Monday, 17 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) —I have to advise the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will not be present during Question Time today. The Prime Minister is in Adelaide to attend a funeral following a family bereavement. Mr N.A. Brown —Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of figures that show a 206 per cent increase in the number of receivers appointed to companies in New South Wales in January, that February's figures look like being worse and that the number of receivers appointed to companies in Victoria in December trebled? What is the Government going to do to stop this rapid escalation of companies going into insolvency? For how long will the Government maintain its high interest rate policy which is the cause of it? Mr KEATING —I do not know whether the honourable member is trying to make some kind of linkage between trading profitability growth in the economy and general economic prosperity. If he wants to look at a period when companies were hitting the wall at a rate of knots it was in the early 1980s when his Party was in office. Today's National Australia Bank survey had this to say: Activity during quarter was underpinned by further growth in trading and profit. It continued: Importantly a further increase in business profits is forecast and with the expected 2 per cent discounting in the April wage case it appears that company profitability could be cushioned during any downturn in economic growth. The survey also provided a graph, which was quite startling in terms of trading and profit results. So any attempt by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to try to link some statistic to an indication of profit and activity in the economy is absolutely damned by all of the available evidence about activity in the growth of the economy at the moment. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Minister for Trade inform the House of the outcome of his discussions in Washington last week with officials of the United States Administration on agricultural trade matters? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question. I say by way of preface that it is my intention to make a detailed statement to the House later this week. But I think it is important to say now how encouraged we are entitled to be at the clear understanding on the part of the United States Administration about our shared perceptions of the problems confronting the world trade in agriculture. The fact that we are now confronting a situation in which commodity prices are at about their lowest level since the war-they have fallen by some 30 per cent since their average level of 1980-underscores the crisis to which trade in agriculture has descended largely, if not entirely, as a result of the policies being pursued by the European Economic Community. Both the Administration and the Congress of the United States agree with us that Europe is the main culprit in this matter and it is necessary for us to work together to try to achieve the kinds of changes which must come about if we are to have a more disciplined and more successful regime as far as trade in agricultural commodities is concerned. I note that the Deputy Leader of the National Party was making similar points when he was recently in Brussels. As well as that, of course, the Vice President of the National Farmers Federation, who joined my delegation at our invitation, also agrees with our assessment of the world situation and the need to find global solutions to the problems confronting not only Australian farmers but also other farmers around the world. The fact of the matter is that the least efficient farmers in the world, in Europe, are destroying the markets for the most efficient farmers in the world, including those in Australia, and that position has to be rammed home at every opportunity. It is worth pointing out that at the same time as Europe is expressing some concern for the problems confronting the developing countries, particularly those with a large debt problem, it is also destroying the markets for the commodities which those countries are trying to export. So, I think this has become a problem of global consequences and one with respect to which it is necessary for Australia to work together with the United States, at the level of both the Administration and the Congress, to try to achieve some changes. I am delighted to be able to say that I am now extremely confident that the United States Administration will initiate a return to the Congress to try to change the worst aspects of the farm legislation, and I am convinced that where a discretion exists for the Administration in the implementation of that legislation, which was forced on it by the Congress, it will apply that discretion in a way which will ensure that the minimum damage will be experienced by Australian agricultural exporters. As well as that, to underscore the closeness of the views which the United States and we have on this question, my counterpart the United States Special Trade Representative and I have agreed to meet formally on a regular basis to continue our activities, both bilaterally and globally, to try to improve the situation as a matter of urgency in the area of agricultural trade. Mr SPENDER —I ask a question of the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Government now support the view that the Bill of Rights should apply to State laws as it is to apply to Commonwealth laws and so override all future State laws in conflict with it, and in five years time override all existing State laws in conflict with it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable gentleman knows, the Bill is now before the Senate. I think I can say at this stage that it has been indicated by the Australian Democrats that they will not support the legislation unless it is altered in accordance with what the honourable gentleman now suggests might be the Government's attitude. As the honourable gentleman would know, as this information has come to us, I will be reporting the matter to Cabinet and, from my point of view, there will be no change in the legislation. Mr BALDWIN —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs give the Government's assessment of the extent of electoral fraud in the recent election in the Philippines? Does the Government consider this to be of sufficient magnitude to justify the conclusion that the election was `stolen' from Mrs Aquino? If so, what implications will this have for Australia's future relations with the Philippines? Mr HAYDEN —On 15 February, the National Assembly declared President Marcos the winner of the presidential election by a margin of 1.5 million votes. Mr Tolentino was elected Vice-President. It is evident from comments made by foreign observer teams and from the reporting of Australian Embassy officials who monitored polling in a variety of parts of the Philippines that the election was marked by irregularities and abuses designed to influence the vote. It is also evident that these abuses were overwhelmingly the responsibility of the ruling party. The efforts of many individual Philippine citizens and volunteer groups to ensure a fair vote, sometimes in the face of intimidation and violence, of course invite our admiration, as does the display of commitment on the part of the Philippine people to the democratic electoral process as a means of expressing their political will. One cannot be categorical about the impact of the abuses, but the scale has undermined the credibility of the election, and perhaps that is exemplified nowhere more effectively than in the comments of the Catholic bishops of the Philippines. Included among those comments were the following: According to moral principles, a government that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis. and: The polls were unparalleled in the fraudulence of their conduct. Widespread perceptions within the Australian community that the conduct of the elections was unfair will necessarily have an effect on the environment within which our bilateral relations with the Philippines are conducted. Mr BLUNT —My question is to the Minister for Social Security and relates to the amnesty the Minister announced in this House last week. I refer the Minister to case examples cited in the guidelines he circulated to officers of the Department of Social Security and ask him to confirm to the House that the amnesty applies to supporting parents who begin to live with a partner but who do not advise the Department. I ask him to advise whether a person receiving unemployment benefit by direct credit to a bank account-which is in line with departmental policy-whose living arrangements change because of incarceration for a criminal offence will obtain absolution under the Minister's amnesty and, like the supporting parent, be able to keep the money? Mr HOWE —It seems that the honourable member for Richmond is learning something from his colleague who holds the shadow Treasury portfolio, in the sense that he phrases a question so esoteric that clearly it demands going on notice and being properly considered. In terms of the attitude of the honourable member for Richmond to the question of amnesty, I understand that the Opposition has shifted its position somewhat since several weeks ago when the honourable member for Richmond said: Inadvertent overpayments really should be subject to an amnesty- Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put a question to the Minister, which he suggested he was not able to answer because it should have gone on notice. I suggest he has demonstrated to the House that he cannot answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWE —I can understand the embarrassment of the honourable member. I was quoting what he said on 31 January, which was this: Inadvertent overpayments really should be subject to an amnesty, but deliberate criminal manipulation of the system should be subject to penalty. The honourable member for Richmond began the year by saying that what we needed in this country was a campaign of dob-ins, rather like that proposed with respect to people involved in drugs and the drug system. He said: `What we need is a dob-in'. Later on, on 31 January, he said: `No, what we need is an amnesty. We need to sort out those people on the treadmill, those people who perhaps unintentionally have got themselves into difficulties with the Department of Social Security, from those people who are deliberately manipulating the system, those people who are criminals.' Having made that statement, as with so many of the shadow Ministers of Mr Howard's shadow Cabinet, he was trampled on by his Leader and told: `No, that is not the correct position; we are opposed to an amnesty'. He has now come in and sorted out a particular example for us, presumably to get some sort of response on the run, as to what-- Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, the Minister is misrepresenting me. I ask him to table the statement in which I called for an amnesty. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. Mr HOWE —The honourable member has raised a particular example-I might say a rather complicated example-and said: `Does that fit or does it not?'. Let me make it clear what the basis of the amnesty is. It is to distinguish between those people who have sought deliberately from the beginning of the exercise to cheat the system, who have misrepresented their identity or their circumstances to get a payment, and on the other hand, those people who at some stage, having received some payment or having been in the system, have misrepresented their circumstance to achieve a higher payment. Those people are not covered by the amnesty, but it covers people who legitimately are part of the system and who took no action to reduce or eliminate a payment as a result of changed circumstances. With any amnesty there is a sense in which there is an element of guilt on the part of people who receive the amnesty. I do not deny that but the fact is that this amnesty in the long run will bring to light a number of overpayments and, no doubt, will result in significant savings to the Department of Social Security. Amnesties are not unique to this country nor to the social security system. They have been tried in a number of countries, often with outstanding success. Nor is the amnesty the only, or even the principal, element in what the Government has in mind. We are concerned about the level of overpayments although, as I made the point last week, we put the question of overpayments into some kind of context. When the former Treasurer, who sits on the other side of the House, was Treasurer of this country $3 billion assessed tax was unpaid. It was the responsibility of that Treasurer to collect it. That was the bill which he left this Government-$3 billion-because of his delinquency with respect to taxation. Concerning overpayments, a debt has accumulated, much of which relates to the social security stewardship of the now Opposition. This Government is determined to address the problem and to seek to reduce overpayments. We believe that the amnesty will be a successful method within the overall context of taking a strong but fair position on people incurring overpayments. Mr CHYNOWETH —Madam Speaker, as the first person to nominate you for the position of Speaker, a long time ago, I congratulate you. I am quite certain that my judgment has been vindicated by the unanimous vote for you. Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on behalf of all the electors of the seat of Dunkley. Has the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been drawn to recent statements by Senator Collard reversing the coalition's stand opposing sand mining on Fraser Island and excluding the use of export powers for environmental purposes? Will the Minister inform the House whether, in light of compensation paid, a Liberal-National government could pave the way for sand mining on Fraser Island? Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order. I hope to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, at its end. I refer to standing orders 142 and 143. I preface my remarks with a reference to the fact that your predecessor allowed a bad habit to develop in this place in that Ministers were allowed to answer questions which did not directly conform to the Standing Orders requiring questions to relate to a Minister's responsibilities. In terms of those two standing orders, I cannot see how the Minister at the table can be responsible for Liberal Party or National Party policy, just as, before the advent of the Labor Government, Liberal Ministers were not responsible for Labor policy. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is responsible for anything that comes within his portfolio. Mr COHEN —I have seen a report of statements by Senator Collard in the Courier-Mail of 3 February. For those not familiar with this fact, Senator Collard is the Opposition spokesman on the environment. Senator Collard has made it that the Opposition will not impose export controls for environmental reasons. I am sure this is a very ominous warning of what would happen under a Liberal-National Party government. It would mean that there would be no environmental controls. If that is the Opposition's policy, it would mean that there would be no protection for mining in this country. There would be no protection of wildlife or flora and fauna from export by those people who wish to exploit them. There would be no protection of the forests. In other words, a Liberal-National Party government would withdraw completely from responsibility in this area. I find that very difficult to believe because, whilst we have disagreed with the Opposition on many things, some very good things were done by the previous Government in this area, including the stopping of mineral exploitation of Fraser Island, the banning of whaling and, of course, the setting up of Kakadu National Park. I make it very clear that, while there is a Labor government in Canberra, there will be no mining of mineral sands on Fraser Island. Mr HAWKER —I ask my question of the Minister for Primary Industry. In order to relieve one of the cost pressures which make Australia's farm exports less competitive, will the Government consider extending the excise rebate on diesel fuel used for off-road purposes to cover petrol? If not, why not? Mr KERIN —All this is under review by the Government. I point out that the issue of fuel prices does not fall within the administrative control of my Department or my portfolio. That responsibility resides with the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and, to a large degree, with the Treasurer. As will be apparent from a close reading of the Press, all these matters are under consideration by the Government at present. Mr DUBOIS —I add my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on your election to the high office of Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. As, apparently, most of the passengers on the Russian cruise ship Mikhail Lermontov which sank off New Zealand were elderly Australians, what arrangements have been made for their easy entry into Australia without documentation? Mr HURFORD —I am able to inform the honourable member for St George that, on the most recent information made available to me-I hope most members of the House are interested in this, although I gather that there are some who are not-agents for the vessel have arranged for a Qantas 747B jumbo to repatriate Australian passengers from Christchurch to Sydney this afternoon. The necessary authority has been given by me through my Department for the passengers to travel without documentation. In association with the Department of Foreign Affairs, we have made suitable travel arrangements at Sydney Airport. I believe that I will be expressing the wishes of the House when I take this opportunity to extend the sympathy not only of the Government but also of the House to all of those who through no fault of their own have indeed suffered distress in this tragedy. Mr LLOYD —My question is to the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the new arrangements from 1 July for the collection by the airlines of the $20 airport departure tax. What is the Minister's answer to the claim by the airlines that his refusal to allow them to operate the secure booths already in place at the airports will force the tax to be collected in cash at the check-in counters for those who purchased their tickets overseas, thus creating a potentially high risk armed hold-up situation, which in turn will lead to the need to double the presence of Federal police? Government members-Oh! Mr LLOYD —I am just asking the question. This is what the airlines are saying and I want to hear what the Minister's response is to this. Will the Minister now reconsider his decision and will he also confirm that the tax is to be indexed? Mr PETER MORRIS —In response to the last two parts of the question; the answer is no and no. In response to the first part of the question, the proposal is that the airlines be responsible for collection of the tax. How the airlines choose to collect that tax is a matter for the airlines to develop in consultation with the Government. Mr Lloyd —Why can't they use the booths? Mr PETER MORRIS —The booths are obstacles in the processing of people in the terminals. They have been the subject of numerous representations by members of both sides of this House over the years. They certainly add to the difficulty of getting people through airport terminals. The collection of the tax would be a very simple process if the airlines accept responsibility, as they are required to do. They will be able to show on the ticket the amount of tax levied, and that would remove the problem of when or where they should collect it. The fact that it is shown on the ticket would mean that it could be shown as an additional charge by the airline. I have seen some of the comments that they are making that they would be required to become the collectors of a hidden tax on behalf of the Government. That is not the case. International airlines operating in Australia at the moment which sell travel within the United States, in some cases on behalf of United States domestic airlines, already collect tax in Australia for the United States Government. There has been no problem about that at all. I have not seen one complaint or even any mention of it; it is standard practice. There should not be any difficulty for the airlines, then, to collect on behalf of this Government a similar tax in respect of departing passengers. Negotiations are going on with the airlines as to how they will facilitate the arrangements. There will not be booths, as I said, because not having them will facilitate the handling of passengers at the terminals and most of all help reduce costs in the collection of the tax. The amount can be shown on the ticket at the time of sale. Where the airlines choose to collect it, whether at point of sale or upon arrival at the airport, is a matter for the airlines themselves. The simplest method would be to levy on the airlines the rate of tax on a person boarded basis and leave to them how they collect it. Those negotiations and discussion will continue. As to the likelihood of an armed hold-up, I think that that is a figment of the imagination of the mind of the person asking the question. Mr GORMAN —I also add my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker. Could the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the House how Australia's employment growth compares with that of other Western countries? Mr WILLIS —I am very pleased to respond to the honourable member for Greenway, who has asked a very pertinent question. As members of the House will be aware, since this Government has been in office Australia has had extraordinarily rapid employment growth. In the less than three years that we have been in office we have seen employment grow by almost 10 per cent-9.7 per cent-or 608,000 jobs. In 1985 we had growth of 252,000 jobs, or 3.8 per cent, which is the highest rate of growth of the employed work force since monthly figures were introduced in 1978. In January this year we had a continuance of that good record, with 60,000 new jobs in that month. Three-quarters of the jobs created since we have been in office have been full time jobs. It is interesting to compare that performance with the performance of other Western developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In the last two calendar years, 1984 and 1985, total employment growth for OECD countries was 1 1/2 per cent in 1984 and one per cent in 1985-in other words, 2 1/2 per cent at a time when we have been achieving rates of growth far in excess of that. In OECD Europe in 1984 the rate of growth was zilch, there was no increase at all, and in 1985 it was a quarter of a per cent. As I said, in 1985 we had growth of 3.8 per cent, compared to one per cent for the OECD as a whole. I will just mention some key economies. The United States of America had growth of 2 per cent, Canada 2 1/2 per cent, Japan one per cent, Germany one-half per cent, France minus one-quarter per cent and the United Kingdom 1 1/4 per cent. It can be seen that the growth of employment in this country has been far in excess of the growth in any comparable country in 1985 and well in excess of any other country in the period for which we have been in office. Indeed, one figure which might stick in the minds of honourable members is that, since we have been in office, in the United Kingdom there has been a growth in employment after a 2 million decline in the first half of the Thatcher Government's period in office. In the period during which we have been in office there has been growth of 700,000 in the United Kingdom in a work force four times as large as ours. We have had growth of 608,000-not much less than the United Kingdom-with a much smaller work force. So honourable members can see just how enormous has been the performance of the economy in the employment area since we came into office. It is no wonder that, when the OECD Secretary-General, Jean-Claude Paye, was here last October, he described our performance as brilliant. There is one more point I would like to make in relation to this question, and that is that a crucial factor in our extraordinarily good-indeed, brilliant-employment performance has been the wages policy which this Government has pursued. The wages policy, which is part of the prices and incomes accord, has brought about a very substantial decline in real unit labour costs. It has brought about an increase in our competitiveness and, until the devaluation, provided a much reduced inflation rate. That very successful wages policy which underlines our tremendous employment growth, of course, contrasts markedly with the Opposition's wages policy, which does not exist. After three years of being in opposition it still does not have a wages policy. When the Leader of the Opposition has an interview reported in the newspaper, as he did in one of our leading newspapers today, he has one page of prevarication on the Opposition's wages policy. It simply does not have a policy, except a hope that it can develop something, which business organisations throughout the country are saying would be utterly unworkable. When the Opposition talks about wages policy members of this House and the nation need to bear in mind that the wages policy pursued by this Government is the most successful wages policy pursued by any government in our history. It has given us the best economic and employment outcome of any country in the Western developed world and we would be mad to change it. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Health to the continuing explosion of the cost of Medicare and I ask: In light of the 18.8 per cent increase in medical benefit payments from July to December of last year, which is around $100m over budget, will he give an unequivocal guarantee that the Medicare levy will not be increased or the 85 per cent medical benefit reduced? Dr BLEWETT —It has not been my habit in the past and it will not be in the future, nor is it now, to make comments on issues which may be before Budget Cabinets. Mr Kent having addressed a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs- Mr Jacobi-On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Question No. 1293 and Question No. 1294 have been on the Notice Paper for three Parliaments. Madam SPEAKER —The question is out of order. Mr COWAN —My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the action of the New South Wales Minister for Education in banning temporarily and positively from the end of this year South African Rotary exchange students, both white and coloured, from attending New South Wales public schools. Is it not a fact that Rotary and other service club exchange programs are of great cultural and educational significance and of national benefit to all countries involved? Will the Minister therefore confer with the Premier of New South Wales in order that South African students are free to enjoy education and normal courtesies in this country? Mr HAYDEN —The administration of education is largely a State government affair and it is certainly a State government responsibility at this level. Accordingly, the Government of New South Wales acted within its constitutional authority. I can add only that the Australian Government was not consulted on this matter at any stage. Mr Kent having addressed a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs- Mr Jacobi-You are not going to get away with that. On a point of order: Question No. 1293 has been on the Notice Paper for three years and deals with the same matter. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham gets the same answer. Mr RUDDOCK —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. Will he as a member of the National Companies and Securities Ministerial Council ensure that in the review and approval of professional accounting standards the National Companies and Securities Commission will not pre-empt existing arrangements for consultation and proper exposure to public scrutiny before making any such standards legally enforceable? Mr Jacobi —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to question No. 2588 on the Notice Paper. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I can see that I am going to have to read the Notice Paper every day. I apply to the honourable member for Dundas the same ruling as I applied to the honourable member for Hotham. Mr Ruddock —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Is this on the same topic? Mr Ruddock —It is on the same topic, but I do not believe it is the same question because what I am dealing with is the question of consultation. As I read the honourable member's question, it is dealing with other matters, particularly in relation to resources and consideration of standards operating in other countries and questions of delay. Madam SPEAKER —What was the question asked by the honourable member for Dundas? Mr Ruddock —My question related to the need for proper consultation to take place in relation to the rules that are being developed before making them legally enforceable. Madam SPEAKER —The question is in order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Ministerial Council has been concerned for some time about the inability to get some agreement between the accounting profession as to what one could call a reasonable set of standards. Mr Jacobi —Yeah? Well, it is taking a bloody long time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has taken it a long time. I assure the honourable member for Dundas, in answer to the question he has asked, that certainly no decision will be made without adequate consultation. I think on that score accountants generally have a clear indication now that the Ministerial Council is not prepared to tolerate any further delay in the matter. I understand that the matter is now at last making satisfactory progress. In my view, when those standards have been agreed on they certainly will be given adequate publicity by the National Companies and Securities Commission before any final decision is made. Mr HUMPHREYS —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of allegations that gillnetting operations in northern Australian waters by Taiwanese fishermen have resulted in the deaths of thousands of dolphins and other protected marine mammals? Can the Minister inform the House whether these allegations are correct? If so, what action does the Government propose to stop this slaughter? Mr KERIN —I am concerned about the incidental capture of dolphins in the gillnets being used by commercial fishermen from Taiwan operating in northern waters under agreements with the Commonwealth. The Government's approach to the problem to date has been scientifically to investigate methods to reduce substantially incidental dolphin captures while actively encouraging the use of alternative catching methods, such as longlining. Whilst it is true that dolphins are not vulnerable to capture by longlines, it has yet to be demonstrated that longlining is an economically viable method of taking pelagic species off the north and north-west coasts of Australia. Preliminary advice from fishermen and gear technologists is, in general, pessimistic. However, the Government currently has an Australian longline evaluation project under consideration. The Australian Fisheries Service is co-ordinating research into methods to discourage dolphins, but not fish, from entering gillnets in the northern pelagic fishery. It may be possible to avoid catching dolphins by altering the way in which the nets are deployed. This is being investigated in the next stage of research, which is being jointly undertaken by the Australian Fisheries Service, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and fishing interests from Taiwan. This stage commenced in late January and is due to be completed in mid-March 1986. In addition, I have instituted a review of policy on pelagic gillnetting in order to develop alternative approaches to be adopted should the current research program fail to demonstrate a method of reducing the incidental capture of dolphins in gillnets. I have also written to my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland in order to obtain their views on a number of proposals to address the problem and expect to be able to announce the outcome shortly. It goes without saying that my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment is also vitally concerned with this matter. Mr DOWNER —Is the Attorney-General aware that the son of Mr Vasile Horaicu, Jerome Horaicu, who is an Australian citizen, has been illegally abducted to the Federal Republic of Germany by his mother in defiance of a ruling of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia? If so, will the Attorney instruct the Australian Embassy in Bonn to make representations to the German Government to ensure that the child is returned to the custody of his father? If the Attorney will not do that, why is the Government failing to uphold and support the rights of Australians overseas and ignoring the judgment of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I am reminded that the honourable member for Hawker has asked questions about the same matter. I think they related to citizenship. What the honourable member for Mayo says is correct. This is a case of some notoriety. Accordingly, I am aware of it in view of the fact that the child was taken out of the jurisdiction of Australia and is now in the Federal Republic of Germany. This is not the first time this type of thing has happened. The honourable gentleman would be aware of that. Therefore, we have the difficulty of trying to talk about reciprocal arrangements with other countries pursuant to what is called the Hague Convention Relating to the Abduction of Children. Australia has not yet acceded to that Convention, nor have many other countries. In fact, only four have so acceded, and the Federal Republic of Germany is not one of them. Accordingly, at present the arrangements are certainly unsatisfactory in the sense that we have, I think, only two reciprocal arrangements; namely, those with New Guinea and New Zealand. I understand through officers of my Department that a number of negotiations are now taking place with many countries which are all in the process of talking about acceding to the regulations which will be required pursuant to the Hague Convention. One of those countries is the Federal Republic of Germany. Of course those arrangements may not satisfy the parent in this case. As I understand the position, legally it would mean that the parent would be required to go to the Federal Republic of Germany to institute proceedings there pursuant to its law in order to have custody vested in him pursuant to German law as has already happened under Australian law. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the reported statement by the South African President that he would consider the release of Nelson Mandela in exchange for the release of Dr Shcharansky and Dr Sakharov-Dr Shcharansky has now been released-would the Minister ask the Australian ambassadors in the two countries to draw the attention of the respective governments to that offer from the South African President? Mr HAYDEN —I do not believe it would be sensible to make a linkage between the abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union or any other country with the situation in South Africa, for a number of reasons. One of the most obvious reasons is that once one makes that linkage one acknowledges the right of the Government of South Africa thereafter to repeat that sort of demand. I think that it is an unreasonable demand. The situation in South Africa is quite a distinctive one. It stands on its own; it has institutionalised racism and on those grounds should be attacked as such. The release of Nelson Mandela should not be conditional on the behaviour of any other government alone or on the behaviour of the Government of South Africa which we would hope would institute decent standards of respect for fellow human beings. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 27 (1) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, I present the first annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority for October 1984 to June 1985. The report was circulated to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on book production. This report was also circulated to honourable members during the recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical products penicillin bounty. The report was circulated to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —Yes, I definitely have been misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Today in Question Time, in answer to a question by me, the Minister suggested that I was in favour of an amnesty. This is totally and absolutely incorrect. At no stage have I ever suggested that I would support an amnesty for the overpayment of and fraud with respect to social security payments. I would like to take the opportunity of reading part of a statement which I have made and which clarifies this matter without a shadow of doubt. Madam SPEAKER —Please make it brief. Personal explanations should be as brief as possible and succinct. Mr BLUNT —On 12 February, I said in reference to the amnesty: Predictably, like so many other Labor Government programs, it begins with a `major publicity campaign'. The proposed amnesty raises questions of equity and implementation. On 13 February I said: The amnesty for overpayments comes no-where near addressing the significant administrative difficulties of Australia's Social Security system. I believe that, under no circumstances, could those comments be construed as my being in support of an amnesty. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes-by the Minister for Social Security. Madam SPEAKER —Proceed. Mr HOWARD —At Question Time today, the Minister for Social Security repeated the quaint proposition that in some way an amount of $3,000m had been left uncollected by the former Government and, therefore, most specifically by me, as Treasurer in the former Government, by way of unpaid tax. He drew that rather curious and quaint proposition from the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation for 1982-83, which records that at 30 June 1983, shortly after the Fraser Government left office, an amount outstanding in relation to tax of $2,900m existed. That is the basis of this $3,000m figure. The Minister for Social Security said that represented money that had not been collected. That is wrong. It represented tax that was unpaid at 30 June 1983, and the most elementary understanding of the workings of the tax system would suggest that at any given date a certain amount of tax is unpaid. I further add that that amount was larger than in previous years because of anti-tax avoidance action taken by the former Government. But, worse still, I point out to the Minister for Social Security that, according to his own definition, as at 30 June 1984 there was $3,100m unpaid in income tax under Treasurer Keating-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. Mr HOWARD —I am not debating the issue. I am pointing out how absurd it is of this Minister to suggest that if at a given cut-off date, at a given accounting date, a certain amount of money is unpaid, that means that that money is never going to be collected. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has explained that to the House. Mr HOWARD —With respect, Madam Speaker-- Mr Howe —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr HOWARD —Will you just calm down and sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am just suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition that he has now explained to the House exactly, I am quite sure, where he has been personally misrepresented. I require him now to resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —With respect, Madam Speaker, it is part of establishing that I have been personally misrepresented to point out that, applying the same measure as was used in relation to the figure used by the Minister, there was an amount of some $6,200m uncollected by the present Treasurer. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Madam Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWE —It was suggested by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) that I was incorrect to have stated that he was on record as supporting an amnesty. I quote from the Melbourne Herald of 31 January 1986, which contained an article by Anita Grutzner which quotes the Opposition spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Richmond, as saying: Inadvertent overpayments really should be subject to an amnesty, but deliberate criminal manipulation of the system should be subject to penalty. Mr Blunt —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not denying that the Minister can read accurately-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Blunt —I was not even in the country. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will please resume his seat. Mr Wilson —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister vouch for the accuracy of the report in the paper he is reading? Mr HOWE —All I was doing was simply drawing the attention of the House to a quotation, in quotation marks, in an article in the Melbourne Herald of the date to which I referred, 31 January. I was asked to table the document which was my source. I now make available for the honourable member for Richmond the source. Madam SPEAKER —Is the Minister seeking leave to table it? Mr HOWE —I am more than happy to table the document. Leave granted. Mr HOWE —I make a further personal explanation in reference to some comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who suggested that I had drawn some statistics from, I think he said, the Taxation Commissioner, and misrepresented the facts with respect to what the Taxation Commissioner may have remarked. The source of my remarks with respect to the $2.9 billion outstanding tax was not the Taxation Commissioner but a report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of, I think, July 1984. I was quoting from paragraph 10.2, which states: The amount of tax outstanding is a matter of concern. At 30 June 1983 it was $2.904 million, 90 per cent of which was income tax ($2.604 million). This is an increase of more than $2,000 million in six years. Statistics provided by the Taxation Office show that the amount of tax outstanding has been rising at a faster rate than tax collectable. That was the reference I made the other day. That is the position. When I refer to $2.9 billion I am referring to that comment, which came not from the Taxation Commissioner but from a Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I would have thought that it was crystal clear that during the period of conservative rule, the question of taxation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made his personal explanation. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHARP —Yes, I do. Last Friday in the adjournment debate the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) spoke on a subject of mutual concern in relation to the possible closure of the Australian Federal Police office in Wollongong. In the course of the debate the honourable member said: If the honourable member has written to the Special Minister of State, I challenge him to produce the letters here. He cannot produce the letters. I take the opportunity to say that at no stage during the debate had I said or claimed that I had written to the Special Minister of State on this subject. As the honourable member for Throsby quite accurately pointed out earlier in his speech: . . . the honourable member casually mentioned this matter to the Special Minister of State yesterday. I draw that to the attention of the House so that it may be seen in its proper light. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: The Honourable, The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Ian Robinson. 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 McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniqaitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. Either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. Following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that the decision to place an Army Artillery Base in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee area and the manoeuvres area in the Cobar region, would cause undue hardship to the families affected. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Abandon its decision to resume land in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee and Cobar areas for military purposes. 2. That no site is chosen which includes productive, agricultural and/or pastoral land. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Federal Government's report recommending aged pensioners pay for prescribed drugs be not acted upon. The aged are more likely to be using prescribed drugs than others and this outrageous suggestion will only deprive the aged pensioners of money they need for living expenses. Due to any increase in cost of prescribed drugs, pensioners may not be able to have prescriptions filled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no action be taken by the Government on this matter and that free drugs remain available to the aged. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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. 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 McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond 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 Blunt and Mr Slipper. 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-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 Slipper. 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 Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousand of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Parkes electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to the 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 Australian 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 Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality 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 had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand 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 Australian 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 reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. 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. We the undersigned, members of the Lao Community in Canberra, ACT, respectfully urge you to: (1) Approach the Government, especially the Honourable C. Hurford, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to negotiate with the Thai government and Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the release of Lao refugees detained in Thai camps for processing by Australian Selection Teams so that those with close relatives in Australia will be able to join their sponsors; (2) Increase the intake of Lao refugees, as in the past few years, the number of Lao refugees admitted under the Government Indochinese Refugee Program has been declined steadily comparing with the intake of refugees of other nationality namely the Vietnamese and the Cambodians; (3) Object the return of Lao illegal immigrants in Thailand to the Republic of Lao where they would undoubtedly face prosecution and harsh penalty; and (4) Enter Migration agreement with the Government of Lao so that residents of Australia will be in the position to sponsor their immediate relatives for admission to Australia. We pray that you will assist us on this occasion. Respectfully yours, (Members of Lao Community, Canberra, ACT) And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The ban by the Hawke Socialist Government on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland 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 investor's 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 ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Shire of Caboolture situated in the Federal Division of Fisher, Queensland respectfully showeth: That the present Commonwealth funding for day care facilities for child care in the Shire of Caboolture is totally inadequate to meet the growing demands of the district which is one of the fastest growing areas in Queensland and Australia. That the funding for Aboriginal and migrant child care facilities is disproportionately high in comparison to growth areas such as Caboolture which are seriously disadvantaged under present Federal Government funding guidelines. That there is an apparent excessive number of places for child care funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory, while there is a lack of these places in Caboolture, Queensland and other areas remote from the Capital. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That rapid growth areas such as the Shire of Caboolture be given special consideration in the allocation of funding. 2. That such funding be made available at similar levels to that provided to migrant and Aboriginal communities. 3. That funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory be reduced to a level appropriate to reasonable requirements and that the funds be reallocated to localities of greater need. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture 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 ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital gains tax Hidden death tax described as ``capital gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the 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 inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the State of South Australia showeth that we strongly object to the cruel slaughter of brumbies in Northern Queensland and demand its cessation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will do all in its power to stop the slaughter of brumbies, or, if this is not possible, to have it carried out in a humane manner. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Young. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent necessity of passing on to consumers and producers the full effect of the drop in world oil prices as a major contribution towards reducing Australia's crippling level of interest rates. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.04) —Today we will talk about two matters which are of vital importance to all Australians, that is, oil prices and interest rates. The cost to consumers-to the ordinary motorist, householder, farmer, businesses large and small-are mightily affected by oil prices and interest rates. I take farmers as a particular example. At the moment farmers are pressed by interest rates, fuel prices, quarantining provisions of the taxation package brought down last year by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), by a proposed capital gains tax and the impost of the fringe benefits tax. The two things that we are singling out for debate today are the critical elements of cost for farms, businesses and households-oil prices and interest rates. In both cases, the Government is clearly on record with policies and promises which might have led the Australian public to expect totally different outcomes from those that we now have. I will once again take the Treasurer back through the promises that he and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made on both of these elements of policy and I will point out to the House exactly where we stand today on both of those promises. It is essential to go back over this because this is a government of broken promises-broken promises in those critical elements of policy which most vitally affect people's everyday lives. Firstly, before the last election in 1984, the Treasurer-I quote him directly from the Sunday program of 4 November 1984-said about interest rates: . . . I'm sure that if, as we get through the tax rundown period of this year, where the market's always a little apprehensive now after the float, of about the capacity of funding the tax rundown period, you'll see declines in interest rates. That was the Treasurer of Australia talking about forecasting, promising a downward run in interest rates. Treasurers do not do these things lightly, even if it is before a Federal election. To prove that it was not done lightly, the whole thing was referred to also by the Prime Minister in that election campaign. I know that I have referred before to this particular event but it is an event which will come back to haunt this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and this Government. This was the notorious address to the Adelaide businessmen's lunch-that was in the time when such things were tax deductible-on 20 November 1984. Only about a year ago, talking before a Federal election, the present Prime Minister said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. . . . We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. . . . Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. Mr Rocher —I'll say they did. Some rewards! Mr CARLTON —As the honourable member for Curtin reminds us, the Prime Minister said: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. What was the crop? The prime interest rate, which was 11.5 per cent in January 1984 at its low point, is now over 20 per cent. The prime rate charged by the banks for major borrowers is now over 20 per cent-the highest rate, after allowing for inflation, for over 50 years, since the Great Depression. The overdraft rate, for loans under $100,000, has gone from a bottom of 12.75 per cent to a high now of 18.25 per cent. The Bankcard rate has gone up from 18 per cent to 21 per cent. Building society rates have gone up to over 15 per cent. Savings bank rates have hit their peak of 13.5 per cent from 11.5 per cent and, of course, for those with a mix of loans on their homes from banks, the total interest bill has gone up very substantially. The average interest bill on those so-called cocktail loans is well over 15 per cent. That is what has happened since those promises were solemnly made in the 1984 election by no less than the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country. On international comparisons, we have interest rates in the short term of 7.9 per cent in the United States of America, 8.9 per cent in France, 4.7 per cent in West Germany, 6.4 per cent in Japan-and 18.2 per cent in Australia. That is what we have had. As if that were not enough-we have pointed out the absurdity and the deception of those promises-it seems that the Prime Minister simply cannot help himself. When we questioned him about these policies in the Parliament over the last year, he said: `I am not going to say anything about forecasting interest rates'. The Treasurer said the same sort of thing. But what happened on 24 January 1986? The Prime Minister was being interviewed by my almost namesake, Mike Carlton, on Radio 2GB in Sydney. Mike said: The next, I suppose, variable if you like-here we go again-is the exchange rate. Sorry, not exchange rate-interest rates. Can you see those maybe easing off in due course? Prime Minister Hawke was very careful and very judicious. He said: Well, I must be careful in answering this, as you know, because a prime minister's statement or a treasurer's statement about their expectations in regard to interest rates can of themselves have impacts-you don't want to be trying to push markets. Maybe the Prime Minister did not want to be pushing markets but, by God, he was trying to push for votes before the 1984 election by making those very same predictions. The Prime Minister went on: But let me say this, Mike-- this is the nice, confidential bit- I think it's the fair answer-that with the increasing strength of the Australian dollar this was an essential element of the change in the pressures here and internationally on interest rates. So the condition for a downward movement in interest rates has emerged. In Question Time the other day the Prime Minister tried to make out that he was not in that quote saying something about the future movement of interest rates. If he was not, words mean nothing. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister has been up to his old tricks. Of course at the same time he was saying something about the dollar firming up, and what happened? From the moment he said that the dollar slid. He had exactly the same experience with the dollar sliding as the Treasurer had last year during his ill-fated trip to New York and London. Every time he spoke the dollar went further down. This is the record on interest rates. What about petrol prices? We have stacks of quotes on petrol prices from people opposite, going back to the time when the Treasurer was shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy-a position he held for quite a long time. He has left an absolute trail of statements about petrol prices, including: The great petrol rip-off must be curbed. Only Labor will stop this pernicious tax by stealth. He said also: Government policy ties Australian petrol prices to the price of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Any fall in the Saudi price must be passed on to the Australian motorists in lower petrol prices. Mr Hawker —Who said that? Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer said that. The then shadow Treasurer and now Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), talking about the effect of high petrol prices on low income earners, said: Petrol taxes are highly regressive, so this increase in petrol prices will be totally inequitable with the greatest burden falling on lower income earners. As all members of the House know, there has been a big fall in world oil prices. The Government, under its policies and promises, should have acted automatically to pass on these falls in world prices to the consumer. It was a promise and policy to stay with import parity pricing and, under the accord, to bring down inflation. A great way of bringing down inflation is to reduce fuel costs, and that is essential particularly at a time when people in the bush are going out of business. What did the Government do? It dithered about for a couple of weeks, went right through some State elections, refused to answer questions and hinted that it would not pass on the whole of the drop. Indeed, the Government seemed to have forgotten what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) had said last year on petrol prices when talking about a rise at that time. Trying to explain it, he said: Sooner or later the dollar is going to float back to more realistic levels . . . When that happens, obviously consumers will get the benefit of that in terms of reduced prices at the pump and the Government will lose the additional revenue . . . It is as hard and fast (a guarantee) as I can possibly make it. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr CARLTON —This was Senator Evans. We can only say that his guarantees are not worth two bob. Why must the Government take immediate action to bring down the price of fuel? Again I quote the Treasurer. I agree with these comments, made before the last Federal election: Continued success against inflation will create conditions conducive to lower interest rates. I support that statement. I also support this statement of the Prime Minister before the last election: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down interest rates will come down too. A clear link-which I agree with-has been established by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister between the level of inflation and the level of interest rates. Of course, there is another reason why they are linked. If international confidence in Australia's economic management were to be restored-a fall in inflation would be one of the critical elements of that-the Australian dollar would not have to be propped up to the point that it is now through high interest rates and an over reliance on monetary policy. Why does the Government say that it cannot do this? It says it cannot do it because it has budgetary problems. The Treasurer admits that, when the Government produced the taxation statement in September last year, it ignored the advice from Senator Gareth Evans, who is on record as warning the Government of this as late as July last year, just before the September statement was put together. But I also note that the Treasurer was advised by Treasury that there would be, most likely, a fall in oil prices in 1986. I challenge the Treasurer to deny that he had papers from the Treasury-his own Department-which pointed out that one of the essential factors in putting together taxation promises was the likely movement of oil prices in 1986. It is not good enough for the Treasurer, after the election, to accuse the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when he was Treasurer, of failing to reveal figures-in fact, forward projections months before the Budget were highly questionable and were subsequently proved to be totally questionable-when he overlooked critical information of direct relevance immediately before the framing of fiscal measures, which is what he did. He tried, with the assistance of a couple of financial journalists from the gallery, to throw it back to the Opposition by asking where we would make the necessary cuts. I will say two things about that. The first is that they ought to have been put into the calculations of the 19 September statement. If they were not that statement was fraudulent and the tax promises were fraudulent. The second thing I would say about that is that the Treasurer, who increased budgetary outlays in his first two Budgets, unconscionably is the last person to come to us and ask us how exactly we, at this point, a couple of years before an election, would clean up the mess. That is like being asked for a quote after the first few collisions and before one has had the real crash. We simply will not do that. In the first three Budgets of this Government health expenditure has gone up by $3.3 billion. I was Minister for Health when we went out of office and I can say that hospitals and health are in a hell of a state now after this Government has been in office and after it has spent an additional $3.3 billion. If this Government made a fraudulent financial statement in September let it find any cuts it has to but let it now bring down the price at the petrol pump by 7c a litre. If the price is not down by 7c a litre in the first week of March the Government will be cheating the public, it will have increased taxes and the promised income tax cuts later this year and next year will be a total fraud. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.19) -I do not know where to start with this joke. This is the third time in a week that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has brought this issue into the House. We have told the Opposition that the matter will be considered by Cabinet and an announcement will be made ahead of the appropriate time of 1 March, when the oil pricing policy is next subject to review. But apparently the honourable member for Mackellar thinks it is politic to keep dragging this issue into the chamber, notwithstanding the fact that the Government will be looking at all the issues as part of its review of the oil pricing policy. I have noticed that-- Mr Tuckey —Why does it need a review of policy? We just want a cut. Mr KEATING —Because the price went down, dummy; that is why. I would have thought that even the honourable member knew that. The thing that really amuses me is that the honourable member for Mackellar was in the chamber trying to make much of the fact that he agrees with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer about the linkage between inflation and interest rates. It is about the only tenet of what used to be his rational economic stance that is left. In the couple of months that he and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) have been running Opposition policy, they have walked away from every rational tenet of policy. Today we have the crowning irony of the complete collapse of any pretence of a wages or incomes policy. The interview with the Leader of the Opposition dismisses once and for all the notion that there is even a semblance of any wages policy-no matter how ill advised-or anything that can be called a policy at all. If one is serious about inflation in this country and about interest rates, one has to be serious about wages. The lesson of the last decade is that Australia was not able to throw off the scourge of inflation because it could not under a coalition government run a decent incomes policy and an appropriate balance between fiscal-monetary exchange rates and wages policy. I remember the honourable member for Mackellar asking me his first question, when he became shadow Treasurer, about micro policy. He was asking apparently about flexibility between firms and in industries. Mr Carlton —Mmm. Mr KEATING —Mmm, he indicates; that is right. He keeps confirming his stupid views. He had this to say-- Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that the debate be conducted at a reasonable level. I object to personal abuse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Carlton —Yes, I have. The word used by the Treasurer is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mackellar is offended. Will the Treasurer withdraw? Mr KEATING —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not want to hurt the honourable member's feelings. When we get on to this so-called microflexibility-that is, that one group of workers in one industry or one firm will take a pay rate less than another to meet the economic circumstances or profitability of that industry or that firm-what we find under the progressive retreats of the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer today is the comical interview in the Australian Financial Review by Mr Hywood with the Leader of the Opposition. He asked about wages being cut. The Leader of the Opposition said: I mean we're not in the business of cutting wages. In other words, he was saying: `We are not about getting flexibility between firms at all. There is no downward movement for us. It is all going up, not down'. Then the questioner said: . . . but surely your policy must operate downwards- implying that if it does not operate downwards, what is the point of the flexibility. The question continued: Organisations and employers and employees must be able to negotiate a system under the existing award? This was the answer by the Leader of the Opposition: Oh, there has to be some flexibility, but the way we intend to design it is that the sweated workshop argument will not be available. There we are. We have been travelling along now for six months waiting to find out what the Opposition's wages policy is. Members of the Opposition are out there wearing the hairshirt of the market. What they are going to have is wages going down where there are economic conditions which require lower wages, and in some industries where things are better the employees there can negotiate an increase in wages. What we find now, today, is that there is to be a minimum wage, according to the Leader of the Opposition. He is not going to be cutting wages, so there is a floor under it all, and apparently we will have prices moved up. That is what the Opposition calls a wages policy. What that means is that under a coalition government inflation will just roar off again, back to double digits. There would be no improvement in the economy at all. While we have had high interest rates and other imbalances which have been difficult to deal with in the economy, at least we have had very strong growth and strong employment growth-608,000 jobs in three years-three years of strong economic growth, and three years of the restoration of profitability. What will we get out of the Opposition's policy? It would mean high interest rates, high inflation, no growth, profits slashed, investment falling and unemployment rising. That is what we would have. The fact is that the Opposition has not got a feather to fly with, and it is now trying to tell us how interest rates are tied up with inflation. There is the puny argument dragged in here today, or puny leakage rather than argument, trying to get two bites at the cherry for the price of one, that somehow the oil price will affect inflation and interest rates. Mr Carlton —Well, it will. Mr KEATING —Of course, everything affects everything else. However, the weighting the Opposition has given oil prices in the terms of its matter of public importance is pathetic. Who hooked Australia on oil revenues? I will tell honourable members who hooked us there. Opposition speakers are quoting me when in opposition. They can quote everything I said. It is all correct. We were urging the previous Government not to be so greedy, not to take it all so quickly. But the previous Government did not care. Like Alice in Wonderland, away it went, sticking oil prices straight into the inflation rate, straight into wages and then, through centralised wages, back into inflation. It did not worry about the prices impacting on the consumer price index or the fact that we would have an inflation rate which was out of line with everybody else's. What the previous Government wanted was an easy way to bring down its Budget deficits. Instead of sitting there for three and four months at a time, trying to cut outlays, it decided to be slick and bring down the Budget deficits by the easy resort to the lazy oil money. Having hooked the Commonwealth on these lazy oil revenues, the Opposition now wants this Government to cold turkey it right off them. We are supposed to give the money back-the Opposition demands this of us-without even being allowed time to consider all the issues. That is where we stand today. What is the record of the previous Government on oil prices? I will tell honourable members what the record is. When the honourable member for Bennelong became Treasurer, oil revenues were worth $476m. The day he was defeated they were worth $3,486m. They rose by 700 per cent. He was the Treasurer who hooked Australia on a dependency on oil revenue. The hypocrisy of Opposition members coming into this chamber and crying crocodile tears about living standards is that the Opposition in government soaked motorists and all consumers through the 1970s, so as not to run a decent fiscal policy; it pushed 300,000 families into poverty through unemployment towards the end of its term in office; it has opposed wage indexation now for three years, which is worth $54 a week to the average wage earner; it secretly wants to cut wages, although it cannot find a way of rationally saying it wants to do so with any economic veracity; and it also opposes the tax cuts we give. It opposed the $7.60 a week tax cut. The former Treasurer said that he would rather have reduced the deficit than have paid the 1984-85 tax cut of $7.60. The Opposition would wipe out Medicare. Opposition members would deny all the people they cry crocodile tears over-the ordinary families who have to pay taxes-$54 a week wage indexation, they would knock off their $7.60 tax cut, they would kill Medicare; yet they are in here crying crocodile tears about the petrol price. If that is the long and short of the Opposition's approach to economic policy, it is in desperate trouble. Opposition members do not understand that the Government has an appropriate balance in policy at work in the economy at the moment; that is, a balance between fiscal policy, wages policy and monetary policy. In regard to fiscal policy, there has been a dramatic reduction in the deficit this year from 3.3 per cent to 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product, or from $6.9 billion to $4.9 billion in money terms. In regard to wages policy, we have the lowest unit labour cost in about two decades. Today, a survey by the National Australia Bank refers again to the further profit growth in the economy. Our monetary policy has been appropriately firm. In the latter part of last year we tightened it further to shave domestic demand in the economy and because of the influences on the exchange rate. Why are we in the trading position we are? The answer is that the cargo culters on the other side of the chamber decided to let our manufacturing industry fall apart while they jumped in the back of the coal truck to find that nobody wanted to buy Australia's primary exports at the prices which were prevailing a couple of years ago. So the major rebalancing and restructuring of the economy again falls to the Australian Labor Party, as it did in the post-war period and as it always has done. I can only say that honourable members opposite had better wait until we bring down our policy. I do not see much point in their raising matters of public importance in this way when they do not have any credible wages and inflation policy or any credible budgetary policy. Fancy saying: `We will give tax cuts as part of tax reform but we will not support the revenue measures to raise it; we will put it all on the Budget deficit. We will hand back the oil revenue and put that on the Budget deficit but do not ask us where we will make expenditure cuts'. The honourable member for Mackellar attacked members of the Press Gallery. He said that someone in the Press Gallery is making the Opposition quantify the kinds of tax cuts which it should give. If the Opposition wants to put that burden on fiscal policy, why is the Press Gallery not entitled to say: `How will you rebalance the fiscal policy with that burden?' The fact is that the Opposition will fudge all the way through and that is why nobody takes it seriously. It does not matter where one looks-wages, fiscal policy or monetary policy-one finds the coalition wanting. This policy of crying crocodile tears ahead of an announcement and while the Government is considering this issue is really a hopeless tactic. If the Opposition wants to play this silly game I will play it with the Opposition for as long as I have to; it is the political thing to do. But I can assure the Opposition that I will say exactly the same things in response to the same dreary proposition on the next occasion. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(3.31) —I was very interested, as were other members on this side of the House, to listen to the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He is Treasurer of a country which is heading down the same road as Argentina. He will be remembered in the same way as former President Galtieri of that unhappy country is. The Treasurer is on the way out. He has been presiding, since election to that office, over the greatest and most monumental economic mismanagement of this country. The future Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), pointed out that there are two issues in the matter of public importance-interest rates and fuel prices. The Treasurer has ignored the subject of the matter of public importance. He sought in his usual sordid way to try to tip buckets on the Opposition, to try to criticise the Government which preceded the Hawke socialist Government in this place. He had to do that because he is the Treasurer in a government which is trying to cheat the taxpayers of Australia. The honourable member for Mackellar pointed out the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on interest rates; he pointed out the Treasurer's promises on interest rates. We know how completely and utterly worthless those promises are. Mr Sharp —Not worth a cracker. Mr SLIPPER —They are not worth a cracker, as the honourable member for Gilmore has pointed out. What about the small businesses of Australia? What about the farmers of Australia? What about the productive sectors of this country? They have a government, a Prime Minister and a Treasurer making utterly worthless statements. Some people from time to time still expect Ministers occasionally to tell the truth and organise their business affairs accordingly. How many people have been sent down the financial schute because they believed the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's statements and, as a result of those statements, entered into economic commitments? It is a tragedy that the Treasurer, who has now fled from the chamber, has the audacity to condemn the position and the policies of the former Fraser Government. Import parity pricing-though I must say that I do not agree with it-was introduced with the aim of encouraging oil exploration and conservation of energy. However, this Government has become hooked on the expenditure which it manages to raise through this policy. Maybe import parity pricing achieved the aims of its proponents for a while following its introduction. It is however, an unfortunate state of affairs that the Government now depends on this policy to help fund the cost of running the country. The revenue gained from import parity pricing is about 10.46 per cent of total expenditure. The Treasurer mentioned that fuel taxes had increased to about $3,400m under the previous Government. Since this Treasurer has been in office that figure has increased to almost $7,000m. That is the amount of money which this Government and this Treasurer are insisting upon taking from the taxpayers of Australia. Some people have said that there might be some justification for import parity pricing. But, sadly, it does not result in improved roads and services; it simply disappears into the bottomless pit which is the Australian Labor Party Government's deficit. Many of us last week saw the number of primary producers who protested outside the Parliament at the way they are being sent to the wall by this Government. Up to 15,000 farmers were outside the House at that time and they are furious. They are protesting because they do not want to be ruined by Labor. Yet this Government which is refusing to reduce the price of fuel by a full 7c a litre, is depriving those farmers of a fair income. It is a government which is bankrupting those farmers. We have to look only at the result of the Western Australian election. The farmers of that State moved resolutely against the Hawke Government and against its running mate the Burke Government. If 7c per litre were passed on to the sheep/beef farmers of this country, the average saving per farmer would be $880. The amount increases for wheat-beef farms to $1,930. Mr Braithwaite —What about sugar? Mr SLIPPER —The amount would be $1,100 per farm. We know the problems and the plight of sugar farmers. Mr Kerin simply tries to act like a Pontius Pilate; he undermines the very positive efforts of people such as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) who are looking after their constituents in a very effective and very successful manner. We have heard some of what the Treasurer had to say, but let us look at the other Labor comments prior to the Hawke Government coming to power. The Treasurer has claimed that we on this side of the House became hooked on taxation revenue from fuel taxes. He claimed that we were the people who set the tone and that he, like the compulsive spending addict that he is, is not able to get unhooked. Mr Keating saw fit in 1979, when he was shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, to state, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald: In short, the Fraser oil policy is to price wage-earners off the streets. What is the Labor Party Government doing? It is pricing everyone off the street; it is pricing small business out of business and it is pricing farmers off their farms. Another prophetic statement was: There is no doubt that all Australians want relief from the rising burden of the oil taxes. They want cheaper petrol and they want it now. Did that statement come from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)? Did it come from the honourable member for Mackellar? Of course not; it came from none other than the honourable Bill Hayden and the Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Could the honourable member for Fisher refer to honourable members by their title? Mr SLIPPER —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I add, in passing, that Madam Speaker saw fit the other day to refer to the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) as `Lewis' and that is the example which is being set for all honourable members in this chamber. However, I do apologise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sure that the honourable member for Fisher would like to raise the level of debate. Mr Lloyd —He always lifts the standard of debate when he speaks. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Murray for his comment. I will continue the practice of referring to honourable members by the name of their electorates. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister of this country claimed before the last election that their policies would guarantee that petrol would be cheaper under a Labor government. In fact, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in Tasmania, constantly brings into this House petitions stating that the Australian Labor Party promised to reduce fuel prices by 3c per litre. The reality is that under this Government the price of fuel has gone up by 10c per litre. This Government is a fraud; this Government is a dishonest government. This Government continues to cheat the taxpayers of Australia. Labor said that the price would go up when Arabian oil prices went up and would come down when Arabian oil prices came down. What the Government is doing is to put the price up when the Arabian price goes up and to keep the money for itself when that price goes down. This Government does not care about the productive sectors of Australia. It simply does not care what its policies are doing. Its simple, trite answer to any accusation or any criticism of its economic performance is: `Well, blame our predecessors'. The Government has been in office for three years, for over 1,000 days. For how long will it be able to come into this chamber and masquerade and trick the people of Australia into believing that the Opposition in some way is to blame for Australia's economic disaster, which is being presided over by the opportunist who temporarily resides in the Lodge-I suppose we could call him Batman-aided and abetted by Robin, the present Treasurer of this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I thought that the honourable member for Fisher intended raising the level of debate by not slinging epithets at people. Mr SLIPPER —I am happy to continue to raise the level of debate, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your continued confidence in me. Australians are sick and tired of two sets of rules-one set of rules for the Government, which wants to take, take and take from the people of Australia, and another for the taxpayers who are being cheated by this Labor Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(3.42) —I came here today because I thought that on the fourth effort there might, at least, have been some new information put before the House to justify the outrageous stance taken by those opposite; but, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, it is a waste of time, although he will continue to come back to put paid to suggestions made by honourable members opposite that we on this side of the House are continuing to follow a policy line that will not lead to the benefit of every Australian. Four times we have been here to debate this issue. Four times we have talked about the same old things. When I read the subject of the matter of public importance today, I thought that a totally new line would be taken, with some magical economic linking of fuel prices and interest rates, but it has just not eventuated. The two Opposition speakers in this debate this afternoon certainly did not go down that road. It was nothing more than talk about what this Government had done and what they had done. Nothing new was offered and, of course, every criticism directed towards this Government has proven to be totally false. It is nothing more than political opportunism at its worst. It is interesting to look at that when it comes from a party on the other side that has no policies whatsoever. The Treasurer has already canvassed this whole issue of wages. Is there a wages policy opposite? No. Is there consideration of the oil parity pricing situation in relation to budgetary constraints? No. Honourable members opposite are prepared to take the opportunistic way out and cry for a sudden reduction when it is not even required yet. Under international parity pricing, the price is not required to be reviewed until 1 March. We now see-as the Treasurer again said; I am pleased to see him enter the chamber-crocodile tears. The farming sector was mentioned by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). He alluded to the 15,000 farmers who were here last week. Mr Slipper —Fifteen thousand or more. Mr MARTIN —There were more rubbish bins out there than farmers protesting last Friday. Clearly farmers recognise that this is a non-issue to them. Obviously, the honourable member for Fisher has not looked carefully enough at the election results in Western Australia, because had he done so he would have seen a swing to the socialist Labor Party in Western Australia in the farming communities. I challenge him to look at those figures more carefully. To return to the whole question of petrol pricing, let us get a bit serious and look at the facts. We on this side of the House look at the facts; honourable members opposite obviously do not do that. We must look at this matter in perspective and in an international sense. Australia's retail petrol prices have consistently been among the lowest of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, generally, in only Canada and the United States of America has petrol been cheaper. Mr Carlton —They are not now. Mr MARTIN —Someone is shouting out: `Not now'. Let us have a look at the latest figures that were produced, for, say, December: USA, 52c per litre; Australia, 53c per litre; Canada, 56c per litre; New Zealand, 67c per litre; UK, 91c per litre; France, 108c per litre; and Italy, 116c. Are honourable members opposite trying to tell us on this side of the House that there is not cheap petrol in Australia? What nonsense! When honourable members look at it in the OECD sense, of course it can be seen that it is cheap petrol. We have been arguing that consistently. I would like to come back to a point to which the Treasurer alluded. Certainly there was no comment on it from the other side. We have heard this misdirected Opposition try to say that careful consideration should be given to the economy in terms of its wages policy, fiscal policy and so on. But honourable members opposite never detail how this would work. There is no detail about expenditure cuts. Rather, we see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) suggesting that there is a need for these expenditure cuts. He wants to set himself up as Jack the Slasher. He wants to cut into programs and, at the same time, still provide reasonable living standards for every Australian. I would ask Jack the Slasher how he intends to do that. How can he maintain reasonable standards for Australians if he intends to cut back on programs which are funded directly through the consolidated revenues of the Government? Any consideration that the Government will bring to what it intends to do with its revenue must, of course, be based upon oil prices, on revenue obtained there and from a variety of other sources. And why not? Any government worth its salt will take all of those matters into consideration. As the Government has rightly pointed out, it intends to do so. It will not be rushed. The Government will gather the facts and the information and every Australian will not be disadvantaged. When one looks at the opposing side one has to say: `How did the former Treasurer handle the portfolio when he was in the previous Government?'. The Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer dare to come into this place and lecture this Government on economic management. They dare to come in here and talk about this Government's policy of creating over 600,000 jobs-well under the three-year target which was put forward. They come here and try to lecture us about problems in the economy-with booming retail sales, with things such as real private consumption expenditure increasing by 3.7 per cent in the six months to September 1985, real gross domestic product continuing to grow and non-farm GDP expected to rise by 5 per cent in 1985-86. They dare to come here and talk about labour market conditions. They say to this Government: `You do not know what you have done in the past and you do not know what you are doing'. Honourable members opposite look at the unemployment level, but again, they want to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to it. They are not prepared to be told. Every time Opposition members put up these miserable excuses of matters of public importance and try to link the question of oil revenue with economic performance, what have they come up with? Not one new fact or shred of evidence, not one claim that can be substantiated. They endeavour to ridicule this Government's performance in an economic sense. The matter of public importance should be thrown out for the humbug it is and the nonsense that has been put to the people of Australia, which they are expected to believe. There is talk about broken promises. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) described us as a government of broken promises. Let us look at the record of honourable members opposite. Let us be introspective, and go back and talk about what it was like under the stewardship of the would-be Jack the Slasher. Unemployment was pushed up-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! I have allowed the honourable members indulgence for a short time, but I ask him to address members by their title. Mr MARTIN —What hypocrisy it is for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the living standards of ordinary Australians. Under his stewardship unemployment was pushed up by over 700,000. That shattered the living standards of ordinary Australian citizens, yet honourable members opposite come before us today suggesting that this Government will do worse things. Of course, the honourable member for Mackellar also talked about the idea of immediate cuts in petrol prices to keep inflation down. It is the same old tired policy of `Fight inflation first'. Where did it get them last time? When we came to government inflation was running at 10.4 per cent. We have brought inflation down to 7.8 per cent under this Treasurer and this Government. Mr Keating —It will be 5 per cent in March. Mr MARTIN —It will be 5 per cent in March; that is right. Inflation is right down under the policies of this Government. The Opposition is not prepared to accept the facts. The facts are here for all to see. The Leader of the Opposition is also opposed to wage indexation, which has meant a wage rise worth over $54 to the average Australian wage earner between 1983 and 1985. Yet he has the gall to say to us on this side of the House that we are not interested in improving the living standards of the average Australian. The Leader of the Opposition said that the current wage case should be discounted, not by 2 per cent but by much more. What nonsense is this? As the Treasurer rightly pointed out today, when we look at that interesting interview in the Australian Financial Review today, which once again said nothing, where do we go to get a lead on the Opposition's policies? When are the people of Australia going to be privy to these secret documents? Do we have to wait for another leak from one of its meetings? Is that the only time the people of Australia will have some clear indication of where the Opposition proposed to take this country if it ever gets back the reins of power? All I can say to the people of Australia is that they had better hope they do not get that information, because on the present direction of the Opposition's policies they would very quickly lose on living standards and the Australian economy would go down the gurgler. It would not continue upward in the mobile way that it is at present. I quickly come back to the question of petrol prices. This Government intends to consider the full ramifications of every option available to it. I think it is to the Government's great credit that it does not operate under the concept of knee jerk reactions. We are not into that business. We are into the business of carefully considering every option available. We have a government that has improved the economic standards of this country far and away above what could ever have been reached under a coalition government and we have done it with great and outstanding success. I believe that when we consider the options available and when the Treasurer puts options forward, we will see the living standards of Australians improve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time for debate has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I present the first report of the Committee entitled `Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament', together with a dissenting report and extracts of the minutes of proceedings and the minutes of evidence. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MacKELLAR —The report I have just tabled is the first report from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed by this Parliament. It discharges that part of the Committee's order of reference requiring it to inquire into and report on the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other territories are entitled. The Committee in the previous Parliament commenced this inquiry after the Hon. I. B. C. Wilson, M.P., had moved amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. His amendment sought to insert fixed formulae in the Commonwealth Electoral Act to determine the entitlement to representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in the Senate and the House. This reflected his concern and that of others on the implications of section 122 of the Constitution, which provides in part: The Parliament . . . may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. Earlier, the first Committee on Electoral Reform in its first report had noted: The potential peril, however remote the implementation may be of a Government commanding a majority in both houses exploiting (section 122) by legislating to increase territory representation in either House to advance its own political ends. Mr Wilson had also sponsored a resolution at the Constitutional Convention the effect of which, if adopted by the people in a referendum, would have been to amend the Constitution to insert fixed formulae. As an interim measure, pending the Constitutional change he sought, Mr Wilson proposed that the concept be given effect by the Parliament in the form of provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is these matters which are addressed in the report I have just tabled. The report considers the three matters mentioned above, namely, amendment of the Electoral Act to provide formulae to determine the entitlement of Federal Territories to representation in both Houses; the outlook for, and desirability of, constitutional amendment to achieve the same end; and the implications for representation of the admission of new States to the Commonwealth. The report also considers the implications for Territory representation of proposals considered by the Constitutional Convention to break the nexus between the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Committee has concluded that the entitlement to representation in the Commonwealth Parliament of Federal Territories should be prescribed and not subject to alteration by the Parliament as it sees fit. Formulae to achieve this should ultimately be included in the Constitution. Initially the formulae should be enacted as provisions of the Electoral Act. The Committee also concludes that the entitlement of new States to representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives should be prescribed in the Constitution. For a variety of reasons we conclude that it would be premature to submit a proposal to the people concerning the representation of new States and Territories. Further clarification of the issues is needed before an acceptable proposal for change can be formulated. As an interim step, however, the Commonwealth Electoral Act should be amended to give the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory an entitlement to representation in both chambers. Currently any increase, or for that matter decrease, in entitlement would require a separate amendment to the Electoral Act. Under the Committee's proposal, entitlement to representation would be determined automatically by the Electoral Commission when it is conducting its terminal distribution of seats. Under our proposal other Federal Territories could become entitled to representation provided the population of that Territory exceeds more than one half of a constitutional quota for the election of a State member to the House of Representatives. This would give rise to an entitlement of one member in the House. Until an entitlement to separate representation vests, arrangements should continue to be made to include the people of other Commonwealth Territories in Electoral Divisions of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Broadly this would mean the territories would obtain an entitlement in accordance with their population on similar principles to those applicable to the States. Under our proposal, representation in the Senate would also be related to population. The entitlement would be on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House returned from the Territory, with a guarantee that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory would retain at least their existing entitlement. This would mean that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory would each become entitled to three senators upon becoming entitled to return six members to the House. The report also discusses the representation of new States in the Parliament. The majority of the Committee believes that when the Constitution is amended to provide for the entitlement to representation of Federal territories the same principles should be made applicable to the representation of any new State that might be established or admitted. The Constitution deals with this matter in sections 121, 123 and 124. Section 121 provides that upon such admission or establishment the Parliament may make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament as it thinks fit. It is clear from the Convention debates that the founders considered that new States should be admitted to the Federation only on conditions acceptable to the Commonwealth, that is to say, the original States. In summing up the effect of the provision, Quick and Garran state: Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth the Federal Parliament has a free hand in deciding the terms and conditions under which a new Member may be admitted into the Federal family system. It will be at liberty to impose such stipulations as it thinks fit, unhampered by considerations of equality or original States. It would appear to the majority of the Committee that the Constitution ought to contain some limit on the ability of a Commmonwealth Government to grant statehood. Its `free hand' in this respect should be restrained on the same principles as its free hand on Territory representation is to be restrained. Senator Macklin has dissented on this aspect of the Committee's report. Our proposals for amendments to the Electoral Act are an interim step. In amending the Electoral Act to make provision for the entitlement of the Territories to be determined automatically the Parliament would be relying on the power under section 122. Amendment to the Electoral Act would of course not affect the constitutional power itself and it would still be theoretically possible for an ill-disposed government with control of both chambers to legislate to stack the Parliament. Amendment of the Constitution alone would prevent this possibility. But, if the support of the Parliament can be obtained for the Committee's proposals a significant obstacle will be placed in the way of a government seeking to exploit the Territories' power for electoral advantage. A government seeking to change the process, once these provisions are enacted, would need the support of both Houses. It is some years since a government has been able to rely on Senate support for all its legislative proposals. The deadlock, double dissolution and joint sitting provisions of the Constitution provide additional obstacles that would need to be cleared before such a program could be implemented. If, as we believe, the formulae we propose provide an equitable basis for the representation of the people of the Territories for the foreseeable future, then the task of some future government in persuading the Parliament and the people that these arrangements are defective would itself constitute an obstacle to such a government seeking to replace the provisions with self-interested proposals of its own. I commend the report to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.00) —I move: Customs tariff proposals Nos. 1 and 2 (1986). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs tariff proposals No. 1 formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. Proposals No. 1 operative on and from 1 January 1986, contain changes to: (1) Remove Portugal from the list of countries to which developing country preferential rates of duty apply. This change follows the agreement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) to withdraw developing country status from Portugal following that country's decision to accede to the European Economic Community on 1 January 1986; (2) Keep the Customs Tariff Act as up-to-date and as simple as possible by removing redundant phasing rates of duty from Schedule 3 and Part II of Schedule 4. This action has provided the opportunity for further tariff simplification by enabling certain tariff classifications to be amalgamated; (3) Implement the 1986 developing country preference and tender quota arrangements applying under the Government's textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy. The amendments also include arrangements to allow for extensions of validity for textiles, clothing and footwear tender quota allocations; and (4) Remove provisions made redundant by the phasing duty arrangements in the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations-trade agreement. Proposals No. 2, operative from tomorrow, propose changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 in relation to the developing country rates applicable to tableware and other goods of ceramics. These changes result from the Government's decision to implement the revised system of tariff preferences for developing countries for those goods covered by the Industries Assistance Commission's report on tableware and other goods of ceramics. The Government's decision to maintain a general tariff rate of 20 per cent for the goods involved was announced in December 1985 but the final decision on the developing country rate was deferred pending the outcome of the review of the Australian system of tariff preferences. In accordance with the principles of the revised preference scheme a developing country tariff margin of five percentage points will apply to all developing country imports except where exclusion had occurred after 1 July 1983. Such products will continue to be excluded until 30 June 1988. For tableware and other goods of porcelain or china-tariff item 69.11-the developing country rate will be 15 per cent. The developing country preference is being extended to the People's Republic of China, which was not accorded preference before 1 July 1983. For tableware and other goods, not being porcelain or china-tariff item 69.12-the developing country rate will be 15 per cent except for the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, which will continue to be excluded until 30 June 1988. These two sources were excluded from developing country preference for tariff item 69.12 on 5 October 1983. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I seek leave to move a motion to discharge certain Customs Tariff provisions which were moved earlier in the session and which constitute part of order of the day No. 152. These proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which has now been assented to. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the House. I move: That Customs tariff proposals Nos 5 to 9 (1985), constituting part of order of the day No. 152, Government Business, be discharged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 October 1985, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.05) —I move this amendment to the second reading motion: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its deep concern at the Government's failure to support and defend the independence and the integrity of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions against political and public attacks against the Director calculated to bring the Director, the office he holds and the administration of justice into disrepute'. Mr Reith —I second the amendment. Mr SPENDER —It is a matter of regret that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is not in the House as it is his office and the way in which he has discharged that office which are under question. The office of Director of Public Prosecutions was created by this Government and the functions of the Director were expressed by the present Attorney-General, representing the then Attorney-General, on 17 November 1983, when he said amongst other things: Establishment of the office of Director will meet a pressing need to place existing prosecution arrangements on a more effective basis. It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. This Bill, taken together with the National Crime Authority Bill and the Special Prosecutors Act, which will also remain in force, will be the means by which the administration of the Commonwealth criminal law, particularly in relation to organised crime and corruption, will be rendered effective, expeditious and just. The first and present Director is Mr Ian Temby, Queen's Counsel. He was then the President of the Law Council of Australia. He is a distinguished lawyer and he had been an endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate soon before his appointment. In speaking of his appointment the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, on 9 February 1984 said: Mr Temby will bring to the new position the highest professional qualifications. He has had extensive experience in the conduct of criminal proceedings both as prosecutor and defence counsel. He continued: The Government is confident that under the leadership of Mr Temby, the office of Director of Public Prosecutions soon to be established under the act, will revitalise and make more effective the enforcement of the laws of the Commonwealth. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will have the main functions of conducting Commonwealth prosecutions and exercising discretions in relation to prosecutions. As a statutory law officer, the Director of Public Prosecutions will operate independently of government although the Attorney-General will continue to bear the ultimate political responsibility for prosecution decisions-- I repeat: `will continue to bear the ultimate political responsibility for prosecution decisions'- and provision is made in the legislation for consultation between the Director and the Attorney-General. The appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions can be terminated only for the specific and limited grounds which are set out in section 23 or for mental or physical incapacity or misbehaviour. It is otherwise a statutory tenure which underlies the importance and the independence of the office. The importance of the office, its independence, its integrity and its public esteem, cannot be overestimated. It is a major, welcome and substantial innovation. The Director becomes and is effectively the chief law officer in the conduct of prosecutions and in determining whether prosecutions should be brought. Everyone will understand that determining whether a prosecution should be brought lies at the heart of the Director's responsibilities, including prosecutions that may have political overtones. If the way in which the Director exercises his responsibilities is publicly challenged, if he is attacked by a leading Australian public figure and if the attack is supported by others, if it is widely publicised, if it is sustained and charges him with improper conduct in launching a prosecution, the duty of the Attorney-General is plain. If there has been misbehaviour, he must advise the Governor-General to terminate the prosecution. If not, if the Director has his confidence when such an attack is made, the duty of the Attorney-General is to defend his Director publicly, unequivocally and in the strongest of terms. It is a matter of public notoriety that Mr Temby came under an attack in December of last year, which is probably unique in the administration of criminal justice in Australia. It was an attack which was remarkable for its intensity, its virilence and its organisation and which was plainly intended to destroy Mr Temby. His motives were assailed, his character denigrated and his resignation demanded. Yet the Attorney-General-and I am glad to see him here in the House-despite, as we later learned, having confidence in Mr Temby and despite, as we later learned, his belief that nobody should impugn Mr Temby, for many days did nothing. He remained silent. He remained silent until he was hunted out of his burrow by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He remained silent while Mr Temby was under a ferocious and widely publicised attack by the New South Wales Premier, the New South Wales Labor Party and trade unions leaders. Let me remind the House of the lamentable history of political cowardice which led the Attorney-General to desert his Director and to abandon his responsibilities. On 12 December, public statements were issued by Mr Temby and by the Attorney-General. Mr Temby said that the Attorney-General had confirmed that Mr Temby should proceed with an application that Mr Wran be dealt with for contempt as he, Mr Temby, saw fit. We know that such an application was brought. It is no part of my task here-and nor would I-to canvass the merits one way or the other of that matter. I put that entirely to one side. Mr Wran's reaction to that was immediate. On 12 December, he is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying: I feel that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has singled me out and that there would be no prosecution for contempt if I were not a Labor Premier and the national President of the Australian Labor Party. It is a curiosity that the Premier of New South Wales could ever believe that he would be singled out by Mr Temby, given the high regard in which Mr Temby was held and given also Mr Temby's past political affiliations. Mr Temby is hardly a likely person to behave in a way grossly unfair. The Premier's comments amounted to no more and no less than a direct attack on the propriety of Mr Temby's decision and Mr Temby's motives. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 December, Mr Wran was reported as saying: I think it is a farce. I think the whole thing reeks of political overtones. On the same day, in the Daily Telegraph he was reported as saying: I find this situation farcical, ridiculous and extraordinary. What else was that but a charge of a politically motivated prosecution? On 14 December, in reply to a request from Mr Temby's office for confirmation of certain matters, Mr Wran said that the request for an immediate reply was unreasonable and-I quote from the Melbourne Age-`confirms my assertion that I have been singled out for some special and different treatment'. On 15 December, Mr Wran said: He's-- that is, Mr Temby- playing Russian roulette and he ought to be careful. That was in the Sun-Herald. In the Sunday Telegraph of that day, he was reported as saying: We have been told that he-- that is, Mr Temby- has been freely available to speak off the record to the media all week. We find that totally reprehensible and will leave it to the public to judge whether it is the right sort of behaviour for a Director of Public Prosecutions. It is reprehensible behaviour for the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not an arm of the media nor should it be a post-box for the media. We are still awaiting substantiation of that charge but its seriousness could hardly be overemphasised. On 16 December, once again Mr Wran was on the attack, this time in a report from the Australian. He said: I think I'm bound to complain, not to the Federal Government, but I'm bound to complain to the Federal Attorney-General. . . He's behaving like a politician with a point to make. Now if you are going to have someone who's neutral, he mustn't behave like a politician. On 16 December, in the Sydney Morning Herald, in reply to the request from Mr Temby's office of 13 December Mr Wran is reported as complaining of the harm allegedly done-I say allegedly-by `improper communications from the Director's office to the media about this matter'. The Sydney Morning Herald of 17 December had a report to the effect that the Premier had accused Mr Temby's office of selectively leaking material about him, of prejudicing the trial of Mr Justice Murphy and conducting a media circus. Could a graver charge be made against the Director than to say that he was prejudicing a trial which, as we all know, has been a trial which has received the widest publicity and which was to be heard in some months time? That is what he said. At this time a former Australian Attorney-General, a member of this House, called upon the Attorney-General, according to the Canberra Times, to investigate alleged leaks. He was reported as saying: A series of unprecedented leaks, tip-offs and background briefings appear to have emanated from Mr Temby's office over a period of time. On 20 December, the New South Wales Labor Party chimed in. A senior committee of that Party-I believe it is called the administrative committee-was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying: The Committee has no confidence in Mr Temby as DPP and calls for his resignation forthwith. An attack on Neville Wran is an attack on the ALP. The party is committed to the Premier. On 21 December 1985, the next step in this orchestrated campaign against Mr Temby was an open letter from officials from nine left wing unions and the right wing Australian Workers Union which, according to the Canberra Times, accused Mr Temby of contravening the basic tenets of natural justice. The letter said: Mr Temby's actions can only lower the public confidence in the DPP's office and inhibit its effective working. . . By apparently believing it better to prosecute holders of public office facing allegations of impropriety even if evidence appears less than likely to lead to a conviction, Temby attempts to take the office of the DPP outside the legal system and into the political. That is only some of the massive coverage given to this attack on Mr Temby. To sum up, Mr Temby was accused by Mr Wran and Mr Wran's lackeys of singling out Mr Wran for special and different treatment, of a politically motivated prosecution, of playing Russian roulette, presumably with the system of justice, of totally reprehensible media briefing, of improper communications from his office to the media, of selective leaking from office to the media, of unprecedented leaks, such that Mr Wran was bound to complain to the Attorney-General, that he was not neutral, that there was no confidence in him, that his conduct contravened basic tenets of natural justice and that he should resign. Ultimately, belatedly, reluctantly and half-heartedly, the Attorney-General came to his Director's defence. Following the Opposition Leader's criticisms of the Attorney-General on 22 December the Attorney spoke on AM and broke his silence-a silence that had lasted from 12 December to 23 December whilst Mr Wran and others were in the process of seeking to destroy Mr Temby's reputation and standing and, incidentally, the standing of his office. The Attorney-General said that nobody should impugn Mr Temby and that Mr Temby had his confidence. He was asked this question: But is it not the case that the Labor Party is impugning Mr Temby? He replied: Well if they are they're wrong. Where had he been? On Mars? There was no question but that the Labor Party had been impugning Mr Temby, that Mr Temby had been under an extraordinary attack. That gives some indication of the refusal of the Attorney-General to face up to the issues that confronted him and to discharge his duty as first law officer by defending his Director of Public Prosecutions. By then, of course, a great deal of damage had been done-how much we will never know-damage that may well have been compounded by the half-hearted defence the Attorney-General eventually made of Mr Temby. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I do not want to stop the flow of the honourable member for North Sydney, but it seems to the Chair that the honourable member's use of what might be seen as intemperate words such as `lackey' may encourage honourable members on the other side to reply in even terms. I have been willing to allow the honourable member for North Sydney to proceed but I trust that he will not object if like discussion is engaged in by those on the other side. Mr SPENDER —No. I thought `lackey' was a well-known term in political debate and a well-known term in the English language. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have no doubt that the honourable member for North Sydney would not like to be called the lackey of someone. Mr SPENDER —I have been called worse things than that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member will not be called that here. Mr Lionel Bowen —I take a point of order concerning your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I do not want in any way to inhibit the honourable member for North Sydney, but he knows that there are proceedings between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Premier of New South Wales. To that extent there is some sub judice element in this matter. I do not mind his canvassing it, but he is a lawyer and he would know that what he is saying may well be the subject of further examination somewhere else. It strikes at the very aspect of whether he has addressed his mind to it. Secondly, I have always thought that second reading debates should be relevant to the Bill. At this stage I am at a loss to find any part of the Bill which in any way relates to the matters about which the honourable gentleman is now venting his spleen in regard to me or somebody else. I do not mind that, but this Bill amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act in a number of ways. Although I have listened for the best part of 15 minutes I have not heard the honourable member address one remark to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will address two of those points. The Opposition, through the honourable member for North Sydney, has moved an amendment, and second reading speeches are usually fairly wide-ranging. While the Chair does not have the technical skill in this area that both the honourable member for North Sydney and the Attorney-General have, I trust that both of them will pay due attention to the implications of the sub judice rule. The debate will continue, taking that fact into account. Mr SPENDER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had that rule very clearly in mind and you will recall that I said I had not nor would I ever comment upon the merits of the matter before the courts. My comments have in no way been directed to that; they have been directed to a quite separate issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not said that they have been. Mr SPENDER —Thank you. Let us summarise this lamentable story of, I regret to say, political cowardice by the Attorney-General in deserting one of his senior and one of the Government's chosen servants, who was then isolated and who came under an unprecedented attack from the Premier of New South Wales, members of the Labor Party in New South Wales, members of the trade union movement and others. The reasons are not hard to find. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPENDER —Are we going to have spurious points of order to use up my time? Mr Price —How are these remarks relevant to the amendments proposed in the Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As the honourable member for Chifley may have heard me remark, the Opposition has moved a very wide-ranging amendment to the legislation. The Bill has a very wide-ranging title anyway and if one takes into account that title and the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney, he can probably say almost anything about the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and things that may have happened involving that Office. As I said earlier, I trust that he and the Attorney will direct their minds to the question of sub judice, as the honourable member for North Sydney has assured me he is. Mr SPENDER —Now that some five minutes have been taken up with these empty points of order, presumably because of a desire not to have this issue addressed and presumably also because those opposite do not understand what the issue is, let me return to what I was saying. The reasons that the Attorney-General acted in the way he did are not hard to see. No doubt there was pressure upon him not to oppose his old political friends. One can only say that he seems to have placed far greater importance on not opposing his old political friends than he did on the maintenance of the administration of justice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sydney-- Mr SPENDER —Gracious me! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not interject: `Gracious me!' He will not impute motive as to the reasons why the Attorney may have done things. Standing Orders do not allow that, and the honourable member for North Sydney knows it; so he will address his mind to that in his remarks as well. Mr SPENDER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What are the two issues? First, of all people, it was his duty to defend his Director of Public Prosecutions. If he had confidence in his Director he should have said so and said so immediately rather than have allowed him to be publicly assailed as he was. Secondly, the Attorney-General bears the ultimate political responsibility for prosecution decisions, and I remind the House that that is what was said by the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, on the appointment of Mr Temby. The present Attorney sought to jettison that responsibility, and that amounted to a grave and deliberate abandonment of his responsibilities. A period from 12 December to 23 December may not seem to be long. It is certainly long when we consider what happened. I do not expect a reply on the issue of the responsibilities of the Attorney-General's office. I do not expect the Attorney-General to explain to us why it is that he allowed his first law officer to hang in the wind, undefended and isolated. I expect we will be treated to a smokescreen instead. That is very sad because the Attorney-General is a man well liked by both sides of this House. It is a lamentable state of affairs for this country that he should have allowed the kind of damage to be done to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that he did allow. Let me briefly refer to the Bill. The Bill is in large measure a machinery Bill. The issues that I was addressing before are of far greater importance in the overall framework of the administration of justice. The Bill amends the principal Act so as to clarify the circumstances in which the Director of Public Prosecutions may present an indictment when a person is committed for an offence against Commonwealth laws, including an offence for which the person was examined but not committed and an offence founded on facts disclosed during committal proceedings. The Bill also does these things: It permits the Director to act as counsel and solicitor for a Commonwealth authority where the authority is party to proceedings arising out of or connected with the performance of any function of the Director or may result in the performance of such functions by the Director. The Bill permits the representation of the Director by members of the Australian Federal Police in summary or committal proceedings, which is particularly useful in isolated country towns. The Bill permits the courts, in proceedings by the Director for the recovery of pecuniary penalties, to restrict or prohibit the publication of evidence or information, where necessary, to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The Bill enables the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the consent of the Attorney-General, to employ persons under written contracts on terms and conditions determined from time-to-time by the Director with the approval of the Public Service Board. According to the explanatory memorandum the stated intention is to give the Director the same capacity to engage consultants and others as is presently possessed by a department or authority. These are not major amendments. In large part they are machinery amendments but they are sensible, they are useful and they should improve the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Accordingly, the Opposition will support those amendments to the Bill. But, of course, that is not the main issue. The main issue is the standing of the Director's Office and the protection that it deserves from the first law officer of this land, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister. What we are entitled to have and what we have yet to get is an explanation from the Attorney-General as to why, between 12 December and 23 December, he stood by silently and allowed his Director to be publicly criticised in the most trenchant and the most damaging of terms-criticisms that reflected not simply on Mr Temby himself but also on the integrity and the independence of his office. If we say the kinds of things about Mr Temby which were unquestionably said and if that is front page news throughout the country what would people think? Certainly some of them would simply think, would they not, that things were pretty bad? The administration of justice is in a pretty poor way when the first Director of Public Prosecutions comes under this sort of attack and for days lacks any defence whatsoever from his own Attorney-General. That is the issue that has to be faced here. It is the issue which the Attorney-General should have faced on day one but which he did not face. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I am sure that you will discharge the duties of that high office with fearless independence. The Director of Public Prosecutions Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983-85. Clause 3 of the Bill contains a major amendment which spells out with precision the circumstances in which the Director of Public Prosecutions can lay an ex-officio indictment and the circumstances in which the Director cannot do so. Other major amendments include appearances by police officers on behalf of the Director in summary or committal proceedings and the provision of granting more flexibility to the Director in engaging consultants and persons on short term contracts. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 6 of the Principal Act. Essentially, its purpose is to allow the Director to lay an ex officio indictment in all circumstances except the laying of an ex officio indictment without the consent of the accused where the accused has not been committed for trial. As a general rule, it is necessary, in the case of a charge of an indictable offence, that a preliminary examination of witnesses, sometimes termed a committal hearing, be conducted before a magistrate before an indictment can be presented to the higher court which is to try the charge and that the indictment must mirror the charge on which the accused has been committed. Justin McCarthy, in a learned and excellent dissertation on the implications and ramifications of sub-section 9 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983-85, observed that, historically, in England, apart from the right of the Master of the Crown Office to prefer a criminal information acting under the orders of the Queen's Bench Division at the instance of a private individual, the Attorney-General, by virtue of his office, had the power at common law to file an information without the intervention of a grand jury. Apparently this prerogative right was one that initially could be exercised in respect of any offence, whether a misdemeanour, felony or treason. In the course of time the exercise of the right was confined to misdemeanours and then only those likely to disturb the public peace or the established order of things. When the colony of New South Wales was formed it was considered that the common law system of initiating criminal proceedings by the preferring of a Bill of indictment to a grand jury and then trial by a petty jury was unsuitable for a colony comprising mainly convicts. Accordingly, in 1828, the Australian Courts Act was enacted. Section 5 of that Act provided, in effect, that the Attorney-General or a person appointed by the Governor be authorised to present indictments for all offences without there having been a prior preliminary hearing or commitment. Since that time, there has been no change in New South Wales to the right of the Attorney-General and appointed officers under section 5 of the Australian Courts Act to indict in the Supreme Court of New South Wales without there having been a prior preliminary hearing or commitment. The present position in New South Wales is reflected in the other States. For example, in Queensland, section 561 of the Queensland Criminal Code provides: An officer appointed by the Governor in Council to present indictments in any court of criminal jurisdiction may present an indictment in that court against any person for any indictable offence within the jurisdiction of the court, whether the accused person has been committed for trial or not . . . The statutory powers provided by legislation in the various States to indict where there has been no preliminary examination or commitment have virtually rendered obsolete the perogative right of the Attorney-General to file an information ex officio. Indictments are now issued by the Attorney-General and appointed officers pursuant to express statutory powers. I mention that the term `indictment' has been defined as a written charge preferred against an accused person in order to bring his trial before some court other than justices exercising summary jurisdiction. In Australia, the term `ex officio indictment' is really no more than a brief description for an indictment filed where there has been no prior preliminary examination or commitment or, where there is a commitment, the indictment includes a count in either addition to, or substitution for, the charge upon which the commitment was obtained. Where there has been a commitment the general position in Australian States is that the person having the authority to sign an indictment is not bound to indict only on the specific charge or charges for which the accused was committed for trial but may include in the indictment any count disclosed by the evidence given in the committal proceedings. In Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory there are express statutory provisions to that effect. In other States where such express provisions do not exist, the Crown Prosecutor relies instead on the statutory powers to indict, whether or not there has been a prior preliminary hearing. Initially the only power to indict for Commonwealth offences was contained in section 69 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903, which provides: Indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth shall be prosecuted by indictment in the name of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or such other persons as the Governor-General appoints in that behalf. It appears that this provision does not provide the power to indict where there has not been a prior preliminary examination or commitment. With Federation, the Commonwealth Attorney-General probably assumed the English Attorney-General's right to file an ex officio information. If so, there is apparently no case of the Commonwealth Attorney-General exercising his prerogative right to indict. In 1915, the Judiciary Act was amended and section 71A was inserted into the Act. It conferred on the Attorney-General the power to indict for a Commonwealth offence in a supreme court or the High Court `without examination or commitment for trial'. Contrary to the general position in the States, where the power to indict ex officio was given to both crown prosecutors and the Attorney-General, the power under section 71a is given only to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. Furthermore, this power has been used infrequently. Over the last ten years or so there would appear to have been only three instances where an indictment was filed in the absence of a prior preliminary hearing. As section 69 (1) of the Judiciary Act does not appear to authorise an indictment without commitment, then it must necessarily follow by extension that the absence in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act of express provision to indict where there has been no prior preliminary examination or commitment precludes sub-section 9 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act authorising such an indictment. Accordingly, in the case where has been no prior preliminary examination or commitment, the Attorney-General must himself sign the indictment. It would also appear that sub-section 9 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act does not expressly authorise the inclusion of additional or substitute counts which may be disclosed by the evidence in the committal proceedings. For example, it is uncertain whether or not the Director has power to sign an indictment in the following types of situations. First, in the case of a committal for trial on a charge of importation of prohibited imports being narcotic goods not less than a trafficable quantity under the Customs Act 1901 as amended, the prosecution may desire to include in the indictment an additional count of importation of prohibited goods and/or the additional count of possession of prohibited goods in case the jury is not satisfied as to the trafficable quantity as alleged in the indictment. Secondly, where a person charged wishes to plead guilty in the higher court and a committal will be time consuming or it is desirous to bypass this process for other reasons, and thirdly, where committal proceedings have been conducted but a committal order has been refused, the prosecutor may consider that the magistrate has erred in not making the committal order, and may wish the matter to go before a higher court. It is instructive to contrast the position in the States, where the Attorney-General and crown prosecutors generally can indict whether or not there has been a prior preliminary examination or commitment and the person having the authority to sign the indictment is not bound to indict only on the specific charge for which the accused was committed for trial but may also include in the indictment any count disclosed by the evidence at the committal proceedings. The amendments proposed by clause 3 of the Bill therefore allow the Director to present an ex officio indictment whether or not a committal order has been made provided the accused consents. However, where a committal order has been made, clause 3 of the Bill allows the Director to present an indictment that charges offences for which the person was examined but not committed, and any other offences founded on facts or disclosed in the committal proceedings. These proposed powers for the Director of Public Prosecutions do away with the technical limitations with which he has been faced many times in the past-for example, where committal has been ordered on one particular charge but on review of evidence after the committal hearing it is found that there is a more appropriate charge. These are powers that State crown prosecutors have long been able to exercise and are powers necessary for the efficient and expeditious conduct of criminal proceedings. The purpose of clause 5 of the Bill is to enable police prosecutors to represent the Director in remote localities, remands and other non-substantive hearings in relation to committals for trial. This amendment will enable the Director to provide convenient, cost-effective representation for his office in relatively minor matters in remote localities. For example, in Queensland the Director has his offices located at Brisbane and Townsville. Where it is decided that a prosecution should be instituted against a person residing in Cairns, then normally the prosecution would take place in Cairns. Under the present legislation, the Director of Public Prosecutions's officer would have to travel to Cairns for a matter that may take only a short time before the court-for example, an adjournment or a plea of guilty. In the States, however, State police prosecutors do most of the lower court work for the State Crown Law authorities. The Townsville office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was opened in the first week of December 1985. The need for the Townsville office was obvious. In 1984 there were 250 arrest matters concerning crimes against the Commonwealth in the north Queensland region. The Townsville office, under diligent stewardship of Mr Jim Wheeler, is responsible for the prosecution of a whole range of offences against Commonwealth law. These offences are wide ranging and include offences such as hoax telephone calls and the use of unlicensed equipment contrary to the provisions of the Radiocommunications Act, offences such as the importation of prohibited narcotic drugs or trafficable or commercial quantities contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, illegal fishing contrary to the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, pirating of tapes in contravention of the Copyright Act, social security fraud, false returns on the sale of diesel, and bigamy, to name just a small number. I appeal to the Director for more staff at the Townsville office to join Jim Wheeler in his excellent work. Further provisions in this Bill permit the Director, with the approval of the Attorney-General or a person authorised in writing by the Attorney-General, to employ persons under term contracts. The terms and conditions of such persons are subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. Clause 8 of the Bill removes the requirement of the Director to obtain the approval of the Attorney-General or a person authorised by the Attorney-General before engaging consultants. This now puts the Director in a similar position to the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department and other departmental secretaries to engage consultants and other contractors for services. All the amendments contained in this Bill have been agreed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has strengthened the hand of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the discharge of his statutory responsibility in the fight against crime. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.48) —Institutions are fragile things. They must be nurtured and protected if they are to flourish. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, as the principal law officer of the nation, has the responsibility of guarding the judicial system against unwarranted attacks. He must guard the judiciary and law officers from attacks which can serve only to weaken their authority and subsequently their effectiveness. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that there ought to be any air of complacency within the judicial system, that it should not be required to administer justice quickly, inexpensively, and without fear or favour; but where attacks from those who are at risk from the judicial system are made, those attacks must be repelled quickly, without any delay, and with the utmost vigour, by none other than the principal law officer of this country. You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the office of Director of Public Prosecutions was created and became operational on 5 March 1984, it was welcomed by all members of this Parliament and, it is true to say, by most persons involved in the judicial system at whatever level or type of involvement. Indeed, the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, on appointing the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, had this to say: Mr Temby will bring to the new position the highest professional qualifications. He has had extensive experience in the conduct of criminal proceedings both as a prosecutor and defence counsel . . . The Government is confident that, under the leadership of Mr Temby, the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions soon to be established under the Act, will revitalise and make more effective the enforcement of the laws of the Commonwealth. The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions will have the main functions of conducting Commonwealth prosecutions and exercising discretions in relation to prosecutions. The then Attorney-General noted the independence and the absence of political interference attached to the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. Sadly, much of that independence has been compromised by the failure of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to defend, not only the Director but also the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, from the vicious and sustained avalanche of attacks made by the Premier of New South Wales commencing in the middle of December last year and not finishing until late in December when the Director issued proceedings against the Premier for contempt of court. I ask the Attorney-General why, to the best of my knowledge, it was not until 23 December-almost two weeks after the attacks on the integrity and independence of Mr Temby began-that he felt the need to defend the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. That defence, if I may use that term loosely, was made in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM radio interview of 23 December. Even then, looking at the transcript, I find it hard to decipher a clear and unequivocal defence of Mr Temby and the course of action which he, in his independence, had embarked upon. This stands in quite obvious contrast to the comments of the Attorney-General when, as Minister for Trade and Minister representing the Attorney-General in this House, he said on 17 November 1983, speaking to the legislation establishing the office of Director of Public Prosecutions: Establishment of the office of Director will meet a pressing need to place existing prosecution arrangements on a more effective basis. It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. This Bill, taken together with the National Crime Authority Bill and the Special Prosecutor's Act, which will also remain in force, will be the means by which administration of the Commonwealth criminal law, particularly in relation to organised crime and corruption, will be rendered effective, expeditious and just. Sadly, I feel that the inactivity and reluctance of the Attorney-General to support the very office created by the Government, and for which so many of us had great hopes, has been extraordinarily weakened. There are few issues, if any, which concern most Australians more at present than the matter of corruption, whether it be corruption of the judicial system or the political process, or criminal activity. The fact is that the public are demanding vigorous, independent and unfettered investigations of corruption wherever it may become apparent. For the Attorney- General to stand aside or, worse, to have run away from a defence of the Director of Public Prosecutions stands as a very black mark, not only against his admittedly distinguished record but also against this Parliament. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a creature of this Parliament. The failure of the representative of the Parliament, in the form of the Attorney-General, to provide a proper defence of the independence and integrity of that office has compromised irrevocably its effectiveness. It gives me no joy to make such an accusation against the Commonwealth Attorney-General. I do not believe for a moment that he would have felt comfortable with the vicious and unrelenting attacks by the Premier of New South Wales upon the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have before me 50 pages of newspaper clippings from three newspapers alone-the Canberra Times, the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald-stretching from 12 December until the end of December. If all the relevant clippings from every newspaper in this country were to be collated, one would see that the remarks of the Premier of New South Wales criticising the Director of Public Prosecutions spread far and wide throughout this country. There would hardly be a person in this country who was not a witness to the attacks on the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth Attorney-General ought to have responded immediately. I am at a loss to know what restrained him. He may well attempt to enlighten us at the conclusion of this debate. I do not suggest that he was party to what is obviously an organised attack upon the Director. However, it saddens me that he failed to live up to his responsibilities-indeed, his duty. Perceptions of the judicial system seem to me to be almost as important as actuality. Public confidence in the administration of a system of justice that shows no fear or favour must be retained. I say that it was an organised attack upon Mr Temby because, on 19 December, the Administrative Committee of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party moved a motion condemning the Director of Public Prosecutions. Part of that motion reads as follows: The committee has no confidence in Mr Temby as DPP and calls for his resignation forthwith. An attack on Neville Wran is an attack on the ALP. The party is committed to the Premier. Leaving aside the merits of the proceedings against the Premier-that is not a matter for us to debate here-what is clear is that when the Director of Public Prosecutions issues proceedings against the Premier of New South Wales, a member of this Parliament or any citizen of Australia, he is entitled to do so unimpeded, free from attacks on his integrity. What was the defence mounted at such a late stage and in such a confused fashion by the Commonwealth Attorney-General? Certainly, he falls a long way short of condemning those within his own Party who would seek to undermine the administration of law and justice in this country. He simply attempts-I refer again to the AM interview on 23 December-in a negative fashion, to shore up his support for Mr Temby. He does not attribute to Mr Temby the qualities of independence and integrity that we would wish him to. Instead, he answers a question asked of him by the interviewer in this fashion: But is it not the case that the Labor Party is impugning Mr Temby? Mr BOWEN: Well, if they are they're wrong-let us make that very clear. Nobody should impugn Mr Temby. He goes on in, with respect, a rambling, confused, tortuous way, to make very little sense. Certainly, a pithy, clear statement which could have been sent around Australia, in the same way as were the Premier's criticisms of the Director, could easily have been made. It is a difficult time for the judicial system with the unprecedented charging and trials of a number of judicial officers, not to mention a number of law enforcement officers. All of us, whatever position we hold in society-no doubt legislators particularly-have a responsibility to add to public confidence in our system of law. Failure to do so-and I believe that the Attorney-General stands condemned for this-will lead to the most terrible consequences which, at the risk of stating the obvious, will lead to a weakening of the moral authority of the judicial system. The amendments before the House to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 are both sensible and straightforward, and the Opposition has no argument with them. There are a number of matters within this sphere of the judicial system which are causing concern to a great many Australians. A number of them, such as the failings of the family law system and the Australian Bill of Rights, will not be canvassed today. However, one issue which comes within the ambit of the legislation before the House is the National Crime Authority. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority which was established by the Parliament to oversee the National Crime Authority has not functioned for several months due to its lack of power to perform the role intended by the Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be further aware that towards the end of the last parliamentary sittings the Committee tabled its first report to the Parliament in which it sought further powers so that it could properly conduct the role of watchdog which the Parliament clearly intends it to do. No answer has yet been received from the Government. Therefore, the Committee is unable to oversee in any way the functions and performance of the National Crime Authority. The Committee has asked the Parliament either to amend the National Crime Authority Act so as to give the Committee the power of inquiry into the National Crime Authority or to disband the Committee because, in its present form, it is a farce. To my knowledge no member of that Committee wants to participate in what is obviously a paper tiger which is only going through the motions of supervising the National Crime Authority without knowing anything whatsoever of importance. I doubt very much whether that Committee has the power to inquire into the number of paper clips purchased by the National Crime Authority over a 12-month period. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the Government respond to the report by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority without any further delay. The Commonwealth Attorney-General has the responsibility of ensuring that the fight against organised crime is conducted as effectively and as vigorously as possible and that there is proper accountability to the Parliament which is made up of elected representatives. I realise that much of that responsibility falls within the portfolio of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) but it seems that the Commonwealth Attorney-General has the responsibility of ensuring public confidence across the board. On many occasions it may irk him that he has to engage in matters regarding the police, the National Crime Authority or law enforcement generally, but I am sure that his involvement is not merely academic. It goes a very long way to ensuring a continuation of public confidence in the judicial system or, should I say, at this time, following the debacle of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the restoration of confidence in the judicial system. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.05) —I indicate at the outset that I will be deliberately brief in my comments this afternoon. I will try to be relevant to the issue now before us. If there were a role that had been played in the introduction of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill in 1983 and the amending legislation now before the House it was one that had been played by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). It is very pleasing to note that in that role he has been in contact and has had continuous consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a sad state of affairs when those opposite have no positive contribution to make to a debate such as this while, as the previous speaker the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) said, corruption and crime are rampant. They spend all of their time putting forward negative contributions to a very important debate. I will refer very briefly to some of the issues raised in the amendment. If I can use a legal definition, an apt definition of the amendment is that it is a vexatious amendment; it carries no weight; it was put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) purely to open up debate in areas that have no relevance at all to the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill. It is a sad state of affairs when a senior parliamentarian, such as the honourable member for North Sydney, cannot make any positive contribution at all. I would like to refer him to some of the comments made through the judicial system commending the actions of this Government and this Attorney-General-the first law officer of this country. One has to look only at the comments made in the Australian Law Journal which commended the Attorney-General for his efforts and his consultation with Mr Temby in trying to bring about amendments to the Bill so that what we have been told is the rampant, uncontrollable crime that is presently in this country can be brought somewhat into check. As I have said, we have heard no positive contribution from those opposite. Hopefully those further down the speaking list will lift the standard of debate. I refer back to 1983 and to the comments of the Attorney-General who introduced in this House the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill. The Attorney-General indicated that as the first law officer he has always and, under the amendments, will bear the ultimate responsibility for prosecution decisions. It is a check on the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions that that power still remains under section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. However, the amendments have been brought about by the workings of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions over the last 18 months or almost two years. I think they are eminently sensible amendments. As I have said, they have been lauded by people in the judicial process. None of those amendments would be more important than the provisions in clause 3 of the Bill now before the House because those provisions have been brought about by consultation between the Director and the Attorney-General and his office. Obviously the Director has been pointing out, as he has publicly and directly with the Attorney-General, the shortcomings of the legislation as it now stands. If there are any shortcomings and if this legislation is to be effective, what we have to do is make sure that organised criminals, those who flout the law in this country, do not obtain loopholes through the legislation. One would have expected from those opposite some contribution to close off those loopholes, if those loopholes exist-and obviously they do, because the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought them to the attention of the Attorney-General and has quite often spoken publicly about them. In fact, in a letter to the Attorney-General, dated 10 September 1984, under the heading `Civil Remedies', Mr Temby pointed out: Prominent amongst those matters are the restriction on my function under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to take civil remedy action. Having regard to the nature of my office, I consider that we are uniquely placed to take effective civil remedy action in conjunction with the prosecution functions, in order to deprive the criminal of the proceeds of his illegal activities. That is something that is foremost in the minds of Australians now-how we have organised crime and criminals in Australia and people who become millionaires overnight. Nothing was said by those opposite about that. I do not expect that they would condone that sort of conduct or result, but it is something of importance and they have not even adverted to it. Mr Temby went on to say: However, my effectiveness in this area is and will continue to be severely circumscribed so long as my function to take civil remedy action is limited by the requirement that a prosecution has been instituted. In this regard, you may be aware that your Department disagrees with a view that we have expressed that paragraph 6 (1) (n) of the Act would enable me to exercise my civil remedy function prior to the actual institution of a prosecution. That is one of the very flaws of the legislation which this amending Bill will remedy. It will no longer be necessary for criminal proceedings to have been commenced for civil remedy action to be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Once again, right across the judicial system, the actions of the Attorney-General and of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been lauded. We have not heard anything of that from the Opposition. There is another area under clause 3 in which a flaw within the existing legislation, the 1983 Act, is remedied, and that is the presentment of indictments. Once again, it is a situation in which the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Director, has brought about these legislative changes so that, as I have said, loopholes will no longer exist. Surely all in this place-I repeat `all'-are interested in getting rid of shortcomings in the legislation so that the loopholes that exist-loopholes which, through any amount of legislation, those opposite, during their term, failed to do anything positive about-are removed, so that those engaged in organised crime, those who do not want to live within the bounds of our legislation, cannot go about amassing fortunes whilst involved in totally illegal transactions. With that in mind, one can only commend the amending Bill before us. It is positive. It is amending legislation that has been brought about in total consultation with the Office of the DPP, and, as I say, it is universally accepted in the judicial process. In conclusion, I believe that it is rather unfortunate to have those opposite come forward without any positive contribution to this debate and launch an attack upon the Attorney- General. After all, I did not hear anyone say: `What convention lays down that a person in public office is totally exempt from being criticised?'. It does not exist. They know that it does not exist. Who in public office is in a situation in which he cannot be or ought not to be criticised? One has only to look at a statement by Mr Temby about the prosecution of people in high office. If one wants to be realistic about it, one must appreciate that it is contrary to proper principles of justice. I see the honourable member for North Sydney shaking his head. What he wants is some preferential treatment for some in the community as opposed to others. That is a ridiculous proposition. It has about as much validity as his hopeless, useless, vexatious amendment. It means nought, and so does his proposition in relation to the muddying of waters. Mr Temby says that we cannot treat those in high office, in public office, in the same way as the normal citizen because we might have to clear the air. I just put the proposition back to those opposite: What canon or what convention does that come from? There is none, and it is a misstatement of the law as it stands. What we are being told is that one cannot comment on that, one cannot criticise or make adverse comment about such a statement made on a wrong basis of law. Of course, it has nothing and will have nothing to do with it-if a decision is made by the Director and subsequently committal or other action is commenced-because the court will decide that. Let us just get a clear perception of what those opposite are talking about. They are saying that the system could be affected. I should rather have thought, having spent some time in a court of law, that before a case proceeds, certain warnings and clear indications are given by the judge about what is in the Press, and, if it is a jury trial, how members of the jury should take no notice of what appears in the Press. I do not know; those opposite might not have been in a criminal court of law. But it is very basic. Frankly, for this proposition to be put up, that the whole system is endangered, reeks of overstatement of a vexatious amendment brought forward so that the Attorney-General can be criticised for his actions, when what the Opposition is saying is that it is improper that those in public office should be criticised. As a member of the judicial system and as a member of this place, I commend the Attorney-General's efforts, in consultation with the Director, so that, hopefully, somewhere along the line, we can close loopholes so that those who want to live outside the normal codes of society do not prosper as they have done in more recent years. The more often we can consult and close those loopholes, the better it will be for society. I support fully the amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, and I suppose that I have done a disservice to myself by even adverting to the Opposition's amendment in the first place. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.19) —I am indebted to the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). My interest in this debate went up a notch or two when he referred to his anticipation of a significant contribution by me and by later speakers, and I suppose that my interest was even further raised when he said that he would be brief. I took that to mean that what he meant to say was that he would be relevant and that he would dispose of this matter briefly and shortly. The opportunity presented itself to him to be even briefer than he was. We have heard a lot of huff and puff from the Government benches and lots of evasive remarks, and there has been a reluctance to come to the central issue. The point of order raised by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) during the address of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) really was facile. The point is that we are debating a Bill to improve the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, what is the point of the Office if it lacks the public and open support of the Government in respect of its ability to carry out its functions competently? That is the central issue. I go back to remarks of the current Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in Hansard on 17 November 1983 when he said, referring to the functions of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. In other words, in the Attorney-General's own words, he put on the top of the agenda the importance of public confidence in the Office of the DPP. As members of parliament we all have a responsibility to support our democratic institutions. The Attorney-General has the specific responsibility, as the first law officer, to uphold the system of justice in this community. It is not a matter of talking about preferential treatment to members of the judiciary, nor is it a matter of talking about conventions, as did the honourable member for Leichhardt. This is not some political point-scoring exercise. This principle we are about today is one of the pillars of our way of life. The fact is that the right of a fair trial is important and has been in the sort of democracy we have in this country. How can there be a fair trial if people are to be condemned or declared innocent in the daily Press and the electronic media? Trial by media is not the means by which fair trials should be conducted in this country. Even when the Attorney-General finally came out of the bunker, he was still holding back. On 23 December 1985 on the radio program AM, the Attorney-General said, when he stated that Temby should not be impugned: It's not a question of me defending Temby. Mr Temby is his own master. The fact is that that is not good enough. The Attorney-General, unfortunately, was following a party line, one which had been indicated by Senator Button, who in the Senate on 2 December, in answer to a question from Senator Chaney, said that he counselled `the wisdom of silence, the fairness of silence'. The Attorney-General's responsibility required a positive defence of the institution. Instead, he was mute from 12 December to 23 December, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) finally-with reluctance on the part of the Attorney-General-hounded him out. I understand that there were pressures on the Attorney-General. The principal figures in this lamentable affair are Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Wran and senior members of the trade union movement, in particular from New South Wales. The signal support of Murphy-Mr Justice Murphy-by some of the Attorney-General's colleagues-- Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am very reluctant to intervene, but the honourable member is talking about a justice of the High Court of Australia and he is addressing him by his surname. Further, he is a judge who is involved in proceedings and I ask you to draw his attention to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I am taking account of the sub judice rule and I am sure the honourable member for Flinders is as well. I ask him to keep that in mind. Mr REITH —I simply make the point-it needs no great amplification-that I understand, and I am sure members on this side and on the other side of the House understand, that these are, in many circumstances, issues of complexity and of difficulty. The point I wish to make is that, given the circumstances-personalities and the general perspective within which one can look at this issue-it was those very circumstances which demanded of the Attorney-General a strong defence of the independence of Temby. Let us face it, Mr Temby was under very strong attack, an attack characterised by intimidation and vilification, all of which could properly be described as an unprecedented attack in legal affairs in this country. I think it is an unfortunate affair that we have an Attorney-General who, when put to the test, was not able to meet the test. I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General's response to these charges and these calls for him to give an account of his stewardship of the office of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.26) —I found some of the comments of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) quite offensive. Of course, he was not in this House in 1982 when the government of the day-his party-launched an unmitigated attack on the Crown Solicitor's Office. The Crown Solicitor and all his State officers around the Commonwealth and every government lawyer were under a cloud. No one defended that so-called independent part of the Government's legal service. No one said a good word for the low-paid and hard-working officers in the Crown Solicitor's Office. Having served there and knowing how hard they work, I stood in this House and defended them. I said that the responsibility lay with the Attorney-General of the day for not properly supervising procedures in Western Australia at the time. The Opposition has quickly forgotten that it ignored the appalling attack on the Attorney-General's Department at that time. I believe the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) showed great wisdom in not getting involved in the hurly burly of political brawling that went on before Christmas. I am sure that when he was interviewed, almost on Christmas eve, he had his mind on other more important things such as family celebrations and the events of Christmas, and was not to be drawn on such an issue. I served in the New South Wales Parliament for 8 1/2 years with the Premier of New South Wales, both in opposition and in government, and I found him the most courageous man I have ever known, a great lawyer and a man who can look after himself. Anyone who takes him on does so at his or her own risk. I was surprised by the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), particularly as it rakes over this whole matter again and emphasises the fact that Mr Temby was a candidate for the Australian Labor Party. If he had been a Labor Attorney-General or a Labor Minister there would be some reason to complain. He might have been out of daily legal contact and he might have been an unsuitable person to be appointed to such an office. As one who serves the nation I find it most offensive to suggest that, just because someone has been a candidate he is not suitable. A man like Mr Temby would have been a great asset in Parliament. I was interested to note that Mr Temby stood for a by-election in the seat of Nedlands on Saturday, 13 March 1982. That was the day I was elected to this House. I feel that we are brothers in a certain sense but, of course, he has gone on. Perhaps he was the lucky one as he now receives a salary, with allowances, of about $90,000, which is substantially more than that paid to a back bench member in this House. Mr Temby stood in a by-election that no one in the Labor Party could have won. It was Sir Charles Court's seat. Of a total formal vote of 10,000 he received 3,500 votes. I am sure that no one in Western Australia believed that the Labor Party had any chance of winning that seat. It was a seat that someone, out of the goodness of his heart, had to stand for. He was not set up as a potential Labor member in Parliament in Western Australia. Harking back to his political career was very silly initially and I feel that the man should not be subjected to such criticism now. I do not wish to delay the debate. The amendments to the legislation have been canvassed quite succinctly by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). The legislation arose out of the workings of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which was introduced as a 1983 Bill. I commend the amendment to the House and recommend that the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) be rejected. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.31) —The significant matter in this debate is that the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill (No. 2) is not opposed. The Bill will amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act in a number of ways. Most speakers did not even consider them to be worthy of discussion. I understand that they were anxious-particularly the Opposition-in what was deemed to be a criticism of me, to talk about a matter which is not within the ambit of the Bill. I will deal with that in a minute. The Bill deals with the powers of the Director, the appearances on behalf of the Director, the matter of prohibition of the publication of evidence, staffing and the engagement of consultants. I am very pleased that the Bill has had such an uneventful passage through the House because it is a machinery measure. What seems to have received the main attention is-despite the time since the matter was raised-my approach to the issue of contempt of court. The most important thing I want to say is that the issue of contempt of court is not dealt with by me; it is usually dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the court. In what we could call the first Murphy trial, when the jury brought in a verdict, a large number of people decided to comment. I think that most of them prima facie were guilty of contempt, including members of this House and the Opposition, for commenting about what they thought should have been the situation. A juror decided to discuss the matter on radio. That again created an issue of contempt. So many people were involved at that stage that it was thought that the best advice to give everybody was to stop commenting on the trial, because they were all liable for contempt. That issue clearly set the tone for what was to follow. The issue of justice is not to be bandied around in the media and to be the subject of comment as the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) said. That is a matter for the courts. If people comment they can be charged with contempt. That is the position. There is some nicety about determining when a matter is contempt because it is a question of whether proceedings are pending. Those are pretty relevant words. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was very anxious to retain the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was not in this place at the time but the Hansard record of 29 November shows that the honourable gentleman asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a question adverting to comments allegedly made by the Premier of New South Wales following the statement by the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales that there would need to be a new trial in the Murphy case. I emphasise the words `a new trial'. The honourable gentleman from North Sydney was not at all backward in immediately suggesting in this Parliament that, because those comments had been made, there had been a criminal contempt warranting prosecution. He asked whether I would instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to launch it. So much for the Director of Public Prosecutions being able to do what he thought best. According to the honourable member for North Sydney I was to give instructions. I make the point that it was very clear from the outset that nobody should be talking about this matter. Admittedly, in this Parliament the honourable gentleman from North Sydney can say what he likes. That does not mean that he will not be cross-examined about it in the witness box. Knowing what was said in this Parliament he continued the debate. The real issue is not what the honourable gentleman from North Sydney thinks or what the Premier of New South Wales thinks. A trial will take place in April-that is the important part-where a jury has to determine a matter. That is the fundamental issue. Let us get it very clear. There should be no comment by anybody. If there is, there is liability for prosecution. From the honourable member's information it would be thought that from that time nobody said anything about the matter to defend Mr Temby, even though he does not have to be defended. The issue is very clear. Of course there were discussions between Mr Temby and me. He suggested that I might take responsibility for the prosecutions. I reminded him of his own statements about his role following the earlier trial. He agreed with me. Those discussions took a few days but nobody adverted to the fact that on 12 December I issued a Press statement. Mr Spender —I did. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am sorry. I withdraw that. The Press statement said: The Attorney-General . . . said today after a meeting with the Director of Public Prosecutions . . . he had reaffirmed his advice to Mr Temby that he should take such action as he- Mr Temby, that is- considered appropriate concerning recent comments by the Premier of New South Wales. The Attorney-General told the Director: `Go right ahead with whatever you think is the right thing to do'. The statement continued: Mr Bowen said this had been the view he expressed to Mr Temby when the DPP had first raised the matter. That was some days before. That is a matter of record. It is on file. The statement continued: At no point had he changed this view. He had certainly not directed the DPP to the contrary. Reports that he had were false. Mr Bowen said it was essential in the interests of the proper administration of justice that there be no further public comment on this matter. Do those opposite think that I would be able to stop public comment if everybody continued in the way they were? I remind honourable members that Mr Justice Hunt of the Supreme Court of New South Wales fixed the date for the trial on 11 December, the day before my Press statement. He did not just fix the date and say nothing else. He said: `It is about time that everybody stopped discussing the matter. I want no further public comment. A jury is involved in this issue. Those are fundamental principles of justice'. That was said quite properly, fairly and understandably by Mr Justice Hunt. Of course, I was aware-I knew all the time-that proceedings would be instituted against the Premier of New South Wales, but they had not yet been launched. It is not my job to tell the Director when he should launch proceedings. It would be quite improper for me to comment publicly about matters when I knew proceedings were to be launched. Do not honourable members opposite understand the situation? The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made snide remarks about corruption, as though there were some sort of connivance, and suggested that the Director was to be lampooned and impugned because I did not say anything. Was the issue not fundamental? Mr Justice Murphy was awaiting trial and there had been an announcement that there was to be no public comment. I knew that the Premier of New South Wales was to be prosecuted. I will not comment on that but in no way did I inhibit it, nor should I. It is about time that those opposite addressed their minds to those matters and to the honesty of the situation rather than making sleazy remarks about corruption in New South Wales and suggesting, as did the honourable member for Flinders-to which I object completely-that I might be subject to pressures because those involved were the Premier of New South Wales and a member of the trade union movement. They are all subject to the penalty of the law. If they are indiscreet, that is a matter for further judgment. The contempt proceedings will not take place before the trial. Yet Opposition members have today had the time of their lives discussing again, in a subtle way, what they think should have happened. Let me make it clear that Mr Temby and I have no disagreement. Of course, it is very clear that I knew well in advance that the proceedings were to be launched. But I could not say anything about it. The unfortunate thing was that the Press appeared to know a fair bit about it. It had nothing to do with me. The problem was that the Press was regurgitating the issue for some days and, obviously, that caused comment from the Premier of New South Wales. I do not think it did him any good to make the comments but he talked about the matter. The Press was talking about the matter and everybody seemed to know about it. But those proceedings were not instituted until 16 December. That is the point that the Opposition should understand. Of course, after that, the New South Wales administrative committee unwisely decided to talk about the matter. I then had to discuss it again because the fundamental issue was that the trial was to take place. None of us should be discussing these matters now because it it too close to the appropriate period of the trial. That is the issue-the question of whether what has been said would influence a jury. I make it very clear that Mr Justice Hunt was quite correct when he said on 11 December: `Everybody should keep quiet. It has nothing to do with any of you and, if you do not keep quiet, you should be dealt with for contempt'. That is the fundamental issue, and I made it clear again on 12 December when I said that nobody should be making any further comment about this matter. That was the problem in the first place. A number of people all decided to get into the issue. The media, academics, politicians, radio announcers, and even the jury in the end, were all talking about the matter, and all of them could basically be the subject of contempt. I object to the suggestion that there was corruption in that I may not have wanted to take action or was subject to pressures of influence not to take action. The honourable member for North Sydney can clear this matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions; he is entitled to do so. I encouraged him to do whatever he thought right and proper. What is significant is that it is right and proper that nobody should be talking about a matter when the trial is pending and proceedings have been commenced. This is very clear and that is the issue. I have to abide by that. What advantage is it to the accused for me to talk about what might have been said about Mr Temby or what Mr Wran said? I had to keep quiet about everything. But it got to the stage when an interviewer said to me that Mr Howard had said something. I decided to reply to Mr Howard as he was making it an issue. Mr Spender —The Leader of the Opposition. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, he was the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had taken no role in the matter but had come back from some vacation and made a statement about what he thought was wrong. He had taken no interest in the matter until that stage. I was rung by AM and asked: `What do you think of the Leader of the Opposition's comments?'. I said that not only was it about time everybody kept quiet but also that it was about time that all the bit players who were not involved in the major trial got off the stage. That is what I said. I made it very clear that a lot of people were getting involved with the media-of course, the media likes to get people involved in such things-and were not looking at the principles or the administration of justice or the fact that a person still had to stand trial and a date had been specially fixed. Was that not the important factor? The honourable member for North Sydney did not waste any time. On 29 November he came in here and adverted to the fact that because a comment was made- Mr Spender —What page? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is on page 4020. I am just drawing attention to the fact that there should be further action taken for contempt. That will be a matter for legal argument. It is a question of raising matters immediately which advert to the trial. Again, all the remarks made today about that trial will be published in the Press. That is the issue. We should understand that perhaps as a result of today's debate the person may well ask for a postponement of the trial. That is the sort of conduct that we are encouraging in this House. The honourable member for North Sydney has to understand his responsibilities. Had he wanted to know anything about the matter, he could have discussed with me what was on the files, who said what when and what arrangements were made instead of his saying that, because nobody had answered the administrative committee in New South Wales, something should be said. Mr Spender —And Mr Wran, and the trade union movement. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Wran at that stage was under prosecution. That is the important point. On 16 December he was under a charge. Were we to have further discussion about the persons accused? I think not. I am happy to say that, because of Christmas, everybody forgot the matter. It is about time that it remained forgotten because it has nothing to do with this Bill. The discussion in this place today has been the most irrelevant I have ever heard. Everybody agreed with the amendments to the Bill and everybody put their own views. I hope they all get a chance to give their views on where they stand and what matters they have raised when they are in the witness box on a charge of contempt. Perhaps they will be responsible for the trial being delayed further. Perhaps they should be dealt with on their right to express their views on these matters and on the administration of justice. It is nonsense to suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions was in any way inhibited or unprotected. It is a very difficult task, when one is in the political vacuum and does not have the political forum that a Premier has, to rebut what a Premier says. But Mr Temby did it and he was entitled to do so. That is the issue. The factor that could not come out in those relevant days was that proceedings had been in the process of being instituted for some days. That is the relevant point. That is where the matter seemed to get caught up in the media. The Premier took the view that everybody, except him, knew that he was to be prosecuted. I do not know the merits of that but that is where it started to become a discussion. I was very anxious that all discussions should stop. What were they discussing? It was not their own health, welfare or advancement in life. They were discussing a trial that was to take place. But the clear indication from the judge on 11 December when he set the date for the trial was that everybody should remain silent. It is a pity that that was not adhered to. I did so and that is the point I want to emphasise. There are still matters that will be raised. There will still be proceedings. But the sooner the Parliament leaves that to the courts, the better. That is the issue. We should not have this sort of discussion here. There is nothing more that I want to say. The matters raised today do not relate to this Bill. They relate to a view expressed early in December about what should be done. I make no further comment except to say that my one abiding concern in this matter was that there should be no further suggestion, publicity or contempt of court over a trial that is to take place. The only way to guarantee that is for everyone to remain silent. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Spender's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, M. Cunningham, B. T. (teller) 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. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. 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. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R. Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M. Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G. Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian 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. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K .J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D. Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, on a number of occasions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney may proceed. Mr SPENDER —First, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) said that I said it was improper to criticise somebody in public office. I never said that. Secondly, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) in a way which was difficult to follow said that somehow I had raised an offensive idea which was linked to the view that I had been critical of Mr Temby because he had been a candidate for the Australian Labor Party. I never was; quite the contrary. Thirdly, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) misrepresented me on a number of occasions. The Attorney-General's approach to the issue of contempt of court was never raised by me; nor was any question of commenting on the trial of Mr Justice Murphy ever raised by me here or anywhere else; nor did I suggest in the question that I asked on 29 November that there was a criminal contempt warranting prosecution. The record clearly shows that I referred to an extract from Halsbury and asked certain questions. The question was directed to the consequence of certain advice being given. I have never at any time expressed, expressly or by implication, any view on the position of the Premier of New South Wales. At no time here was I concerned with any public comment on the matter of Mr Justice Murphy. That was so both expressly and by implication. Neither here nor anywhere else have I commented upon that case and no part of the argument dealt either directly or indirectly with that case; nor would it under any circumstances as far as those on this side of the table are concerned. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McGAURAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland may proceed. Mr McGAURAN —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in the course of his summing-up to the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill (No. 2), ascribed to me remarks that I did not make. The Attorney-General suggested that I made an accusation that he was susceptible to influence and that the odour of corruption surrounded his failure to defend publicly the Director of Public Prosecutions. I did not at any time make that explicit accusation nor did I in any way imply that. My use of the word `corruption' was to show that the Attorney-General, as the principal law officer of this country, had a great responsibility in a time when there was a growing dissatisfaction and a lessening of public confidence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland must be extremely careful not to go beyond the point of explaining where he has been misrepresented. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, forgive me from straying from the point of personal explanation. My use of the word `corruption', so that the Attorney-General is under no misapprehension, was to highlight his responsibility to defend the Director of Public Prosecutions, not to cast any aspersions on him or to suggest, even remotely, that he may in any way, to any extent of the imagination, be susceptible to corrupt influences. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement in reply to what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Attorney-General claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do, in what was said by the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Attorney-General may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I understand that the honourable member for North Sydney said he made no reference to Mr Justice Murphy or the trial, or the question of a criminal contempt. I ask him to look again at his question in the Hansard of 29 November 1985 in which he talked about the `assertion of innocence'-he emphasised that-and then suggested that advice be given, relating to Mr Justice Murphy's innocence, as to whether the comments made by the Premier of New South Wales constituted a criminal contempt warranting prosecution. That is what was asked. Mr Spender —Of course the question was asked as it appears. Read the copy next time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has not been called by the Chair. The honourable member for North Sydney knows better than to breach the Standing Orders in such a flagrant way. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.03) —I move: Clause 8, page 3, lines 33 and 34, omit paragraph (b). The amendment which seeks to omit paragraph (b) from clause 8. Paragraph (b) states: by omitting from sub-section (2), `with the approval of the Public Service Board'. I am advised that those words are redundant; there is no need to put them in this Bill as it was done under the Public Service Act. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 November 1985, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.05) —The legislation we are now debating, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, will be supported by the Opposition. The purpose of the legislation is to implement the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention for Cultural Protection, which offers protection to Australia's movable cultural heritage and also extends this protection to the cultural heritage of other nations which are signatories to the Convention. The UNESCO Convention was drawn up to deal with the question of illicit international trafficking in cultural property. The legislation we are debating should assist with the stamping out of what can best be described as black market transactions-although not necessarily up until now illegal-in rare and valuable cultural objects; objects incidentally which, under the Convention and the legislation are defined as covering paintings, prints, craft, manuscripts, books, furniture, stamps, coins, maps and machinery. The Convention was devised originally at the request of Third World countries which believed that their national cultural treasures had been systematically decimated over many centuries to satisfy the demands of art collectors in North America, Europe and Japan in particular. Perhaps one of the most famous cases which still haunts relations between the United Kingdom and Greece is that of the Elgin Marbles which were taken from the Parthenon during the nineteenth century by Lord Elgin when he was then Ambassador to Greece. The Greek Government has, on many occasions, asked for the return of those priceless treasures which are currently part of the collection of the British Museum. It is worth noting, of course, that there is nothing in this legislation which makes it retrospective, so that what has left Australia for better or for worse will not be returned in accordance with this Bill, although we hope that, in due course, when major artefacts which are of significance to Australia come on to the world markets it will be possible either for private collectors or for the Commonwealth Government or State governments once again to return them to their rightful home in this nation. The legislation will establish a national inventory of protected property and a national heritage fund to help with the acquisition of important cultural objects which will be administered by a committee established to assist in these arrangements. I trust, however, that the committee will not be the first step towards the creation of yet another statutory authority in due course. I am rather sceptical of part time committees which, over a relatively short time, seem to generate sufficient work to put a case to government for yet more expenditure to maintain their existence. I would hope that, wherever Commonwealth funds can be appropriated for the protection of Australia's cultural property, it will be spent in a tangible way and not through administrative expenditure, which has so often been the case in the past. There is obviously a need for some protection of Australian cultural property. Although we are generally not in favour of acceding to the authority of international treaties except insofar as they are supported by the States. We have been assured by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in his second reading speech that this legislation has the support and, we trust, the co-operation of the States in seeing that it will be of some benefit to Australians in the future. The Opposition's foreign affairs policy on international treaties and conventions has been quite explicit. We have stated that, in government, we will not use the external affairs power to expand the role of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States. We believe that the States should be fully involved in the negotiation and ratification of all treaties which concern them. We believe that the approval of Parliament for the ratification of all treaties except those relating to defence or the nation's security is necessary. The coalition's position in term of expansion of the external affairs power therefore is vital for the protection of State responsibility and autonomy. A case in point where this power is being threatened is the Bill of Rights before the Senate. We will continue to oppose the Government's efforts to undermine State powers using the external affairs powers. This, of course, has been one of the principal objectives of the Hawke Government in a range of areas. Whether in the case of the Franklin Dam issue or other areas of administration, this legislation is based on the use of the external affairs power. The responsibility for cultural protection, however, will be left to each State within the context of a general Commonwealth plan. On the advice of the Minister, I understand that the States will be supporting this legislation. As I noted earlier the three-part UNESCO convention for cultural protection is the basic document upon which the legislation has been formulated. It covers only part of the UNESCO cultural conventions, which also include the 1954 protection of cultural property in times of war, the 1958 exchange of government documents, and the protection of cultural property against illicit trafficking, and I will make reference to some particular cases tonight. Wartime pillaging is of such concern that more than 70 countries, including Australia, linked with UNESCO are acting to prevent the looting, destruction and ultimately the illegal export of national heritage, especially from Third World countries, which at times of social or military upheaval are not capable of defending their cultural treasures. That the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes increases the knowledge of civilisation of man, enriches the cultural life of all peoples, and inspires mutual respect and appreciation should be self-evident. It is so much part of the past, the present, as well as the future of mankind and of all nations that we should be able to use our cultural property as a means of developing a national consciousness, and also through study of that property be able to reach even higher standards of cultural achievement than in the past. Cultural property constitutes one of the basic elements of civilisation and national culture. Its true value can be appreciated only in relation to the fullest possible information regarding its origin, history and traditional setting and usage. it is incumbent upon every state to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation and illicit export. Clandestine excavation is particularly relevant in Australia because we have some of the earliest known activities of humanity. The early Aborigines came to this land at least 14,000 years ago, which makes ancient history in a European sense of relatively recent origin. We should be dutifully proud of our historical legacy and do what we can to protect at all times. To avert these dangers it is essential that every state become increasingly alive to the moral obligations it has to protect its own cultural heritage as well as co-operate in the protection of the cultural heritage of other nations. Therefore, institutions, museums, libraries and archives should ensure that their collections are built up in accordance with universally recognised principles and that appropriate standards for the protection of that heritage are maintained. For that reason the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is an obstacle to the understanding between nations. It is part of UNESCO's mission to promote a better relationship between nations and of course the protection of their appropriate property and traditions. For that reason this convention was initially put forward by UNESCO and was supported by a substantial number of states. It can be effective only if accepted both nationally and internationally among states which are prepared to work in close co-operation. The legislation will establish a control list specifying certain categories of material which will require a permit to leave the country. The protected material will include objects of great importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art and science. Certain rare and valuable objects will not be allowed to leave Australia, but this will apply only to objects of the greatest cultural significance. This includes documents relating to exploration and settlement, exceptionally fine early paintings or craft work, rare stamps, coins or items of technology, early examples of Australian film making and Aboriginal sacred objects. Though much of this material is already prohibited from export under the Customs Act, this legislation will extend these arrangements where necessary to bring Australia into line with other countries. I trust that the confusion that was created some time ago over the original Batman documents which gave title to Melbourne will be solved in that context. I understand these documents were sent overseas for sale; the appropriate sale price was not achieved. The documents were then brought back to Australia, and I understand that the Customs authorities are currently holding those Batman documents. The establishment of treaty obligations between Australia and other countries for the return of illegally exported cultural property and objects will enable the Government to seek the return of objects if illegally removed from Australia, and to take action if a foreign government complains that an object forming part of its declared cultural heritage has been exported illegally and brought into this country. Such action will not be retroactive and will be applicable only after Australia's accession to the convention. Establishment of a National Cultural Heritage Fund which will seek contributions from the public as well as from institutions to bid for objects prohibited from export under the legislation clearly will be necessary. Such a fund will enable public galleries and institutions to acquire items of outstanding significance for exhibition to the public. On this point I must give a word of caution. While obviously it is necessary that such a fund exist, I think it would be unfortunate if it were to become accepted that it had to be funded entirely by the Commonwealth. The traditional position where States have their own collections and their own national galleries and so forth should be kept in place, and, where possible, I believe that States should be encouraged to make a contribution towards this objective. Clearly it is not just a Commonwealth responsibility to see that all Australian cultural heritage of a significant nature should be maintained at the expense of the Commonwealth. I refer now specifically to the protection of Aboriginal artefacts. The value and importance of Aboriginal art are now only just beginning to be realised internationally. Only this year cave paintings discovered in Tasmania have proven to be amongst the earliest examples of rock painting in the world, estimated to be between 14,000 and 20,000 years old. This extraordinary find is of great importance to Australian and world archaeology and its protection is a vital Australian responsibility. It may surprise the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, that I have been in caves where people before me had chiselled out of the rock handprints of early Aborigines. This is specifically so in the area of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, which is partly in my electorate. This demonstrates that there is a constant need to do what we can to protect Australian art, and particularly Australian traditional art, which of course is Aboriginal art. It is a part of our heritage, it is under constant threat, and succeeding generations will not thank us if there is evidence-unfortunately there is-that we did not take the necessary action when we could have done so to protect this vital and very rare Australian traditional art form. In the past few years there has been an increasing interest in Aboriginal art on international markets, with Aboriginal artefacts fetching record prices. This recognition is of great benefit to Aboriginal artists, who in this way gain status as well as some commercial advantage, and of course there is a benefit to Aboriginal culture as a result. It is vital, however, to protect Australia's heritage of Aboriginal artefacts from foreign exploitation and the increasingly sophisticated practice of art smuggling. There has been a growth in the underground market for Aboriginal items, including significant smuggling abroad. Aboriginal art is of immense value as it predates that of Europe by some 16,000 years and is one of the oldest continuous art traditions in the world. Art is currently providing Australian Aborigines with a growing economic base, particularly cottage industries in the outback. Art and craft activity will help to reinforce individual and community identity and, in the broader political sense, proclaim the importance of Aboriginal sacred sites, land ownership, tribal ceremonies, kinship systems and legends. It is important to protect the income of artists and their communities, who are presently losing out to intermediaries. Therefore, more efficient marketing mechanisms and protective procedures are essential for the development of this cultural asset, and ultimately the economic independence of far more of the Aboriginal population. Lack of regulation in this area has already deprived Australia of many irreplaceable artefacts of Aboriginal culture as well as the 200-odd years of European civilisation in this land-and even earlier than that on the west coast of Australia, where known European activity goes back well into the early seventeenth century. Much of that area, unfortunately, has been looted over previous years because appropriate legislation did not exist before the 1970s, either for the protection of historic wrecks, on the one hand, or for the removal of what came from those wrecks, on the other. Getting back to the earlier question of Aboriginal heritage, I cite the controversy over the Strehlow collection, Australia's most valuable Aboriginal heritage collection, which was removed from Australian soil, allegedly for `safekeeping'. The Strehlow collection has been described as the crown jewels of Australian anthropology. It includes the sacred Tjurunga stones of the Aranda communities, which were entrusted in the 1930s to Professor Ted Strehlow. The collection fell victim to political wrangling over the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984. The owners of the collection became concerned about the political ramifications of the Act which threatened their rights to the collection and it was removed from Australia. It is an appalling situation for objects of great cultural value to be removed from their country of origin as a result of confusion over ownership, often created, as it was in this case, by this Government's earlier legislation. I note that this legislation will be subject to review by the House later this year. The protection of cultural heritage legislation, which protects all cultural property under Commonwealth law, will prevent further tragic losses, as disputes over ownership of property will have to be settled within the Australian legal system, rather than being the subject to wrangling over international law in markets overseas. The legislation will also give the Government some recourse over the movement and sale of vital cultural property which is of significance to Australia's heritage. This internationally recognised Convention will also prevent incidents such as the embarrassing debacle over the sale of Aboriginal artefacts by Sotheby's Australia in July last year. The Government withdrew some 76 artefacts from sale, regardless of their evaluated significance. This caused undoubted frustration and embarrassment to the international art auctioning house, and, of course, to the owners. If legislation had been in place last year, all artefacts would have been adequately screened and passed, or for that matter not passed, before they were offered for sale. Regulation in such an area, therefore, is necessary to offer security of valuation and, ultimately, security of ownership to prospective buyers. A further instance of valuable material that has been lost overseas is that of the little known collection of Aboriginal artefacts held by the Vatican. The artefacts were collected by missionaries early in the history of European settlement and sent to Rome as personal memorabilia or `objects of interest'. The new Museum of Australia is seeking the repatriation of this collection and other collections similar to it. As the current legislation is not retroactive, the return of these collections for the establishment of the long-awaited Museum of Australia will be based on negotiation with the governments concerned and, hopefully, in this case, on the goodwill of the Vatican. The legislation, however, will act in future to prevent losses and enable greater control of the export of Australian artefacts. I stress here that a vital part of Australia's responsibility to protect its heritage will be the establishment of the Museum of Australia in Canberra. The Museum is to reflect the development of the Australian nation in all its cultural diversity. In particular, it will create, through the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, a focus for the cultural aspirations of the Aboriginal people. The need for preservation and conservation is well established in Australia, yet the preservation of historic artefacts receives only a fraction of the attention devoted to the conservation of sites, buildings and monuments. The Museum of Australia will provide the central focus for the development of scholarship, research, documentation and the conservation of material as well as the exhibition and communication of the Australian heritage. In the whole country, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two schools where work is in progress to train appropriate students in the protection of Australian historical material. This is a matter of the gravest concern because the best collections in the world will last only as long as one has the physical conditions in which they can be adequately maintained, on the one hand, and the appropriate people with the necessary training on the other. Merely putting the collections in a building is often the best way of guaranteeing the ultimate destruction of the very historic material we are trying to protect. The Australian War Memorial has demonstrated quite conclusively that having a valuable collection is worthless if one is not prepared to spend sufficient resources to see that it is adequately protected. We are all well aware that in recent years there has been somewhat of a boom in Australian art. It is probably fair to say that Australian art is currently enjoying its greatest popularity since the Heidelberg school late in the last century. Rare Australian books are fetching prices almost as high as paintings by Australian artists. We have seen the growing interest of Australian corporations and business leaders in collecting art. As its value gains recognition on international markets clearly there will be more demand for it and more incentive for those who wish to break the law to see whether they cannot emulate their foreign cousins and remove works of art from Australian collections, in the same way as they are removed from collections in places such as Venice-works which have found their way to ready purchasers in various parts of the world. The presence of this illegal element in the art market has made action by UNESCO necessary and, consequently, has resulted in Australia, along with many other nations, being prepared to support the Convention and-as both sides of the House have done-the need for legislation of this type. It is fair to say that 1985 was a landmark year for Australian art values. There were record sale prices for the two Streeton paintings, the sale of the first edition volume of John Gould's eight volume series on the Australian bird in Melbourne and the sale of a small wooden panel painting by Roberts for $500,000. As Australian art fetches higher and higher prices, it, too, will become the target of the sophisticated art smuggling organisations that have depleted many collections around the world, especially in western Europe and, in recent years, in South East Asia. The importance, therefore, of a co-ordinated effort to raise funding for the purchase, for public benefit, of valuable Australian artefacts was demonstrated last year when the National Gallery of Australia was not in a position to bid for Streeton's famous Golden Summer, which subsequently went into a private collection. The fact is that that painting, along with many others, is still in Australia. We have access, through the National Gallery's undoubted negotiating capacity, to see that these collections are made available fairly regularly for public exhibition and for touring, not only within Australia but also overseas. They represent an integral part of Australia's cultural heritage. Certainly, we would not wish to see the key elements of those collections, although in private hands, necessarily leave Australia for good unless there were some prospect of Australian institutions being able to bid for them in advance. That is precisely why the National Cultural Heritage Fund exists. Hopefully, it will achieve its objective in that regard. The National Library of Australia is also a tremendous storehouse of Australian information and material of an historic nature. It was able to secure important archives of Captain Cook's correspondence, which became available from American institutions, only through access to $90,000, provided, I think, by the Commonwealth. The three items purchased included correspondence between the Earl of Sandwich and Captain James King, Sir Joseph Banks, Dr Charles Burney, Daines Barrington and John Douglas in respect to the publication of Cook's third voyage and the music of the South Sea Islanders as well as Cook's letters. Obviously this material is unique. It is not sufficient to say that we have a copy or a duplicate of this work, when there is only one original. If we can gain collections of this type for Australia, clearly our historical heritage will be so much the richer. As I mentioned earlier, there has been the problem of the Batman papers-the title deeds to Melbourne-which were private property and which were to be sold in Sotheby's. They did not reach the required price and were returned to Australia. I understand they are currently held by the Customs authorities. This is something that the Minister should look at, to see whether this long saga can be brought to a more satisfactory end. The other element of the UNESCO Convention which is relevant concerns the assisted repatriation of illegally exported artefacts. Accession to the Convention will enable Australia to obtain the help of other participating states in the event of cultural property of importance being illegally exported from Australia. Occasions of such illegal exports have occurred. For example, in 1981 a rare Spitfire Mark 8 MV 154 was taken out of the country as aluminium junk. The Government tried to pursue the repatriation of the aircraft but had no legal recourse so to do at the time. Anybody who is interested at all in aircraft will know that Spitfires are now extremely rare. For Australia to have had more than one Spitfire in its national collection certainly would have given it considerable status for negotiation with other countries for other rare aircraft. It is worth noting that back in the 1950s the War Memorial had something like 35 aircraft of First World War vintage which it got rid of by one means or another because it had no space for them. It is the loss of such elements of our heritage that we must be particularly careful about. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. until 8 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY —Before the suspension of the sitting, I was speaking on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. I noted that the Opposition will be supporting this legislation with great satisfaction. However, in my final summing I would like to make two points. The coalition welcomes this legislation to record and to regulate the movement of Australia's irreplaceable cultural heritage. However, we view with some concern the continual burgeoning of the arts portfolio, particularly in relation to costs and administrative costs at that. We warn the Minister against permitting a further proliferation in his portfolio which could take scarce funding from other arts activities of equal importance. For example, we note that while the legislation introduces a part time committee these questions have to be asked, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks: For how long will the committee be part time? What assurance can the Minister give us that efforts will be made to restrict administrative costs while, at the same time, ensuring that the legislation does not become an expensive administrative nightmare and that regulations will always be based on the assessment by qualified representatives of the arts and sciences in Australia? In other words, we do not want this legislation to become yet another bureaucratic nightmare, whether administered by the Minister's Department or by the Australian Customs Service. I am pleased to see that the Minister is in the chamber. I finalise my remarks by drawing attention, for his benefit, to the question of the deterioration in Customs surveillance because it is of particular relevance to this legislation. I frankly believe that members of this House have every reason to be concerned about what appears to be a deteriorating standard of Australian Customs generally, despite some remarks made by the Minister in response to a question he was asked in the House. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald last week that there was a 20 per cent decrease in the number of drug seizures by Customs officers at Sydney Airport since 1982. this is compounded by reports of poor surveillance, of smuggling through the port of Melbourne and of the burgeoning illegal export of Australian wildlife. The whole purpose of this legislation is to prevent the illegal export of Australian cultural heritage. The fact of the matter is that this legislation will be toothless unless we can be assured that the Customs administration is capable of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. That is something for which the Minister responsible for Customs has a responsibility to this Parliament. He should be prepared to assure us that this will be so. If the Government hopes to control adequately the illegal export and import of artefacts it will have to improve significantly its overall ability to police the current level of smuggling into and out of Australia. With these caveats the coalition welcomes the legislation before the House which will extend the protection of cultural objects so that Australia can accede to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property both in Australia and overseas. I hope that as we enter into the third century of modern Australia we will at least be able to have the legislative means better to project the historical and artistic assets of this nation. It is indeed part of our national heritage. I sincerely hope-I am sure all honourable members would-that future generations of Australians will protect and respect the legacy which we are doing our best to preserve for them. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(8.05) —Madam Speaker, as this is the first speech I have made since your election to your present position, may I at the outset of my remarks offer my sincere congratulations. Actually, while you have been in the chair I have asked two questions and made a speech in the adjournment debate but I was under time constraints in that speech so I hope that my tardiness in offering you my sincere congratulations does not detract from the warmth of my congratulations to you on your elevation. I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill which is a further indication of this Government's commitment to our heritage. I hope that it will have the unqualified support of all honourable members. In this regard I was most pleased with the approach that the Opposition has taken, as outlined by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I compliment him on a fine speech on this topic. If other speeches are of a like ilk I am sure there will be all party support for this important legislation. We are in this Parliament not only to make laws for the good government of this country but also to protect the heritage of this country. While we may disagree on many areas I think that when we talk about the heritage of Australia and what Australia means to us all, there is no dispute in this Parliament. If this Bill is passed Australia will be able to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on a Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. I make the point at this time that this is another example of the fine work of UNESCO. At times such as this when UNESCO is under attack-which is mostly ill-founded, inaccurate and ill-informed-it is instructive to reflect on some of the work it does for the betterment of humanity and also the betterment of the world not only in cultural affairs but also over a whole range of issues. Over the past three decades UNESCO has done valuable work in encouraging member countries to protect their cultural heritage by adopting a number of conventions. The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 14 November 1970. The Convention aims to prevent the illegal international movement of important cultural property and establishes a treaty base between nations for the return of illegally exported material. The Convention includes other measures for the protection of cultural property, such as a national inventory of protected cultural property, support for collecting institutions, the establishment of professional standards of conduct for curators, protection and supervision of archaeological sites, regulations for dealers in antiques and educational measures to increase public awareness of the cultural heritage. The Convention is not retroactive, that is, it is concerned to regulate future traffic in cultural property. It does not seek to address the issues of restitution of cultural property previously taken to other countries. This is exemplified by the return of the Elgin Marbles referred to by the honourable member for Bradfield. I would hope that that part of our cultural heritage, as it applies to Aboriginal artefacts, that is presently reposited in the Vatican could be taken up when His Holiness the Pope visits Australia later this year. I hope that His Holiness will agree to return these artefacts that were taken from Australia. Some 54 countries have acceded to the Convention since 1970. The Convention comes into force for any individual country three months after the deposit of the instruments of accession are lodged at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. For Australia this is likely to be mid-1987. The report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections in 1975 recommended accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the introduction of specific legislation to control the export of cultural property. Various schemes were devised to implement these recommendations but they failed to come to fruition until the decision to accede was made in 1983. In October 1983 Senator Ryan announced at the UNESCO Conference in Paris Australia's intention to become a party to four of the cultural conventions. The then Attorney-General advised that legislation would be needed to enable Australia to become a party to the 1970 Convention. Australian has now become a party to three of the conventions. These moves have been made in co-operation with the States through the cultural Ministers councils. Consultations on 1970 Convention were conducted by Dr Jean Battersby over the following 12 months with State and Territory officials, directors of collecting institutions, universities, Aboriginals communities, antique dealers and others. The Commonwealth approach to the legislation takes into account the views expressed by State and Territory officials and other parties involved in consultations. Many of the measures for protection of heritage material included in the Convention are already covered by existing State and Territory laws and administrative arrangements, such as supervision of archaeological; sites, regulation of antique dealers and support for collecting institutions. The Commonwealth legislation leaves in place what the States and Territories are doing, but builds upon it with certain steps which can only be taken at the Commonwealth level. The key elements of the Commonwealth legislation are: New import and export controls over illegal traffic in cultural property; a national cultural heritage control list to enable the public and expert examiners to identify important cultural material; supporting administrative arrangements, including a register of expert examiners and a National Cultural Heritage Committee to help implement the scheme; and a national cultural heritage fund to assist public collecting institutions to acquire important cultural objects which are prohibited from export. I will not speak on the Aboriginal heritage, as I see from the list of speakers that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will follow later in this debate. When speaking on the cultural heritage, it means not only objects of fine art. The cultural heritage embraces the social, political, economic and technical development of Australian society, as well as the recreational aspect of the culture. Given the nature of Australia's historical development, rural aspects of the heritage have a unique importance for the history of exploration, mining, pastoral and general agricultural development. Australian pioneers led the way in the application of mechanisation to farming and the development of means of coping with the unique problems of the Australian environment. Objects such as the McKay stripper harvester, the stump-jump plough, the John Ridley header harvester and plough, the Furphy water cart and the Dethridge water wheel from part of the Australian heritage. Fine examples of such farm machinery have already disappeared overseas or remain rusting away in a back paddock somewhere. The national cultural heritage control list will cover this part of our cultural heritage and so seek to preserve the finest examples of such objects which illustrate the development of Australian society from the humble handle-held shears to the latest turbine-principle windmill. I have mentioned various mechanical objects, but other objects, such as coins and stamps, will be protected. Never again will a stamp such as the rare Western Australian Blue be taken from Australia and sold for some $30,000 in London but lost to Australia forever. Or perhaps, no longer will one have to visit a museum such as the Dublin Museum to see one of the famous inverted swan stamps from Western Australia, which is now in the Dublin Museum but rightly, of course, should be here in Australia. I welcome this legislation for many reasons, but a particular one is my interest in industrial archaeology. Because of Australia's early isolation and, indeed, the inventiveness of Australians in our early mining, farming, transport and timber industries, many unique Australian inventions were created. Often history has passed these inventions by. Perhaps modern technology has overtaken them or replaced them, but they are and always will be a part of the Australian heritage. I personally believe that public interest in Australia has moved slowly from an awareness solely of the beauty and significance of the fine houses and gardens listed by the National Trust in its early days to an equal awareness of the importance of industrial buildings, machinery and, indeed, the transport systems. I am also pleased that this awareness is being fostered not only in adults through societies such as the Industrial Archaeology Society-and I happen to be the secretary of the Illawarra Industrial Archaeology Society-but also through young people in schools. One school in the Illawarra involved in this work is Warrawong High School, where the enthusiasm of the principal, Ken McCarthy, and members of the industrial arts section have taken Year 11 and 12 students in a participation and equity program project and restored an 1894 cable tram. This tram arrived at the school almost two years ago in a totally decayed condition and, over a two-year period, was restored. It was a fine team effort. Nearby, I have also in my electorate Warilla High School and that school, in co-operation with Warrawong High School, has restored an early horse-drawn dray. Part of the course at both of these schools is an appreciation of Australian heritage. It is important in this area, the area that I represent, because at Warrawong High and Warilla High, 84 per cent of students come from a non-English speaking background, although many of them were born in Australia. They are taking part in a school project and restoring this part of our early industrial heritage. I think that it is really tremendous work that they are doing in these schools. We sometimes have criticism of some of these schemes, but as late as today I was speaking to the principal of one of these schools and he was assuring me that most of the students who have been involved in these projects have gone on to get jobs. So not only are they learning about and preserving our heritage for all Australians, but they are also equipping themselves for the job market. At this stage I pay special tribute to a group in my electorate running the Illawarra Light Railway Museum at Albion Park, which I hope the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, will be able to visit later this month. Here, over the years, a group of dedicated enthusiasts has worked hundreds of hours. Each weekend I see them there. It is just down from my office and, going to my office, as I do of a weekend, I go past them working at the Albion Park Light Railway Museum. Mr Cohen —You should slip down and give them a hand. Mr HOLLIS —I do sometimes; but I have managed to get them a couple of very generous community employment program grants, I might say, of which they were very appreciative. There they work of a weekend preserving our heritage. At Albion Park they are concentrating on aspects of our heritage that have often been ignored in the past, such as restoring coal skips, cableways from coal mines, locomotives and trucks used in the early timber getting. They are also dealing with aspects of the brick industry and aspects of early quarrying. Many of us in the Illawarra hope to see an industrial museum established in Port Kembla in the not too distant future so that even more of our early industrial heritage can be preserved. In many respects the Illawarra is the cradle of the Australian industrial scene. Of course, some will argue that when objects come into our possession we should have the right to dispose of these items as we wish. But I firmly believe that items which are part of our heritage should remain in Australia. It is important that these parts of our heritage which have meant so much to the development of Australia do not disappear overseas and are not lost to Australia forever. People who wish to obtain the monetary value of these goods can do so through the establishment of the fund. The establishment of this fund is an important part of the working of this legislation. As I said at the outset, I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for this legislation. I have been trying to think of any objection that anyone could have to this legislation, and I could think of only one. Someone or some family may be in possession of, say, an early diary that is something of a family heirloom that had been handed down and may not want to dispose of it. The family might not want to sell it to the fund but give it to someone overseas. If it were deemed an important part of the Australian heritage and listed as such, this family would be prevented from doing that. I suppose one could argue that this would be an infringement of the right of the individual, but sometimes we have to question the right of the individual and ask: Is the right of the individual more important than the right of the country to hold on to this important part of our heritage? That is the only objection anyone could possibly have. I admit that that is an area in which there could be some controversy, but I imagine that that would happen only very rarely. I welcome the speech the Opposition shadow Minister has made on this topic. I hope that the Bill will go through. I know that speakers following me will cover other aspects of our heritage. In the brief time available to me I have tried to concentrate on an area that is of particular interest to me and, of course, of particular interest to my electorate; that is, the early industrial heritage of this country. It is an aspect in which I have been involved for many years and in which I hope to continue to be involved. I welcome this legislation. I think it is overdue and I commend it to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.21) —Madam Speaker, firstly, I extend my congratulations to you, this being the first occasion on which I have spoken since you have been in the chair. Having served with you as Deputy Chairman of Committees while you were Chairman of Committees, I am delighted to have had the opportunity of working with you. Knowing your dedication and interest, I have no doubt that you will acquit yourself well in this very important position you hold in the Parliament. The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill has the support of the Opposition. There has been a great deal of interest over a period in legislation of this sort, particularly amongst those who have been concerned to ensure that a great deal of our Aboriginal culture and heritage is not lost, especially at this time when there has been a very significantly increased interest in Aboriginal heritage, Aboriginal cultural items and Aboriginal art throughout the world. The purpose of this Bill is to provide protection for Australia's heritage-that is, movable cultural objects-by introducing export controls, and to extend protection to the coverage of cultural heritage of other countries through import controls. As has been mentioned, this Bill will put in place in Australian law a 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. The legislation will replace existing provisions in our Customs Act of 1901 concerning the import and export of certain cultural items with a more comprehensive and readily accessible scheme. I guess that is the way one describes a law which has been largely heeded in the abuse, in a sense, by people who have been desirous of ensuring that certain valuable items are in fact removed from Australia, even though previously the law has been that such items could not be removed. I will come to that when I discuss some of our historic aircraft because, as I understand it, the Customs Act did prohibit the export of certain aircraft from Australia, and yet the scheme of legislation that operated previously did not stop that event from occurring. Under this Bill the export of certain Australian protected objects is to be prohibited unless an appropriate permit or certificate has been issued by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. A national control list of property will be developed which will identify categories of objects which might be prohibited from export and which will require export authorisation. The Minister will also have established under him an expert committee, staffed by appropriately qualified people, who will offer advice. Of course, the overriding criterion which will determine whether a permit will be granted will be that the loss of the object would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia. That expert committee will advise on that matter. The scheme of the legislation also provides that if people endeavour to export an Australian protected object without a permit, that object will be liable to forfeiture, and that ought to be a significant penalty in relation to those people who seek to remove valuable items from Australia. The scheme of the legislation also provides, I suppose on a reciprocal basis, that imported objects forming part of the cultural heritage of another country and recognised under the law of that other country could be the subject of a request for return by that other country if it knows that the object is coming to Australia, although, as I understand it, the law of seizure would not normally operate unless the other country had specifically made a request. The Bill also establishes a fund designed to facilitate the acquisition of objects prohibited from export under the legislation and to provide an alternative market for items which people might smuggle out of Australia for the purposes of sale by ensuring that there are people with sufficient funds to be able to buy them here in Australia. There are a number of matters I think need to be looked at in relation to this legislation. The first point I make in the discussion of the Bill is the extent to which it is important to have legislation in this area and to have legislation that is likely to be effective. I mentioned previously the problem of the export from Australia of valuable aircraft over a period. I note that in the Canberra Times of 25 March 1984 there was reference to the sorts of events that had occurred when the owner of the largest collection of vintage aircraft in flying condition was involved in endeavouring to enhance his collection. He opened a museum in 1972 in an attempt to keep a portion of Australia's aviation history in this country. It opened with five aircraft and expanded rapidly with the injection of money from Mr Drage's own business. The news report from which I am quoting in relation to that matter mentions that a D17 Beech Staggerwing Bi-plane built in the 1930s was the collection's rarest item. It was owned at one time by Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, it had a 450 horsepower engine, and it cruised at 339 kilometres per hour. The article also says that by 1982, when the export of vintage aircraft was finally embargoed, it was estimated that 69 aircraft had flown the country. A number of Spitfires caught in their crates on the dock are still being held by Customs officials. In a auction in London recently a similar aircraft sold for the equivalent of about $265,000. I think that gives honourable members indication of the nature of the market for aircraft that could be smuggled out of this country, put on the international market and sold overseas, and the difficulties faced by anybody who wants to establish his own private museum in Australia of keeping these important items in this country. I simply note that one of my colleagues, Senator David MacGibbon, has spoken out frequently on the need for Australia to have a national aviation collection. He noted in some comments he made in 1981 on the AM program that Australia was the only country in the world at a similar stage of development that did not have a national collection. He observed that if one considered the importance of aviation to Australia and the contribution made to the whole system of transportation by pioneering airmen like Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith and Bert Hinkler and the way in which we have developed operations, it is very disappointing that we have no national museum. The point has also been made that because of the absence of any museum or national collection of that sort, the prospect of Australia being able to retain its own very valuable aircraft here is significantly diminished. The cost of aircraft is very significant. Under the Customs legislation there were efforts to bring to trial people who had been involved in smuggling historic aircraft out of Australia. In March 1981 charges were listed for September following investigation by the Customs division of the then Department of Business and Consumer Affairs of the disappearance of a Spitfire Mark VIII and a Messerschmitt BF109G. The planes were allegedly dismantled and exported illegally in a shipping container. As I understand it, suggestions were made that it was largely aluminium pieces that were recorded on the manifest as being sent overseas when, in fact, it was in one case a very valuable aircraft. It was found only by the action of Customs officials, but long after other valu- able aircraft had already left the country. Legislation in itself will not necessarily stop valuable items from being smuggled out of the country-people will use their initiative to do that. In the Aboriginal affairs area, because of the value of items involved, we might also see people being prepared, notwithstanding legislation, to smuggle items out of the country if they believe that there is a market for them abroad and an inadequate market in Australia. As early as 1980 I noticed an item in the National Times which referred to some important Aboriginal work by renowned Aboriginal artists and the value being given at that time to some of their paintings. An article in the National Times of 9 November 1980 said that the ownership of eight bark paintings sitting in a Sydney private gallery was likely to become very important. The paintings were those of Yirwala, the Aborigines' most respected traditional painter, who died in 1976. The article said that even though the paintings had been purchased by Yirwala and that he fully intended to sell them to anybody who would pay his price, prices of between $2,000 and $3,000 were being placed on them. It said that like 90 per cent of all Aboriginal art those paintings would probably be bought by foreign collectors. A great deal of controversy arose between those who saw a market abroad in those items and the importance of selling them abroad, and those who were concerned that some of the paintings, particularly those of a deceased painter, might be more appropriately kept in Australia, The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) mentioned in his discussion on this legislation the numbers of cases that had arisen over Aboriginal cultural items. I noticed that certain proceedings were brought in Victoria in 1982 in relation to the sale in tourist shops of sacred Aboriginal relics. In that case State legislation was used, the Archaeological and Aboriginal Artefacts Act 1972, which forbids the sale of portable relics without the prior approval of the Minister for Conservation. That indicates the nature of the types of legislation that the States have in place which operate in some instances to protect certain items but might not extend to others that do not come within the peculiar ambit of the State legislation. The honourable member for Bradfield mentioned the auction sale of certain Aboriginal art items by Sotheby's Australia Pty Ltd. Artefacts worth $150,000 were on sale, representing only of the order of 15 to 20 per cent of the collection being offered for sale. That gives some indication of the enormous amount of money involved in these items. I mention that matter because I intend to come to the matter of funds available to implement this legislation. It will be important to keep in mind the price of the items being mentioned. The honourable member for Bradfield also mentioned other issues relating to Aboriginal art, the appeal to the Vatican for the return of certain Aboriginal art and the approaches being made to governments of other countries to return to Australia items of particular importance to Aborigines in this country. There were approaches to the French Government to retrieve the skulls of Aboriginals that had been sent overseas in earlier years. Similar approaches had been made to the Irish Government which, I understand, agreed to return a Tasmanian man's skull that had been preserved in whisky following disinterment after burial in 1848 and sent to the Museum of Ireland in Dublin. These important items are not obtained without very significant cost. It is acknowledged that overseas there is an awareness of the value of Aboriginal art and its collection. Controversy has also arisen over time about the Strehlow collection. The honourable member for Bradfield gave an excellent summary of the controversy over that collection and the way that at long last it appears to have been resolved to some satisfaction. The other matter in relation to the export of rare objects from Australia was a report I read about the export of a rare opal fossil collection. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 November 1984 that a collection of fossilised opals of priceless antiquity was likely to be split up and sent to Japan unless a benefactor could be found to purchase that collection in Australia. The items that had been put together by the Galman family in Lightning Ridge were conservatively valued at the order of $80,000. They were highly regarded by Dr Alex Ritchie, the curator of fossils at the Australian Museum in Sydney, and were commented on favourably by other curators aware of the private collection. In this case, the owner had found that there had been a downturn in the economy in relation to visits by tourists to Lightning Ridge and the possiblity of being able to retain the collection together in that centre was therefore diminished. The cost of retaining those items in Australia was likely to be significant. I mentioned those matters because it is important that in the context of this legislation we understand the need that has to be addressed. The first matter I wish to address concerns the countries that have signed this covenant. I have already spoken to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table listing the countries that have signed the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the date of the instrument that each has signed. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. 14 November 1970. State Date of deposit of instrument Ecuador... 24 March 1971 Bulgaria... 15 September 1971 Nigeria... 24 January 1972 Central African Republic... 1 February 1972 United Republic of Cameroon... 24 May 1972 Kuwait... 22 June 1972 Democratic Kampuchea... 26 September 1972 Yugoslavia... 3 October 1972 Mexico... 4 October 1972 Niger... 16 October 1972 Libyan Arab Republic... 9 January 1973 Argentina... 11 January 1973 Iraq... 12 February 1973 Brazil... 16 February 1973 Dominican Republic... 7 March 1973 Egypt... 5 April 1973 Panama... 13 August 1973 German Democratic Republic... 16 January 1974 Poland... 31 January 1974 Jordan... 15 March 1974 Algeria... 24 June 1974 Zaire... 23 September 1974 Iran... 27 January 1975 Syrian Arab Republic... 21 February 1975 Tunisia... 10 March 1975 Nepal... 23 June 1976 Saudi Arabia... 8 September 1976 Bolivia... 4 October 1976 India... 24 January 1977 Czechoslovakia... 14 February 1977 Nicaragua... 19 April 1977 Qatar... 20 April 1977 Mauritania... 27 April 1977 United Republic of Tanzania... 2 August 1977 Uruguay... 9 August 1977 El Salvador... 20 February 1978 Mauritius... 27 February 1978 Canada... 28 March 1978 Oman... 2 June 1978 Italy... 2 October 1978 Hungary... 23 October 1978 Guinea... 18 March 1979 Honduras... 19 March 1979 Cyprus... 19 October 1979 Peru... 24 October 1979 Cuba... 30 January 1980 Sri Lanka... 7 April 1981 Turkey... 21 April 1981 Pakistan... 30 April 1981 Greece... 5 June 1981 Republic of Korea... 4 February 1981 Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea... 13 May 1983 United States of America... 2 September 1983 Zambia... 21 June 1985 Mr RUDDOCK —That table shows that very few developed countries have signed the treaty. The United States of America and Italy have but generally countries such as Great Britain and most European countries have not signed it. If we hope that this legislation will work on the basis of reciprocity, and having regard to the places where many Australian items have been found in the past, it is doubtful whether we will obtain the same benefits from this legislation that we might give other countries concerned about losing their items of cultural heritage to Australia. I certainly hope that the Minister will use his best endeavours to ensure that other countries are prepared to accede to this treaty and that we will be part of a genuinely reciprocal arrangement which will operate effectively throughout the world and not be limited largely to Third World nations. There is a need for that to occur. The second matter is that of cost. The explanatory memorandum details funding for this body. It says that the legislation would be implemented at a cost estimate of about $50,000. The estimated costs for 1986-87 are $200,000 for staffing, administration and publicity. The amount to be provided for the national cultural heritage fund will be a matter for government in a budget context. As I pointed out about this legislation, unless there is a significant fund approaching many millions of dollars, the prospect of being able to acquire any of these rare items and the prospect of this legislation being able to operate in the way in which it is intended to operate-that is, to provide an alternative market-are very remote indeed. I appreciate that there is significant Budget stringency on the Government but it would be a charade if this legislation were to be put through with the support of both sides of the Parliament but without a commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that the legislation will be able to operate. I make the point by referring to an article in the National Times of 17 November which honourable members may care to look at. There were comments by Robert Bleakley and Robert Ipps who are dealers in Aboriginal art. They made the point that strict legislation which people would simply seek to circumvent without the alternative prospect of funds being available for the purchase of items would, quite frankly, be inoperative and certainly would not work effectively in accordance with the scheme proposed. Warwick Dix of the the Institute of Aboriginal Studies made much the same point when he said: `the issue is a profound problem with laws varying considerably from State to State. We have been trying for many years to introduce Federal legislation'- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.42) —We hear a lot about heritage in this House over the days, weeks and years. There is often conflict between the two sides of the house on how we view heritage. Our side of the House is very concerned, and rightly so, about environmental aspects of our heritage whereas those on the other side tend to get more exited about issues such as the flag. The debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill has been a great opportunity for cross-party support. It is very pleasing to see that support. It is a shame that the proceedings are not being broadcast so that the people who often hear conflict in the Parliament could tonight have the opportunity to hear a debate on a piece of legislation on which both sides are in basic agreement. This legislation is the continuation of the Government's program of protection of our total heritage. It ensures that our cultural heritage will be effectively protected from exploitation, whether that exploitation comes from Australians who seek to sell their heritage overseas for profit or from overseas profiteers and carpetbaggers seeking a cultural or heritage prize from our rich treasures. We have much legislation that protects our immovable cultural heritage, whether it be our buildings or our environment. Such heritage can be just as sadly neglected and destroyed as our movable cultural heritage can be lost. This legislation will go a long way towards protecting our movable cultural heritage. On an occasion such as this, it is interesting to look at what the Hawke Labor Government has done in terms of heritage and protection. It has instituted and expanded a wide range of cultural heritage programs. I will list a few. They include the Museum of Australia, the National Maritime Museum, the National Film and Sound Archive, and significant redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial. As the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) pointed out in his speech, the role of the community employment program is important. An amount of $8m from this program has been put into our heritage. It has given many people involved in the program a better understanding of our heritage and has provided for us all better preservation and development of it. I will give a few examples that are probably not classified as movable cultural heritage but, nonetheless, are very important parts of our heritage today. I refer to the oral record of unemployment and the project concerning women in the film industry. This legislation covers not only objects of art, whether they be European, Asian, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, but also a wide range of recreational, social, political, economic, ethnic, archaeological, literary, scientific and technical developments. The legislation seeks to preserve the finest examples of such items which will illustrate our history, whether they be examples of the setbacks or of the progress and development in our history. Both of those are important when we come to understand ourselves and our society. Clause 7 of the Bill lists the categories of objects covered. They include objects that are recovered from our waters and from the soil and the seabed of those waters. They include objects relating to members of the Aboriginal race and descendants of the Torres Strait Islanders. They include objects of ethnic art or ethnography, military objects, objects of decorative art, objects of fine art, objects of scientific or technical interest and, importantly, books and sound and film objects. These are very important in our age of communication when such objects can travel very quickly and be lost forever just as quickly. Other speakers have mentioned other more specific items. This legislation brings us one step closer to our accession to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which was adopted by the general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 14 November 1970. As has been mentioned, the Convention aims to prevent the illegal international movement of important cultural property and establishes a treaty base between nations for the return of illegally exported material. It is important to note also that the Convention is not retrospective or retroactive. It is really concerned with future traffic in cultural property and does not really address the issue of restitution of cultural property which has already been taken to other countries. If it included the latter, Great Britain and countries of Europe would probably float a few metres higher in the water if they had to return a lot of the property taken by them from other countries. Mr Hollis —And the Vatican. Mr STAPLES —I also include the Vatican, which is part of Europe. I intended at this stage to seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard but the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has already done that. It is important to note in this debate that this is a good example of a complementary and bipartisan approach to this legislation. We are in agreement on both sides of the House on this issue and members of the public and of the Parliament in the speech of the honourable member for Dundas, can read basically what I intended to list in my speech. However, I will mention a few countries that have already acceded to the Convention, and did so at a very early stage-in fact, by the beginning of 1974. Those countries include Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Kampuchea, Ecuador, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Libya and Yugoslavia. Most of these countries are Middle Eastern, African or South American countries. They all have one thing in common. They have been pillaged over the centuries by people from other countries taking their movable cultural heritage. They have been pillaged by the Conquistadors and their descendants, by the slave traders, by traders in other goods, by missionaries and so on. The great imperial powers of the world moved around the world in their ships and by land transport. The great imperial powers-Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union-have all made plenty of money and profit out of the cultural heritage of those countries I mentioned before and which so eagerly acceded to this Convention. Of those listed, only the United States and the German Democratic Republic have ratified or acceded to the Convention so far. That is a shame because really the countries which have most to answer for are the ones that have not acceded to the Convention. I hope that it does not signify that they do not respect the wishes and the cultures of those countries from which in years gone by they profited so greatly. Those powerful countries built their empires and their wealthy in days gone by by exploiting those other countries. Not only did they impose their cultures upon those other countries and dilute their indigenous cultures but also they stripped many of those colonies and countries of their own heritage. Thankfully the days of bullion and treasure ships have gone. I refer at this stage to the British Empire because it is with Britain and its empire that we have our strongest historical links. We recall that, along with India and Africa, our early heritage and development actually financed the growth of the British Empire, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is important also to note that Britain has legislation which protects the export of its own heritage, yet it seems prepared to continue to accumulate the culture of others. In 1975 the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry into Museums and National Collections recommended that Australia accede to the 1970 UNESCO Convention but since that time very little has been done to make such accession hard and fast. We had a lot of good intentions over those years but unfortunately good intentions have not prevented the loss of some important cultural heritage objects to foreign public institutions or private collectors. This legislative protection of movable cultural heritage being introduced by the Government will certainly put an end to much of that loss. The Government seeks in this legislation not only to introduce a prohibitive situation, to stop objects being exported, but also it positively supports those people in Australia who wish to develop and give wider access to our heritage. The Commonwealth's approach to the legislation takes into account the legislation of all the other States and Territories in Australia and the Convention is very important in this regard. The key elements of the legislation that we are looking at are the new import and export controls over the illegal traffic in cultural property and the establishment of a national cultural heritage control list which will enable the public and expert examiners to identify those significant cultural objects that would qualify for the list. The list will be developed into a register by expert examiners and a National Cultural Heritage Commission will implement the scheme. Importantly, a national cultural heritage fund will be set up to assist public collecting institutions to acquire important cultural objects the export of which is prohibited by this legislation. Another purpose of that fund will be to help owners of those objects gain a fair market price for them in the Australian market. This legislation does not unduly interfere with the rights of individuals. Material can still be sold in Australia either in the public market or to private individuals. It certainly highlights the responsibilities of us all in the daily use of our heritage as well as giving people the opportunity for financial gain from that heritage, which in most cases they would be entitled to have, seeing that they purchased the material in the first place. This legislation really creates a balance between the individual's rights and the nation's interests. It gives to the owner of an object for which an export permit has been refused the opportunity to seek a review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There should be no cause for concern by those holding objects on the register that they will be unfairly treated. Enough safeguards will be built in and in the public eye to ensure that they are treated fairly. Another important aspect of this legislation is that by acceding to this Convention not only would we be able to seek the return of illegal exports from co-signatories to the Convention but also we would be able to assist in the return of illegal exports to signatory countries. That is important because heritage, whether it be a national heritage such as we are talking about or any other kind of heritage, is as valuable to us as the heritage of other countries is to them. In a world that often scrambles in a greedy fashion for what it can get from different people in different countries, this form of co-operative cultural protection is a relief. I refer now to a couple of examples that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), pointed out in his speech. His comments emphasise the significance of what I am pointing out, because he did speak directly as the shadow Minister. These issues affect both my constituents and me directly, as they affect the direct heritage of my electorate of Jagajaga. The City of Heidelberg gave its name to the deservedly famous Heidelberg school of painting. It was named after the Heidelberg area because that is where most of the action took place. I am happy to see this legislation come into force because it will mean that the material developed through the school, the very famous Australian art that almost everybody recognises both in Australia-- Mr Hollis —And loves. Mr STAPLES —And loves, as the honourable member for Throsby points out; I know that he is a great art lover-- Mr Lamb —And Streeton. Mr STAPLES —There we go; the electorate of the honourable member for Streeton is named after one of the major painters in the Heidelberg school. I know how strongly he feels about this. This is very important because this legislation allows for most of the major works of art from the Heidelberg school to be retained and be looked after in Australia where they belong. The honourable member for Bradfield referred also to the Batman Deed. Before the redistribution most of my electorate was actually in the seat of Batman, which obviously is named after John Batman. Today the seat of Jagajaga adjoins Batman; as they were linked in history 150 years ago they continue to be linked in history today. The Batman Deed actually signifies the beginning of European history in the State of Victoria. This deed was signed in the Heidelberg-Bundoora area of my electorate, as history records. So it is important to me and the people in my electorate. A facsimile of the deed hangs proudly in my office. It might interest members of the House to know that the first three signatories on that deed were actually three of the tribal chiefs of the Dautla Galla tribe, or the Jika Jika sub-clan, and those tribal elders were named Jagajaga. That, in itself, is very important to me. Only two seats in the Australian Parliament are actually named after Aborigines-the seat of Bennelong and the seat of Jagajaga. Mr Cohen —What about Berowra? Mr STAPLES —These-Jagajaga and Bennelong-are named after Aboriginal individuals. I am proud to speak in support of this legislation because of the direct impact it has on my electorate. I am proud and concerned, as are my constituents, that this heritage is protected. It is not often that honourable members can come into the House and say that they have virtually the unanimous support of their electorate-though many might claim it at times-but this legislation, relating to the heritage of my area and the heritage of the people of Victoria and of Australia has the support of us all. Our heritage is more important than many of us realise at times. It is important as far as our recent European history is concerned but also it is important to the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who have a long claim to some of these matters and see great value in their heritage. From them we can learn quite a lot about the way we look after our heritage. Heritage does not mean that we accept and preserve all that is old and dusty in its entirety. At times old and conservative values can be counter-cultural and may inhibit the true spirit of the development of our own culture. The Australian Bicentenary will focus a lot of attention on our culture, and quite rightly so. We should be encouraging our young people to participate actively in the Bicentenary as we should be encouraging all people because the Bicentenary will certainly contribute very much to the understanding of our heritage, not only as a celebration of the past but also as a contribution to our present and future development. As I have said, this legislation is welcomed by the vast majority of people. That is clearly exemplified by the views that have been expressed by honourable members on both sides of this House. There is one thing we can learn from history. If we looked back to ancient times when armies marched backwards and forwards across the world and empires rose and fell we would see that the only people who can protect the heritage of a nation and the heritage of the people are those people themselves. I believe that it is our job to do so in a country that has a limited European history such as ours. We are the only people who can protect Australia's heritage, whether it be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or European. I believe that this legislation is a major tool in achieving this. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(9.01) —When I first heard about this measure some time back my instinct was to oppose it. It seemed, and indeed it is, a restriction on a market-the art market. It also derives from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, which in my view is a largely, if not completely, discredited and politicised body from which we should be thinking about withdrawing as Britain and the United States of America have already done. However, on examining the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill after the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) introduced it, I have to admit that it is not as I feared it would be and I support it. Basically, it codifies and strengthens existing practices. It has the support of the States, the museums and galleries. Internationally, it has the support of most archaeologically or artistically rich countries such as Italy, Greece, India and Mexico. Even the United States, which has left UNESCO, supported it and this was done by the Reagan Administration. So there is a fairly respectable band-wagon of support, the reasons for which become clear when one examines the details of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to adopt the UNESCO Convention for Cultural Property. Let me ask my first question of the Minister. Earlier Bills adopting international covenants, such as the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, or the Sex Discrimination Bill a couple years ago, contained in a Schedule the covenants on which they were based. For some reason this Bill does not do that. One has to go to some pains to get an actual copy of the international agreement. I wonder why it is not included in the Bill. I am not putting that forward as a radical criticism but I simply ask it as a question of the Minister. I would be glad if he could explain why the Convention is not included in the Schedule to the Bill as is usual with Bills of this kind based on an international covenant. Beyond that, the purpose of the Bill is to protect Australia's heritage of significant movable cultural objects, which range from art objects to medals, stamps, coins and manuscripts, by a system of export controls. We simply do not want to run the risk of losing them lightly. We also want, in a co-operative spirit, to protect other countries' heritages by import controls. That is basically what the Bill is about. A national control list of protected cultural objects will be prepared and objects on the list will require export authorisation; that is, a permit or certificate from the Minister. When the Minister receives an application he must refer it to a committee which, in turn, will refer it to a panel of experts and the question all along the line to be decided will be whether the loss of the object from Australia would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia. If a protected object is exported without a permit it is to be forfeited to the Commonwealth, which then has the right to recover it from countries with corresponding legislation. Of course, that is essential. If, however, an application is refused a fund is to be established to finance the purchase of goods prohibited from export; otherwise we would have the very unfair position of a person being unable to sell overseas an object which he owns and being unable to sell it in Australia. Incidentally, the fund will be helpful to museums around Australia that want to buy cultural objects but need help. I am thinking of the Stockman's Hall of Fame and a range of folk museums, not to mention the major museums. But a question arises there-this is my second question to the Minister-as to the size of the fund because the Minister said in his second reading speech: The costs of implementing the legislation will not be great, approximately $50,000 for administrative costs for 1985-86, and approximately $200,000 for 1986-87. I am not sure-I am sure that the Minister could answer this question very easily and quickly-whether those estimates are meant to include the fund. If so, we are not talking about much of a fund. I know that the Minister has said he hopes there will be other contributors to the fund but- Mr Cohen —Do you want an answer to that now? Mr COLEMAN —Yes. Mr Cohen —The $50,000 and the $200,000 are for administrative expenses. The acquisition fund will be a decision made in the context of the Budget. Mr COLEMAN —I see, a separate fund. That is interesting and I thank the Minister for that advice because I was concerned, when I looked at these comparatively small sums, about the size of the fund. That fund will be very important, both in terms of acquisition and in terms of some respect for the rights of owners who, as I have said, may find themselves in a position of not being able to sell an object abroad and not being able easily to find a buyer in Australia. In any case, the position will contrast with the position, which is of some interest to us, in the United Kingdom, where if, after an export permit is refused, as I understand the position, an offer from some public institution is not made, an export permit is given, which shows some further consideration in the total balance of the rights of owners. In this whole situation of the rights of owners clause 48 is important since it indicates an owner's right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision to refuse to grant an export permit. It seems to me that the Tribunal is empowered to examine all relevant aspects of the Minister's decision. The issue involved-the legal or illegal export, often illegal export, of movable cultural objects-has come to a head in recent times when archaeological, artistic or ethnographic items have been seen as investments against inflation. There has been an outbreak of these illegal exports. In a useful source book on the question, The Plundered Past by Karl Meyer, which deals with the traffic in art treasures, there is published a table of major art thefts between 1911 and 1972, when the book was written. The table was prepared with the assistance of the International Council of Museums and it deals with international art thefts from 1911, when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in Paris by an Italian nationalist who wanted it returned to Florence, to the theft in London in 1972 of Picasso's self-portrait. The interesting thing is that although the table starts in 1911 the Mona Lisa theft was the only major theft in that decade. No major theft was recorded in the 1920s, there were three in the 1930s, none in the 1940s, and four or five were reported in the 1950s. It started to hot up, as it were, in the 1960s and it really started to get going in the 1970s with major and frequent thefts. We then read that, in 1982, nearly 3,000 thefts-not just three or four-of art and antiquities were reported and about only 10 per cent of the objects were recovered. In 1984 there were over 4,000 thefts with an even smaller percentage or recoveries. Some of these works were small but all were of significant value and were from significant galleries or private collections. There have been some spectacular robberies in recent times, such as the nine Impressionist paintings stolen in one burglary of a Paris museum, and a Christmas Eve looting of priceless pre-Columbian art from the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. There are scores of examples. The UNESCO Convention, this Bill and corresponding legislation adopted around the world will not stop theft, of course, but it will make it harder for the stolen works to be publicly displayed without the `owners' losing their alleged property. Australia, too, has had its share of controversial exports. There was the 1984 controversy, mentioned earlier in this debate, of the Strehlow Aboriginal collection which was exported and then returned. Its loss to Australia would have been heartbreaking. There was the 1985 case of Aboriginal objects which were to be auctioned at Sotheby's but which were withdrawn. I suppose it was the New Zealand case of Attorney-General of New Zealand versus Ortiz which brought things to a head so far as we were concerned. In that case, as the House knows, a Maori carving held in great esteem was excavated from a swamp in New Zealand where the tribe that owned it had hidden it. It was exported illegally from New Zealand. In New York a Mr Ortiz, as I understand the story, bought it under New York law. It was put up for sale in London, where the New Zealand Government claimed it under its then legislation. Significantly, the English courts held in a series of actions that the New Zealand legislation could not be enforced in England, that New Zealand law and sovereignty did not stretch that far, and in all the circumstances of the case the courts would not interfere. If, however, those two countries and other countries in a similar position were parties to the Convention on which this legislation is based, the situation would have been different. In this respect-this is another question for the Minister-I hope the Minister will tell the House what he understands the intentions of the British Government to be in relation to this Convention since the United Kingdom is not in any list I have seen of countries that intend to ratify the Convention. It was not in the list that was tabled. Mr Cohen —I shall have to take that one on notice. I am not answerable for the United Kingdom. It has a couple of problems with this Convention. Mr COLEMAN —Yes, but it is not retrospective, so I do not know why they should be too worried about the Elgin marbles. They will not be covered, as I understand it. Mr Cohen —I will give Maggie a ring later tonight. Mr COLEMAN —It is a good time to ring. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It might be a good time to continue the debate. Mr COLEMAN —Yes, but I hope that the Minister will tell the House what he understands the British Government's intentions to be, since a good deal of the concern about this arose out of the case of New Zealand Attorney-General versus Ortiz in England and from the unhappy result of that case for New Zealand, which influenced us. I understand that France, although not on the list, is sympathetic to the Convention, even though it has not yet come to the barrier. Generally speaking, the case for Australia supporting the Convention was well put by Mr O'Keefe and Mr Pratt, both of Sydney University Law School, in their paper `Coming International Law Issues in the Cultural Heritage Field', in which they wrote: Apart from the foreign relations aspect (which is a very important one)- obviously referring to the grievances mentioned by the honourable member for Jagajaga of Third World countries which feel, with some truth, that over the centuries they have been plundered- are there any other advantages to Australia in signing the Convention? It would enable Australia to obtain the help of other participating States in the event of cultural property of importance being illegally exported from Australia. Occasions have occurred of such illegal export-for example, of a rare aeroplane. That was a matter on which the honourable member for Dundas elaborated. They continued: It may be too, that Aborigines would see participation as additional effort by the Government to secure their cultural heritage. It would be welcomed by the archeological community in Australia and elsewhere. It would enable much better means of seeking the return of stolen cultural goods. It would formalise a governmental commitment to assisting in the protection of the cultural heritage in international co-operation and capitalise on existing non-governmental practice between Australian and Pacific museums. One could elaborate on that, but it seems to me to be a useful summary of the advantage of this legislation. There are some other points I would like to make. The first is that I am glad to see this legislation will not apply to Norfolk Island, which will be introducing its own legislation in the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. Clause 6 of the Bill says: This Act extends to every external Territory other than Norfolk Island. Last Friday in the adjournment debate I drew the House's attention to the position paper put out by the Norfolk Island Government about the harmful effects it believed the proposed Bill of Rights would have on Norfolk Island laws since the proposed Bill of Rights would override Norfolk Island's immigration, electoral and public employment laws. The Norfolk Island Government paper on the Bill of Rights Bill said: The Norfolk Island Government has tried to promote consultation on the issue of the extension of the Bill with the Commonwealth Government. The Norfolk Island Government has met difficulties, the opportunities for consultation have been very limited. The opportunity to examine the Commonwealth's arguments in favour of extension of the Bill, or even to know what they are, has not been forthcoming. The Norfolk Island Government does not know what views (if any) have been expressed at a departmental level on the Government's concerns. Nor does this Government know how, or why, the proposal to extend the legislation to the island came about. It is good to be able to say on this occasion that while that is a terrible way to manage important legislation, on this occasion the Minister will not deserve a similar rebuke from the Norfolk Island Government. The particular conditions of that Island and its Government have been acknowledged by the Minister in drafting this legislation. The other query I want to raise with the Minister is that of the impounded facsimile, as it is called-`facsimile' seems to be a misleading word but it is the word that is usually used-or a copy of the Batman Deed. This facsimile or copy was exported; the price that was hoped to be reached was not reached. It was returned to Australia, it was seized by Customs, and no compensation has been offered to the owner. Had all that happened after this Bill had been passed, that would have been perfectly understandable and in accordance with the law. But at that time this Bill had not been passed. I know that the Minister takes a definite view on this, but I hope he will insist that his view prevail, that the deed be returned to its owner or that there be proper payment. This is the beginning of a new regime in dealing with movable cultural heritage and the Batman Deed is taking on a symbolic significance as to how the Government will approach the matter. It is most important that there is seen to be fair dealing in public as well as that there be actual fair dealing in the normally non-publicly observed operation of the Bill. One has to say-I hope the Minister will have something to say on this-that half of the Bill deals with enforcement. It deals with such things as inspectors, search warrants, identity cards, search warrants granted by telephone, searches in emergencies, powers of arrest, seizures, powers of retention, notice of procedures, and so on, with very severe penalties. The Minister is giving himself, or anyhow his officers, tremendous police powers. I am not suggesting that the Minister is the sort of person who would want to abuse those powers-I have too much respect for him to suggest that-but nevertheless with a Bill that is largely a police Bill-or half of it is a police Bill-he had very little to say about these police powers in his speech. In his second reading speech, recorded on page 3748 of Hansard, about a dozen lines refer to the necessity for strong sanctions and heavy penalties. It seems to me that one half of the Bill deserves more attention from the Minister and from this House than it has received. The second half of the Bill deserves at least as much attention as the worthy objects of the first half. I am not saying that the second half is unsatisfactory or wrong in any way but, in view of the great powers it confers, it needs a bit more explanation than we so far have been given by the Minister. In conclusion, I was glad that the Minister, in his second reading speech, paid a tribute to Dr Jean Battersby who has spent so much time working on this Bill. I join the Minister in his tribute to her. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(9.21) —The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985 is intended to give effect to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This Convention was adopted by the general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as long ago as November 1970. This convention is only one example of the valuable work that UNESCO performs. I suggest that it would be a far prefer- able course for those who advocate reform of UNESCO to advocate reform from within, as proposed by Australia's Ambassador Mr Whitlam, rather than to seek to pull down and destroy what is a very fine international institution which has performed very valuable work, as we can see by the nature of this Convention. The Convention on which the legislation is based aims to prevent illegal international movement of important cultural property and establishes a treaty base between nations for the return of illegally exported material. The Convention includes other measures for the protection of cultural property, as other speakers have pointed out, such as national inventories of protected cultural property, support for collecting institutions, the establishment of professional standards of conduct for curators, the protection and supervision of archaeological sites, the regulation of dealers in antiques and educational measures to increase public awareness of cultural heritage. In fact, 54 countries have acceded to the Convention since it came into force in 1970. During the time of the Whitlam Government the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections was established. A decade ago that Committee strongly recommended accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the introduction of specific legislation to control the export of cultural property. A decade ago that recommendation was made by an important national committee established by the Whitlam Government. In typical fashion, the conservative parties which controlled this Parliament for the next eight years did not ratify the Covention and it was not until the election of a Federal Labor Government that Senator Ryan, representing our Government at the General Conference of UNESCO in 1983, was able to announce Australia's decision to accede to the Convention. This delay occurred despite the fact that Australia's museums, galleries, libraries and archives have, over that decade and for a longer period, advocated that an Australian government take an initiative in this area. Once again, under conservative government, Australia lagged behind much of the rest of the world. Canada, for example, acceded to the Convention in 1978, India in 1977, Mexico in 1973 and even Libya in 1973. It is a matter of great concern to witness the increasing contempt in which the conservative parties hold the United Nations and co-operative international action. I mention as an aside that last year was the first time since 1970 that the Opposition parties had refused to attend the International Labour Organisation conference and UNESCO. The then shadow spokesman for industrial relations, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), point-blank refused to attend and the Opposition parties boycotted the International Labour Organisation-an absolute disgrace. However, I must say that it is in line with their failure to take up important international initiatives such as the Convention to which I have referred. In the course of this debate I urge the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and my colleagues, all of whom are well aware of the tremendous public feeling and support that exists for conservation and environmental matters and the protection of Australia's heritage, whether it be natural heritage, the built environment or items of movable property, to continue to bear in mind the great groundswell of public opinion that will no longer tolerate governments turning their backs on important aspects of heritage such as those to which I have referred. I also suggest that those in the conservation and environment movement, and those who advocate government action to protect Australia's heritage, remember that all the protest movements in the world will not change government action unless one has a party committed to social change, one with strong policies that is prepared to implement those policies while in office. As it is in the case of the natural environment and as it was with the saving of the Franklin River, so it is in relation to items of movable property that this Government is committed to taking appropriate action to protect Australia's heritage. As I have indicated, the legislation under debate will allow Australia to accede to the UNESCO Convention. Consistent with the approach of the Government, detailed consultations have been held with affected parties and with State and Territory governments to enable their views to be taken into account. The key elements of the legislation before the House include new import and export controls over illegal traffic in cultural property; a national cultural heritage control list to enable the public and expert examiners to identify important cultural material; supportive administrative arrangements, including a register of expert examiners; a national cultural heritage committee to help implement the scheme; and, finally, a national cultural heritage fund to assist public collecting institutions to acquire important cultural objects which are prohibited from export. I must say that I view with some amazement the contributions of both the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) in this debate. It seems to me rather comical to see those in the conservative parties, who are the great champions of reduced government expenditure, advocating, as they have done in this chamber tonight, substantial increases in government expenditure in order to give effect to this legislation. I commend them for their contributions tonight, but I condemn the hypocrisy evident in the contrast between their views and their regular party pronouncements supporting further cutbacks in government expenditure which will mean a very significant deterioration in the quality of life for the Australian people. The concept of cultural heritage, as other speakers have indicated, covers a wide spectrum. It includes not simply objects of fine art but also the social, political, economic and technical development of Australian society, as well as, as the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) indicated, the recreational aspects of culture. It is also, perhaps, a rather stark demonstration of the interest of the conservative parties in the important matter of Australian heritage that there is not one National Party of Australia speaker listed for this debate. To the best of my knowledge, throughout the entire time the debate has been in progress, not one member of the National Party has even come into the chamber. Such is their contempt- Mr Braithwaite —Hey, hey, hey; I'm here. Mr TICKNER —I beg the honourable member's pardon. One member of the National Party has belatedly arrived because he is on House duty. The neglect by the National Party of Australia's heritage is particularly tragic because so much of Australia's heritage includes rural aspects of- Mr Hollis —Farm machinery. Mr TICKNER —Indeed, so much of it includes farm machinery and matters pertaining to the mining, pastoral and general agricultural development of Australia. Importantly, the cultural heritage encompassed by the Bill goes back beyond recorded history to the deep roots of Aboriginal life. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, an international trade in historical cultural materials has developed and the systematic looting of cultural treasures has been organised by black market operators. He also indicated-I commend him for it-that the loss of material has reached a crisis level in some Third World countries which have already suffered the loss of vital cultural materials at the hands of explorers, colonists, traders and missionaries. Over the past 15 years heritage issues have become subject to heated debate at all levels of government in the international community, As Isobel McBride pointed out in her introduction to the published papers from the annual symposium of the Australian Academy of Sciences 1985, the philosophic issue of who owns or controls the present or the future by manipulation or perceptions of the past, or versions of the past, has always been vital. As early as 1534 Pope Paul III established an antiques commission which had broad powers for the protection of ancient structures. However, the record has not always been so good. It is not unblemished. In the seventeenth century, in an initiative that would leave Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen green with envy, Pope Urban VIII declared the Colosseum a public quarry. It is a indictment of the Opposition that it still associates itself with those who would destroy the wonders of the natural environment and of Australia's heritage. An even greater demonstration of what it is about in this area is that even its prominent Party members would be the very people who would seek to justify the export from Australia of irreplaceable items of cultural heritage. Last year even the Bulletin, often known for its racist campaigns, reported on the national controversy over what the magazine called the crown jewels of Australian anthropology, the Strehlow collection of Aboriginal relics and art. This collection, amounting to about half a tonne of papers, films, tapes, stone and wooden artefacts, was spirited overseas or into hiding a week before the Government enacted its interim Aboriginal heritage legislation. Who was the chairman of the Strehlow Foundation who sought to evade the legislation of the Parliament which was intended to protect Australia's heritage? It was none other than a John Bannon-not the John Bannon whom we on this side of the chamber know and love. This John Bannon was an unsuccessful candidate for the conservative parties at the last Federal election. Another example of the illicit export of movable cultural heritage from Australia was highlighted last year, as other speakers have indicated, when the controller of Customs seized the John Batman Deed facsimile as an illegal export on its re-entry to Australia after failure to sell it in London. The background to the establishment of this document was that John Batman had arranged to be made for his financial backers a limited number of facsimiles of his deed with the Aborigines purporting to acquire land from them at Port Melbourne. This important item was nearly lost to Australia. I would like to give a further example of the diversity of Australia's movable cultural heritage that can be seen in the plant specimens collected by botanist Joseph Banks when he was with Captain Cook in 1770. The specimens are a highly prized possession of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and have attracted wide interest when they have been publicly exhibited. As other speakers have indicated, neither the Convention nor the legislation is retrospective and it will not apply to cultural property wrongfully exported in the past. As I have already indicated in order to categorise the material to be protected by the Bill, a national cultural heritage control list will be drawn up setting out in detail the categories to be protected. Because of the importance placed by the Government on preserving Australia's movable cultural heritage, it is appropriate that the legislation provide strong sanctions against illegal exports or attempted illegal imports. Penalties for an offence by a person include a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years and in the case of a corporation a fine not exceeding $20,000. A further important feature of the Bill that I would like to mention is that an object which has been exported unlawfully will be immediately forfeited to the Crown. Therefore, the Australian Government may immediately institute recovery proceedings overseas. I note that the honourable member for Wentworth referred to the case of the Attorney-General of New Zealand v. Ortiz. In that case the House of Lords held rather differently, so far as the subject matter of this debate is concerned, from the view expressed by the honourable member for Wentworth. My understanding of the basis of the judgment is that the House of Lords held that in relation to the historical carving, on a true construction of the relevant New Zealand legislation, forfeiture took place only where the relevant historical article in question was seized by New Zealand Customs or police and not immediately when the article was exported. I understand that that decision has been considered by the Minister and his Department and the legislation has been framed accordingly to give us a better opportunity of being able to recover any illegally exported material. I have emphasised the extent to which the Government has widely consulted in relation to the preparation of this Bill. That consultation is further borne out by the establishment of the National Cultural Heritage Committee which will include very wide representation by relevant public bodies and those interested in the preservation of Australia's movable heritage. Another important aspect is the establishment of a National Cultural Heritage Fund to which I have referred. I join with other speakers in hoping that the Government will allocate very substantial amounts of money in order to make this legislation work effectively. The legislation is framed in such a way as to protect the owner's rights by providing for review, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, of the Minister's decision to refuse an export permit or to impose conditions which are unsuitable to a potential exporter. Decisions of an administrative character made under the legislation are subject to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Any third party in the general community which can demonstrate a special interest as a basis for standing may bring a Federal Court action, under the administrative decisions judicial review legislation, for the review of the Minister's decision to grant a permit or certificate. Importantly, documents in the possession of the Commonwealth relating to decisions made under the legislation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. There is ample protection under the legislation for the rights of the individual. The legislation has been framed so as to establish a balance between the individual's rights to enjoyment of his or her property and the national interest. As I have indicated, this legislation presents yet another challenge to the conservative parties. In the past we have heard a great deal of talk about alleged divisions in the Australian Labor Party but any small differences that may have existed over policy questions pale into insignificance when one observes the bitter and strife-torn Opposition parties in this Parliament today. We hear a great deal about the dries in the Liberal Party and the arids in the National Party who, if they are consistent with their philosophies, could only oppose this legislation because clearly it interferes with the great god, the ideological hangup that so many of them have, of free market forces that dictates so much of their policy formulation. Mr Hollis —They are not opposing it. Mr TICKNER —I know they are not opposing it, but the point I am making is that if they were true to their beliefs they would oppose it because clearly it interferes with free market forces. On the other hand, the wets realise the moral bankruptcy of relying on the so-called free market forces. They realise that there are many occasions when the national interest and the well-being of the entire community demand that the Parliament intervene in the market-place in order to provide effective- Mr Braithwaite —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just bring to your attention the matter of relevance in regard to the debate in which the honourable member is engaging. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) There is no point of order-- Mr Braithwaite —There is no relevance, either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat. Mr TICKNER —I am in the process of winding up, but I am not surprised that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) took a point of order. He is usually very quick to his feet when the inconsistencies of the Opposition parties are drawn out. Quite clearly, this is legislation that honourable members opposite would oppose if they were true to their convictions. The fact is that they do not dare oppose it because they know that the public pressure, the public concern and the public support for this Government's policies in protecting all aspects of the environment and the heritage of Australia, including the movable heritage, are such that they would be publicly pilloried if they dared adopt that position. So I think that this is a great victory for the progressive policies of this Government and a defeat for the very reactionary policies of the conservative parties that simply say that government should not intervene to protect the national heritage. Market forces have once again been discredited. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.42) —At the outset of my contribution to this debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, as this is my first opportunity, I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to the high office of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of this Parliament and wish you well in the fair and impartial carrying out of your duties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Thank you. Mr SHIPTON —Both sides of the Parliament agree that the protection of the national cultural heritage is important. It is important to safeguard our heritage. But I would like to look at this legislation because I have some reservations and some queries and questions, and I believe that there are some problems with it, with its implementation and its administration. The legislation has some deficiencies. At the outset we need to ask: Is this legislation what is needed to protect our national cultural heritage? Do we at present have sufficient power under the Customs legislation, under the Reserve Bank legislation? Could a scheme have been arrived at that would adequately protect our cultural heritage using that legislation and using regulations and perhaps changes to that legislation without the need for this scheme? Could there be put in its place another scheme that might be more effective and more efficient? Under this legislation two quangos, or semi-government quasi-autonomous bodies, are in fact set up. Their cost has been referred to by other speakers, and I will come to that later. What we need to do in protecting our national cultural heritage is make sure that we have an appropriate and proper method of protection. We need to establish a scheme of protection of the cultural heritage, remembering that the protection so established is in fact an intervention in the market-place, on the one hand, and takes away certain rights of individuals and restricts their liberties on the other. What we have to do with any legislation is to have sufficient control to protect our heritage, and, having done that, to allow the free market to operate and individuals to have their rights within that free market. It is a balance between the rights of the individual and the national interest. As I said at the outset, I believe there is a national interest and there is a need for our heritage to be preserved. But this is very far-reaching legislation because, as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said in his second reading speech, he was not referring simply to works of art but the legislation was to embrace: . . . paintings, prints, crafts, sculpture, manuscripts, books, furniture and other art objects He said that he referred to the full range of cultural heritage material, including stamps, coins, maps, military objects and technological objects-including farm machinery, and I think the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) made an interesting contribution to the debate on that subject-scientific material, inventions, archaeological finds, artefacts from Aboriginal life, government records, important documents, photographs, films and television material. It is very far-reaching and all-embracing legislation, covering a wide range of cultural works. So because this legislation is far-reaching and all-embracing, great care has to be taken in determining that balance that I referred to earlier. At the outset, I look at the implications of acceding to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Other speakers have referred in this debate to the fact that some 50 or more countries having acceded to the Convention but that Great Britain and most European nations have not signed. I think that we need a clear statement from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is at the table, on the implications of Australia signing without those European nations that I have just mentioned being parties to the Convention. Will Australia be placed at a significant disadvantage? Will Australian museums and will Australian art dealers be placed at a disadvantage because the restrictions that apply under the Convention will have to be applied to them whereas they will not apply in a number of other countries, and very important countries in the art world? We need a statement from the Minister as to the effect of acceding to this treaty. Will it affect imports into Australia of art objects? There is a growing importation and an understanding and investment awareness of art objects from overseas-for instance, French bronzes and French furniture, and articles in many fields which Australian collectors and museums are gathering. Will this legislation affect the future imports? What is the effect on museums and individuals of this legislation, which brings in the provisions of the treaty? I turn to the treaty itself for a moment. Article 10 is quite far-reaching. Here we have a case where the Government is acceding to a treaty and it is using its foreign affairs power to control antique dealers. I do not think that any other speakers in the debate have mentioned that, but Article 10 of the treaty states, in part: The States Parties to this Convention undertake- to do a whole range of things- To restrict by education . . . oblige antique dealers, subject to penal or administrative sanctions, to maintain a register recording the origin of each item of cultural property, names and addresses of the supplier, description and price of each item sold and to inform the purchaser of the cultural property of the export prohibition to which such property may be subject. So by the use of the foreign affairs power we have a control over antique dealers which would normally be the subject of State law, and we have the putting in place of quite substantial regulations in relation to antique dealers-more bureaucracy, more regulation and more red tape. I think we need convincing that that is in fact needed to protect the cultural heritage. What is the cost of maintaining this register? As I said, there is an international obligation in acceding to this treaty to maintain a register recording the origin, et cetera. What is the cost of that? We need a clear statement from the Minister. What powers will be used? Will it be compulsory for every antique dealer in Australia to fill in a form? Will it be compulsory for every private collector to fill in a form? Will they be subject to those sorts of interventions? Mr Cohen —The answer is no. Mr SHIPTON —I hear that the Minister answers that question with a firm no and I accept that, with the respect that I have for the Minister. I trust that the Ministers following him will have the same magnanimous way of interpreting the legislation. But I see that as a risk; not all Ministers may in fact see it that way. At a time when we are debating in this country the identity card, a debate on which there are varied opinions at each end of the spectrum, I think we must have reservations about some of the powers in this legislation. I turn now to the Bill before the House. As I said, I have reservations about the use of the foreign affairs power to control antique dealers and to set up lists, but has the Government got it right? Have we got the right balance of protection of the cultural heritage, on the one hand, and restriction of individual rights on the other? I think there are reservations about that. There are many strict control aspects in this legislation that are not needed and I think another scheme could have been evolved and worked out to achieve the same objectives and with which both sides of the House could have agreed. We have adopted the Canadian approach. The Minister has not told the House of the various other approaches. As I understand it, there is a very effective system in the United Kingdom where any item worth more than #16,000 needs an export licence. If it is sold at auction over that amount, there is a system in place where any institution that can raise the funds equal to the auction price, plus costs and expenses, I think, can purchase from the buyer at auction. In other words, the institution can buy out the buyer. The vendor still gets his price and the heritage is protected. Why have we not adopted the United Kingdom type of approach? Another reservation of query I have relates to what happens to Australian galleries, museums and, indeed, investors who purchase on overseas markets at international prices? As I understand it, Mr Holmes a Court recently purchased a Monet for approximately $A3m. That was bought overseas and I think it has been lent to the National Gallery of Victoria. Let us say it is here for a decade, and we have very few Monets. Is that then part of our national heritage? If Mr Holmes a Court wishes to sell that in the international market-place, is he allowed to do so or is he prohibited from doing so? If he is prohibited from doing so, is the price he would get for that painting or the value of it affected by the strict controls against export that might be put in place under this legislation? It is an important question as to how one values the works of art or the cultural heritage the subject of this legislation. If art is imported for personal use, does it become part of the cultural heritage and is the person who imports it prohibited from selling it overseas. I have some queries about the National Cultural Heritage Fund. There is no time limit in which the Fund has to purchase an object, whereas sellers of these items in the real world, the market-place of commercial life, might have an offer to purchase the item for 20, 30, 60 or 90 days. There is no time limit on the Fund or the National Cultural Heritage Committee under this legislation. Indeed, the Fund awaits the regulations as to how the whole scheme is to be administered. We await the terms and conditions of administration, and I think we need a clear statement from the Minister about that. I see another problem in relation to value, and I referred a few minutes ago to art or objects being imported by individuals. People in Australia who inherit valuable pieces of art and heritage that are subject to this legislation, because they are prohibited under the scheme may not be able to dispose of such items overseas. They may be burdened with heavy insurance premiums because the value of the painting for probate purposes may be deemed to be more than the value that could be realised in Australia. I see great problems of administration of deceased estates arising out of this legislation. What will executors do in relation to the value of distribution if an item is part of the assets of an estate, its value overseas is considerably more than its value in Australia, and the market-place in Australia will not realise the value that could be realised overseas? There are going to be considerable difficulties and problems for executors of estates in attributing value for distribution to beneficiaries. Similarly, in many States there are still substantial probate duties, although not for wives and children but for other beneficiaries of estates. They are going to face the difficulty of how to attribute values. In fact, because the item cannot be sold overseas, will the value in Australia be significantly less? What is the position? Is there going to be some compensation paid to that estate, subject to proper and correct valuations? In the time available I shall refer briefly to the National Heritage Cultural Committee. It has to furnish advice to the Minister. It is a copy of the Canadian example, but in Canada there has not been one case, as I understand it, where a recommendation has been knocked back. What do these people on the Committee know about the operation of the market-place? They have to give advice to the Minister in relation to the Fund. They may be eminently qualified-I have no qualms about their qualifications and their ability as experts in their particular fields-but I think that a number of people on that Committee need to be people who work in and understand the market-place. I think that is imperative. Before I conclude my comments on this legislation, I again ask: Have we got the best method of protecting the national cultural heritage in this very wide-ranging legislation which covers a whole range of cultural objects-including paintings, prints, crafts, manuscripts, books, furniture, stamps, maps, coins and machinery-where there has to be a national inventory of protected properties set up? Have we the right method to do it? We have created two quasi-government organisations-two quangos. We will have more public servants to administer them and more allowances to be paid under the Act by way of remuneration and travel allowances. We have the National Cultural Heritage Committee and the National Cultural Heritage Fund and I wonder whether they are really needed to protect adequately our national heritage. At a time when the Government is trying to control the deficit, when expenditure is racing out of control and the Government has an enormous expenditure problem, it has brought this legislation into the House. In answer to queries from other speakers the Minister said that much of the debate is of a budgetary nature. As I think the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) pointed out earlier, when the Government is under economic restraint, when we have record high interest rates because of the problems of the deficit and Government expenditure, when tax cuts are in jeopardy, is it appropriate to bring in legislation which may lie on the books? It may be in place, but will it actually work? I have queried the legislation but, given that the legislation is in place, can it actually work without funds being committed to it? I think that is a real risk and a real danger. I counsel the Government, before it finally passes the legislation and brings it into effect, to satisfy itself that it is not going to create a greater mess by bringing in legislation that is not going to work because funds are not available. Will the Government be intervening in the market-place, on the one hand, when on the other hand there are no funds available to administer the scheme? I referred to the intervention in liberty and freedom of individuals. I think they are important matters. Earlier I raised the matter of the powers of the national cultural heritage control list-frightening terminology. The Minister referred to the costs in his second reading speech, and said that there would be greater detail and criteria developed later. We need full details of that control list. We need to know its cost, and how it will be applied to individuals, museums and galleries. The final point relates to the legislation. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) dealt with it in his speech. The legislation has far-reaching powers of enforcement. At least half is directed to enforcement and refers to inspectors, identity cards, search warrants, search warrants granted by telephone, searches in emergencies, powers of arrest, seizure of protected objects, power of retention, notice of seizure-I am going through the Bill as I speak-court proceedings as a result of forfeiture, production of permit, proof of authority and so on, false statements, assistance of inspectors, obstruction and impersonation of inspectors, and indictable offences. They are police powers. After reading the powers in the Bill I wonder whether we are not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Seizure of the Batman facsimile-I think that is the correct terminology for the Batman Deed-was mentioned in the debate. I understand that the Minister intervened in the debate to comment, but I did not hear what he said to the speaker on his feet. I ask the Minister to explain that in his summing up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.03) —Before I commence, I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on reaching your high position. I am sure that it is a tribute to the common sense of the House. I add that unlike the Speaker you had the additional problem of a rather rough exterior. Your elevation is a personal triumph. There has been a lot of bipartisan support for the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. I am glad that this is not a Bill for which I would have to go to the barricades, for I would be dragged there screaming. What is the culture of a country? We have to ask ourselves that question. It is the sum total of its historic experience. Movable cultural objects are the trappings of ideas. That is not to say that they are without value. Obviously, there is historic value in them but they must be kept in perspective. Listening to the debate tonight, I have heard honourable members talk about the shame and the scandal of messerschmitts and spitfires being exported from this country. I contend that they have very little to do with our culture but they are valuable and historic objects and may have been worth procuring. I also make the point that if I were starving in the Third World I would be prepared to sell my movable cultural objects to feed my family. Nations that sign this document should recognise their responsibility to Third World countries to enhance their economies and lessen the pressure on individuals to deal at often give-away prices with the black marketeers who exploit the world's hunger for these cultural objects. The Batman facsimile documents were mentioned. I know nothing of them but I know that the Australian Constitution document resides in the records office of the House of Lords. In the circumstances, that is the appropriate place for it. I do not think that our Constitution is diminished one iota by that, for the House of Lords is part of this country's culture. Those sorts of things should be taken into account. One honourable member tonight talked about the cultural plundering of India by what was the British Empire. I contend that there was a great cultural transfer of institutions such as railways, law and justice. On that basis, India probably had a very good bargain. I hope that common sense and discretion will prevail when we determine what we can send out of the country, for there are many examples of our cultural heritage that I would like to see blazoned across the world. I have no desire to lock them up in museums in Australia. I would be quite proud for them to be seen throughout the world. This Bill causes me some apprehension for it could be seen as a manifestation of our inferiority complex, for which I do not believe Australia has any need. Let us look through the history of some Australian ideas and achievements. The McKay harvester revolutionised the harvesting of cereal crops. The stump jump plough made an enormous contribution to Australia's welfare. It is certainly a part of our culture whose value has probably been underestimated. Farrer made a great contribution-the first rust-resistant wheat in Australia. Harrison's work on refrigeration, particularly refrigerated ships, enabled Australia to become a great meat exporting nation. Hargrave's work on the box kite and its steering mechanisms were taken up by the Wright brothers, to their great advantage. Whilst I think that Hargrave was on the wrong track in that he did not anticipate Bernoulli's theorem-the method by which planes used to fly-the steering mechanisms which he designed were certainly effective for the time. Planes now probably fly more by thrust. Hartnett was a great Australian-a great visionary and engineer. His contribution to this country has not been properly valued. It is a political scandal that the opportunities that he foresaw were not maximised. C. V. Potter invented the flotation process by which for the first time the world was able to economically extract silver, lead or gold from sulphide ores. Would anyone seriously suggest that this piece of our culture should not be exported? I do not think so. The idea was valuable and one that Australia contributed to the world. On a smaller scale, the dry blower was a great monument to Australian initiative. In today's farming terms, suspension fencing, a method of fencing using fewer posts to make more durable fences for less cost was a great invention. The draw plunger pump was a great cultural achievement. I have yet to see one in a museum. I doubt that I ever will. It is interesting to note that South Australia is the home of many of these inventions. Undoubtedly, it has the harshest environment in the Commonwealth. Necessity is surely the mother of invention. Other great achievements include universal male suffrage. Australia is a world leader. Female suffrage and secret ballots are parts of our culture, certainly not culture that I would like to confine to Australia. The Torrens land title system was a great innovation. It broke the cycle that used to pertain in the United Kingdom where the rich were the owners of the land and the minerals in the land. That system perpetuated wealth for them and denied it to other people. It gave them the contents of that land to the centre of the earth and, indeed, to heaven's door-although the value of that is debatable these days. The South Australian Torrens land title system is slowly taking on in the UK-an example of the value of exporting our culture. I do not think that the value of that system is recognised by the great majority of Australians. What a great achievement it was for the world. There are other things of which we ought to be proud in Australia. The Division of Plant Industry of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was the first to isolate by cloning a jumper gene and insert it into a nucleus of cells. It is this invention which one day will help to feed the world and unite the nitrogen fixing capacity of legumes with the bulk carbohydrate capacity of cereals so that we have a self-fertilising grain. Australia has done great pioneering work in this regard and it is something of which we should be very proud. Australia is one of the leading nations in the world in welding technology. But I doubt whether this will be mentioned when people talk of our culture. I have a special interest in submarines, which may not have gone unnoticed. I was interested to discover recently that the Germans sought advice from the United Kingdom on how to weld the thicker HY80 steel that we will be using in our submarines. Companies in Australia such as Transfield Pty Ltd have been doing it for years yet we, in our naivety, and perhaps as a result of our cultural cringe, talk about technological transfer from countries overseas. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, together with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, is working on a malaria vaccine. For the first time we have the potential to cure malaria. I hope that this is something that Australia will be willing, happy and ready to sell to the world and give to the world. The bionic ear has received much mention in this House from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). This is a great achievement for Australia and a real breakthrough in wide-base microchips. New generations of pesticides are being pioneered in Australia-pesticides which attack the nervous systems of insects in a genetic sense and to which insects will therefore be unlikely to be able to build up resistance. The great Synroc technology developed in Australia by Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University is a process whereby atomic waste can be locked up in the atomic matrix of a material, making it virtually impervious. This is a contribution which Australia must make to the world. It is a facility which should make Australia the storehouse of the world's uranium waste. We have the best technology in the world and the safest methods of achieving this, although that is certainly not something that I would like to see kept solely in Australia. Sirosetting, a CSIRO invention for permanently creasing wool, was also an Australian invention which we have given to the world. When we look at the achievements of Australia, and I have touched upon only very few, we realise what a proud culture and proud history we have as a nation of achievers, developers and contributors to the broader world society. In supporting this Bill I recognise that there is a functional place for it. I would not like to give to it the importance that some others have done. I accept it but with the reservation that it should not be seen as an end in itself. It should be seen as a monument to the achievements that Australia has made and can continue to make. If we look back through history, I can illustrate the sorts of things that have happened to Australia as a result of the complex from which we suffer. In 1951 in Australia the CSIRO invented a computer called CSIRAC. It was tube driven. It was very big and very clumsy but it was a world leader at that time and probably the most advanced in the world. The CSIRO, with enormous pride, went to the Government for assistance and was told to scrap it and do no more work on it because computers would be the province of the USA and Europe. Japan was not even mentioned. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.15) —Farm finance is now a matter which is creating considerable problems, and has been for a period for people in all parts of Australia affected by drought or who have their viability affected, as it has been in recent times, by higher production costs in areas where productivity has always been low. I refer to large areas of my electorate where crops of five bags of wheat per acre are commonplace as a average and where many years ago those crops could be produced at an operating cost equivalent to two bags of wheat. The constant growth of the cost-price squeeze within Australia has now pushed those figures together and many farmers are finding that the cost of production is five bags when in fact their productivity is often less than that. As a consequence, the Federal Government and the State governments have created certain authorities to assist in some of these areas. I want to raise some issues tonight to which I hope the appropriate Ministers will respond in due course. Large amounts of Federal funds are sent to State governments to assist with rural disasters, including for drought loans. Drought loans are made for various amounts and usually at concessional rates of interest. Nevertheless, it has been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents that a practice is occurring in Western Australia whereby the loan authorities, in protecting their loan, also take a crop lien. This particular lien gives them access to the funds that are paid by the Australian Wheat Board at harvest time to the various farmers. The holder of a crop lien gets first call on the funds. Thus, for instance, if a farmer owed the drought loan authority, which is now called the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation of Western Australia, a loan of, say $40,000, the first $40,000 of the proceeds from his wheat crop would be paid, usually in December, back to the rural adjustment authority. Of course, that money is money that the farmer still needs, and under these arrangements he is obliged to go back and basically beg back the money. He has to renegotiate the loan. There are some reasons for that. For instance, he would probably make some provision in the overall arrangement for the amount to reduce annually. But he has to go back and get it again. The administrative arrangements in such cases often cause the loan, or that amount of money to the farmer, not to be repaid until as late as June. In those circumstances the money is frequently useless. The farmer needs the money in February or March so that he can plan and go ahead with his cropping program. If he has to wait that long, it is extremely difficult for him to plant and, when he does plant, the crop will not grow properly because it has been planted too late and germination is difficult. Then, at the end of the year, the farmer is told: `It is not much good lending you money if you cannot grow as good a crop as your neighbour'. That is plainly ridiculous. My main matter of concern is about the period when the money is not in the farmer's hands but in fact is being held by the government authority which continues to charge interest to the farmer. If the farmer pays his money back in December and the money is then not advanced to him again until June, it could be argued that he pays 12 months interest on a six-month loan. I am wondering what members of this chamber would do if they caught a finance company up to that trick. But these are statutory authorities formed by the State Government of Western Australia and funded to a degree by Federal funding. I am not saying that this happens on every occasion but I have actual examples of its happening. I have contacted the authorities and asked them what their policy is. They refused to correspond with me unless I named the farmer who has come to me. I think that is highly improper. It is quite reasonable that a member of parliament should be able to ask what is their policy in this matter. It is not something for honourable members to laugh about. I am not being critical of this Government. It is a fact that a statutory authority is doing this, and possibly was doing it under a previous Liberal government. All I am asking is that the Minister of the day take the sort of action necessary to stop that sort of activity. It is hard enough to grow wheat in the present circumstances without having a government authority charge double interest in these arrangements and affect one's cropping program by administrative delays. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my congratulations to those of the rest of the House to you on your elevation to high office. It is a pleasure tonight to follow the shadow Minister for small business, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), because I wish to speak on a matter dear to his heart, that is, the Opposition's wages policy and the inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Exactly a week before the Parliamentary Liberal Party put the colt from Kooyong to sleep the current Leader of the Opposition sought to woo the votes of the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party of Australia in an address to the National Press Club. The Australian reported that address in this way, under the headlines `Howard leads the charge to reform unions': A Liberal Government would legislate to allow businesses employing fewer than 50 people to make their own deal with employees on pay, penalty rates and working hours, the Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, said yesterday. Branding deregulation of the labour market as the `first priority' for a coalition government . . . He followed that up by reaffirming at his first Press conference as Opposition Leader that labour market regulation was his first priority. In early February this year there was a secret meeting between the Business Council of Australia and the shadow Cabinet. I am pleased to say that the Australian Financial Review was able to obtain a leak, perhaps from one shadow Minister, as a result of which it printed an article. Mr White —Do you think that was accurate? Mr LEE —I certainly think it was accurate because no member of the shadow Cabinet has denied it. The article is headed `Business leaders roast Howard', and states: Australian business leaders have delivered a heavy blow to John Howard's' attempts to restore moral to the Liberal Party and redirect the course of party policy. In a heated meeting with the Liberal Party Leader and his coalition front bench at Melbourne's plush Regent Hotel on Monday night, senior members of the Business Council of Australia were scathing of the Liberal wages approach, took exception to its charges of corporatism, and questioned its capacity to be considered an alternative government. Not only that, but the Confederation of Australian Industry also said that is disagreed with the coalition's policy of abolishing centralised wage fixing. Yet today, to take matters further, we had an interview with the Opposition Leader in the Australian Financial Review. The Opposition Leader has finally dumped his wages policy. This article demonstrates that he has dumped the dries in his Party and he has dumped the principles which were the very foundation of the policy which he labelled as his first priority in government. In fact, he has also dumped the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), who happened to be the shadow spokesman on wages policy, before he could even announce the Oppositions's policy on wages. In this article in the Australian Financial Review today Mr Howard is quoted as saying: I have acknowledged all along that to make our policy salable and acceptable you have to have some sort of minimum wage stipulation. I mean otherwise you just get into a totally diverting argument about it. Greg Hywood then asked `About wages being cut?', to which the Leader of the Opposition replied: Yeah, I mean we are not in the business of cutting wages. So we have the Leader of the Opposition advocating a wages policy which defies gravity. His definition of deregulation is that wages cannot go down but they can always go up. This is not the first time that the honourable member for Bennelong has supported a negative gravity wages policy. I well remember that in the early 1980s, as Treasurer, he successfully argued that centralised wage fixing should end, and it did end. What was the the result? In the year ended December 1981 award wages rose by 15.3 per cent-I repeat, 15.3 per cent-when we had an increase in inflation of 9.3 per cent. So under the present Opposition's deregulated system we had an increase in award wages of 6 per cent more than the inflation rate. Wages exploded because the then Treasurer had no incomes policy. To stop the wages explosion he had to screw the economy into the ground, and 300,000 Australians lost their jobs. In comparison, after less than three years the Hawke Labor Government has created more than 600,000 jobs. Unit labour costs are now the lowest since 1969 because under centralised wage fixing and following our discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions it is now accepted that the first priority is not a wage increase for those in work; it is a job for those who are out of work. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my congratulations to you on your recent appointment. Yesterday, 16 February 1986, marked the sixty-eighth anniversary of the restoration of independence of the republic of Lithuania. Twenty-two years after independence, on 15 June 1940, the Lithuanian republic was annexed by Soviet Russia, under a secret agreement with Hitler. The Lithuanian people have been deprived of their rights and freedoms ever since. I would like to take this opportunity tonight to recognise the courage, determination and sacrifices of Lithuania and its people. The continuing plight of this innocent but occupied nation is worthy of our awareness and our sympathy. The Lithuanian people have a long and proud history. They have demonstrated over many centuries, often at great cost and enormous national and personal sacrifice, their desire and determination to preserve that most precious of all freedoms-national independence. The restoration of an independent, democratic, national state remains the primary goal and sacred commitment of many Lithuanians today, as it was for their forefathers and will be for future generations until their objective has been achieved. The cause of freedom has long been uppermost in the hearts and minds of Lithuanian men and women. They know freedom is worth fighting for. They know it is worth waiting for. As far back as the thirteenth century, while Latvians and Estonians were losing their independence, Lithuanians succeeded in retaining theirs. More recently, since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Lithuanian people have demonstrated time and time again their determination to protect their national origins, identity and autonomy against always difficult, and sometimes impossible, odds. Then, as now, the Lithuanian national movement has fought a continuing, resolute, brave, often bloody battle to resist Russian repression of their cultural, social and religious heritage and traditions. The imposition by the Russians of their will over Lithuania and its people has been achieved by might, not right. That is why although the Russians may have apparently forced their innocent and unwilling victims into temporary submission, their control will never be absolute. They will never break the national spirit which in inherited and retained by all true Lithuanians. The Liberal Party of Australia, along with all fair-minded and freedom loving Australians, was rightfully appalled when, against the major thrust of free world opinion, the Whitlam Labor Government acted to recognise the illegal and oppressive incorporation of Lithuania by the Soviet regime. This disgraceful decision was reversed when the Liberal Party withdrew recognition shortly after it was returned to government in 1975. Despite the fact that under Soviet rule the practice of old customs may be severely limited, rights may be denied, religious persecution may be shamefully enforced, despite the fact that traditional lifestyles and values may have been brutally swept away by Soviet industrialisation, and farmers and private landowners have had their rights of ownership stripped from the individual and transferred to the state and despite the fact that thousands have been executed or sent to labour camps as punishment for resisting Soviet rule and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes and seek refuge elsewhere-despite all these things-the Lithuanian people have kept their beliefs. Their love and loyalty for their country remains intact. One may take away a person's possessions but never their national pride. One may strip them of their dignity and their rights but not their souls. In remembering the restoration of independence of the Lithuanian republic in Vilnius on 16 February 1918, we must also reflect on the events of the past 68 years, particularly the shameful annexation of the republic by Soviet Russia in 1940, and the outrages which have since been perpetrated by the forces of Soviet imperialism on Lithuania and Lithuanians. Let us not forget that the desire and determination once again to restore freedom remain strong. Some may foolishly and wrongly believe that the lights of freedom which were dimmed by the Nazis have now been extinguished forever by Soviet Russia. As I said before, these brave nations deserve our sympathy. More importantly, their struggle to preserve their national identity and to regain their national independence deserve our support. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.30) —I rise tonight in this place to place on record on behalf of my constituents my very sincere congratulations on and heartfelt appreciation of the most excellent choice that Cabinet has made today in selecting Badgerys Creek as the site for Sydney's second airport. It is a sad indictment of those opposite that after three decade later and after the review of at least 106 different locations this Government has had the guts and the presence of mind to get on with the job and pick a second airport site. I rise in particular tonight to add my sincere thanks to those who have played an active part in this campaign over many years to make sure that that residents surrounding Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, some 1.1 million people, do not have to share the burden of what is Liberal-National Party policy-another runway in Botany Bay and all the air traffic that goes with it. I should like to add my thanks to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), our Deputy Prime Minister and member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher)-how could we leave out the honourable member for Lowe?-and the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin). I should also like to extend my very sincere congratulations to the councils around Sydney which, in the darkest hours of the Fraser Administration, stood firm with their backs to the wall and fought for their policy and which today have had a very great victory. In particular I want to thank the Mayor of Rockdale, Alderman Rathbone; the Mayor of Botany, Alderman Hoenig; the Mayor of Marrickville, Alderman Jones; the Mayor of Hurstville, Alderman Loew; and the Mayor of Ashfield, Alderman Herman, should not be left out. From our point of view the result was perfect. Tonight we have not only had delivered a decision that should have been made three decades ago. We have also chosen the site that should have been chosen three decades ago and we have preserved all 14,000 jobs at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Kingsford-Smith will remain the premier airport in Sydney and indeed Australia but it is important to note that no longer will my residents and the other residents of Sydney be burdened with added future aircraft movements over their roofs. Like every other major city in the world, Sydney will now have the future to look forward to with two airports. The progress towards the establishment of the second airport as outlined today by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris)-which will probably be in three stages-is a realistic and forthright policy. Of course, this all started in earnest in April 1981 when the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, wrote to the Premier, Mr Wran, and said that we should have a second runway, that his Government intended to proceed with it forthwith and that they should get together to talk about a second airport. Of course, the Premier, to his credit, threw that suggestion out. Today it is still Liberal-National Party policy to extend Mascot Airport into Botany Bay despite the fact that economically it is a most irresponsible policy, despite the fact that we need 20 million cubic metres of fill and we have no known source for it, and despite the fact that, at a cost nearly the same as the cost for establishing a second Sydney airport, it will add less than 15 per cent capacity to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr Lee —It will destroy the environment of Botany Bay. Mr PUNCH —As my friend the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has reminded me, it will destroy the environment of Botany Bay. All that is now no longer a threat to us thanks to the decision that was made today by the Hawke Government in selecting a second Sydney airport site. It would do those opposite well to read the reasons why that has come about-the reasons of accessibility, the economic reasons, the technical reasons and the engineering reasons. If honourable members opposite were to go back and read the words of their own Ministers they would see how shallow those words were at the time. Finally, I would like to say one thing to the cynics and the knockers who said that we would not do this: Next time this Labor Government makes a promise, particularly in the seat of Barton, they had better know that that promise will be kept just as this one has been. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.35) —Earlier today, while most of the members of this Parliament were travelling to Canberra, I was in Dubbo. Honourable members may know that Dubbo is a thriving city of 32,000 people. Honourable members opposite may laugh but the people in Dubbo would not like to hear their laughter. As I have said, Dubbo is a thriving city of 32,000 in the Federal electorate of Parkes. It is built on the banks of the Macquarie River and is at the eastern edge of the western plains. I was at the showground in that city along with 9,000 other people who could be classified as concerned small businessmen and farmers. It was a hot day, the sky was cloudless and the temperature was well into the thirties. But despite this, those 9,000 people sat there in the middle of the grassy oval for three hours and debated what they could do about their problems. Finally, they rose and marched 10 abreast through the city in a column one kilometre long which completely filled Macquarie Street, the main street of the city. One could not help being moved by the plight of these people. For the most part they were average, ordinary Australians. Some had travelled considerable distances from coastal regions and places all over New South Wales. Others had come from the nearer towns of Bourke, Nyngan, Trangie, Narromine, Gilgandra, Coonamble, Wellington, Molong, Parkes, Forbes, Peak Hill, Canowindra and other smaller centres. But united they were in the fact that they all had one message to tell and that was that they had had enough. They had had enough of working long hours without reward. They had had enough of creating badly needed goods and services only to see the Government take a large slice of these and then fritter them away. They had had enough of being penalised at work when it seemed that so many others were being rewarded for not working. They had had enough not only of taxes but also of rules and regulations which make it so difficult for them to work in the first place. The list could go on and on. In short, they had had enough. Unfortunately, this Government does not seem to have realised what is going on out there in the bush. We even had the remarkable statement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the House of Representatives on Friday that only 12 per cent of farmers have a considerable debt. Even if that figure is true-I can assure him that it is not; the average debt in the Wellington shire in my electorate, a relatively rich shire, is over $100,000-it is not an accurate gauge of the problem as the Minister seemed to imply. The assets of an average modest farm or small business in my electorate these days is probably near $750,000. Even if these people were completely free of debt, which would be unusual in itself, they would probably be only netting $100 to $200 a week. Many, of course, are making nothing. My point is that a farmer or small businessman with upwards of $1m invested, doing something productive, in some cases earning well over $100,000 in export income for Australia and working 60 to 80 hours a week, is being forced to live and support a family on $200 a week. Honourable members should remember that I am talking about only the debt-free ones. That is why they are angry. If these people sold out, invested their money in the bank, worked Public Service hours for someone else, took luxurious holidays and so on, they would be infinitely better off. These people are doing something worth while for this country yet they are being penalised. Yet if they did relatively little they would be rewarded. The system we have arrived at in Australia today is truly crazy. These people in Dubbo today could see that, and that is why they were upset. It will indeed be a tragedy for Australia if the politicians occupying the Government benches of this chamber do not soon see that too and reverse the damaging policies they are implementing, which are bringing the productive sector of the Australian economy to its knees. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.59) —Last Friday evening I had the pleasure of attending a public function in Wollongong for the Illawarra Mercury-Caltex sports star of the year awards. Tonight I would like to pay tribute to both those organisations-the Illawarra Mercury, which of course is the premier newspaper of the south coast, and the Caltex Oil Co. Over the last five years the Illawarra Mercury has sponsored a competition to select the south coast sports star of the year. In 1985 the Caltex Oil Co. decided to come in as a major sponsor. On Friday evening 12 of the Illawarra's most outstanding athletes came before the judges at a gala function that was held in Wollongong. The end result was that a lady by the name of Merle Richardson was selected as being the Illawarra sports star of the year. The name Merle Richardson has become synonymous with sporting achievements in Australia over the last couple of years, and probably for a lot longer. Merle Richardson has made her name playing lawn bowls for Australia for many years. When we look at the people, lovingly called the white penguins, who go out there each weekend and during the week and play bowls, we should remember the records this lady has brought to Australia. Merle commenced playing lawn bowls in 1959, which takes us back a fair way. She grew up as a young lady in Port Kembla, before seeing the light and moving into the more respectable parts of Wollongong in the Macarthur electorate. She played with the Bulli club for some 19 years and represented New South Wales for the first time in 1963. She won the first Australian title in 1973, and she also went on to represent Australia in England in 1977 and was a member of the winning world fours. In 1977 she teamed with another lady from Newcastle to win the Australian round robin pairs. Merle then joined the Wollongong Women's Club for a couple of years and subsequently the Corrimal Club, of which she is still a member today. In 1981 Merle represented Australia in the worlds bowls in Canada and also won the masters singles of New South Wales and the New South Wales singles, as well as skippering the winning New South Wales pairs and fours. In 1983 she was a member of the New South Wales round robin team that won against all States in Australia. She skippered the Australian pairs in Tasmania and represented Australia in Hong Kong against bowlers from all round the world. In 1985 she crowned her achievements while representing Australia, and last year she was nominated for a number of significant awards, not the least of which was as Australian sportsperson of the year at the annual Australia Day presentation. I think it typifies the enthusiasm of the sporting public in the Illawarra, and people such as Merle Richardson in particular, that not only was Merle prepared to go out and represent her country and put in a lot of time training for and playing in the many competitions when she represented her country but that she also found time to play against blind bowlers. She make herself available to play with the handicapped on a regular basis. This typifies the sporting attitude that people on the south coast have come to represent over many years. In fact, Mrs Richardson has passed on her sporting prowess to other members of her family. Her son, as the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) would know well, is rated tenth in the world as a top surfboard rider; he was previously rated No. 3. Her other son is a top swimmer and also competes in motor bike racing. I pay tribute to this lady as a great Australian and a great ambassador for sport in the Illawarra. She has brought a great deal of credit to the many thousands of men and women she represents through lawn bowls and the Lawn Bowls Association. I also pay tribute to the Illawarra Mercury and the Caltex Oil Co. for putting on this important sports star of the year award. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.43) —In the recent parliamentary recess I was fortunate to join a delegation to Israel, a delegation consisting of coalition members and led very capably by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and Mrs Sinclair. I take the opportunity to put on public record my thanks to all those associated with the organisation of the trip, and in particular the Israeli Government. I did not return to Australia with some sense of instant solution to the complex problems in the Middle East. It is worth stating that while we talk about the many problems of the Middle East, I was certainly impressed by the fact that there have been many great successes in Israel since 1948. One thing I experienced, and I am sure other members in this place have also experienced it-I refer to members on both sides of the House-was the great reservoir of goodwill towards Australians and Australia. That goes back a long way and, of course, in recent history to the Palestine campaign in World War I. My purpose in speaking in this debate is to express my concern at the level of dissipation of that goodwill. A number of policy issues which have been before the Federal Government have brought about that dissipation. In fact, that reservoir is such that many Israelis told our delegation that Australians can do no wrong. I think that in any relationship there is always a limit to which one can go, and I would be concerned to see the Australian Government breach that limit. In regard to the Sinai, which perhaps is the major policy issue in recent times confronting the Australian Government in regard to the Middle East, I think it is a matter of deep regret that Australia is withdrawing its forces from the Multinational Force and Observers. The fact is that in the recent history of the Middle East one of the great achievements has been the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. When the Government talks about wanting to participate in the peace process in the Middle East, let there be no doubt that the one area in which we can participate is in the ongoing peace treaty between those two nations. The Australians have done a great job in the Sinai. The Leader of the National Party was able to visit the Australians there and to see for himself the great job they have done on behalf not just of Australia but also of the international community. The second issue was very much current at the time we were in Israel, and that relates to the Temple Mount. Without going into a great explanation of the details, because these matters are always complex and many of the issues there are complex by Australian standards because of the considerable historical and religious perspectives, I noted that in the debate on foreign policy in this House last week that there was some reference to this matter. It is a matter of some concern to see the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to some of the queries raised, and in particular those raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who was also a member of the delegation. The Foreign Minister explained Australia's vote in the Security Council. He started by saying that he seemed to recall that the United States of America had exercised a veto. Well, that was not right. In fact, the United States voted against it. He then went on to give his explanation, which was quite slim on any definition: The incident referred to was much more complex and potentially much more provocative, perhaps even dangerous, than the honourable member preferred to acknowledge. He went on: I think that if the honourable member looks at those who also cast a positive vote he will note that Australia was in good Western company when it did so. Frankly, that is hardly sufficient rationale for taking the action we did in the Security Council. I believe that it was a very plausible option to the Government at the very least to abstain on that vote, and preferably to vote against the resolution. The last matter I wished to mention was the Libyan fighter interception, but I shall not have time to deal with that in the time available to me. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.48) —It was reported in the Melbourne Sun of Tuesday, 4 February 1986 that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd plans to subdivide 2,000 acres of land it owns on French Island in Western Port Bay, Victoria. BHP bought the land in 1967 for a reported price of $200 an acre. For $400,000 the company obtained an excellent deep water site, and it was believed at the time that a modern steelworks would be established on the site. However, this has not come to pass. BHP is about to become a $1 billion profit company. It has made its money through the exploitation of Australia's natural resources. It has pumped the oil out of Australia. It has created massive holes in the countryside as it has dug out and sold our minerals. It has polluted our air, water and soil. It has also made a huge amount of money and created thousands of jobs. It has paid taxes, expanded overseas, et cetera. It has done so through Australia's bountiful supply of resources. BHP now has a magnificent opportunity to set an example for others to follow and to help rectify its past errors. After exploiting our countryside for over 100 years it can give back to the nation something it now owns. I am suggesting that BHP give to the Victorian Government and the people of Australia the land they own on French Island. The land contains areas of wetland which are very important in the ecology of the Western Port area. French Island has a natural beauty in which the area owned by BHP plays a great part. French Island could become a haven, an oasis for our native flora and fauna. Just imagine, in another 100 years people will have easy access to this large island, close to a huge population. It will offer a glorious opportunity to view at close hand that which we take for granted at present-an island unspoilt by exploitation. French Island has not had a great deal of development on it. Those who have set up their farms have not disturbed very much of the environment of the island. The BHP land is only a small part of the island-only 2,000 acres. However, if it were returned to the people of Australia by BHP, I am certain that it would be looked after by future governments. The year 1988 is the nation's bicentennial. The land would certainly make a nice birthday gift to the people of Australia. I am aware that BHP is having a few internal problems at present, but I believe that now is an opportune time for it to prove that it really is the Big Australian. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.52) —I quote from a telex which I received today, a copy of which has gone to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): A joint meeting of the Bingera, Fairymead, Millaquin and Qunaba Mill Supplier's Committees was held in Bundaberg on 11 February 1986 to discuss the steady deterioration in the canegrowing industry. The members who participated in the meeting represent the 870 growers who supply cane to the four Bundaberg district raw sugar mills. The Bundaberg Cane Growers Organisation, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, and Bundaberg sugar company, are continuing with their joint efforts to keep the total industry at Bundaberg viable through improved agricultural techniques and farm management aimed at producing an adequate district throughput of cane in the most economic manner. Our attempts to match production costs with predicted raw sugar returns are being frustrated by the effects of inflation and continually rising costs. Government charges make a substantial contribution to sugar industry costs, particularly in relation to fuel, electricity and water charges. We are also gravely concerned at the serious impact of high interest rates on the desperate financial situation. That telex expresses the concern of sugar growers in my electorate. Whilst I recognise, and am continually told by the Government, that the sugar industry has to be a price taker because it is competing with the European Economic Community and other overseas markets, I believe that we should also take note of the fact that the Government causes the cost of production to rise by increasing its charges and taxes and by other policies. Input costs are the costs of production. They are affecting workers in mill areas and workers on farms just as much as they affect the mill owners and growers. Rising input costs have been in the areas of fuel, interest rates and wages policy. Now we have the proposed superannuation scheme for the industry. We have the quarantining of off-farm income. We have tariffs, export inspection charges and the loss of tax incentives through the income equalisation deposit schemes. This problem has to be faced by the growers and by this Government. Whilst this Government was very quick to act in regard to the diammonium and monoammonium phosphate subsidies in Western Australia and was prepared overnight to give many millions of dollars to Western Australia, let us have a look at the Government's take. It is taking off rum production alone some $80m annually in excise and sales tax. It is taking that away from the industry, but it is not prepared as yet to give any of it back. Let us look at some of the statements by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). During the lead-up to the election campaign in February and March 1983, the Minister for Primary Industry said that he acknowledged the extent of crisis in the industry and that it demanded urgent government action. He pledged that a Labor government would give the sugar industry first priority-I emphasise, first priority-in the long line of primary industries supposedly neglected by the previous Government. That was the promise made by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Deputy Prime Minister was reported in the Adelaide Advertiser as saying: It's about time the rural producers of this country woke up. If we decided to import wheat or import sugar, pineapple juice, citrus juice, we could do without a lot of them because we can get it cheaper somewhere else and they ought to realise this. Perhaps that is the type of thinking of this Government. It should be understood that it is not only the growers who are in trouble, it is not only millers; it is the industries, the small businesses and the communities which feed off the production of the cane fields. If we let the cane industry down, hundreds of thousands of employees in the industry who are now being supported by it will be affected. It is a matter this Government should consider, because the transfer of payments under the welfare system would be much higher in cost than the support that is being asked for by the cane industry. I believe that it is about time the Government took a stand and decided to give some support to the sugar industry, in the same way as it did in the reorganisation of the steel industry, to help out these regional areas. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.57) —In the brief time available to me I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to the latest developments in Sri Lanka. I was most concerned by the recent announcement by Sri Lanka's President, Mr Jayawardene, of his decision to seek an all out military solution to the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. The President has also admitted that, in this drive for a military solution, the indiscriminate killing of Tamil civilians will continue. The Sri Lankan Government has spared little time in implementing the President's decision. Reports from Radio Australia on 3 February 1986 quote Sri Lankan official sources as saying that nearly 60 Tamil separatists were killed by the security forces in Northern Sri Lanka and that aerial, land and naval attacks were made on the eastern province of Sri Lanka, killing some 30 separatists. It would be futile, as it always has been, to find out how many of those killed were innocent civilians. The Sri Lankan Government has always used the words Tamil and Separatist, as though they were interchangeable. It would neither be an assumption nor a surprising discovery if all those 90 persons killed turn out to be innocent Tamil civilians. One should remember that in Sri Lanka, the security forces have the right to shoot, kill and dispose of bodies without recourse to any form of judicial inquiry. In a recent interview with a Swiss journalist, President Jayawardene has warned that if Tamil refugees in Europe are deported back to Sri Lanka, he cannot guarantee their safety. The world community must intervene urgently by imposing significant pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to reformulate its strategy and work towards a negotiated settlement. If not, many more aerial and naval attacks will follow and more and more innocent Tamil civilians will be killed. I should also like to express my deep concern at the continued refusal of the Sri Lankan Government to respond to appeals from Amnesty International regarding documented cases of torture in that country. The only response from the Sri Lankan Government has been to denounce Amnesty International's information as `unfair, biased and untrue'. Amnesty International has appealed to President Jayawardene as late as 24 December last. One wonders why there is not more publicity in this country about the Sri Lankan problems. People are not interested and, by not being interested, by believing biased Press reports, the propaganda put out by the Sri Lankan High Commission and organisations such as the Queensland Group for Sri Lankan Unity, they are condemning Tamils in Sri Lanka to a life of repression, terror, intimidation and, in many cases, death. I appeal to my fellow members of this Parliament and to the people of Australia: In the name of humanity, we have been silent for too long. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 17 February 1986: States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments to the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 10 February 1986.