left wing plots. That is all old stuff; that is the politics of the 1950s. The community recognises that. The community in Australia has lived through a long period- Mr Donald Cameron —I was in Berlin three weeks ago. There is a big brick wall around it and 25,000 men with guns. You don't know what you are talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will cease interjecting. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Mr Deputy Speaker, is it not amazing that they are all so stirred up? I have not even begun to talk about South Africa, but they are so defensive about South Africa already. It is called instinctive reactionary behaviour; but we will get on to that later. The reality is that the speakers opposite have not debated the real issue. The real issue is: Should we in this country be laying down some rights because we believe that the community has a right to have access to a statement of rights? We believe that. We believe that a look at history shows that those rights can be trampled upon. There is much discussion in the philosophical literature about people who would overturn rights in a democratic society. It is as if honourable members opposite had never looked around themselves or at the historical circumstances. We on this side are saying that we believe there are some rights that should be stated and there are some processes to which we should have access. I will conclude by making one or two more remarks. There is concern-or what I would call a scare campaign-being put around Australia by people associated with the Right to Life Australia organisation who are trying to say that this Government is creating threats to the unborn child. The Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) spoke about that; it is nonsense. The other thing that has to be said is that this Bill of Rights also recognises the existence of other legislation and other laws that deal with other areas of human activity. It does not override those; it provides support for them. Those opposite continue to thump their desks and trumpet around their ideologies. We on our side recognise that whenever one begins to talk about individuals' rights there is an instinctive reaction by those authoritarians opposite who do not want people to have rights; they want to tell people how the world should be. We see that in Queensland. We have seen it historically. The instinctive reaction of Opposition members is to do that. What we are concerned to do is to lay down statements. I refer to the historical ex- perience in Germany in 1957 and in Australia in 1975. There are some people-most of them tend to be collected, or should I say congealed together, opposite; one can put one's own interpretation on that-who would deny others' rights. Opposition members know it; the community knows it. When we say that we believe there are fundamental rights that should be established we believe that we have the support of the Australian community, and time will show that we have. Dr WATSON(Forde)(9.41) —I rise to support the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), in opposing this Australian Bill of Rights Bill. While I would like to spend time analysing the Bill in detail, I recognise that many of the fundamental problems with this suggested legislation have been adequately dealt with by my parliamentary colleagues. Consequently, I wish to limit my remarks at this time to the following two topics: First, the necessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia, which I intend to examine in detail, and; secondly, the two fundamental rights which are not contained in the Bill but which are essential to individual liberty and freedom; namely, the right to own property and the right to offer one's own labour for personal gain. In delimiting my remarks to the above, I in no way mean to imply that I am happy with other clauses or aspects of this Bill. For example, I believe the Bill greatly weakens the protection guaranteed for children, families and parents; but there is no time to discuss this. I will deal only with the two topics chosen and will do so seriatim. In pages 5 to 8 of the second reading speech the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) offered his reasons for such a Bill. These include: Firstly, that the common law provides no guarantees of important individual rights; secondly, that such a Bill acts as a check upon possible excesses by the government of the day; thirdly, that community attitudes and pressures on which our freedoms rely are fragile; and, fourthly, that the enactment of such a Bill has vital educative functions. There is no logical basis for these assertions by the Minister. A Bill of Rights is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the existence of individual human and civil rights as we know them. Let me explain. If a Bill of Rights were a necessary condition for the acceptance by a country of fundamental human civil rights, there would be no country that accepted these rights that did not have such a Bill. This is patently untrue; Australia is such a country. This is explicitly recognised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which stated on page three: As Australians we are fortunate to live in a democratic and pluralistic society which, by any standards, accords a high respect to the dignity of the individual and which recognizes many rights and freedoms consequent on that dignity . . . In some nations Bills of Rights have come forward, often after violent upheaval, to mark the inauguration of a new kind of society. Australia does not suffer under a tyrannical or oppressive regime. A Bill of Rights for Australia would not signal a revolution in Australian society. The report continued: Furthermore, some consider it desirable to take advantage of the current relatively stable position of Australian society to introduce a Bill which could aid in the defence of fundamental rights and freedoms if threatened during any future societal turmoil or crisis. Of course, England provides another example of a stable society. Therefore, a Bill of Rights is simply not a necessary condition; nor is a Bill of Rights a sufficient condition for the existence of fundamental human rights. If a Bill was a sufficient condition, any society or country that had a Bill of Rights would scrupulously guard, protect and develop such rights. Again, this is patently false. One only has to note the 1977 Constitution of the Soviet Union, which contains a magnificent Bill of Rights-perhaps `window dressing' is the appropriate term-to recognise the absurdity of the proposition that a Bill of Rights guarantees the respect of individual rights and freedoms. Clearly a Bill of Rights is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the existence of fundamental human rights. The Soviet Union has perhaps the most comprehensive written constitutional guarantees of individual liberty of any legal system on earth. England has no set of legislative guarantees of liberty. However, would any objective person suggest that the Soviet people enjoy a greater measure of freedom than the English? An Act of parliament will not ensure freedom, nor will the absence of legislative guarantees result in tyranny. So the Government's argument is basically flawed. I now turn to the Minister's fourth argument enunciated earlier, that the enactment of such a Bill has a vital educative function. This is a very weak proposition. Quite frankly, the present Government and the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, have not demonstrated they even understand how to educate people in basic literacy and numeracy skills, let alone demonstrate they possess, the skills necessary to utilise an abstract piece of legislation to educate Australians on human rights. The opposite effect is observed in Warsaw-pact countries. They are far more likely to utilise such a Bill as an instrument of public deception about the type of society in which they live than they are to become critical of their country's human rights shortcomings. I would specifically challenge the assertion that such a Bill acts as a check on government. There is no evidence to suggest that such a Bill sustains a public climate which makes it more difficult for governments to trade away or ride over the rights contained in it. In fact, the ability of any future Federal government to override rights contained in the Bill is explicitly recognised in clause 12 sub-clause (3) of the Bill, which provides that a subsequent Commonwealth Act may explicitly override sections of the Bill of Rights. As the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) has rightly pointed out, in Australia, as in England, our rights are protected by the combination of tolerance in society and an evolved institutional system; namely, the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. Parliaments are accountable to the poeple and it is parliament's job to frame the laws of our country. If it is public opinion that the priorities of the legislature should be different, in our democracy the populace at large has the ability to change the composition of parliament. The judiciary, on the other hand, is a body which has security tenure. It is protected from transient public opinion, unlike the parliament. It is the proper responsibility of the judiciary to apply the law taking into account the facts of the case at hand. It is the responsibility of the parliament to provide laws which are as precise and as clear as possible. It is the independence of the judiciary which helps to ensure the executive carries out the law as parliament intended. It is trust by the populace in the functioning of these independent institutions which is the foundation of our belief that the rights and freedoms of individuals will be protected. While these institutions function as they are intended to do this trust is well founded. If they act otherwise, no trust will exist, but more critically, no Bill will protect individuals in such a society. I turn to the Attorney-General's proposition that community attitudes and pressures on which our freedom relies are fragile. I would contend that the attempt by one generation to legislate the rights and freedoms that it holds dear is, in fact, an attempt by one generation to limit or make more difficult the legislative expression of a full range of public preferences by a succeeding generation. Now it may be tempting for the Attorney-General to believe that his generation knows best, not only for us right now but also for all subsequent generations. Let us reflect on this matter. Take, for example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution ratified in 1787. It reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What may have been reasonable under the conditions existing in 1787 after a revolution, now appears somewhat dated. It has, in the opinion of many people, been a major impediment in the fight against crime in the United States. The easy availability of firearms in the United States today undoubtedly impinges on the rights and freedoms of individuals to lead safe lives in that country. Similarly, it is interesting to reflect on whether or not our founders would have guaranteed racial or sexual equality if they had annexed a Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Perhaps they may have entrenched the opposite. Having examined the discredited logic for an Australian Bill of Rights, I would like now to turn my attention to two rights which are not contained in the Bill, but which, in my opinion, are fundamental to our democracy and separate us quite clearly from the totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe. These are: The right to own, dispose of and acquire property and the right to freely offer one's own labour for gain. I would argue that the ability to own property is fundamental to our concept of democracy and human rights. Without this right, the individual is at the mercy of whatever organisation has the ability to acquire property. It affects where and how people live, it affects where and how they must travel and it affects how they conduct their every day living. Likewise, the freedom to offer one's labour freely in exchange for goods and services is fundamental. Without this ability, the individual is dependent for his or her sustenance on the state or whatever coercive body has that decision. Fundamental to individual freedom and liberty is the right to own property and to sell one's labour freely. In other words, fundamental to human freedom is the existence of reasonably uninhibited markets. But nowhere is this mentioned in the Bill. It is a short extension to the proposition that individual freedoms and rights are severely restricted to coercive bodies in our society that deny individuals the freedom to dispose of their own labour. Consequently, the right to join a trade union must be balanced by the right of an individual to refrain from joining a trade union and the right to have a job, irrespective of the feeling of some coercive union official. In conclusion, this Bill is flawed in a number of ways. First, as stated earlier, there is no logical argument supporting the necessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia. Second, it is flawed because it ignores fundamental human rights and freedoms in its articles and I have mentioned but two of these. My colleagues have and will continue to pursue other major problems with the Bill. There is absolutely no justification for this Bill and I join my colleagues in opposing it strenuously. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.53) —I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, oppose this legislation. I have become sick of the word `Queensland' and what happened in Queensland as has been promoted by the Government tonight. When the dams issue was a controversy very little was said about the rights of Tasmania. This legislation is to be administered by the Human Rights Commission. Most Australians do not want it. Why should they? Letters from people expressing grave reservations have poured into my office. Most Australians, in particular Tasmanians, are wary of a linkage between any international convention and that is what this legislation is all about. The dams disaster is a classic example of decisions being influenced from outside Australia. What occurred was the trampling of State rights and a democratically elected Government. It is difficult to imagine a piece of legislation that could be more harmful to the smooth continuance of the federal system in Australia. It would require a strong and very determined State government, statutory authority or local council to withstand the type of pressure that the Commonwealth Government is capable of bringing to bear. Accordingly, to my way of thinking, this legislation has a clear potential to interfere with existing, sensitive relationships between parent and child, employer and employee and teacher and pupil, just to mention some. Mr Ian Robinson —An evil Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —It is an evil Bill, as my colleague says. The Bill appears likely to offer nothing but harm to the ordinary law abiding, decent and hard working citizens-most of the people. It clearly has the potential to undermine social cohesion in Australia. Many of the articles grant rights or freedoms in the broadest terms without qualification. Experience of such legislation shows how dangerous such broad statements of principle can be. They invite widely different interpretations that may owe much to the political philosophy or values of the person called upon to interpret such legislation. The best safeguard of our liberties lies in the maintenance of a strong and independent judiciary, administering justice as it has done for centuries, according to well established principles, and applying both the inherited common law and statutes enacted by democratically elected government. Incidentally, I refer to elected people, not people who are appointed, who have a particular ideology or philosophy that could be harmful. On the surface the Bill's declarations of freedom and rights, such as the freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right of peaceful assembly and its prohibitions against torture and slavery, sound good. But it does not work in some other countries that we know that are communist inspired and that are dictatorships of the worst type. But they have these sorts of Bills. This does not occur in Australia, so why do we need a Bill like this that can be interpreted in many different ways? Dr Theophanous —Oh, come off it. Mr GOODLUCK —Again, who wants the Bill? I do not doubt that there are some good meaning people, like the honourable member who smiled and interjected. But there are many ideological extremists, with an absolute obsession and a distrust of all forms of authority. It is frightening to think that the Bill could give to the misfits in our society a licence to impose their distorted concepts of how a society ought to function upon ordinary, well-adjusted Australians. It could become a legal right for the misfits in our society to engage in behaviour that is unacceptable to most Australians. I intend to move two amendments tonight. It is not my intention to taunt anybody. It is not my intention to toady to the Catholic bishops or anybody else in Australia. I intend to move those amendments because this Bill will be passed automatically. It will automatically be sent to the Senate. There are some members of the Senate-particularly, some from Tasmania-about whom I have grave doubts. Therefore, if this Bill is to be passed tonight, I have the right to propose some amendments to it. I do not intend to be taunted by any Government member who makes certain wild accusations about the reasons why I am proposing those amendments. That is the reason why we are to have a Bill of Rights-most probably, so that people like my colleagues and I will have the right to express a particular opinion, and that is what I intend to do tonight. I vehemently oppose this Bill because I question some of the people who will bring this Bill into play. Therefore, I will make absolutely certain that some of my objections to it are noted by moving those amendments tonight. I repeat: It is not my intention to taunt. I do not know whether the Government is going to allow a conscience vote. If it does not do so, I will not taunt. If it does not do so, I will not say to people at the next election: `You should bitterly oppose them in certain situations'. I do not operate that way. I make that point very clearly tonight. It is my intention to move those amendments. I hope that they will receive support, because there are certain things contained in the Bill that we on this side all fear. Therefore, if we oppose it so vehemently, we should have the right and the will to oppose certain clauses of the Bill that may have a disastrous effect on human life, on the unborn child. Therefore, we need to look at it very carefully. It always intrigues me that when people of different ideology and different philosophy to ours, promote their views, they always down us, they always say that we are right wing extremists and say certain things about us just because we have a particular point of view. We very rarely engage in throwing things back to them except probably in jest. If we are to debate a subject clearly and fairly, we have the perfect right to stick to what we believe in, just as do those with left wing attitudes on certain issues. I oppose the Bill. I will wait for the time to bring forward my amendments. I hope that they will be supported and be received in a genuine, decent and respectable way. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(10.01) —I rise to oppose strongly the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Much has been said in this debate about its origin, the effect that it would have and the unfortunate consequences that would flow from it. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) quite properly referred to some linkage between this Bill and what we have seen occurring around the world. It is patently clear that similar human right Bills have been adopted by Warsaw Pact countries. Why have they done this? They have done so because of the philosophies that they and their leaders promote. They then endeavour to inspire countries in other parts of the world. The free world might well acknowledge the lead given by Great Britain, which is really the home of common law-a common law which has spread to all corners of the globe, where it has been allowed so to do. We must acknowledge that in this nation of ours and in similar Western countries there is great recognition of the significance and importance of common law and its value to every citizen of the nations in which it dominates. I wish to quote a few words on this legislation from one J. K. Bowen, published in the Institute of Public Affairs `Bulletin'. He commented: On the surface, the Bill's declarations of freedoms and rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right of peaceful assembly, and its prohibition against torture, slavery, and scientific experimentation upon prisoners, sound good . . . He went on to point out that we would have to look very carefully at what the implications are when it comes to the question of what the Bill really contains and what it really does for human rights. All that has been expressed so strongly by the proponents of the Bill-those honourable members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House-would be all very well in a totalitarian context, in a totalitarian nation, but we do not need that kind of influence in this country. We do not need that kind of instructional approach that exists in those countries which flows through from the early days of school to universities and the whole system until it becomes total dogma. Where does that lead to? It leads to the excuse for those nations doing the very things that are abhorrent to all of us. If the more realistic members on the opposite side of the House were to consider that approach for a few moments they would recognise that it is really just an acceptance of double standards that would be very damaging to the very fabric of Australian society. Let us look at a few of the implications. For example, there is no declaration in the Bill of the right to own private property. If we look at the effect this Bill will have on the family structure and its likely consequences for family standards as we know them in this country and in most Western countries and at the consequences in the field of education, we see deplorable aspects that cannot be tolerated. The only course that can be followed by those who have reality as their aspiration, and who take heed of what ought or ought not to occur to ensure the well-being of the citizens of today and tomorrow, is to consign this legislation to the scrap heap. We know this will not happen in this chamber, because we know that it will be supported and passed by a vote. It will then be set on the course to become legislation that will take effect in this country, with all its consequences. Let us just reflect for a moment on the Evans Bill. It shattered those of us who learned about it when it came from under wraps just before an election. The political consequences of the Bill were so adverse that the Australian Labor Party took every possible step it could to keep the Bill from public attention. Some members of the Labor Party were realistic enough to assess what the consequences would be if the Australian community, the electors of this nation, knew what the legislation was about. In fact, misleading statements were made to cover up the Evans Bill. Subsequently, of course, there was all sorts of speculation about what would happen. Drafts of the Bill were leaked, there was concern, and then finally, just a few short days ago, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the Bill and for the first time we saw the real consequences of it. We saw the fine print. For the first time we came to know what the Bill contained, what it meant, what it spelt out. I am sure that the community at large still has not yet fully recognised or understood that, and for the very good reason that few people in the community know what it is all about. There has not been adequate time for it to become known to the community at large, and that is obviously a deliberate intention on the part of this Government. Let us just consider the consequence of all the matters that have been raised in the debate this afternoon and tonight. If the legislation is foisted on the Australian nation it will be to the great detriment of many sections of the community. The legislation will be detrimental to the standard of education in this country. It will create the opportunity for yet another cult to go out and foist itself upon the community under the umbrella of the provisions of the law that would follow. That would be a great disaster. The loss of the right of appeal, the loss of the opportunity to express oneself, as is now possible under common law, and to deal with the situations and circumstances that affect individuals-all this would be drastic and diabolical for every Australian. We have a duty tonight to make this clear. I and other members on this side of the House will oppose this Bill tooth and nail. We will do so for the reasons I have expressed and which so many other members on this side have so clearly and succinctly put in the debate that has taken place. I content myself with saying in conclusion that I regard this legislation as the most unhappy and dangerous legislative approach that I have seen in the many years I have been in this place. This legislation seeks to alter standards and philosophies. It is really an attempt to create a framework under which certain- Mr Leo McLeay —Socialism! Mr IAN ROBINSON —Well, the honourable member said it. He can laugh about it. Of course, it is socialism without a doubt, but the legislation will create something far worse, of which the honourable member is certainly very aware but which at times he advocates and at other times he tries to hid. The legislation will not provide, as asserted by the Government, opportunities for people to have a better, fuller, and more satisfactory life. This is an attack on the life of every citizen of the Australian nation and I strongly oppose it. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.09) —In speaking to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 I believe it is appropriate to refer to the fact that members on this side of the chamber have perhaps never been as intense in expressing concern about legislation as they have been about the contents of this piece of legislation. I wish to join that throng. I suggest that had the Australian population been given an opportunity to become more familiar with the contents of the Bill, the condemnation would have been infinitely more widespread from one side of the continent to another. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, tries to pretend that all the Government is doing is altering pre-existing Liberal legislation. Even in his second reading speech he went to great lengths to say how the Fraser Government had introduced human rights legislation, almost as a form of apology for what he was doing. However, let the cap fit whom it truly should. The Attorney went on to say: Unlike the previous Government, this Government-- meaning the Hawke socialist Government-- has never been satisfied that administrative mechanisms, particularly the limited kind which eventually emerged under the 1981 Act, were the only means by which Australia could or should carry out such a clear undertaking. . . . A strategy of compliance with international human rights standards which does not involve legislative definitions of rights must be half-hearted and hollow, if not suspect. I believe that we have established that this legislation is a Labor initiative which Labor wants to race through this chamber and through the Senate. Sadly, probably with the support of the Democrat group, that splinter type Labor Party group, it will get it through. But what will Australia end up with? We heard the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who is no longer in this chamber, refer to some of the fears of those on this side of the House as reflecting the politics of the 1950s. Mr Ruddock —What a sanctimonious speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —How true. It is not unreal to point to the communist bloc or to look at the countries which have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to see how they enact their undertakings. I refer to countries such as Bulgaria, Kampuchea, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland. Only in the last couple of years people in Poland have been dying in the streets for their basic freedoms, yet Government members stand up and say: `We have to join the rest of the world'. Just three weeks ago I returned from behind the Iron Curtain. If honourable members opposite think that freedoms are rife in those countries they are wrong. I do not wish to denigrate my host country of only a handful of weeks ago, but with my very eyes I saw the huge wall. The honourable member for Issacs (Mr Charles) is laughing, the clown, the unresponsive fool. I saw the huge wall around that country, the GDR, and soldiers with machine guns. Yet one of the requirements of the very Covenant that country signed states: `Everyone shall be be free to leave any country, including his own'. That Covenant, signed by half the countries of the world, is not worth the paper it is written on. Yet honourable members opposite are rounding up the people of Australia saying: `I think you are all in it and if anybody steps over the line he is for it'. The Government is putting powers in the hands of commissioners, people who have never necessarily been through the legal system. One such person, who used to sit up there until a few months ago, has been appointed by this Government as one of these commissioners. The Government is putting into their hands powers that are not enjoyed by any court in this country. No other legislation that has been introduced in this country so smacks of the suppression of the rights of the individual than the legislation we are debating this evening. No wonder honourable members opposite have gone quiet. It is about time they read the four Bills and the explanatory notes. I recall very clearly how in about 1977 I was probably the first politician in this country to lock horns with one of the mickey mouse organisations that have been set up in this country. I had the temerity to say that a gang of Aborigines was stealing cheques from letter boxes. The next minute, a Labor senator-I will let sleeping dogs lie as to who he was-reported me to Al Grassby. Do honourable members know what I did? I was told to appear and explain myself. I said: `Get nicked! I am not bowing my knee to any man'. Yet the legislation before us tonight gives Grassby's successors the powers to fine me $1,000 for what would be judged by them as an insult. Yet this Government claims it is protecting the rights of individuals. What it is doing in this funny attempt is, in fact, taking rights from individuals. The Government is trying to mould and create a perfect society and it is using people whom I would not leave in charge of a kindergarten for half a day. I shall draw the House's attention to some of the great quotes from the Human Rights Commission. But first of all I say this to the ladies and gentlemen of Australia: You no longer have the right to insult these people in the way in which I am about to insult them. This legislation will silence you; it will ensure that if you follow the performance that I gave in 1977 with Al Grassby, you will face a fine of $2,500 or six months behind bars. That is the kind of legislation that the Government claims will improve human rights. Let me give the House some of the wonderful quotes from the people in the Human Rights Commission which has sought all these powers and protection. I have not forgotten the expressions of the Commission not so long ago when it was saying that the Commission needed more power. It is to get this power. This is the Commission that banned our Deputy Leader from even going near the Commision's premises. Mr Cleeland —Which one? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Neil Brown. You know what I am talking about, you clown. Get your mind above politics and get back to the concerns of people. The Commission just took a decision. That Dame Roma Mitchell-let me say it again and I hope she finds it insulting-that Dame Roma Mitchell just said: `No more Brown'. The honourable member was then the shadow Attorney-General. Then we had another classic example. The Human Rights Commission claimed that we should establish a prison in Canberra so that prisoners could be given their rights and access to their families. How pathetic. If a person makes a decision to commit a crime somewhere in Australia and he is picked up and locked up, then it is just too bad. I bet that, if someone inside this Territory insults the Commission and Dame Roma Mitchell or one of those other funny people who are in that place decides that it is three months in the jug for that person, there will be no building of a little prison in Canberra. That person will be off to Pentridge or somewhere like that. Then we have the example of Dr Ralph Pettman, the great author who wrote `Teachings for Human Rights'. One of the writs of the Human Rights Commission is that it has to get out and educate people. I believe this fellow was on the dole for a year before he got picked up by the Commission. That is absolutely true-oh no, it was for nine months; I am exaggerating. He was charged with writing a schoolbook for children. In this book he says: The construction of a capitalist world economy predicated upon dishonesty and greed has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and misdevelopment of global resources. The United States and other erstwhile free market countries have much to answer for in this regard. This is stuff the Commission wants to teach kids. The document is called `Teachings for Human Rights'. It is a kit for teachers to use in instructing children. Then we have another one-my word, there are some classics here. This is an example of how the Commission thinks. It wants the relationship provisions of the Migration Act amended to permit homosexuals to bring their partners into Australia. I reckon there are enough of them born here without importing them. That is my own simple view. That is what the Commission regards as human rights. We allow people who want to get married in the eyes of God to come into this country as man and wife. This is the type of thinking of the people who are to be given all these additional powers that this conglomeration of legislation will bring about. Very regrettably we are being confined to 10-minute speeches this evening, but I could have gone on for a long time. I stand behind every man and woman in this country who expresses concern about this type of legislation. The lady sitting in the gallery over there with her hand in front of her mouth and whispering to Labor members, I bet that she is from the Commission as well. She is probably the type of person who will object the next time I stand up outside- Mr Maher —That is outrageous! Apologise! Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will not apologise. If I have thrown the first knife in insulting the Commission, I am very pleased and happy because I intend to test its strength in dragging people before it. That is how horrendous this legislation is. The Attorney-General is a compliant Minister. He really does not want this legislation but, because of the left wing thrust of the Labor Party, he sees no alternative but to go ahead. Government members-Apologise. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am not apologising to anybody. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Lionel Bowen-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr Lionel Bowen-I wish to raise a point of order. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), for reasons I do not understand-- Mr Donald Cameron-I withdraw. Mr Lionel Bowen-I would hope so because the person concerned happens to be a member of the parliamentary staff, nothing to do with the Commission. She has all the rights we are anxious to protect under legislation and the honourable member for Moreton has abused the privileges of this House tonight. Mr Donald Cameron-I withdraw my comments. I apologise. I did not realise; I thought that she was a member of the Human Rights Commission. I express regret for my comments. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.23) —I want to talk about the package of Bills that are before us tonight, and particularly about the proposed Australian Bill of Rights. I want in the context of this debate to make a number of fairly brief statements about the Opposition's approach to this legislation. The first point I would like to make is that in no way should our opposition be construed or be purported to represent opposition to basic human and fundamental rights. I have listened to a number of speeches today in which it has been suggested that because we are opposed to this legislation we are opposed to particular and identified rights as enumerated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is nothing further from the truth. I single out the speech of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who made those comments in his address in this debate. There is no way that our opposition to the Australian Bill of Rights can be construed as opposition to the fundamental rights enumerated in the International Covenant. The objections we have are rooted in the way in which the Government is endeavouring in this country to protect those rights. My concern for fundamental human rights I would put against the concern of any other member in the Parliament. My record of protection of human rights not only in this country but also in relation to the affairs of other countries would stand scrutiny, I suggest, with that of any other colleague. I have had a long-standing involvement in the organisation Amnesty International. It is important that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) also understand that the involvement of the Menzies Government in the settlement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in no way can be used as a basis for arguing that this legislation would be endorsed by Sir Robert Menzies if he were alive today. I want to make that point very strongly. We have on the public record-and this material was circulated to all honourable members-articles written by the late Sir Robert Menzies in the period 1974 when Lionel Murphy was Attorney-General and proposing a form of Australian Bill of Rights. Sir Robert wrote about his views on the matter at that time. I quote from an article in the Melbourne Herald of 14 March 1974 in which Sir Robert said: The first thing to be remembered is that Australia is a Common Law country and, as Mr Justice Dixon once said, that simple statement carries with it ``prodigious consequences.'' [Common Law, as defined in the Oxford dictionary, is the ``unwritten law of England administered by the Queen's courts, based on ancient and universal usage and embodied in commentaries and reported cases.'' The term is used in distinction from Statute Law because over the centuries it was evolved from the judgments of the courts producing ultimately a series of legal rules such as we find in the Law of Contract and the Law of Civil Wrongs.] He went on to say: When we, in Australia, come to discuss civil and political rights, it is necessary to remember that one of the functions of the Common Law, devised over a course of centuries in England and adopted by us by inheritance, has been to protect the individual against infringements of his personal rights. Those who want to refer to Sir Robert Menzies ought to be very much aware of the comments in those articles because his record, his statements, can be recalled by anybody who wants to know. The fact is that the International Covenant is an important document which many countries have been encouraged to sign and ratify. We in Australia have signed and ratified that Covenant, though the signing and ratification of that Covenant and its introduction into the domestic law of a country does not of itself ensure that all its individual articles will be complied with. One can look at numerous countries, as has been done in many of the speeches we have heard, to see a reliable commentary on the way in which those rights can be easily put aside if governments and people do not have the resolve to ensure that they are in place. The Covenant does not protect rights unless there is a will and a national ethos to protect those rights. The shadow Attorney-General of Victoria, Haddon Storey, wrote about the American situation in an article on an Australian Bill of Rights published in Checkpoint in 1969. I think his statement about the American situation is as elucidating as many. On that occasion he said: Despite the veneration of the American people for their Bill of Rights (as expressed in Brant's work `The Bill of Rights'), its provisions did not prevent the Supreme Court upholding the action of the federal government in uprooting the whole of the Japanese-American population during the last war and transporting them to concentration camps a thousand miles inland. Further, it is significant that it is only recently that parts of the American Bill of Rights have been used to enhance the civil rights of the coloured people in America. The provisions had been there for over 150 years but they were not used to effect reforms until the government, judiciary and leaders in all walks of life had become ready to accept such reforms. At another level, the existence of entrenched Bills of Rights in the Constitutions of Ghana and Nigeria did not prevent the governments of these countries abrogating them. If we are to discuss human rights in the context of what we might hope to achieve we need to have these sorts of comments in mind. I have seen commentaries that have suggested that the most useful role for any legislation of this sort is merely an educative role to teach people about what we regard as important rights, that we already have in place in Australia legislation which is designed to give effect to that and that we have already ratified and signed the International Covenant to do it. There is one other point I want to make about the way in which these rights should be seen. Not all rights are fundamental and immutable. Some are simply assumed in the time frame in which they are put. In the American Constitution there is the right to bear arms. It was seen as important in the context of the time it was placed in the American Constitution, but over time it has no longer been seriously argued by those who are concerned about civil rights that that is a fundamental right that ought to be protected at all costs. I am not saying that some people do not argue that, but I do not think it would be universally recognised as such. The fact is that we could put rights into our law to entrench them now which in another time frame might not be seen as useful or as valuable to the people of the nation. The United Kingdom does not have a Bill of Rights as we understand it. Certainly it had the Magna Carta. The basic rights which we attach a great deal of importance to evolved over time. I think it needs to be understood that it is an evolutionary process. Few people seek to discredit the United Kingdom because of its breaches of fundamental rights. The only criticisms I have seen offered are offered in relation to some of its activities in Northern Ireland in relation to the emergencies that have taken place there. If a country has a will to ensure that human rights are protected, that will will ensure that they are in fact respected by courts, governments and the people. This model that we have for Australia now is intended to entrench rights in our law in part, but not completely, but I think it needs to be understood by honourable members that to do so would not necessarily ensure that we were significantly better off. It needs to be understood that they could be changed by the Parliament at another time. A Bill of Rights is not going to be entrenched as Bills of Rights have been credited in America. The fact is that when one seeks to entrench rights in specific language, in words of a covenant or in words of a statute, my concern is that that very language might have the consequence of inhibiting and limiting the very rights that they are designed to protect. I am concerned that the nature of the language we use in trying to express in a statute rights that are taken for granted and assumed to exist in Australia is such that we may be restricting and limiting the rights that we assume are in place now. That is a matter of real concern to me. It needs to be understood by all honourable members that the way in which rights in Australia are more likely to be protected over time is by eternal vigilance-vigilance of our judiciary, vigilance of members of parliament and vigilance on the part of the people. I see that as being far more important than this Parliament trying to provide an unreasonable fetter upon the parliaments that might follow by the way in which we now endeavour to entrench legislation. The former Fraser Government had a commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It introduced the Human Rights Commission legislation. The model was based very much on a proposal put to the former Government in an article written in 1972 by Enid Campbell entitled `Pros and Cons of Bills of Rights in Australia'. I think it would be useful to look at that article and at the justification for the form of legislation put in place by the Fraser Government and why that is a preferable model to that which this Government is proposing. Enid Campbell stated in her article: I would not welcome the prospect of an absolute judicial veto of legislative measures which appeared to the courts to offend against constitutional guarantees. I would prefer that legislative proposals which, after preliminary investigation seemed to violate the Bill of Rights, should be made the subject of a special legislative procedure designed to ensure full and careful deliberation before a final decision was reached. Any such preliminary investigation should be made by an impartial agency continuously engaged in the review of legislative proposals. She continued: I suspect that in practice, constitutional restraints of this kind would bear more heavily on governments than those the application of which was left to be finally determined upon judicial review. The price of liberty may be eternal vigilance. If it is, vigilance may have to be procured at a greater cost than we have been prepared to pay. The Human Rights Commission provided the method by which legislation could be examined against the record of the International Covenant and would ensure that when considering legislation we, as members of parliament, were aware of the Covenant and its impact upon Australia and could take it into account in our deliberations. That is a far more appropriate method to use for protecting fundamental rights in this country than this limiting document that the Attorney wants us to adopt. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(10.33) —I oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and cognate Bills. When they were introduced by the Attorney-General (Lionel Bowen), a man whom I personally like-I have been a member of parliament for a long time-I could not convince myself that he was happy with the role in which he was cast. I felt that he was somewhat dragged to the barrier when he brought these Bills before the Parliament. I do not intend to recapitulate all of the things that have been said by honourable members on this side of the House. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), in particular, and, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) have made some reference to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which would be set up under this legislation, and which would be a judge and jury responsible to no one but itself. It would have horrendous powers. It might be acceptable in a totalitarian society; it might be acceptable in Afghanistan or in the Soviet countries; it might be acceptable in Poland. But what good was a Bill of Human Rights to the Polish people, to Solidarity? What guarantees have the Polish people about joining a union or leaving their country? Such a body is alien to a country such as Australia. Mr Ian Robinson —And no right of appeal. Mr ADERMANN —That is quite correct. Some years ago we were horrified by McCarthyism and here we have in the proposed Commission-depending on the personnel and on who appoints them-a basis on which could be conducted heresay hunts which would dwarf McCarthyism. It could be a political body. Indeed, such a role is no myth. All evening, we have had indications from honourable members opposite that the Commission would be so used. Already we have had the alleged investigation of Queensland's electricity dispute. Honourable members on the other side of the House have indicated already that things such as electoral boundaries will come within the function of such a commission. There is no complaint, of course, from the other side of the House about the architects of zonal redistribution in Queensland-the Hanlon Labor Government. There was no complaint at all about the way it was elected for 25 years on just over 40 per cent of the vote. I commend the speech of the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) because he plagiarised quite unashamedly from a speech I made in this House on that subject in 1973. This Bill is not designed because of any interest in human rights; it is political through and through. I fear that the proposed Commission can be used, and will be used blatantly politically. It is based on yet another international agreement that never should have been ratified. This is a new way of reducing our Constitution to nothingness, to take away from the States and the people of Australia by stealth all of the protection they thought was specifically written into the Constitution, to take away from their voice and their right to a referendum. Because Australians have clearly rejected at referenda efforts by central governments to usurp powers guaranteed to the States and the people by the Constitution, this device of international agreements and external powers is the indefensible and dishonest method of denying the people their right to protest. More and more it is being resorted to by this Government. Referenda are no longer necessary for this Government. I absolutely oppose this Bill. One cannot legislate for human rights. As rights are extended to one person, the rights of another are circumscribed. This is a discriminatory Bill which will not merely redress the victims of discrimination; it will become an instrument of mischief and vindictiveness and it will always demand extension. For example, the discrimination legislation in this House is now being extended. We have affirmative action legislation, which involves reverse discrimination, and this Bill will be no different. It starts and it grows and grows. Mr Cowan —It will be worse. Mr ADERMANN —It will be worse. It will become a monster, something that we neither need nor want in this country. It is, if anything, capable of greater mischief than the discrimination legislation. It is slanted and selective. It presumes to guarantee certain rights to organise and join a trade union, but gives no right to elect not to. We have seen that those who have exercised the choice not to join a union have been victimised, threatened and have lost their livelihoods. From the other side of the House we have heard that philosophy espoused and endorsed. It is divisive on such matters as the protection of human life. It divides the community and the country. I have had many letters from many constituents, and that is the reason I am speaking briefly tonight. The people who have written those letters are not Simon Legrees, nor are they exploiters or oppressors. The letters are not written to me by people who oppose human rights; they come from people and organisations all over the nation who are dedicated to the redress of injustice and the preservation of human life, human dignity and human rights, and who serve humanity unselfishly and sacrificially. They are from Christian organisations who give of their time and possessions to help others in distress. Those are the sorts of people who have written to me to express real concern, alarm and distress about this legislation. Why? Because it is unnecessary, bureaucratic, dangerous and it does not guarantee but threatens human rights. The Bill contains a lot of motherhood sentiments, but that cannot disguise the fact that it is the instrument by which those who want to pursue their own interests, ideologies and politics can intrude on and interfere with the rights of others. Not only do I oppose this legislation vehemently and will vote against it, but also I will be at the forefront, when this Government is shortly replaced by a conservative government, of those demanding that this legislation becomes the very first law that is expunged from the record books. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.40) —Very much aware of the hour of the night, I want to deliver a speech which does not repeat what has already been said but which picks up some of the points that have been made by honourable members opposite in participating in this debate. Before I do so, I commend my colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), on what I thought was a fine expose of the issue before the House this evening. I felt that the honourable member for Wentworth in fact summed up much of what was being said by those on this side of the House. Rather than repeat what he said, I commend his speech to listeners who may care to refer to it. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) pointed out the fact that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill highlights the arrogance of the Government in presuming that it can come into this House with a piece of legislation that will cure the ills of Australia. There is no such piece of legislation and if there were it certainly would not be drafted as this Bill of Rights is. I was prompted by the statements of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) to pen these words. The honourable member for Hughes pleaded with the House for honest debate. Furthermore, he alleged that we in opposition have a scant regard for individuals and their rights. He went further than that and protrayed us as being opposed to individual freedom and as wishing to restrict individual rights. I found that sufficient of an indignity and inaccuracy to force me to my feet. It was the statement from the the honourable member for La Trobe, who was strident in his criticism of honourable members opposite and claimed that we were hypocritical because we had no interest in the rights of the individual, that forced me to speak. To have the honourable member for La Trobe declare that there was hypocrisy on this side of the House on this legislation was the last straw. Quite frankly, how can any member of the Government come into this chamber and support a Bill of Rights that the Government says underscores the rights of the individual when, in fact, the Government has the audacity and the sheer temerity to deny to its members the fundamental right to vote in this House the way their conscience dictates? When, in fact, that right is installed- Mr Hand —What are you talking about? Mr ANDREW —When I sit in this House and see an honourable member opposite cross the floor on an issue, as I have done, without recrimination, I will say that the Australian Labor Party, whose members sit opposite, understands something about individual human rights. Mr Hand —There is tremendous freedom over this side. Mr ANDREW —I ask the honourable member for Melbourne, who in fact chooses to interject, whether he has as yet crossed the floor. Would he be free to do so? Can he nominate a member of his Party who has exercised that freedom? If not, what sort of individual freedom does he portray on that side of the House? I heard the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) declare that on this side of the House there are factions. Quite frankly, having heard the honourable member for Hughes declare that there are factions on this side of the House, I want to take this opportunity and say yes there are 66 of them, and long may it remain so. Mr Hand —I never scab on my mates. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. The opportunity for real debate in this House is being eroded by a party that denies its members the chance to vote as their consciences dictate. What is happening in this House? What is happening is that on every issue the people of Australia know that the decision has been made before the debate has been held. What would we do to debate in this chamber if the Government were prepared to allow its members precisely the same degree of freedom as the Liberal and National parties allow their members? What would happen? There would be an element of the unexpected and the unpredictable in this House which could only be healthy. Every Australian is entitled to know what his local member's philosophy is. I have no problem with the party system, but I have a great deal of trouble with a party that declared itself to have corporate wisdom to the extent that individual members are not able to vote as their consciences dictate. As a result, no matter how eloquent a speech I might tell myself I deliver in this House, no one opposite will break ranks, so the result of the debate is meaningless. The only reason for having an effective debate in this chamber is to entertain Hansard or for the sake of posterity. In fact, no one breaks ranks for what he might believe is the wisdom of my argument. That ciriticism cannot be levelled at this side of the House. I am one who has been guility, in the terms of members of the Government, of being influenced by a cause espoused by them. Government members have seen that happen. That sort of party rigidity that denies a fundamental human freedom is destroying this chamber, which ought to be the prime chamber for debate in our nation. While this right is denied the people who participate in debate in this chamber, all that is being said about the Bill of Rights by those opposite is mere rhetoric. I said that it was comments made by those opposite that forced me to pen these words, and I have to add that I was disappointed, though not surprised, to hear the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) allege that we on this side of the House have nothing but opposition to the trade union movement and for that reason we are opposed to the Bill of Rights. Let me put on the record what is fundamentally obvious: I believe in the trade union movement. For as long as I have been involved in any form of manual work I have belonged to the appropriate union. What I refuse to do is to be denied the right not to belong. In every union I belonged to I had the right not to belong. This Human Rights Bill denies the fundamental right that every Australian ought to have-the right not only to belong but also not to belong. I do not think there should be any compulsion for people to come into the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Labor Party or any other philosophical group, or into any particular trade union. I am aware of the time. Rather than list again those countries that have Bills of Rights but in fact abuse human rights, I refer to the eloquent statement made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who rightly pointed out that we on this side of the House have nothing to apologise for in our historic and everyday commitment to the cause of human rights. I am disturbed, though given the time I will not elaborate, about the implications of this Bill for local and State government. That is a further reason why I find myself opposing it. I conclude by making this statement: Our tradition as Australians is rooted and has grown up in a system of justice and equality before the law. It is as if what we have before us is a fabric of history, a cloth that has been woven and made colourful with all the experiences our forefathers have endured. But that cloth will never be complete because it is always being woven. What the Government has brought into the House tonight is not part of the weave, not part of the design, not part of the scheme of things, but a patch that will obliterate that cloth. We in Australia have a system of law that is the envy of much of the world. It may well be that there are inadequacies in our legal system, and if that is so, rather than waste the time of the chamber in the futile exercise we have experienced today, which is clearly going to be cut short, we ought to be looking to how we can amend our legal system to make it work even more effectively. What we need is not a Bill of Rights but some system that reminds us of our individual responsibilities. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.50) —The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill before the House, as my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has clearly demonstrated, see the courts and not the elected parliament become the final determinants in matters presently in the province of legislatures and under common law. The catalyst for this state of affairs will be the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I suppose it is not a great revelation to note, given the ardour of the mad Left and the lack of popular support for a Bill of Rights, that these measures represent a blatant attempt to change the Australian Constitution by stealth. All Australians have every reason to be concerned that the Government is proceeding to legislate without giving law societies and other eminent bodies and individuals time to study and comment on these Bills. As my colleague Mr Bill Hassell, the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, has so aptly commented, we are primarily discussing a Bill of wrongs. Let there be no doubt that the administration and operations of all State governments and local government councils will come under direct scrutiny from the Federal Government under the Bill which masquerades as a Bill of Rights. The Government's clear intention in pushing the Bill of Rights is to provide a Federal Government instrumentality in the guise of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, with vast opportunities for investigation of State and local government affairs. Local councils should be particularly concerned at this attempt by the Hawke Government to increase its influence over the activities of government at the State and local level. There can be no doubt about this when one reads the explanatory memborandum issued with the Bill. On page 38 it states: Paragraph 25 (a) empowers the Commission to inquire into any act or practice of any governmental agency or authority (Commonwealth, State or Territory) which may infringe the Bill of Rights . . . In the course of such an inquiry the Commission may endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement if it considers such a procedure appropriate. Lord help us if it does not consider that procedure appropriate because, bad as it is, the Commission has a wide-ranging role, as set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. On page 7, under `Functions of the Commission' it notes: The Commission will have inquiry, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to acts or practices that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. It will also have `research, education and promotion functions'. It is clear from these extracts that the Government intends to use the deceitfully titled Bill of Rights and the Commission to hector the States and local government, to influence the laws they pass and to coerce them into supporting a social, legal, moral and economic agenda as interpreted by unelected bureaucrats chosen by the Federal Government. The HREOC's parent body-the present Human Rights Commission-was described by the widely respected Australian Financial Review in its editorial on 25 October 1984 in the following terms: That body has no sensitivity to the real issues of Human Rights . . . and has now totally discredited itself . . . That is just as true today as it was then. It seems that some members of the Australian Labour Party, including the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), have cited as an authority in favour of this Bill of wrongs no less a personage than Sir Robert Menzies. Let me kill that canard before it gains some credence. Talking about Senator Murphy's proposed Bill of Rights, he said: It offers a greater threat to Federation and greater threat to the reserved or residuary powers of the states . . . It is worth noting that the dramatic change that has taken place in the decade or so since Menzies spoke out. Menzies could then confidently write: I do not believe that the Commonwealth Parliament has power to introduce and give effect to legislation on a Bill of Rights . . . I find it impossible to believe that, by the mere fact of entering into an agreement with another country or countries, the Commonwealth Government can convert its existing `external affairs' power to a power over `internal affairs'. Sir Robert went on to describe the foolishness of the Evatt doctrine as follows: By making an agreement with some other country, on a matter that is not within your existing power under the Constitution, you, the Commonwealth Government, can get yourself powers which otherwise would be completely beyond your scope. Menzies predicted-it is a prescient piece of literature if I might say so-at that time: There may well be a High Court in the future which will say that `The sky is the limit'. And, under those circumstances, what the States may have to say or do will be of very little importance because the Commonwealth will have secured for itself, by making suitable arrangements with some overseas nation, or nations, power to forget all about the limitations in the Constitution, and to set up, and exercise, full legislative authority over matters which are today regarded as entirely in the province of the States . . . I think the findings of the High Court of Australia in the Koowarta and Tasmanian dam cases give credence to the skill and the foresight that I attributed to our great leader, Sir Robert Menzies. It is not obvious to many that Australia needs a national Bill of Rights. Supporters of the idea are usually conscious of this and attempt to demonstrate the inadequacies of the traditional safeguards of our freedoms. Gareth Evans, in an illuminating essay published over a decade ago, in 1973, summed up these safeguards as the `tradition of legislative and judicial restraint'. The wide powers available to governments under the Westminster system are held in check by the fear of electoral defeat and, as the now Senator Evans said, by the `multiplicity of specific procedures and remedies' provided by the legal system. So it is that the heroic words of one of the ALP's zealots, Senator Gareth Evans, come back to haunt him. Let me quote another Labor Party authority, the Secretary of the Caucus Committee on Legal and Administration Policy, Senator Bolkus. Late last year he said: I believe there will be strong Caucus opposition to any attempts to sabotage the Bill. There is no reason for a referendum on the legislation. It would be contrary to party policy to sabotage the legislation in this way. What sort of sabotage is it to go to the people in a referendum and ask for their opinion? That is the sort of mad thinking that is behind the actions of some of the members of the Left who are promoting this legislation. The HREOC will become the catalyst for the reference of increasing numbers of arguments to our courts for interpretation and decision. The legislature will take second place to the judiciary in making laws. In that regard I would like to quote an appointee of the Burke Labor Government in Western Australia as Governor of that State. Professor Gordon Reid was the best known Australian proponent of the view that a weakened parliament should have its functions restored and that more authority should be vested in elected officials. Among the factors which, in his view, have contributed to the decline of parliament is the rise of, in his words, `judicial imperialism'. This phenomenon is illustrated by expanded judicial decision-making responsibilities and the unprecedented activism of the judges who constitute, as Professor Reid reminded us, `the least democratic component of our institutional arrangements'. Professor Reid adheres firmly to the view that judicial imperialism, together with the related phenomenon of executive imperalism, must be checked if elected institutions are to fulfil the aspirations of a democratic system. Sir Ninian Stephen, writing while still a member of the High Court, contended that highly activistic judicial law making poses a serious threat to the continued independence of the judiciary. He stressed the abrupt and radical quality of judicial law making which, by the stroke of a pen, can change the law throughout the country. He contrasted this with the painstaking work of law reform commissions which engage in a process of reasoned persuasion that makes reform proposals appear less arbitrary. Moreover, in Sir Ninian's view the passage of a measure through the Parliament confers on it a unique stamp of democratic legitimacy that is missing from judgments in courts. Professor Reid also had remarked in 1978: Most of the radicalism in Australian Government in recent years is to be found in that part of the structure which has traditionally been classified as arch conservative. The judiciary in Australia is being transformed in ways which a decade ago would have been unthinkable. Human rights in Australia are not under attack. On the contrary, Australia is a country which already has a high degree of civil and political liberty, to the extent that it is almost unsurpassed in the free world. Our existing institutions cope well with most problems. Australia has relied on the common law as the protection of individual freedom because it acts in response to specific problems in the courts. While the common law may be slow to change, it does change in response to community needs while at the same time providing a necessary element of stability and security by giving the very knowledge that the law is not a haphazard affair. If people want to bone up on the rest of the argument, because we have been curtailed in our speaking time, they should read the earlier comments of my colleague the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney, and the curtailed remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown). There should be no doubt by now that I totally oppose these Bills. If we do have the misfortune to see the Bills get through the Senate, I look forward to the day when they are kicked out by a coalition government. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.02) —I rise briefly to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill. It is a quite unnecessary measure and it is, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said, potentially harmful, dangerous, divisive, intrusive and anti-democratic. I repeat the assurance already given by the shadow Minister that in government the coalition parties will move swiftly to repeal it and the associated legislation. I have said that the Bill is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the rights which it seeks to spell out in clause 8 of Part II, in their very spelling out, limit, distort and restrict them-even omit certain ordinary rights. These rights are as natural to us as breathing. They derive ultimately from man's status as created in the image of God-Genesis, chapter 1, verses 26 to 27. As Thomas Jefferson said, man has been endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights are not a dispensation from the state. The fundamental protections of those rights in the secular and humanist Australian society today are to be found in the courts, in tolerance, in our well established democracy and free parliamentary political process, in support for the rule of law, in respect by the majority for the rights of others and in restraint in the exercise of power. In contrast to these, what is the worth of a formal Bill of Rights? As the honourable member for North Sydney said this morning, the Soviet Union, Libya, Chile and Afghanistan have all ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Ironically, Afghanistan did so in January 1983. What of freedom and human rights in those countries? I said our human rights are not a dispensation from the State. Indeed, to accept tacitly the authority of the central government to confer and guarantee our rights and freedoms is to abandon the claim that we already inherently possess them, in the Judaeo-Christian world view, by virtue of being created in the image of God. That tacit acceptance would be to acknowledge the supremacy of the state over our individual privacy and over all our existing freedoms of speech, expression, religion and so on. If the people accept that the Government has the power to grant these rights, they simultaneously open the way for the present Government, a future government or a government body such as the Human Rights Commission, to regulate, modify or interpret those rights according to its own ideological commitment of the day, or even in changed circumstances to take them away altogether. A good question which has not been adequately addressed by the Government speakers is why the Labor Government has brought in the measure at all, certainly why the Government is so determined to rush it through in spite of the many protests by highly responsible people and organisations such as the Law Council of Australia in the community, pleading-I have received many letters to this effect; I know other members have-that at the least passage of the Bill be deferred to permit the widest possible public scrutiny and discussion of the Bill. I recall in passing the initial doubts of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) himself, whom I greatly respect. He was reported last December as stating that the then Bill raised `enormous issues', `moral problems' and `States problems' and suggesting that the then Bill-was it so different?-was `a mess' and should be scrapped. Clearly the Attorney-General has changed his mind significantly- Mr Miles —Under pressure. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Under pressure from the left wing of his Party. One may ask: Does the Bill represent a reasoned and needed reaction to a groundswell of public opinion? There is no such groundswell. Is it an attempt to remedy and overcome deep or perceived ills in our society? I do not think so, not at least for the majority of ordinary law-abiding Australian citizens, for whom the Bill is more likely to offer harm than benefit. I will come back to that matter. Rather, the Bill is a fashionable, ideological measure of humanist social engineering of the type currently in vogue throughout Australia and elsewhere. The main thrust of support would appear to come from aggressive, often strident, minority groups whom presumably the Australian Labor Party judges as important elements of its constituency. I acknowledge the obligation of society to provide for the reasonable interests of such groups. But it is a separate question whether such a comprehensive and unwarranted experiment in social engineering as this Bill-a measure, the effect of which must be to promote and support values, ideologies and lifestyles that are largely unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians-is the right way to go about achieving that purpose. In the short time that remains, I can do no more on that point than to refer to the conclusions of Mr J. K. Bowen-a namesake of the Attorney-General-a Victorian barrister writing for the Institute of Public Affairs. He stated: It is difficult to imagine a piece of legislation that could be more harmful to the Federal system in Australia. He was referring to the great scope for increased central government power via this Bill. He continued: I am deeply concerned about the Bill's implications for State criminal justice systems, State police forces, education systems, families- he referred later to the relationship between parent and child- and employer/employee relationships-to name but a few of the institutions and important relationships likely to be affected by the Bill. He summed up by saying that the intrusions by the Bill into all kinds of important institutions and relationships are likely to be highly destabilising to our society and will create frictions, aggravate tensions and further divide and polarise Australian society. As I stated previously, the author concludes: In short, the Bill appears likely to offer nothing but harm to ordinary law abiding . . . citizens . . . The Call to Australia organisation, in its submission to the Senate Standing Committe on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, concluded: We believe that without the standard of God's value on life and the individual, society will become a mass of contradictions with the `rights' of one pitted against the `rights' of the other, with anti-discrimination laws and abnormal relationships adding bitterness and confusion to the situation of increasing numbers of broken families and broken lives . . . We believe that true freedom and human dignity stem from acknowledging the supremacy of God, not through a humanist Bill of Rights. As a long view, I would say that that is pretty near the mark. I conclude by saying, as I said at the outset, that the Opposition strongly opposes the Bill of Rights Bill and the other Bills in this package. We will move a number of amendments in an endeavour to improve the Bill in the event that we cannot defeat it and to remove some of the more authoritarian anti-democratic aspects. But let there be no misunderstanding; the Opposition totally rejects this Bill of Rights and the coalition parties, in Government, will move swiftly to repeal it. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(11.12) —The fact that this package of Bills has been seriously presented before the legislature of this Commonwealth shows what a sorry pass this country has come to. It gives an insight into the collective mind of the Labor Government which drafted and presented these Bills. Genuinely democratic governments do not legislate on what a free citizen can do. Democratic governments tell us what we cannot do and then let us get on with living our own lives. But this Labor Government is obsessed with regulating the lives of the citizenry, right down to telling us whom we may employ and how we may address our fellow citizens and, finally, by delineating just what rights we have through this legislation, removing basic human freedoms which the Anglo-Saxon world has built upon since the days of Magna Carta. In common with other parties which have aspired to create totalitarian states in recent history, the thought police of the Australian Labor Party and its insiders in the Federal bureaucracy have invented a whole new language to disguise the true purpose of their unsavoury machinations. Hitler gave us the memorable phrase `the final solution' to describe the murder of an entire race across the face of Europe. More recently, the American Central Intelligence Agency, which apparently ran out of control for some years, substitued the words `assassination' and `murder' with the gobbledegook phrase `terminate with extreme prejudice'. Now we have a brand new rewrite of the English dictionary, courtesy of none other than the Attorney-General of Australia (Mr Lionel Bowen). The objects of this Bill of Rights, we are told on page 2 of the Bill, are: . . . promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without discrimination . . . This means that, under the legislation now before the House, any citizen can be dragged before a human rights commission of this Government's choosing and be compelled to answer questions under oath, produce documents and provide written information under signature-all without the benefit of legal counsel-or go to gaol. That is the only way to interpret the primary objective of the Australian Bill of Rights which I quoted a moment ago. But it gets stranger. The human rights commissioners who will exercise these incredible powers over the people of Australia will not necessarily be learned men and women of experience in jurisprudence. Rather, they will probably be doctrinaire socialists applying theoretical human rights by claiming a sole right of knowledge of what is best for all of us. Their qualifications will probably be an Australian Labor Party membership ticket and a file of newspaper photographs showing them mouthing slogans or fighting with policemen in a street demonstration or a picket line. This Bill is a hotchpotch of the American Bill of Rights which in recent years has seen judges in their interpretations of it usurp the powers and intentions of elected legislators. It is further complicated by the types of provisions and double-talk which Warsaw Pact countries enshrine in legislation to divert people's attention from the conditions applying in their nearest gulag or in the growing population of political dissidents at the local psychiatric hospital. Painful though it will be, I shall go through some of the more outrageous provisions of this so-called Bill of Rights. As early as clause 2 of this Bill we find out that it is designed as a paramount law of the Commonwealth. The whole body of Commonwealth law deemed to be inconsistent with this legal bit of social en- gineering is to be repealed within five years and the `thought-police' of the Human Rights Commission will be empowered to give the fine tooth comb treatment to State, Territory and local government laws and then report back to the Commonwealth Attorney-General on any apparent conflict with this piece of ideologically inspired sophistry. Article 1 of Division 1 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill mentions equality before the law, human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin and so forth. As we know from recent experience in the Northern Territory, when this Government goes on about fundamental human rights and then cuts the community into sections based on race, creed and colour, we can bet that it means that one of those sections has more rights than others at that particular time depending on the political flavour of the month decided by the minders from Labor headquarters. Having lumped together the entire human race in Article 1 of the Bill, Article 2 differentiates between men and women which would seem unnecessary unless the draftsmen or draftswomen were frightened of contravening the raft of equal opportunity or anti-discrimination legislation and so subject themselves to the Star Chamber treatment which this Bill provides for recalcitrant public employees. Article 2, dealing with freedom of association, specifies in detail only one particular form of association, the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of a person's interests. The Bill does not specify a person's right not to join a trade union even if it is for the protection of that person's interests as perceived by the person concerned. There is nothing in this Bill to guarantee the right to private property. There is nothing to guarantee the rights of those who choose to make their living by going into business. There is nothing to guarantee the right of people to engage in commerce for their daily bread. There is nothing to protect people from the excesses of big government and militant unionism. There is nothing to protect people from the big business cartels so beloved by this Government and its Australian Council of Trade Unions bosses. From the industrial history of recent years one can only assume that Article 2, headlined `Freedom of association' but in fact reinforcing the right of unions to press gang human fodder for membership tickets, taken in association with Article 6 headlined `Right of participation in public life' could be subtitled the `Mudginberri and Dollar Sweets articles'. Articles 13 and 20 purport to devolve on a grateful citizenry a batch of quite radical rights such as the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family. It defines the rights of children and gives us freedom of movement including the right to move freely, notwithstanding the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Immigration Act and the Family Law Act, in and out of Australia and its Territories. It defines the right to life, the liberty and security of person and suggests that we should not be compelled to live in servitude or slavery. I like to believe that most of us have enjoyed these rights in Australian society, at least since the end of the convict transportation system but I am grateful to the authors of this Bill of Rights for enshrining in legislation a trend among young people for some thousands of years to marry those of the opposite sex and to found families. Considering the radical nature of some other provisions of this Bill, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. I am sure that my children, along with other Australian children who rely on their parents and the family unit to safeguard their rights, are grateful for the interest in their welfare by the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But I worry that the concern of the Commission and the Government does not extend to the obvious exploitation in our society of children, and teenage boys and girls, by the vice overlords who prostitute these young people through manipulation of the drug supply, through money and through fear and brutality. I see no powers framed in this Bill which would help to combat the exploitation of young people for the purposes of prostitution. This Bill specifies the right of trade unionists and of political activists, but it does not bother intruding into the circumstances of organised crime and its victims who are forced, by a variety of means, to earn a living on the streets of our greatest cities for their pimps and themselves. Could it have to do with the fact that the two major centres of sex-for-sale in this country-Sydney and Melbourne-are also the headquarters of State Labor governments and, therefore, by definition, the commitment of these governments to human rights is above question? I am afraid that the evidence on the streets of Kings Cross and St Kilda tells another story. Article 19 of this Bill, sub-titled `Liberty and security of person' states that no one will be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. This sentiment is hard to argue with. Without advocating a return to the harsh past, I make one observation. Not too long ago, husbands who deserted wives and families were required to maintain them. If they did not pay a court order they could find themselves doing a few months in the slammer. That no longer happens. People who find they are unable to fulfil a contractual obligation, such as marriage, are dealt with by the family law courts. Coincidentally, the supporting parent's benefit is the fastest growing component of our burgeoning social welfare bill. Judges of the Family Court of Australia have been murdered and the rest are under 24-hour armed guard. This situation does not appear to have attracted the attention of the social engineers who created the Australian Bill of Rights. Articles 21 to 32 deal with the rights of prisoners and accused before the law. In general, the activities of the law enforcement agencies are viewed with grave suspicion, and the accused is viewed as a good chap unless the police can prove otherwise against all the odds, and those odds are lengthened by the right, under this Bill, for the accused, as a prisoner, to communicate in secret with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and make whatever allegations he or she chooses against accusers and captors. On the other hand, Part V of this Bill takes a sudden deviation away from natural justice and human rights as we know them up to the introduction of this piece of legislation. Part V details the functions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I will not go into great detail here as my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, has provided an adequate expose of these provisions. This is the part where Hawkespeak really comes in. Under the guise of guaranteeing human rights, one loses the lot if one has the misfortune to be targeted as a source of information by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If one does not comply the penalties range from up to $5,000 and three months imprisonment. This Bill purports to give us rights we have enjoyed for hundreds of years and, in some cases, thousands of years. At the same time, it tramples established rights of the individual into the ground. It takes us back to the days of the Star Chamber. It interferes intolerably with the three-tier system of Government which we have established in this country. It makes the Commonwealth Attorney-General the supremo of all forms of government in this country, and it elevates these Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioners, whoever they may be, to dizzy heights for which they are unqualified and inexperienced. The Australian Bill of Rights could be dismissed as merely an amusing indulgence of the social engineers of the Labor Party if it did not also contain the potential of a tragic development in the history of Australian democracy. The Bill of Rights is, in fact and in application, the greatest threat to human rights since Federation. Mr SMITH(Bass)(11.35) —I think I am probably the last speaker in this debate, and I suppose that that would give some joy to many. Having listened to the debate on this matter today, starting with the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), a degree of disappointment can be felt. Many of the issues raised by honourable members opposite were epitomised by the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), which I think showed a high degree of naivety with regard to what has been happening to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is no reason for Australia to pursue legislation dealing with the Covenant when countries such as Russia which have legislated according to international covenants do not pay any heed to Bills of Rights. There has been no public support and no call at all for a Bill of Rights in this country, and one wonders what the need is. This is really something of a cynical and empty exercise which will not advance human rights at all. It is a very rushed proposal. The premier law body in this country, the Law Council of Australia, has written to all members of parliament seeking to have the matter delayed so that greater consultation can take place. In setting out the reasons for this legislation, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech stated: A strategy of compliance with international human rights standards which does not involve legislative definitions of rights must be half-hearted and hollow, if not suspect. Of course, he was referring to our position on the matter. That is absolute rubbish. It ignores our common law traditions. We are reacting to the whim of international socialist ideals, and legislating and regulating is not the way to proceed. The Minister went on: . . . the enactment of a Bill of Rights has a vital educative function. This Bill is merely for the purpose of social engineering, and its role is bizarre. We have only to look at how the Human Rights Commission has gone off the rails, and we have had plenty of examples during the day of what has happened to that body. The real purpose of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill must be to promote and entrench values, idealogies and lifestyles that are unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians. Some time ago the Attorney-General called the Bill of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) a mess. This watered down proposal really brings into question the validity of the concept in the first place. There are many areas of concern in the Bill of Rights. The Bill offers nothing more than is already available-the common law to law abiding citizens. What, though, of the criminals? The Americans have seen problems arising from the Miranda and Arizona Supreme Court position, where an overconcentration of individual rights now frustrates enforcement of the law-so much so that one authority has stated that between 95 per cent and 99 per cent of major felony convictions are now settled by plea bargaining. Article 12 of the Bill-the right to protection from arbitrary interference-is cause for great concern. The war against drug traffickers-we have seen evidence of that with Operation Noah, which honourable members on both sides of the Parliament supported-tax cheats and organised crime will not be enhanced by this provision. What effect will this proposal have on the National Crime Authority, the investigative section of the Australian Customs Service, and the Australian Federal Police? The article is full of conflicting interpretations. It does nothing for law-abiding citizens but it muddies the waters for the benefit of criminals. We might learn something from the American experience. The United States experience indicates, for those who are prepared to study it, that a Bill of Rights means that the making of law, as opposed to the interpretation of law, has been taken out of the hands of elected representatives and given to appointed judges. They are fallible and can make errors but, unlike parliamentary representatives, they are not answerable to the electorate. Our state of liberty is no less than that of our American friends so why the necessity for this Bill? It is of interest to make some comment about the recent issues paper from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It advertised widely throughout the country and received 164 submissions, which I would say was a small number. Interestingly enough, the Chairman of that Committee was Senator Tate. I can remember some 10 years ago having debates with him about the question of a Bill of Rights. The Attorney-General would be aware of McKinlay's case-a case in 1975 concerning the 10 per cent variation situation under section 24. It is interesting to have a look at the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen at that time and what he had to say about the role of judges and the role of parliaments vis-a-vis the establishment of rights and the interpretation of rights. The middle course that the Attorney is now adopting between what was in the first instance the Evans example and now what we can perhaps call the Tate proposals that are detailed in the exposure report of the Senate Committee give some reason for concern. That exposure report said that, with the exception of electoral rights, a State legislature shall be able to displace certain operations of a Bill of Rights by expressed declaration in an Act that a provision or provisions not apply to a particular State. It is interesting that this Bill does not include State law. That is the big difference between what Senator Evans wanted to do and what the Senate exposure report talked about. The question should be asked: Why? It is simply, of course, to avoid any States rights row at this time, doubtless because this Bill is not entrenched and those changes can come later-and therein lies the point. This can be amended and added to in the future. Should the Senate recommendations in time find their way into this Bill, it would mean that States could displace certain operations of the Bill. We would then have six different States changing the Bill of Rights. With such an occurrance, the total futility of this whole exercise would be exposed. Again, we ask the question: Why have one? This Bill is not entrenched, it is not like the American system. It can be changed at whim. Rights that we may have now can in the future be taken away and others added to it. Of course, they can be taken away. It bears no resemblance at all to the United States Bill of Rights. There are many deficiencies in the Bill. Many rights are excluded, such as the protection of the family; the protection of parents' right to choose private schools; the right to establish private educational institutions; the protection of freedom for research and creative activities; the protection of the rights of Australians freely and fully to utilise their own natural wealth and dispose of wealth as they think fit; the protection of rights to private property; the protection of individuals from discrimination at the work place by reason of their decision not to join a union; and, of course, the protection of rights of corporate bodies and other forms of organisations. All of these have been outlined by others who have spoken today. But not many people have spoken about some of the representations that honourable members have received from bodies in this country. Given that there has been only a short period in which this Bill could be looked at, I think it is worth while to mention some of those bodies. The Australian Parents Council has written to honourable members expressing deep concern about this Bill and the effects it will have on the rights of children. The Australian Family Association has specifically expressed concern that persons brought before the Human Rights Commission are not entitled to legal representation, as they would be in the ordinary courts of law, and also that there is no declaration of the right of the family to own its own home. The Country Women's Association, a nationwide body, has given a very detailed view of what it believes to be the deficiencies in this Bill. It has stated: We are concerned that the Human Rights Commission, in its preoccupation with the rights of the individual, is jeopardising the well being of the community as a whole. The Bill is silent on some very basic human rights that are coming under continual attack in Australia. I say to the Attorney that there is already a lot of concern in the community, but he has not given the opportunity for those concerns to be able to be expressed. He has brought in this legislation very hurriedly. The supreme law making body in this country has asked him to delay this Bill so that it can put forward its proposals. We call ourselves politicians. But we in this place are primarily lawmakers. To make proper laws, we need opportunities to consult widely with the community. The Attorney has taken away that opportunity. I think it is a confused Bill. It is obviously a compromise to satisfy the factions within the Attorney's Party. The details contained in the Senate report and the details of Senator Evans's proposal show this very clearly. I strongly oppose it. It is perhaps worthwhile referring to something which Sir Robert Menzies quoted. He was a man who all would agree respected the rights of individuals and upheld those rights in the long period that he was in this place. He often quoted Lord Wright in the famous 1942 case of Liverridge v. Anderson, when Lord Wright said: The safeguard of British liberty- which is the system that we follow- is in a good sense of the people and in the system of representative and responsible government which has been evolved. I think we change it at our peril. I oppose the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.35) —in reply-I am very pleased to have the chance to reply at last. I think that over 40 honourable members spoke on this Bill today and I appreciate the contribution of all those honourable members. I recognise that they might well disagree with some of the aspects of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At the outset, I should think that not one of them would disagree with the principles behind the International Covenant, because if they were to do so they would really be out of step with most of the nations of the world. What are we arguing about? Are we arguing about the principle of having international rights or are we arguing about the words in the International Covenant? I think it is more the latter. I appreciate the remarks of the last speaker, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), but if I were related to Browne and Fitzpatrick I would be very worried about what Sir Robert Menzies did to them from the point of view of their rights when they were gaoled because they took a certain view and were dealt with by this Parliament. I do not think that this Parliament would do the same thing again. Article 2 of the Covenant is about the rights of the individual against those of the state, and that is the point. Mr Spender —It would not override the privileges of the Parliament, would it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Sir Robert Menzies was the Prime Minister. A Prime Minister has a fair amount of influence in the Parliament. The honourable member should not try to get away from the point on that basis. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Attorney-General will ignore the interjections. We will get on a bit quicker if he does. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would, but Sir Robert Menzies was mentioned and I make the point that the relatives of Browne and Fitzpatrick have not forgiven the Parliament for what happened to them and one can talk to them today about that incident. I make the point again that it will not be repeated. I am emphasising for the benefit of honourable members opposite that we are dealing, in the Articles of the Bill and in the International Covenant, with the question of the protection of the individual against the acts of officialdom. It is as simple as that. We ought to be able to understand these matters. I was amazed to witness in this debate today the Opposition opposing this Bill so vigorously, because the Bill has already been ratified by the Fraser Government. It was ratified in 1980. Mr Spender —The Covenant was; the Bill was not. That is your interpretation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is the same thing. The Bill adopts the Covenant. Let us get that very clear. Mr Ellicott, a former Attorney-General, spent a long time, particularly in 1977, suggesting that the States also adopt that Covenant by way of legislation. Mr White —That is a long time ago. It has nothing to do with this Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Previous speakers were heard without interjection. I ask honourable members to extend the same courtesy to the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I ask the honourable member to listen. I think that he would have enough fairness to agree that what I am saying is accurate in the sense that an attempt was made by the Fraser Government as early as 1977 to implement the Covenant. It was ratified and at that stage the Government also introduced the legislation that honourable members opposite are now complaining about-the legislation that provided for the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. I was astounded to hear so much castigation and denigration of all the members of the Commission. They were all appointed-every one of them-by the Fraser Government. Mr Tuckey —So what? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why do we have denigration that is now coming from the same people who were part and parcel of the Government that appointed them? Is that the standard of debate here? Is it the case that, simply because the honourable members opposite lost office, they have now decided that this legislation is not worthwhile? The Opposition proposes to move amendments to parts of the legislation on the basis that they are outrageous because they relate to whether one is obliged to produce books or to give evidence. All of those matters were in the legislation prepared by the Fraser Government. This is not new matter here. Mr Tuckey —It was never brought in here. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point. It was brought in and passed by the Fraser Government. It is being opposed bitterly this evening on the basis that honourable members opposite never heard of it before. Where were they in those days? They were all part of the Government. Dr Watson —No, I was not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not think the Parliament has been improved by the honour- able member's presence. Honourable members opposite should not say that they are surprised by this legislation or that they could not read the Bills that were passed and find out what they were about. Honourable members opposite have seen how this legislation works. Mr Coleman —That is right; we have seen how it works! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Honourable members opposite must have seen it for a fair while because it has been available since 1980. I do not think that is their reason for opposing this legislation. They have decided to do so for some reason. The International Covenant has already been adopted by over 80 nations in the world. Twenty-one Western nations in fact have their own European commission. So, an enormous number of people have adopted the Covenant. They have established commissions and talk about human rights. The need for the legislation can be seen in those terms. We were told that it did not apply in the United Kingdom. However, the United Kingdom has adopted the Covenant and is a member of the European Commission. I cannot understand the ignorance that has been shown in the debate. Is it thought that this measure has not been suddenly brought forward only in Australia? The Fraser Government deliberately and validly ratified the Covenant on the basis that Australia would get representation on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Australia ratified the Covenant. Where is the honesty and integrity in this debate? Why did the learned member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) make a specious argument on the basis that it was outrageous for the legislation to contain clauses that entitled a commission to get some evidence? He wants to do away with the provisions that have always been in previous legislation. He did not move to amend that legislation in those days. I would have thought that it was normal for a commission to be able to establish some evidence. It is entitled to get some evidence. The Commission does not punish of its own right; it has to go to court to prove that someone is guilty of hindering the Commission. Obstructing or hindering the Commission was one of the issues. The legislation provides that a person who insults, hinders, obstructs, molests or interferes with the Commission is liable to a penalty. The Commission does not impose that penalty; it has to be dealt with by another tribunal. So that matter is very clear. The question was raised whether the legislation affects local government. The answer is, no, it does not. Another matter that was raised was whether the legislation will affect State governments. No, it will not. I would like to say something about the general issue of the way in which we are dealing with this matter. We are merely seeking to bring in to a legislative framework the Covenant which has already been adopted and to enable the individual, as against the state, to say whether there has been an infringement of his or her rights in respect of employment, discrimination or other issues which are identified in the legislation in terms of privacy or even life itself. There has been a lot of argument about the wording of the legislation. We are looking at the issues that have been raised in this respect. Article 18 of the Bill of Rights states: Every human being has the inherent right to life and no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. We altered the legislation by using those words because we wanted to make it very clear that we were talking about human beings. We were talking about the right to life. It has been argued that the Bill applies to the unborn. This Bill does not apply to the unborn. It has no relation to abortion. It cannot. Issues of abortion and similar matters have to be related to other laws that apply in the States, whether they be the Crimes Act or some other Act. A provision covering the unborn cannot be grafted on to the International Covenant because in drafting the Covenant itself there was a deliberate decision that it did not apply to the unborn. The part of the International Covenant which deals with the question of life was framed in such a way as to ensure that people could not be executed by a firing squad without being given a trial. That is the basis of that issue. The Covenant provides that in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death can be imposed only for the most serious crimes and so on. The penalty can be carried out only pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court. So a lot of irrelevant matters have been raised in this place on an issue which has nothing to do with the International Covenant. We are quite happy to talk about whether there is a misinterpretation of the words, but one cannot use this legislation to talk in a public place about the issue of protecting the unborn. The International Covenant does not apply in that area. The same applies to a number of other arguments that were put this evening. I just make the point that we must recognise that many of the countries that have already adopted this International Covenant have worthwhile democracies. We are not just talking about the Afghanistans and the Libyas. Eighteen Western countries are using its framework. Why would they not do so? If they are genuine democracies they are not worried. They are anxious to protect their people from injustices that can be done by their officials. That is the point. Mr White —How many have got Bills? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They can all be dealt with by the European Commission. If one looks at how often Margaret Thatcher's Government is dragged before the European Court of Human Rights one will find that it is rather frequent. They have a structure which deals with these issues. One cannot assume that they do not adopt the structure because they have not enshrined it in enforcement provisions. They have adopted it. We have gone on for hours this evening-it is quite remarkable. I repeat that I cannot understand the Opposition's indictment of the Human Rights Commission, as it was a creature of the Fraser Government, and still exists as such. It has not been altered by us. I can accept criticism of it, but we cannot really be criticised for establishing it because honourable members opposite established it when they were in government. Honourable members opposite established the framework for it, with all the penalties they are now complaining about. All those penalties were brought in then. We then had the argument over what the words in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mean. I make the point, particularly in respect of one of the proposed amendments to the legislation, that the Covenant has nothing to do with the question of the unborn or abortion. We have made that very clear. Every other country in the world understands that. It is understood in the legislation. It is understood in definitive terms from the point of view of what the law is about. The law recognises only a person who is a life in being. That is the legal situation. One can certainly legislate in regard to the other area, but one has to do it with the appropriate Act, which is not the proposed Act before us. We are talking about the International Covenant on Civil and Politicial Rights. Mr Tuckey —Is that how you are going to satisfy your conscience tonight? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a question of conscience. I have to stand up for my rights on many occasions and it does not do me any harm to do so. That does not necessarily mean that I have to be pressured by the fact that somebody has mentioned fertilisation or the unborn or that one immediately says: `We are better off with the International Covenant'. That is not the position at all. The position on the International Covenant is very clear. If honourable members look at all the proposed amendments they will see that the provisions being objected to this evening, quite surprisingly, were inserted in the legislation by the former Government, of which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who is to move the amendments was a member at the time. I put it on that basis. There has to be some understanding of what we are about. It is important that we put into some legislative form the International Covenant. That is what this legislation does. We have a Human Rights Commission to look at whether there are acts and practices of this Government which do not comply with the International Covenant. That is fair. It is the reason the Commission was established. All we are saying is that the matter should be brought within the framework of an Act that applies to us but which does not apply to the States. It is no surprise that we are bringing in such legislation. In fact, this Bill was given to the State Attorneys seven months ago and I have had no complaint from any one of them. There is no surprise about the Bill. It is different from the former Bill because it does not apply to the States, and deliberately so. It is an educative Bill. We ought to be able to adopt principles to which honourable members opposite would readily agree. One should not shirk the fact that one of the principles we are talking about is equal adult suffrage. We should not be very worried about it. There is a number of other principles which a genuine democracy would not be very worried about. However, they are infringed from time to time-honourable members opposite know that-whether those principles relate to race, creed or equal opportunity. There has to be an opportunity for people who feel aggrieved to have those matters investigated. All the Commission will be able to do is to make the reports or recommendations. That is basically it. That is all it will be able to do. I am astounded that so much heat has been generated on the basis that in introducing this legislation we will suddenly create some monster and the legislation will be repealed as soon as the Opposition comes to government because it should never have been introduced, when honourable members opposite brought it in originally. That is an indictment of all honourable members opposite. They have no sincerity at all about this matter. They should write into their platform at the next election that they are going to abolish the Bill of Rights. They should put that up in neon lights and not put the argument that was put here today, which is that there is something wrong with the issue- Mr Tuckey —Let us get on with the Committee debate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I agree, let us get on with the Committee stage. The Opposition has been here for hours arguing something that is nonsense. Opposition members' case is quite nonsensical, so let us get on to discussing the matters that were put into the Bill by their Government when it was in office. Mr Tuckey —No, by a previous government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the same thing. But if the honourable member wants to disown the Fraser Government and if he wants to disown Senator Durack, that is up to him. Just because Senator Durack is from Western Australia there is no need for the honourable member to protect him. It happened to be Senator Durack's Bill. Mr Tuckey —I know that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, if the honourable member knows that, it is obvious he does not approve of it any more. Mr Tuckey —I do not approve of it. I am for individual rights. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a question of individual rights. The honourable member for O'Connor was part of that Government which voted for that Bill. He did so as a member of that Government and he should not shirk his responsibilities now. We have spent a lot of time on this matter. The Bill is worthwhile and the Human Rights Commission is worthwhile. The personnel of the Commission should be looked at seriously. I will accept that and I am sure the Opposition will now, even though it appointed the Commission. We will look at the personnel from the point of view of whether they understand some of the matters that are covered by this International Covenant. This is a worthwhile piece of legislation and it should have gone through this Parliament in two or three hours; it should not have taken all this time. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerrin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. B. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Hodgeman, N. M. Balney, `G. N. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Friday, 15 November 1985 Clause 4 (Interpretation) Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.01 a.m.) —One thing that seems not to be understood is that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on which this Bill is based applies not simply to governments but to individuals, and the sense of it obviously applies to trade unions and to bodies corporate, because in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a covenant that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is demonstrably ignorant of, this is said in the very preamble: Realising that the individual- not just governments- having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognised in the present Covenant . . . It then goes on to provide specifically for certain rights. The Attorney-General, in a most evasive and lamentable summing up, if it can be so described, at the end of the second reading debate demonstrated a profound ignorance of the Bill that he is seeking to pilot through the Parliament and the Covenant on which it is based. Let me try to correct his ignorance so that he will understand this amendment. He referred to the case of Browne and Fitzpatrick. That was a case where two men were put into prison by this House because of a breach of the privilege of the House. He seemed to believe that, if this Bill is passed, that could never happen again. Mr Lionel Bowen —Nonsense. Mr SPENDER —Is that what you thought? Mr Lionel Bowen —No, I was talking about the Prime Minister's statements. The previous speaker mentioned them. Mr SPENDER —For God's sake, the Attorney-General certainly did not make himself clear. He is making himself clear now. He said this Bill had been ratified by us before. That is absolute nonsense. The Covenant had been ratified, just as it had been ratified by many countries with no great help to many of their citizens. Let us see what we have here. We are putting to this Government that, if it is in the least bit concerned with the rights of individuals, the rights of individuals should be protected against other individuals in organisations. Here I am dealing with trade unions and bodies corporate, but particularly trade unions because under this Government trade unions are exempt from the law, of which the Mudginberri situation provides a superb example. If anti-rights activities are to be examined and if acts and practices which infringe rights are to be examined, what better example do we have than the powerful rights of those outside government to harm others and to infringe their liberties to live and work as Australians? That is why we propose an amendment which will add in clause 4 of the Bill a definition that will include the acts and practices of unions and of bodies corporate. In effect we are widening our sights. That is what this Government wants to do if it has any commitment to the International Covenant, but we know that there is no such commitment and we know that the Attorney-General does not believe in the Bill that he is piloting through the Parliament. That is the reason why, when he spoke, he very nearly apologised for being present in the House, because all he could say was that we had advanced no arguments. We have. He knew it. He did not answer them. Now I would like to hear from the Attorney-General whether or not he believes that the rights of individuals should be protected from the actions of unions or bodies corporate. If he does not, let him tell us and the Australian people in plain language that there are two sets of rights, and, by God, the Australian people are not going to be protected against unions or bodies corporate and in particular-and I am not talking about the average union or the average union leader-against the kinds of conduct that we have seen at Mudginberri and elsewhere. Let him rise to his feet and answer, if he can. I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, line 20, after paragraph (b) insert the following word and paragraph: ``; or (ba) by or on behalf of a trade union or body corporate,''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General)(12.05 a.m.) —The amendment in the name of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) seeks to insert the words: . . . `by or on behalf of a trade union or body corporate'. . . I would like to say without in any way being personal-the honourable gentleman did not seem to have the ability to debate matters without being personal-that Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. The honourable gentleman has to understand that the Covenant is talking about protecting the individual against the actions of the state or people acting on behalf of the state. There are plenty of other laws to control unions. Industrial legislation protects the rights of individuals and unions and that is the difference. The International Covenant does not talk about the rights of individuals as against individuals, or the rights of individuals as against unions; it talks about the rights of individuals. If one wants to regulate union conduct, one can do that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is the idea of that Act. I make that very clear, and the honourable gentleman recognised it when he talked about Mudginberri. He would say that that was the purpose of the legislation. What we are saying here is that we do not control unions by adding the power to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are talking about the rights of the individual against the actions of the state. Governments across the world have agreed to be bound by a sense of conduct, a sense of balance, a sense of right, a right that clearly understands that there will be virtually the equivalent of a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights deals with the relationship between governments and individuals. That is the distinction which the honourable gentlemen does not recognise. All he talked about was the rights of individuals in unions. He wants to bind them. They can be dealt with under other legislation. On that basis I hope the honourable gentleman understands that we must look at the matter from the point of view that the Bill of Rights is about the law-making functions of the Parliament, not about the differences between individuals. The honourable member has no understanding of what this Bill is about if he persists with this sort of argument. Other legislation deals with those matters. Surely his amendment would need some constitutional head of power. It does not have any. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights and for that reason the Government rejects it. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.08 a.m.) —I wish to answer two points which have been raised. Firstly, Article 2, 3 (a), to which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred, does not state that it is concerned only with governments. It states: . . . notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . . . The Article does not state that it relates only to violations committed by a person acting in an official capacity. What is truly amusing-this is my second point-is that the Attorney should quote that Article which refers to an effective remedy. We all know what has happened. The Bill specifically rules out any effective remedy, whether under civil or criminal law, for violations of rights. Let me ask: Who has misunderstood this Bill and this Covenant? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.09 a.m.) —It is interesting that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has suddenly discovered that we have some other laws in Australia. Today speaker after speaker has told him that we have enough laws. Suddenly the Attorney is selecting one- Mr Lionel Bowen —No. Mr TUCKEY —That is ridiculous. The amendment is right and I support it. The Attorney is dodging the issue. He wants to be selective. When it suits him to tell us that another law will cover the situation, it is all right. All the spruiking we have had from the Attorney's side of the House today has been on the basis that this legislation is needed because people are not protected. We are telling the Government that, if it wants to protect people in this way, it should protect them against the activities of unions and others. The main thing the Government has done with its legislation is remove the word `Representatives' from the House of Representatives. Plenty of honourable members can give the representation the Attorney-General is trying to entrench in this legislation-148 members here and 76 in the other place. The Attorney-General and I have had the experience of being able to state a case for people having problems with governments and others. That is the way it should be done. The Attorney-General is completely reducing the role of members of parliament by trying to do this. They will be representatives no longer, but that is not the point on which I stand. I stand on the point that we have had a law and suddenly the Attorney-General has discovered a law that he says will fit this situation because he does not want to know about it. He will do the same when other members propose certain things relating to the right to life. He will dodge that issue and will give us a legal reason. I repeat my point: The Attorney-General will either rest on the common law of Australia as we know it or he will accept every example of where a right might be infringed and put it in this particular piece of tokenism. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.11 a.m.) —I would like to make some brief observations in relation to this amendment in the context of the argument proffered by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that because we are in fact adopting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights we ought to be bound by the strict words of the Covenant. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is not adopting the precise form of words used in the Covenant; it is developing something that we call the Australian Bill of Rights, which is outlined more fully in clause 8, which will be debated later. When one looks at the framework of the Bill, one sees that this Australian Bill of Rights, subject to these definitions that we are looking at in clause 4, will have an impact upon Australian domestic law. I think that needs to be understood. When one examines the legislation, in particular clause 9 dealing with the operation of the Bill, clause 10 dealing with the interpretation of the legislation and clause 11 dealing with the extent to which other Commonwealth Acts might be inconsistent with this legislation, one finds that this Australian Bill of Rights which we will be implementing will have an impact upon all of the other laws of Australia. It will qualify them, in some instances after a period, or more immediately, in accordance with the operation of clause 9. I think the Attorney-General should understand, when he suggested that other legislation is adequate in itself, that the scheme before us is a scheme of legislation dealing with rights which is intended to qualify the operation of other statutes. What we have in mind is the Bill of Rights qualifying statutes dealing with unions in the same way as it will impact upon every other piece of legislation with which this Parliament might deal. It is not enough to say that they are covered by other legislation. If this is the scheme we are to follow when we are dealing with fundamental rights, the impact on the trade unions should be the same as the impact on every other piece of legislation with which this Parliament might deal. The Government cannot put the unions to one side and say that they can be dealt with by the conciliation and arbitration legislation, and that is enough. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.14 a.m.) —I repeat that this is a question of regulating governments' actions as against the rights of individuals, rather than a question of trade unions and individuals, for whom we already have legislation. There is not much legislation governing the conduct of governments in relation to their decisions. That is what this does; that is the distinction. Mr Tuckey —That is our job. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It might be the honourable member's job, but I am telling him that we are adopting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in these terms because his Government ratified it and said that it would do something about it. We are talking about the acts and practices of governments, not the actions and practices of individuals, because there is already legislation in that field. As the honourable member knows, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act can deal effectively with the actions of individuals, but it cannot deal effectively with the actions of governments. I repeat the point that that is the distinction which the Opposition fails to recognise and that is the reason why we do not accept the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hawker, D. P. M. Beale, J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Blunt, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. 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. Lindsay, E. J. Child, J. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. (Teller) Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. 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. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young M. J. Aldred, K. T. Humphries, B. C. Hodgeman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter. R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.24 a.m.) —I move: (1) Clause 4, page 4, after the definition of ``Federal Court'' insert the following definitions: `` `Fertilisation' means the process that occurs when a human sperm has penetrated the plasma membrane of a human ovum; `Human being' means the product of fertilisation, and a human being shall be deemed to exist from fertilisation and shall be considered to be a human life in being;''. Mr Maher —I rise on a point or order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I submit that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin is not within the ambit of the Bill. The Bill does not deal with in-vitro fertilisation or the process, as he calls it, of bringing human sperm and human ovum together. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! I have listened to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Lowe. I point out to the honourable member that the Bill has an unrestricted title, which is as follows: A Bill for an Act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin is within the scope of the Bill and is in order. Mr GOODLUCK —It is automatic that this Bill will pass through the House of Representatives. It is quite probable that it will pass through the Senate. I wish to include these definitions because I firmly believe that they should be included. The amendment is not moved to create any problems for anybody. I thought that in this House of Representatives one could speak without recrimination and without trying to make it difficult for anybody on either side. If one has a firm belief, I believe one should be able to speak in this House, express that belief and receive the courtesy of the House while so doing. Therefore, I have moved for these definitions to be added and it is up to every individual member to vote according to his conscience. That is the end of it. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12.27 a.m.) —I speak against the amendment because, as the Attorney General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill in no way relates to abortion. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), I believe for mischievous purposes, has tonight brought before the House an amendment which will make an embryo a human being. Therefore, if a woman involuntarily miscarries, she has miscarried a human being. There will have to be a police inquiry and there will have to be a coronial inquest. It is the most outrageous amendment that I have seen moved in this House. Not only that, it makes illegal an intra-uterine device because that creates an abortion. It makes illegal the morning-after pill because that creates an abortion. That is why Catholics do not use the morning-after pill and IUDs. That is the very thing that would result from this amendment. This honourable member wants a woman who uses an IUD to be found guilty of an offence and sentenced to penal servitude for life. That is what he is trying to do. Such a penalty flows from the amendment and it is outrageous. That is not how to stop abortion. I am opposed to abortion. I suggest that the honourable member move a Bill on abortion and we will see who supports it. I suggest he brings forward a private member's Bill on abortion and then we will see who supports it on that side of the House. We will see who supports it amongst the trendy Liberals. This is an outrageous stunt orchestrated by people who are manipulating the honourable member for Franklin. He wants to make miscarriage a homicide, because that it is what it is if an embryo is defined as a human being. Common law has never said that an embryo or a foetus was a human being. It is not legally until a child is born breathing that there can be homicide. Up until then it is not homicide. He wants to reverse the whole of the common law and statute law so that every miscarriage becomes a homicide. Any man in this House who knows a woman who has miscarried knows the trauma that that woman has been through. He wants to have a coronial inquiry into that miscarriage. He wants to have a police investigation. That is what this amendment will do. I could not believe it when I read this amendment tonight. I could not believe that anyone would be so heartless as to move such an appalling amendment in this place. Perhaps he means well, but he has not thought it through. What it means is that a human being is in those IVF test tubes. What if someone drops a test tube? That is a human being, so it is legally murder. What if someone switches off the refrigerator and there is a whole rack of test tubes with embryos in them? That is mass murder. That is absolute nonsense. Morally it is murder, but not legally. We would have to have an inquiry and have police running around investigating it. Under this amendment, doctors will have to report women who miscarry. That should not be the law and it is all just poorly drafted. If this amendment goes through doctors will have to report miscarriages to the police. That is unbelievable. No member of parliament with any conscience could support such an amendment, and it comes from someone who has been here for a very long time and who knows his way around. It looks like a gimmick and a stunt and I call upon the Committee to reject it. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.31 a.m.) —I seek clarification from the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I certainly do not agree with the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) because I would say that the great majority of people in Australia accept the fact that the unborn child is a human being. I think we have to accept that, and I certainly do as I feel that is correct. In the event of a situation where the mother of an unborn child is very ill and only medical attention, such as an operation or something else, can save her life, what would the position be? I would like the honourable member for Franklin to clarify that because I have always held the opinion that whilst I believe in the right to life, when somebody's life is in danger, at least two or more medical officers ought to be able to say that some sort of operation should be performed or some other sort of attention should be given to that person so far as an abortion is concerned. I would be pleased if the honourable member could clarify the situation for me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Franklin that it is not necessary for him to reply at this stage. If he does he will be using his second allocation of speaking time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.32 a.m.) —I want to say a little about this clause because I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the second amendment which the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is proposing to move; that is, the amendment to Article 18, which proposes to substitute `human being' for what is now referred to as `person'. That clause, which becomes the operative clause, will state: `Every human being has the inherent right to life and no human being shall be arbitrarily deprived of life'. It is picking up the words that have been used in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights wherever `arbitrary' is referred to. If we look at the definition of the word `arbitrary' in one of our dictionaries-the Macquarie Dictionary is the one I looked at-to see what its colloquial Australian use is I suspect we will find that it is not that which the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) would have us believe. The consequence of its implementation would ensure that every woman who miscarried would be guilty of some offence in law and would have to be punished by death-I think he used that word-or-- Mr Maher —Penal servitude. Mr RUDDOCK —Penal servitude. That is not what we are dealing with at all. Mr Maher —Of course it is. Mr RUDDOCK —It is not, and it is clearly not intended in the context of the International Covenant, because when the Covenant deals with the concept of life it recognises that life might be taken accidentally. It also recognises that in accordance with the framework of law, where it deals with life, capital punishment might now be recognised. When we look at what it means arbitrarily to take a life we are talking about a situation in which it might be taken at random or it might be taken indiscriminately, but not where it is taken in terms of some accident or some incidental situation. I think that whatever judgment one makes about the amendment that the honourable member has moved, it must be made in the context of the large number of particular exceptions that might be acknowledged. I refer to the sort of exception that I think the honourable member for Lyne wants to see recognised, where there are conflicts of interest in relation to whether it is the life of the mother or the child. I think that is clearly recognised within it. The sorts of doubts anyone has in relation to the language and the sorts of doubts that I have in relation to the whole concept of this International Covenant being adopted into our domestic law are inherent in these words. They can be as broad or as narrow as one likes until the courts themselves have to deal with it. If the honourable member opposite believes that he can put into place in our domestic law covenants and articles which will not be very restrictive of the rights of individuals, I do not think he should have very much trouble with those same words being picked up and used here in relation to the life of the unborn child. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.35 a.m.) —It might help honourable members if the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) explained precisely how his proposed amendment works because as I understand the definition of `fertilisation', taken with the definition of `human being', it means effectively that for the purposes of Article 18 a human being comes into existence immediately after fertilisation takes place, with whatever consequences follow from that. Mr Goodluck —I said that. Mr SPENDER —Very well. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.36 a.m.) —Unlike a lot of other honourable members who will cast a vote on this amendment, I will not let that vote pass without putting my views fairly clearly. I will not put them as a hypocrite. I have already told the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) that I could not support his amendment. I will make my reasons clear. I do not support abortion. I think the amendment is a mean approach and an attempt to ban abortion. I think that is what the honourable members for Lowe (Mr Maher) and other honourable members have to make up their minds about. That is the intention of this amendment. I do not support abortion on demand. I do not support bringing into the world malformed children or putting mothers at risk. For that reason I cannot support the honourable member's amendment. I make my position clear. I refuse to be a hypocrite and come up with the sort of arguments which the honourable member for Lowe promoted a minute ago. I have no religious commitment on this matter. I am prepared to lay down clearly in words my position. I would not vote on this issue without doing so. If I had the commitment of some other members on this matter I would not dodge it in the way I have just heard the honourable member for Lowe do. I think it was disgraceful. Mr Maher —Its a gimmick, a gimmick. Mr TUCKEY —It is no gimmick. I have made my views clear. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.37 a.m.) —The Government does not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) because of its attempt to define the words `fertilisation' and `human being'. I think that, as the honourable member nodded his head in answer to a question, that means he now wants to redefine `human being' as coming into that category from the moment of conception. That was never the intention of the International Bill of Rights. I do not think we can graft on to our Bill what might be deemed to be the honourable member's views as to what the International Covenant was about. As a matter of interest, when the definition of life was being discussed during the drafting of the International Covenant an attempt was made to suggest that life should be defined from the moment of conception. In fact, that was rejected on a vote. We need to look at Article 6 of the Covenant itself and compare that with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that `every human being has an inherent right to life'. Under that definition `human being' means a life in fact in being. Therefore, there could be a conviction for murder of a person born. If the person is not born there can be a conviction for abortion. The issue at the moment, as we have made it clear, is that in no way is this Bill an attempt to redefine or alter laws on abortion. Basically at the moment laws on abortion are State laws, except for those in the Australian Capital Territory. As honourable members will know, there is quite a bit of common law being developed in relation to defences particularly as they relate to the mother. We will deal with Article 18 a little later when we talk about whether a person's life has been arbitrarily disposed of. We can see that in the sense of Article 6, which states: In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes- In other words death can be imposed under the laws in force at the time. The article continues: This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court. That was the intention there. If we look at what the International Covenant is trying to do by way of an educated form, it could be suggested that if there is to be a death penalty-it does not object to the fact that a life is to be exterminated-there has to be what would appear to be a competent court to determine the merits of the matter. Again, that gives the individual rights against the state. In other words, it has to be a person recognised in law. I think I am right in saying that in law a person does not get any recognition until he is born. That is the difficulty the honourable gentleman faces. I can understand the merits and bona fides of what he has in mind, but it does not meet the concepts of this Bill. We have made that very clear. Whether he wants to talk about abortion in relation to Australian Capital Territory law or Tasmanian law is a matter that he can take up in respect of the definition. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.41 a.m.) —First of all, it was never my intention to create problems in this House, but I completely reject the allegations of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). Mr Maher —It's a stunt, Bruce. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member has said that three or four times. It was never my intention to create problems. I assumed that we were going to debate a particular issue in this Parliament and vote on it. If the Government rejected it I would understand. I would also understand if it was not a conscience vote it would not be a taunt at the Government. I understand that. I have firm beliefs on this issue. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) summed up completely the legalistic point made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who is at the table. I am talking about particular exemptions. It is clearly recognised that there are particular exemptions in the amendment I was trying to insert in the Bill. The Bill will go through. The Opposition opposes the Bill. If we need to make amendments I believe it is within our province to do so. That is the reason I moved the amendment. I now call for a division on the matter. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.43 a.m.) —Like the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), I support abortion in the circumstances referred to by him, such as in situations where the mother's life is at risk. But I do vote and have voted in this place over a long period in favour of proscribing abortion. I do that because of the horrific dimensions of abortion in this country. The cases referred to by the honourable member for O'Connor would be a tiny fraction. As I say then, over many years I have voted in favour of motions proscribing abortion, by way of protest at the horrific dimensions of the practice in this country. I do not believe that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who is a friend of mine, can really escape the issue along the lines that he suggested. I wish it was simple as that; but that is a matter for him and for his conscience. I take this opportunity to pick up the point made by the honourable member for O'Connor and to explain any subsequent vote of my own. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12.44 a.m.) —Basically my objection to the amendment has nothing to do with abortion. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is making an embryo and foetus a human being. I believe it is a human being from the minute of conception. Any woman who involuntarily miscarries therefore legally miscarries a human being and all the consequences of a human death follow. Honourable members have talked about the Magna Carta, but no-one talked about-- Mr Cadman —That is a cop-out. Mr MAHER —It is not. Where are all the lawyers? The place is full of lawyers. Let us hear from them. If honourable members read the amendment they will see what the honourable member is doing. From the moment of conception there is a human being. That is a Christian attitude too. But there is a legal consequence. Unfortunately thousands upon thousands of women in our nation miscarry every year. They will be distressed, but their doctors will have to report the miscarriages to the law authorities. The House should not pass without consequences a law that a miscarriage is a death of a human being. That is the bad drafting, the nonsense and the harsh and unconscionable amendment that comes out of the Liberal Party now-that a woman who involuntarily miscarries is guilty of killing a human being. None of the honourable members opposite, if they have any sense, can vote for such an amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(12.46 a.m.) —I rise to oppose the amendment. I do so after a lot of thought and having looked at the amendment very closely. I am afraid that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) is correct as regards the viewpoint of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). The definition that the honourable member for Franklin has put forward on the in-vitro fertilisation program means basically that every bottle on the shelf contains a human being. That is what I believe his amendment says. As a practising Catholic I have very strong anti-abortion views, but I do not believe that even the Catholic Church has come to grips with the very question that the honourable member is trying to put into this Bill. The second point I would like to make is that, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, this whole Bill of Rights and all the attachments that go with it have nothing to do with abortion. If the honourable member wants to introduce an abortion Bill as such he should do so. If he brings forward such a Bill I, and I am sure the honourable member for Lowe and a number of people on the other side of the chamber, would support it gladly. We might as well move an amendment in this regard to any Bill that comes before the Committee. It is not appropriate. The third point I make is that if the honourable member were fair dinkum he would move another amendment to make this legislation override States rights. He knows as well as I do that this amendment would have no effect in the States. If he were fair dinkum he would move an amendment to the whole legislation to the effect that it overrode States rights. Then it would apply in his home State of Tasmania. Why has he not done that? He has not done it because he knows that it will not apply there. For all those reasons-as I have said, I have very strong anti-abortion views-I do not think the wording of the amendment is appropriate. Not even the Catholic Church has come to grips with this very controversial matter of the IVF program. For all those reasons, I think it is in-appropriate to bring it into this legislation and I cannot support the amendment. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader National Party of Australia)(12.49 a.m.) —I think it is necessary first of all to say that on this side of the chamber the vote on this matter will be a conscience vote. It will not be laid down in any way by the rules of either of our parties. Secondly, I am concerned about the narrowness of the definition within this amendment as it is now expressed. There is a concern by many on this side of the chamber, which I share, about the circumstances where the mother's life is at risk and the child cannot be aborted if it is to be defined in that term after conception. For my part, I am not prepared to accept an amendment which would preclude the mother from having her life saved in those circumstances. I feel it necessary to state, because I feel quite strongly about the issue, that it is regrettable that an amendment has been put in such a narrow form. I stress that on this side of the chamber the vote will be a matter for conscience. If any honourable member wishes to support it or reject it, it is not a matter upon which either of our parties will impose any discipline. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.50 a.m.) —I just have to respond to the statements by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and by other honourable members who have spoken and tried to defend themselves because of party discipline. This motion has been put forward by those people who are sufficiently strongly against abortion to use this opportunity. For a good Catholic to suggest that because something might not apply all over Australia it does not apply in certain places, for instance in the Australian Capital Territory, is absurd. If the honourable member for Lowe has that religious commitment, he will come over and vote with the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and support his call for a division. If he does not do that, he is behaving hypocritically. I have put my position. I am prepared to stand by it and say whether I am for or against abortion. The honourable member has given technical arguments to try to hide his obligations in this matter. He knows his obligations and he is denying them. He is denying his religious beliefs because of party discipline and he is getting a good lesson on how this legislation will work. It is a joke for him to try to convince himself that someone could be charged with murder because of accidentally dropping a test tube. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has already told us that this legislation requires that life must be arbitrarily taken. Mr Maher —Read the amendment. Mr TUCKEY —What the honourable member for Lowe is telling us is that there could be an investigation. That is what we are complaining about-the imposition of an investigation on people for very simple things. The honourable member for Franklin is now seeking to extend the legislation in a very proper way because he believes that the legislation does not go far enough. I congratulate him on his belief and his honesty. I condemn the honourable member for Lowe for his lack of honesty because he claims to be a person of conviction but, when it comes to a question of political necessity, he turns his back on his beliefs. He is turning his back on a chance to note against abortion. That is what he is doing and he knows it. He, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and others have put up the most spurious arguments. Some of us will stand up and have the courage to put it how it is. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(12.53 a.m.) —I did not intend to speak in this debate but, after the outburst by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), I will. A challenge was made earlier about people saying one thing in the Caucus and another thing in here. I intend to say what I believe on this issue. Because of my background, I have an appreciation of the strength with which people such as the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) respond to this issue and I appreciate his view. However, my view is somewhat different from his. But I defend his right to put his position and I reject the attack by the honourable member for O'Connor on him because of his religion. The honourable member for O'Connor engaged in a sectarian argument. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has made it quite clear that this amendment is not relevant to and does not fit in this piece of legislation. I suggest that what we have here is an example of the pressure of the Right to Life Australia organisation, through Margaret Tighe and those other hatchet people who have been plaguing our electorate offices in recent times. It is a pity that the Right to Life Association in Victoria did not act in the same way as other people who feel strongly about this issue. The terror tactics that they use on people and which they brag about in the Press-they even import ratbag elements from overseas to tell them how to wage terrorism on people-ought to be condemned. If Margaret Tighe wants to prepare amendments for people to move in here and to write speeches for people to make in this place, she ought to have the decency to circulate them to everybody so that we can prepare a response before we come in here. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw those remarks because they are completely untrue. Mr HAND —I do not know why the honourable member is so upset. I did not even mention him. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! A point of order has been raised. The remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne have raised the sensitivities of the honourable member for Franklin. Perhaps he will feel free to withdraw them. Mr HAND —I do not see how he could be upset by them, so I do not think that I should withdraw them. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. It is a reflection on my integrity to suggest that I run around delivering other people's speeches. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I think that the points of order raised by the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for O'Connor indicate a little sensitivity because this debate is a very sensitive one. I think that they could raise the matters alluded to by the honourable member for Melbourne at a later time in debate. Mr HAND —To simplify the matter, I withdraw whatever has offended the honourable members opposite; but it is a pity that they did not apply the same standards to their own remarks because they were offensive to honourable members on this side of the chamber. I turn now to my personal view. I believe it is the right of a woman to have an abortion. I firmly believe that. I place my view on record. I would defend the rights of other people who have attempted to put theirs. I do not agree with the double standards of some honourable members opposite who have taken part in the debate against abortion and yet will allow to be produced bombs which have the ability to wipe half the planet out of existence. They have double standards about the preservation of life. They are phoney in their presentation. They are not consistent in their attitudes to the right to life. They have engaged in a stunt in this chamber tonight, and it has been seen by honourable members on this side of the chamber purely and simply as a stunt because the Attorney-General has said that it does not fit with this legislation. If they are concerned about the right to life, as they say they are, they would be opposed to the weapons expansion that is going on in this world-the arms race-but they are not. They support the arms race, so they are phoney in their approach. I respect honourable members opposite who take other attitudes because at least they are consistent in their arguments, but those people who talk about this matter for cheap political reasons are phonies. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.58 a.m.) —I support my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in opposing the amendments to the legislation because, firstly, I am a member of the Government and this is Government legislation, and I will support Government legislation when it comes before this chamber. I am a member of the Cabinet which is responsible for the legislation being brought before this chamber and I happen to regard that as a perfectly respectable position to take when Government legislation is introduced. Secondly, complaints that I thought were quite legitimate were raised about the original form of the Bill. It was said that interpretations might be placed upon the words contained in the Bill in its original form that would cause people to believe that an opportunity would be made available through the Bill for some form of legalised abortion to appear as at least condoned if not implemented. The Bill, as has been pointed out elsewhere, implements nothing in that area, particularly where it clashes with State law. The Attorney-General took to Cabinet appropriate amendments to eliminate that after, I understand, those complaints had been raised with him by some of the people who have perhaps raised with the mover of the amendment the complaints about this issue. The second thing I would say about that and, in parenthesis, associated with it is that I would dissociate myself from any attacks made on people who believe that they have a right to lobby on this issue and lobby on behalf of people who regard human life as important and affected by the abortion question. It is a perfectly legitimate position to adopt in this community. It happens to be a position that I adopt. In this democratic community it must be expected that people will pursue their democratic rights in a variety of ways, sometimes as members of political parties and at other times as members of other sorts of organisations. As somebody who opposes abortion the problem that I have with the way in which this legislation has come forward is the political tactics. I do not make a general political point about whether or not the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is organising a political stunt. I do not know whether he is or not. He may be and he may not be. I do not dispute that he has a consistent record on this issue. However, I am concerned about the political effect of the way in which this matter has been raised. It has been done in a very ad hoc fashion. If we start to go through the detail of this amendment we discover exactly how ad hoc it is. It has been produced in a very ad hoc fashion with very little consultation and without the agreement of people on both sides of the chamber. Mr Tuckey —What are you talking about? Mr BEAZLEY —I am talking about abortion per se. Without people on both sides of the chamber arriving at a sensible conclusion what will be produced by the vote tonight will be an interpretation in the general community that there is a massive rejection of an anti-abortion amendment placed before this chamber for the first time. Historically, anti-abortion positions placed before this chamber have received a great deal of support. This will be interpreted when this Bill finally goes through-I think it is extremely unfortunate-as a very substantial shift away from that position. I am concerned about this. There are many reasons why that would come about which concern not just the political tactics of the situation or the consultation. It also comes down to the definitions in the amendment. Two things have been confused-the first is the in vitro fertilisation issue and the second is the abortion issue-in the way in which life has been described. Again, I do not think those people who, for perfectly respectable and acceptable reasons, are associated with the anti-abortion campaign have necessarily done themselves a tremendous favour in mixing those two issues as they are mixed here. In vitro fertilisation is an enormously complex issue. It has to be thought out. It has not been totally rejected, including by large numbers of people who have at least as firm a conviction on abortion as the honourable gentleman opposite. The first part of the amendment states: `Fertilisation' means the process that occurs when a human sperm has penetrated the plasma membrane of a human ovum; Where is there an additional definition which would take the conceptionist approach to abortion through to a logical conclusion, making it an issue of abortion and not IVF? Where are the additional words `of a human ovum implanted in the womb' or `in situ'? Nothing in that definition relates to that. What we have in this amendment is a definition of human life that basically relates simply to a fertilised egg, wherever it is. That is undeniable. So if one is an opponent of abortion but a supporter of the IVF program-for the very humanitarian reasons why one might be a supporter of the IVF program-one cannot accept this amendment. It is not possible to accept it because one's position is effectively precluded from being supported by this process. Mr Tuckey —Why? Mr BEAZLEY —I have just explained why that is the case. If the honourable member does not like my explanation I suggest that he read the words I have used in this chamber when he picks up the Hansard tomorrow. The amendment cannot be accepted for the very simple reason that it does not preclude the definition of human life as having begun where implantation has not taken place. So the complaints that where raised earlier on the issue of location or the usage, for example, of intra-uterine devices, or morning after pills or whatever, become relevant if we move over to examine this as well, as that will effectively be regarded as a form of contraception that must be moved out of the area of legal implementation or whatever. This legislation would rule that out. That is an additional problem associated with that amendment. There is an additional reason why it would be very difficult to get a consensus among people in this chamber. Large numbers of people in this chamber oppose abortion on demand. It would be very difficult to get a consensus among them in support of this type of amendment, because this type of amendment does not deal with our situation, it deals with a whole variety of other problems on which we cannot reach agreement with the honourable member for Franklin. While I have been heckled by a number of honourable members opposite who are sitting on the front bench, I noticed that in regard to what I have said earlier there has been a great deal of nodding by some of their colleagues sitting behind them. I believe that on the basis of some of the considerations I have put forward they are likely to vote with members on this side of the House. I think the way in which this has come about is very unfortunate. With regard to the abortion issue, one thing must begin to be recognised by those of us who oppose abortion. It would seem to be strange, given the way in which the focus of the lobby is so much on Federal politics, but the simple fact is that abortion is very marginally a Federal issue. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), reasonably enough, pointed out that there may be a possibility of its being a Federal issue in regard to overriding legislation in the area of the Australian Capital Territory. Apart from a few islands, that is where Federal responsibility ends in that regard. It addresses it almost nowhere. Abortion legislation is quintessentially the responsibility of the States. The involvement of State legislation, including abortion legislation, in this Bill, will be largely dependent on whether those States want to affiliate to the legislation. If they do not wish to affiliate to the legislation-certainly, none of the Liberal or National Party governments will affiliate to it-the opportunity for any type of amendments like this applying to that legislation will be non-existent. The time has really come for those who wish to campaign on the abortion issue, instead of attempting to achieve symbolic victories or to establish symbolic positions in the Federal Parliament-because that is what they are, entirely symbolic-to start to campaign at those levels of legislatures where something can actually be done about it. That is not in this Parliament. That would occur at the State government level. But for some reason or other nobody seems to want to do that. Everybody seems to want to concentrate on the Federal Parliament. Nobody seems actually to want to confront the issue at the point at which it is a harsh reality. I cannot say what is the reason for that. But given that effectively anything that is done here is symbolism, what is required of those of us who take similar views to those of the honourable member for Franklin, if we are going to adopt symbolic approaches, is for us to work out a symbolic approach that will actually secure a majority in this House and not give the appearance, as will be given, that this House takes the view by a massive majority that it is prepared to accept abortion. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(1.08 a.m.) —I am sorry that I am unable to help my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in that I cannot support his amendment. But my lack of support is not because of its position or the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, in which this amendment may lie, but because I reject it in principle. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who has just resumed his seat, is not quite correct in saying that this matter has not been faced by the areas in which responsibility for the legislation lies. It has been faced most determinedly in my home State of South Australia and in a very difficult debate, a debate which I led at that time. It was, as I said, emotional and very divisive, especially among members of the religious community. It was a debate, however, which led to the passage of a regulatory Bill in relation to abortion in South Australia. The legislation has been the subject of further representations over the years and it has remained on the statute books after determined attempts to amend it. It can be said fairly under that pressure of argument in South Australia that it is widely accepted by the South Australian electorate. Therefore, I do not want the Minister to leave the impression that it has not been tested in the community and that it has not been the subject of devisive arguments-which it has-and, I hope, came through those devisive arguments. It will still remain for those people who feel so strongly about it, as my colleague does, a matter of irritation and great cause. I respect their right, as the Minister said, to lobby for whatever causes they may wish to lobby, in the free society in which we live. Having said that, I say to my colleague that it has been tested and retested in my State. I stand by that legislation. For that reason I cannot support him. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(1.10 a.m.) —I take exception to the way in which the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) dealt with this matter because the facts are these: The so-called amendments that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) brought to the Cabinet were changes to the explanatory memorandum. I know that courts can look at such things and take them into account, but, as I see it, no changes were made to the present legislation. I have the changes which were made to the explanatory memorandum, which is supposed to be an explanation of the Government's intention. The Minister for Defence complained about the lack of time to respond to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the irresponsible attitude taken by the honourable member. If there is any irresponsibility, it lies with the Government for the short time that it has given us to consider this important legislation. The Opposition has not had the opportunity either to debate it or to respond to it in the way in which it would wish. We know that the Minister is using his argument to say that he intends to vote with the Government because he is bound by the Government. We know that he will vote in favour of abortion. That is his attitude and he is entitled to it. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Goodluck's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 94 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hawker, D. P. M. Braithwaite, R. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Coleman, W. P. Miles, C. G. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beale, J. H. Kent, L. Beazley, K. C. Keogh, L. J. Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McHugh, J. Cameron, Ewen MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Ian McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Macphee, I. M. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B. Cohen, B. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Downer, A. J. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Dubois, S. G. O'Neil, L. R. T. Duffy, M. J. Porter, J. R. Duncan, P. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Reith, P. K. Everingham, P. A. E. Rocher, A. C. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Shipton, R. F. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Sinclair, I. McC. Griffiths, A. G. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Snow, J. H. Halverson, R. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Sullivan, K. J. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hodges, J. C. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Tuckey, C. W. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. Watson, DavidHurford, C. J. West, S. J. Jacobi, R. White, P. N. D. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.24 a.m.) —The second amendment circulated in my name has precisely the same effect as the first amendment. It has been drawn up because for tactical reasons it has to be repeated twice. I do not intend to go over the arguments which I put in favour of the first amendment because they are the same as the arguments in favour of this amendment. I move: (2) Clause 4, page 5, line 2, after paragraph (b) insert the following word and paragraph: ''; or (ba) by or on behalf of a trade union or body corporate,''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.24 a.m.) —For the same reason I will not go over the arguments why the Government opposes the amendment. However, we do oppose it. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 5 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Australian Bill of Rights) Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.25 a.m.) —I move: (3) Clause 8, page 10, at the end of proposed Article 11 add the following provision: ``2. It is hereby expressly recognised that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate with others, whether in a trade union or in any other form of association and that the rights protected by this Article include: (a) the right not to be subjected to coercion, duress, discrimination, disadvantage or any other form of pressure or compulsion, either direct or indirect, to join a trade union; and (b) the right to be protected from any form of discrimination or disadvantage in relation to employment opportunities by reason of or in any way relating to refusal to join or non-membership of a trade union, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing: (i) the right to have applications for employment considered on the same basis and without any form of discrimination, as that of members of a trade union; (ii) the right not to be dismissed or threatened with dismissal, by reason of refusal to join or non-membership of a trade union; (iii) the right to have opportunities for promotion and any other form of advancement in employment open on the same basis, and without any form of discrimination, as that of members of a trade union.''. The purpose of clause 8 is to make the point clear that the right to associate includes the right not to associate. In Article 11 we see these words: Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of that person's interests. Clearly this imports the right not to be bound to join a trade union if one does not wish to do so. It enables one to exercise freedom of choice and not to be punished or to suffer duress, discrimination or coercion for the purposes of being forced to join a trade union, and to be protected from any form of discrimination as a result of deciding not to join a trade union. One cannot be discriminated against in one's job or in one's employment opportunities in any way. I would have thought that this was plainly the intent of the International Covenant. That view is borne out by a decision which was given a few years ago by the European Court of Human Rights. The decision, given on 13 August 1981, concerned a closed shop. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out earlier, the European covenant is very similar, and in many respects identical, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is the one that this Bill is concerned with. Effectively what the European Court there decided was this-and I shall read some very brief excerpts from a resume of the Court's judgment: The Court was of the opinion that, even if no general rule against compulsory membership were contained in the Convention, it did not follow that each and every compulsion to join a particular trade union was compatible with Article 11. Article 11 is very similar to one of the articles in this Bill of Rights Bill-that is, the right of peaceful assembly. The Court went on to say: Moreover, Article 11 had in the present case to be considered in the light of Articles 9 and 10. The protection of personal opinion afforded by the latter article in the shape of freedom of thought, conscience and religion and of freedom of expression- We have presisely those terms in the articles in this Bill- . . . was also one of the purposes of freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11. Accordingly, it struck at the very substance of that Article to exert pressure of the kind applied to the applicants in order to compel someone to join an association contrary to his convictions. It seems that, inadvertently perhaps, the Government has conferred a protection on those who wish not to join a union, except that we know this Bill is a par excellence paper tiger. Let us get the point clear: The Minister can tell us now whether he is in favour of the proposition that the various freedoms we are now concerned with-freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, freedom to join a union or other association-go as far as they should and do go so as to include the right to say `no'; the right to say `no' as a free Australian and not to suffer as a consequence. We propose to put that right absolutely beyond doubt. That is why we are moving this amendment today. It is not something the Government cannot answer. It is put very directly and squarely, and I would like to see a direct answer by the Attorny-General as to whether this Government supports the proposition that Australians should be able to say: `No, we are not going to join because we are free Australians, we won't be compelled to join, and as a consequence we shoudn't suffer in any way in our job opportunities and our employment prospects'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.31 a.m.) —The Government does not accept this amendment. It refers to freedom not to join a union. This is very much what one would call a Spender covenant-it is not in any international covenant. The question of being able to join a union can be considered in the light of conscientious objection. The industrial provisions allow people, on a conscientious basis, not to join a union. It is a fundamental principle of freedom of association that one must be a member of a voluntary organisation, which the High Court has decided that trade unions are, to obtain the benefits of that organisation. The benefit is preference for unionists and it does not necessarily follow that there must be compulsory unionism. I think that explains the situation. If unions engage in acts of discrimination, they will be subject to anti-discrimination laws and industrial laws the same as everybody else. In other words, the unions are not above the law. The issue the honourable member for North Sydney fails to understand is that people are not compelled to belong to unions; at the same time unions can have a preference because that is deemed to be a legal entitlement, unions having been given the status of voluntary organisations. The honourable member seems to be again overlooking the fact that a person not in a union has rights. A person would still have rights if he opted out of a union, but unions have rights by way of a preference. I do not think we have anything to worry out here. In fact, I do not think this really comes within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and so it is rejected on that basis. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Andrew J. N. (Teller) Halverson, R. G. Beale, J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Blunt, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K. Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fife, W. C. Sullivan, K. J. Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W. Fisher, Peter Watson, DavidGoodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, N. A. Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin. S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B.C. Hodgman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.41 a.m.) —I move: (4) Clause 8, page 11, after proposed Article 14, insert the following new Article: ``Article 14A Rights in respect of education Recognising that the widest possible protection should be accorded to the family, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children- `(a) the parents or, when applicable, legal guardians of children shall have the right to choose for their children schools, other than those established by public authorities, which conforms to such minimum educational standards as may be prescribed or approved; and `(b) individuals and bodies shall have the right to establish and direct educational institutions which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be prescribed or approved.' ''. Those provisions are taken from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which was entered into force on behalf of Australia on 10 March 1976. I should not have thought that any honourable member would disagree with them, save of course those who would seek to abolish the private school system. Article 13 sub-clause 3 of that Covenant states: The state parties to the present Covernant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the state and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. We have taken the part that deals precisely with schools and followed the clause very closely indeed. It cannot be said that this clause is not supported by an international covenant; clearly and indisputably it is. Article 13 sub-clause 4 states: No part of this Article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph 1- which do not really concern us- and to the requirement that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down by the state. For the opening words of the amendment which has been moved I used the same International Covenant. Article 10 clause 1 states: The widest possible assistance should be accorded to the family which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. No argument can be advanced against the inclusion of this Article save that the Government rejects the proposition that there should be two essential liberties. They are the right to send children to private educational institutions that conform to minimum requirements and the right to establish private educational institutions that conform to minimum requirements. The Covenant says that we should have those rights and we subscribe to that. We have heard a great deal of cant in this House over the last few hours from the Government benches about how we should implement the rights that are provided for by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here we have a mirror Covenant, again entered into by this country and supported as part of the law-making powers of this Partiament by the external affairs power. I therefore invite the Government to say explicitly whether or not it supports the Article and not to evade the question on some supurious basis. I invite the Government confront the questions: Does it support the protection of rights to establish private educational institutions-yes or no? Does it support the right of parents to send their children to private educational institutions-yes or no? It is a very simple proposition for the Government to answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.47 a.m.) —The Government certainly supports the issue of parents having the right to choose to send their children to whatever school they like, and that applies also to the International Covenant. The interesting thing about this is that the honourable gentleman has taken only two sections of another Covenant, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Mr Spender —You have not taken them all. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member could have. The honourable member did not even talk about the rights of the child in respect of Article 6 of that Covenant. He did not talk about the suggestion that there should be an obligation to have the right to work, including an obligation for the state to provide training programs and policies to achieve economic development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms. Mr Spender —What is the point? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the Covenant from which it is extracted; that is the point. Mr N. A. Brown —That is a different issue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It might be a different issue, but that is the Covenant from which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) extracted only two pieces and left out all the rest. Other sections include the right of enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work, including fair wages, equal pay for equal work, a decent living for themselves and their families and safe and healthy working conditions. The honourable member left all of that out. It also includes equal opportunity for everyone. Article 8 guarantees that everybody has the right to form a trade union. The honourable gentlemen has been a bit worried about that tonight. In other words, he has made only a selective picking of a provision of the Covenant and he has ignored everything else in it. The Covenant has been ratified, but we ought to be able to act in accordance with that Covenant completely, instead of picking these pieces. Mr Spender —What is your answer? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is my answer to the honourable member. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for North Sydney will please be quiet and the Attorney-General will stop answering the interjections of the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am sorry that I will not be able to say too much more to the honourable member, except that I do not agree with what he is doing here. I make the point that he is relying on another Covenant for this amendment. I make the point also that there is no objection to the terms of the Covenant, particularly in relation to the rights of the child and the right of parents to choose private education for their children. Mr Spender —Well, agree with it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We can agree with it, but we ought to be talking about it in terms of the International Covenant, which covers a lot more than just one or two items which the honourable member has picked out. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Beale, J. H. Hodges, J. C. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K. Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B.J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. 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. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B.C. Hodgman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr FIFE(Hume)(1.57 a.m.) —On behalf of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), I move: Clause 8, page 12, lines 2-5, omit proposed Article 18, substitute the following Article: ``Article 18 Right to live Every human being has the inherent right to life and no human being shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.58 a.m.) —The amendment of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) states, in part: Every human being has the inherent right to life and no human being shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. The amendment is to clause 8, Article 18, Right to life, on page 12 of the Bill. The Government does not accept this amendment as we see it as unnecessary. The honourable member is endeavouring to substitute the words `human being' for the word `person'. We see no distinction between the two terms. The honourable member wants the Government to use in the Bill the words `Every human being has the inherent right to life'. Some people feel that that means from the moment of conception. I do not, and nor does the Government. I think that the honourable member wants to draw the distinction on that basis. The other part of the Article states: ``. . . no human being shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. The Covenant says that no one will be arbitrarily deprived of life. We have used the words `no person'. We think that that is a more adequate description. I do not see why the honourable member wants to make a distinction other than that in the Covenant. The Government's Bill is slightly different from the Covenant as it uses the term `no person` as against `no one'. He wants to use the term `human being'. In our view the Covenant is adequately and effectively adhered to by the expression that we have used in Article 18. I do not want to delay the House any longer. We think the words mean the same, although they are not used in the same context twice. I do not think there is any need for a further definition of person. The question of being arbitrarily deprived concerns a person in being and I think what the honourable gentleman tried to say was that a human being might be a person who is not in being; in other words, from the moment of conception. I think he is going back to the argument, which is not recognised in the International Covenant. It is a view being put by people in Australia that if they used the words `human being', it will mean the foetus. I do not see how one can use that when talking about not being arbitrarily deprived because it means there must be some determination by a court and that would require the presence of somebody who cannot be there if, in fact, he has not been born. On that basis, we do not accept the amendment. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(2.01 a.m) —In fairness to my colleagues, the amendment in this case was contingent upon the first amendment being carried, otherwise the second amendment really does not have as much purpose. While it was part of a total package and might well be put on that basis, it is not a matter that honourable members who had an interest in this question would need to press in the context of having lost the other amendment. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(2.02 a.m.) —It is not my intention to delay the House any further. I think the relevant points have been made here tonight. I do not want to proceed with this amendment to the degree of calling for a division. Without the definition that was voted out, the second amendment is not relevant; it would not be effective. Therefore, for that reason, I do not press the amendment. Amendment negatived. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-I am sorry, of course, that the House is detained as late as this, but then that is no part of our making. We do not have the conduct of business. There is no reason at all why the House could not sit for a little longer so that we can deal with these matters. Since we are going to have to deal with them, and deal with them properly, we shall. The last excuse given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was that in selecting from another covenant ratified by this country I was being selective because I had not included other rights. That was the only thing that he could say, and a very limping argument it was. It is curious that the first article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been entirely omitted from this Bill. I rely upon that article for the amendment which I shall move. It is a very important amendment because private property is the foundation of democracy, in the sense that if those rights do not exist, democratic rights most certainly do not exist either. I move: (5) Clause 8, page 14, after proposed Division 6, add the following Division: ``Division 7-Property and Scientific Research and Creative Activity Article 33 Rights in respect of property `All persons have the right to dispose freely of their own property and to be protected in their right to hold private property, and private property shall not be acquired by or on behalf of any Government save on just terms as to compensation. Article 34 Rights in respect of scientific research and creative activity `The right of every person to the freedom indispensable to scientific research and creative activity is to be respected.' ''. What does the International Covenant say on this subject? It says this: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 1.2 states: All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligation arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. Article 1.3 states: The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It is from that Article that this amendment is drawn, and that is an Article which could have been given effect to in the so-called rights that are included in this Bill but which has not been given effect to. To make it perfectly plain, we say that private property should not be acquired by or on behalf of any government save on just terms as to compensation. That is within the Australian Constitution. It appears in section 51 (xxxi) which, as honourable members know, reads: The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws: That is to say, Parliament may acquire property pursuant to that provision and only on just terms. We therefore rely on the International Covenant and we rely upon the constitutional power. This Bill is expressed to apply directly only to the Federal Government. The amendment I propose would therefore apply to the Federal Government and it is certainly in accordance with the intent of the International Covenant. I ask the Attorney to say whether he has any excuse to offer us, whether he agrees with the proposition that has been advanced, or whether he says that he agrees with the proposition, but for some good specious reason this Government cannot go along with it. Does he agree with the right to dispose freely of property? Does he agree that the right to hold private property should be protected? Does he agree that private property shall not be acquired by or on behalf of any government save on just terms as to compensation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General)(2.07 a.m.) —The honourable gentleman is always disappointed. I cannot agree with him. Article 1 refers to the expression `All peoples'. As such it is a right directed as between nations, not rights of individuals within states. Again, the honourable gentleman acknowledges that there is a constitutional protection, namely under section 51 placitum (xxxi) of the Constitution. I do not know whether he wants to extend this to the States. Mr Spender —Oh yes, most certainly, if I could. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If he could, but he never did it when he was in government. I wonder what the Government of Queensland would say if he suggested that it be extended to it now. Mr Spender —What about the Government of New South Wales? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are not talking about selective terms. I am talking about the difficulties the Opposition will not face up to. The fact is that at this stage the honourable gentleman does not have the constitutional power to do what he wants to. Mr Spender —There is a separate ability- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is not, on this basis. Mr Spender —You really have to understand these things. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know the honourable member understands everything. The difficulty is that he did not do much about it when he was in government. His Party was there for a number of years. Now he is trying to extend the principles of the Constitution to cover the States. I am not going to do it. If the honourable member suggests that it should be done, that is a matter he might like to argue. We have no problems with private property, which is what it is about. The Australian Labor Party stands for private property; it is in its platform. I do not know why the honourable member is so worried about it. I do not know what his platform stands for, but apparently it now stands for the fact that he wants to extend the right of acquisition into the States. I would be very surprised if they would agree with him. It is extraordinary that the honourable member takes these selective expressions from other covenants. This particular one again comes from the covenant he was originally talking about in respect of education, which is the economic covenant. There are two grounds for our attitude: There is no constitutional power to do it; we do not intend to do it. We regard the right to private property as being sacrosanct and it is protected by the Constitution. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-I wish to make a brief point. There is a reading down provision in the Acts Interpretation Act. As well, there is a reading down provision in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Therefore, the effect is to contain any transgression in constitutional terms. There is power to make laws in respect of the Federal Government. There is power to make laws in respect of the Territories when it comes to acquisition of property. Of course, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will remember that the placitum in the Constitution does not apply to the acquisition of property from a Territory. I would have thought it was a very good idea that we seek to cover that sort of thing. I remind him that the opening words of the amendment are not taken from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights but are taken squarely from the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on which he bases his own legislation. They are taken from the opening article of that Covenant. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodges, L. C. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ewen Reith, P. K. Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. 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, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. 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. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C. Hodgeman, W. M. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 9 (Operation of Bill of Rights). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.20 a.m.) —I move: Clause 9, page 15, lines 3 and 4, omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(3) The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights apply for the benefit of natural persons and so far as may be applicable to bodies corporate, including corporations sole, to unincorporated associations and to all other forms of associations whatsoever.''. The present sub-clause reads: `The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights apply only for the benefit of natural persons. In our view, that is far too limited. It is not the intent of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Covenant refers to persons, to peoples, and there are many ways in which people can be affected. They can be affected as members of a body, as members of a trade union, as members of a body corporate. We propose that: The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights apply for the benefit of natural persons and so far as may be applicable to bodies corporate, including corporations sole- such as archbishops- to unincorporated associations- such as many trade unions- and to all other forms of associations whatsoever'. I can see no good reason why rights or freedoms which are established in favour, the Attorney-General says, of individuals should not apply to individuals in an organised capacity and that means individuals whether they are members of a body corporate-it should apply to the body corporate-or members of an unincorporated association, as are many of the State trade unions. In my view it should apply to those unincorporated associations and to those State trade unions. If we are to have a Bill of Rights, let us try to put some teeth into it. It is impossible to put teeth into this perfectly lamentable document, but one could at least try. I would like to hear now what the Attorney-General has to say about this matter. Is he, for example, against giving a few protections, such as they may be, under this Bill to trade unions? If he is not, I will be glad to hear that. If he is, I will be glad to hear that too. But I do not expect that he will agree, regardless of his interior views. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(2.22 a.m.) —The honourable gentleman is right. I do not agree with him, for reasons that he will understand, particularly if he looks at the forthcoming Government amendment, which is to the same clause. It is made very clear in the Government's amendment that the rights and freedoms set out in this Bill are not to apply for the benefit of bodies politic or corporate. I cannot very well see myself agreeing with the honourable gentleman in that context alone. Let me make it clear that in our view-the honourable gentleman's view is to the contrary-this Bill of Rights is for the protection of individuals, not for corporations or associations. The International Covenant is all about people. It has nothing to do with corporations, trade unions or the local yachting club. It is on that basis that we are trying to draw the distinction for the honourable member, which he does not agree with. From our point of view, we do not want to do other than benefit individuals. Accordingly, we reject the amendment. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Mr Spender —I am not going to ask for a division on this occasion because of the lateness of the hour. I say that without detracting from the importance of the matter. Amendment negatived. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(2.24 a.m.) —I move: Clause 9, page 15, lines 3 and 4, omit sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause: `(3) The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights do not apply for the benefit of bodies politic or corporate.'. There was a need to clarify this situation. Originally the clause was drafted as stating that the Bill applied only for the benefit of natural persons. That caused some comment on the basis that it might have affected Article 18, which concerns the right to life, in that if the words `natural persons' were used therein it would perhaps prevent people from pursuing their rights as human beings. As a result of discussions with people who are very anxious that we draw the distinction and make very clear what we had in mind-which is what we had in mind under the Acts Interpretation Act-we were anxious to say that it did not apply to corporations. Therefore, there had to be a specific exclusion. We have now drafted the clause on this basis, which I think is acceptable to all. The Covenant itself uses a number of terms, such as `anyone', `everyone', and `no one'. These difficulties arise from that but we are making it very clear by what we might call the positive negative. We will not make the Bill apply for the benefit of bodies politic or corporate. Those words are very clear and cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 30-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 31 to 36-by leave-taken together. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.26 a.m.) —Clauses 31 to 36 are the clauses which provide for inquisitorial powers. I criticised them earlier in my speech on the second reading. The answer that was provided by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was that these powers are to be found in the existing Act. Let us understand that that was a mistake. These kinds of powers are inquisitorial powers which are understandable if given to, say, the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union or if used in investigations into serious frauds where companies have failed and a great deal of money has been lost. They are not understandable when we are dealing with human rights. It is perfectly astonishing that, in a Bill which allegedly is to deal with human rights, the enforcement processes deny all basic human rights. As I said previously, under the procedures which are provided for by these clauses, individuals may be summonsed, forced to appear, forced to take the oath, forced to testify or forced to answer questions which may reveal that they are guilty of criminal conduct. They may ask and not be told what the charge is that is made against them. They may be denied the right to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence may be considered by the Commission and considered in the absence of the individual who is the subject of the charge. They may be denied the right to call witnesses on their own behalf and it may not be until the very end, when the Commission has made a preliminary view on what its findings should be, that they will even learn what it is that the investigation or inquiry is all about. It is un-Australian, it is anti-democratic, it is authoritarian and it is unnecessary. If we are to have any form of human rights in this country, let us understand that they do not depend on compulsion. It is a perfect mockery of the concept of human rights that human rights are to be enforced by processes which are more akin to police state processes. If any person in this House were arrested and charged with murder, he or she would have a right to remain silent. He would have a right to be told the details of the charges. He would have a right to confront witnesses in a court. He would have a right to cross-examine and a right to present his own evidence. None of these rights are accorded to people who allegedly infringe human rights. The thought police, the complaint police, have all the inquisitorial powers and the person who is the subject of a complaint, groundless or not, has nothing to do but to comply. When I say groundless, one should bear in mind that one of the things that the Commission has to do is to determine whether it should investigate a complaint. It also has the task, where necessary, of assisting in the formulation of a complaint. So it assists in the formulation of a complaint. It determines that a complaint requires investigation and, by that means, makes a prima facie finding. Then it goes into a full examination of the activities of some individual who may be told nothing about the substance of the charges against him. It is an outrage to any ordinary sense of justice and fair play that these kinds of provisions should be in this sort of a Bill. They should not be here. There are other Acts in which they should not be found. It is about time this Parliament came to that conclusion and expressed itself in clear terms that the only justification for these sorts of provisions must be compelling justifications relating, in the very main part, to the investigation of serious criminal matters. It is for those reasons that we believe that clauses 31 to 36, in which these powers and incidental matters are to be found, should be rejected. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(2.31 a.m.) —The Government does not accept that the clauses should be rejected. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) now says that when the Fraser Government inserted the clauses it was a mistake. Mr Spender —Absolutely right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I appreciate that, but we still do not agree with the Opposition on this occasion; we agree with what the Fraser Government was about. The clauses have been in the legislation since 1981, except for two clauses which relate to compulsory conferences. I draw the attention of honourable members to the reason for that. There is an opportunity to hold a compulsory conference in order to achieve conciliation. It needs to be stressed that the only purpose for which the Commission may hold a compulsory conference is to achieve a settlement by way of conciliation. It should also be noted that the Bill of Rights applies only to the acts and practices of governments. Only officials of governments will ever be required to attend compulsory conferences, apart from the complainant. Mr Spender —But there are tens of thousands of them or hundreds of thousands of them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am just saying that if the Commission is going to do some work it must have some powers to be able to get people in front of it and make recommendations. The Commission itself does not punish anybody. I make that very clear. It would be quite extraordinary to have a commission that could not get anybody to appear before it, could not bring any documents before it and could not even get to the position of dealing with a complaint and, on the honourable member's theory, even the Government need not send along its officials. I cannot see that as being credible. I can understand why Senator Durack disagrees with the honourable member on this occasion. These provisions were in the original Bill, apart from the two provisions which relate to compulsory conferences, and they are only on the basis of getting a conciliation result. I think that that is a very satisfactory result. I do not think that it penalises the people from the point of view of their individual rights in any way. It relates only to the complainant and the person or the official against whom the complaint has been made. I make the point that there is nothing new in what we are doing here. It has been in the legislation since 1981. I cannot understand why the honourable gentleman now, rather belatedly, feels that it was a mistake. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 37 to 40-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 41 (Reports to contain recommendations). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.34 a.m.) —I move: (13) Clause 41, page 36, lines 27-32, omit paragraph (e), substitute the following paragraph: `(e) may include in the report a recommendation by the Commission for the taking of action other than by the payment of compensation to remedy or reduce loss or damage suffered by a person as a result of the act or practice.'. The very simple reason that I have moved the amendment is this: The Commission is given a right to make a recommendation that compensation should be paid. One can understand immediately what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is going to say. He is going to say that there will have to be some remedies-after all, how could one deny people remedies-just as he has said that we have to have powers to pull people in as though it was beyond the wit of an intelligent public servant in the position of a commissioner to find out the facts when he is looking into government departments without having these draconic powers of compulsion. There are ombudsmen who manage very well indeed without these sorts of powers, but apparently it is not possible when we are dealing with the Federal Government and Federal public servants. It is a rule of justice that, if compensation is to be awarded, both sides should be properly heard, these issues should be defined, witnesses should be called, people should have a right to cross-examine and a right to present their own defence. They should have all those rights that exist in the courts but which will be denied to them under this legislation. We do not believe that it is right that the Commission, after it has investigated a complaint, should be able to include in its report a recommendation for the payment of compensation to or in respect of a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of an act or practice. If loss or damage in any legal sense has been suffered, that person has a right to recourse through the courts. If loss or damage has not been suffered in any legal sense, compensation should not be awarded. If it turns out that there are gaps in the laws, those gaps should be overcome as they are overcome day in and day out in parliaments throughout this country when laws are improved to overcome problems that emerge. It is no answer to say that the Commission will present only a recommendation. The recommendation can have a blighting effect on the careers of those who are the subject of it or whose actions provoke the recommendation. There would seem to be no reason why the Commission could not order that particular public servants should pay compensation. This is expressed in very broad terms. This is utterly unjust and, in any event, if the Commission is going to make a recommendation it would have to tie the recommendation in to the actions of particular individuals and, as I have said, the consequence could very easily be to blight their future. But more fundamentally, one does not allow non-judical bodies in any sensible country to make recommendations about compensation. Those matters are for the courts to be properly determined by causes of actions, by claims known to the law. Palm tree justice may be something that is attractive to this Government but it is not attractive to the citizens of this country. That is the reason why we have the amendment to exclude the right in the Commission to made a recommendation as to compensation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(2.37 a.m.) —This amendment proposes that the Human Rights Commission, having gone through the whole gambit of an investigation and having looked at all the merits of the situation, will not be allowed to make some recommendation to pay compensation. I cannot understand that. This is a bizarre sort of amendment. Why in the name of fortune are we going through this whole exercise if we are not able to get a recommendation that compensation should be paid? We do not have to accept the recommendation. For the life of me, I cannot accept what the honourable gentleman is saying. The whole idea is to try to get some conciliation and some quick results. I know that the honourable gentleman does not want to have a commission even though we have had to inherit it from the Fraser Government. The question at the moment is that, if it comes to the position of making a determination, honourable members opposite will not allow it to make any recommendations as to compensation. That is laughable. From my point of view, I would have thought that the Opposition would agree that, whilst it does not want a commission, having got it, we cannot have a position where it cannot make some recommendations to us. I do not know what we are going to do. We will start off again in another court to try to determine now how much should have been paid. All I am saying is that the Government may accept the recommendations. It can reject them. I cannot think of anything stronger than that and, on that basis, I do not think we need to waste any more time on the matter. It is late and I understand that the honourable gentleman may be getting tired but he must have prepared this amendment in the early hours of yesterday morning. He surely was not thinking straight when he did it. Mr Spender —I was. I understand what I am doing and I understand what you are doing and I do not agree with it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think we both understand each other but we just do not agree. On this basis, I again cannot help the honourable member. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodges, J. C.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W.Goodluck, B. J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Hodgman, W. M.Bilney, G. N. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. House adjourned at 2.54 a.m. (Friday). The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 14 November 1985: Audit Act-Report of the Auditor-General upon the Financial Statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for 1984-85-Erratum to paper presented on 12 November 1985. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances-1985- No. 6-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island. No. 7-Police Force (Amendment). No. 8-Civil Law (Amendment). Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 284. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 285. Fisheries Act-Notice, No. 154. Postal Services Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 296. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Veterans' Affairs- Miranda, R. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 283. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 60-Credit Amendment (No. 2). Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 295. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 297. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 282.