Friday, 11 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 is an urgent Bill. Question put: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins. J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Fitzgibbon, E. J. Cowan, D. B. Milton, P. Jull, D. F. Bilney, G. N. Andrew, J. N. Keating, P. J. Ruddock, P. M. Klugman, R. E. White, P. N. D. Darling, E. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.04) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows: (a) For the remainder of the Committee stage, until 12 noon, (b) for the remaining stages, until 12.05 p.m. There have already been no fewer than 33 speakers on this Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. Almost everybody who has been listed to speak has spoken; most of them, even in the Committee stage, have spoken in very general terms. We on this side of the House know that there is a very clear division between the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia about this legislation. We know that had we called for a vote on the second reading we would have split the Opposition right down the centre, because half of its members do not want this legislation at all. They are going to do everything possible to see that this legislation is not passed in the House of Representatives. It is no good our delaying it any further. Honourable members have all had an opportunity to express their views. They have all been on radio and television and have been reported in the newspapers. Everybody in Australia has had an opportunity to judge where members stand on this issue. There is no need, any longer, to delay the passing of this extremely important legislation. That is why I have moved the motion. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.12) —I say to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that I do not think I have heard more balderdash in my life. One interesting thing came out of this motion and out of what the Leader of the House said about a division on the second reading. I know that there are many factions in the Australian Labor Party, but he has just acknowledged that within the Labor Party there are sufficient for certain members to want to vote against this Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women), because under the Standing Orders the only way in which there can be a division on a measure is if elements within a party are opposed to the measure or there is a majority in the House. I suggest that the Leader of the House has just displayed, once again, that that 28 rump that really is more and more wagging Hawke's tail is in fact the reality in every sphere of this Government's operations. Madam Speaker, I think there is another and far more pertinent aspect to this gag. I think we need to understand that there is a real problem because the Labor Party knows, as we know, that this Bill is not what it pretends to be. It does not provide in any way for better and more equal working opportunities between the sexes; all it is is a compromise as a sop to the radical Left. It is there, not because it is designed to implement equality of opportunity or to provide equality of employment; it is there simply because the Government felt that it had to go out there and try to persuade a few people that the Bill in some way was going to allay all of those forces that it knows are out there in the community, looking to it to perform. This Bill does not do what it purports to do. Therefore, it should be debated in a full and open way. I find it quite fascinating that the Government had to gag the second reading debate and it is now imposing the guillotine to make sure that worthwhile amendments to the Bill cannot be implemented. I point out that those amendments include, as was mentioned in the second reading contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), a change to ensure that, if the Bill means anything, it is going to apply to statutory authorities as well as to other fields. Why does the Government not want to do that? If it is genuine about introducing equal employment opportunity, why does it want to deny this House the opportunity of considering worthwhile extensions to ensure that the Bill is more than sound, wind and fury. In reality, in areas in the Australian Public Service, where this Government discriminates so much against women, and in the trade unions, where we know that the colleagues of the Labor Party discriminate so much against women, measures could be introduced to ensure that there is the same obligation as there is in private sector employment. Needless to say, members of the Opposition totally oppose the denial of members' rights to address this important issue. On that basis, we will oppose the closure of the debate. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. 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, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Cowan, D. B. Milton, P. Jull, D. F. Bilney, G. N. Andrew, J. N. Keating, P. J. Ruddock, P. M. Klugman, R. E. White, P. N. D. Darling, E. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 10 April. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.20) —Last night, before the Committee stage of this debate was interrupted, I was making the point in support of the Opposition's amendment to the wording of the short title that the present title was misleadingly descriptive as presented. I quoted the definition of affirmative action in the 1984 Green Paper, and that will appear in yesterday's Hansard. As defined, it has more in common, at least at this initial stage, with the Canadian system than with that of the United States of America. I want to add that the real interest in the American example lies in the way affirmative action has developed in the United States of America. I confess that there may not be an immediate analogy between this proposal and what exists in America today. However, anyone familiar with recent American history knows that for the best part of a decade and a half the United States Supreme Court backpedalled from the original legislative idea of blind treatment for all regardless of colour and sex. The principle of genuine equality of opportunity for all individuals seems to be viewed as an impediment to the new court agenda in that country, which is race- and sex-conscious decisions for the benefit of black, female and other minority groups, despite the fact that collectively those groups represent 70 per cent of the United States population and are the holders of three-quarters of the national wealth. The dominant strand in United States legal theory, as enunciated during the past 15 years or so, has studiously avoided or denigrated the concept of race- or sex-neutral treatment of individuals. The new buzz words are `statistical impact', `protected groups' and `discriminatory results', and terms of that order. As I said earlier the relevance of the American example is admittedly not an immediate analogy with this Bill, but it is necessary to remember that it is a simple fact that what the people have in the United States today is not what the Congress very clearly intended. Perhaps in that country they do not have the benefit of the Acts Interpretation Act and its court system may not refer to explanatory memoranda and debates in Congress. That is the situation in the United States, and that is one of the concerns that we have with regard to this legislation. It is worth recalling that just a decade or so ago one A. A. Calwell, former parliamentary leader of the Australian Labor Party, wrote this in his book entitled Be Just and Fear Not: . . . women's lib or those other way out movements that have developed in recent times. Much of the alleged underrepresentation of women ignores the data on years in the work force, relevant qualifications, the views of women and the choices many of them make, particularly with regard to home responsibilities. Again using an example from the United States, because those figures are more readily available, the data shows largely that the real difference is not between men and women but, rather, between married women and all other persons. For instance, when we look at the United States academic world and women in it, those women who never marry, earn more than academic men who never marry. The system of tenure in academia in Australia might not disclose the same result, but that is a very interesting observation. Secondly, there seems to be also a failure to appreciate the role of the market-place. Professor Thomas Sowell, the distinguished United States economist and social historian, argues that discrimination is in fact least where the market is the freest. Again, it seems important for people to take the time to look in detail at the real world that exists outside sociology seminar rooms. Further, I suggest that all too often the evidence cited in support of claims of discrimination is rather fragile, and it is with those points in mind that I support the Opposition's amendment in relation to the title of this Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Before I call the honourable member for Cowper, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there is in the chamber today a delegation from the Mosman Spastic Centre School. I welcome the young people to the chamber and I hope that they will enjoy the proceedings this morning. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.27) —I am totally committed to supporting equality of opportunity for all Australians and I am totally opposed to any discrimination in the work place, whether it be on the basis of gender, religion, race or any other factor. I believe it is true that in the past there has been a great deal of discrimination against women and I also believe it is true that even now there are instances where discrimination does exist. I do not believe that this Bill will do anything at all to assist women to gain equality of opportunity. As I said in an interjection last night, I believe that this Bill is a garbage Bill. the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) took me up on that and complained about my use of the term, but I repeat it, because I do believe that this Bill is a garbage Bill; it is a rubbish Bill; it is a confidence trick, which is just one more in the succession of confidence tricks that are being played by the Hawke Government on the people of Australia. In passing, I congratulate the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) who has just spoken, because the point that he made about the major proportion of discrimination in the work force in this country being against married women was a very significant point indeed. I am not opposed to equality of opportunity. I believe that it is absolutely vital for the growth of this nation that every Australian has the freedom and ability to use his own potential capacity to create whatever is necessary for the benefit of Australia. In passing, I would also like to say that I do not and cannot believe that we can have a society where Australians are separated one from the other. I know that, in a caring and compassionate society, which I hope this nation of ours will always be, there are people in need of help and assistance. Where that help or assistance is needed, it should be dealt with not on the basis of race or gender but, rather, on the basis of need. Similarly, when we are talking about equality of opportunity in employment, the only sensible basis is merit. I cannot support this Bill because it is not really going to do anything which it allegedly sets out to do. I also cannot support it for a number of other reasons: First, it is going to enlarge the bureaucracy and I, as I am sure all of my colleagues in the Opposition, believe that we have reached a stage in Australian society where the bureaucracy does not need to be extended but, rather, reduced. This Bill will enlarge the bureaucracy. It will increase government expenditure and, heaven knows, we need to reduce government expenditure. For the past few days we have seen farmers arriving in Canberra from all around New South Wales in order to protest about interest rates, because the costs are killing them. A major reason for that problem is rampaging government expenditure. This Bill will give trade unions more power. I for one believe that the trade unions in this country do not need any more powers at all. If anything, we need to control the power of the trade unions in this country. Again, this Bill will impose more regulations on business and, heavens knows, business in this country is in need of deregulation and less control. This Bill will also impose additional costs on businesses which, in these economic conditions, they cannot possibly undertake with any degree of equanimity. We have had changes in Australian society. In August 1966, 30.6 per cent of the labour force was women and in March 1986, 20 years later, that figure had grown to 39.7 per cent. In 20 years we have seen the proportion of women in the labour force increase by approximately one-third. We have had a gradual change in society's attitude towards equality of opportunity for women in employment in Australia. Mr Miles —In an orderly way. Mr NEHL —Indeed, in an orderly fashion. What I hope to see is that we continue on this path of orderly change where society itself brings about the change. I do not for one minute believe that the people of Australia are there to serve the Government: The boot is on the other foot. What we must always remember is that the Government is there to serve the people. Society itself is changing. The figures that I have just quoted demonstrate that quite clearly. What we have to consider is whether, first, a government can legislate to change people's thoughts and attitudes and I do not really believe that it can. Even more importantly, unless government is going to get involved in an Orwellian 1984 situation, I do not believe that it is right and proper that a government should pass any legislation that attempts to change the thinking of the people whom the government is there to serve. I think it is a very basic and fundamental point that no government should pass legislation to attempt to brainwash the people whom it is there to serve. I think that the whole issue boils down to a simple choice of evolution or revolution. What the Government purports to be doing with this Bill boils down to revolution. As I said, it is a nonsense Bill; it is a garbage Bill and those who pin their faith on it are going to be sadly and sorely disappointed once they see what eventuates from it, unless of course the Government is not telling the truth when it says that there will be no quotas. But time will tell. We must consider whether it is better to allow society to change itself, as it is doing, in an evolutionary fashion or whether it is right, correct and proper for the government of the day, of any political complexion, to try to impose change in a revolutionary fashion. I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning of my remarks: I am totally committed to equality of opportunity for all Australians. I find any suggestion that inequality or discrimination should be encapsulated or incorporated in our society to be anathema. I believe that all Australians must have the opportunity of finding their full potential as citizens. I cannot support the Bill. I would rather see our society change by way of evolution. I would rather see our society change itself without having change forced upon it. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.36) —We are currently discussing a proposed amendment to the title of the Bill which would take out the words `affirmative action' so that the proposed Act would be entitled the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act. I believe that if we are realistic and if we are to have some legislation in this area, perhaps we should be discussing a proposed Act entitled the Equal Opportunity for Women Act, and leave out the employment aspect of it. Had that been the case we may have been able to enshrine some real principles in regard to women by way of this parliamentary procedure. The fundamental issue is not opportunity for women in employment; it should be opportunity for women in Australia. By that means we would have been able to recognise those women in our society who choose to be homemakers, who choose to be mothers-the people of Australia who are being disadvantaged at present and will be further disadvantaged as the implications of this Bill are evidenced in our social thinking. The CHAIRMAN —I remind the honourable member that we are debating clause 1, which is the title of the Bill. Mr CONQUEST —That is quite correct, Mr Chairman. I am pointing out to you that even the change of title will not change the fundamental principle to which we should be addressing ourselves-that is, equal opportunity for women in Australia. I do not have to speak in favour of the proposed change. I realise it has been brought forward in faith to take away the affirmative action meaning within the Bill. But I am saying that we should be discussing equal opportunity for women in Australia. That change would be better than the Bill we have at present and the implications that are inherent in it. This Bill will make the social pressures on the single income family much harder. Even at present we see those who choose to be homemakers-those parents who want to raise a family-are finding that there are pressures as they try to keep up with the affluent two-income family. They cannot really tell Johnnie why he cannot have the things that young Georgie next door has-or should I say also Sally and Jane. Those family units are not compensated by their belief in the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the family unit to Australian society. I know that the Bill mentions forward estimates, but I believe that that is just an appeasement phrase for quotas. It will encourage women into the work force and it will also encourage women who are in the work force to stay there, rather than follow their natural inclinations. After all, if they leave the work force it will bring hardship for the family they have, or for other members that they may wish to bring into the family. No amendment can alter the fundamental issue that should be addressed, that is, we should have equal opportunity for women in Australia and we should take heed that there are women who wish to maintain the sanctity of the family unit. They want to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by any means. Had a more appropriate Bill been before us, we could have addressed those problems to ensure that women were compensated if they wished to follow their natural inclinations in regard to raising a family. We should recognise that, realistically we do have a fundamental problem in that regard. We should recognise that women will not be encouraged to take on the duty of motherhood. I do not see it as a duty, but they do have duties in regard to raising the children and making sure that they mould them into people who will help our society in the future. Our social obligations and our social thinking today were built on the sanctity of marriage and the family unit. I see nothing derogatory in that statement. But some feminist groups are inclined towards ensuring that the family unit is destroyed. This legislation is hastening the evolution which is taking place. We know we must have a change of attitude, but it was shown by the pilot program that this could be achieved by education and less divisive persuasion than that is contained in this Bill. Whilst there are no financial penalties, there is a penalty in the threat that persons or corporate bodies may be reported to the Parliament. We have set up a statutory body to ensure that these provisions are carried out. An amount of $1.5m will be spent in its first year of operation. This is another impost on business. Businesses must also put a senior person in charge of the program. So once more business is being asked to pay for the social engineering of this Government. I believe in equal opportunity for women, whether it be in the work place or in the general community. This Government and this Bill do not address those fundamental principles that I have pointed to in regard to those women who want to leave the work place to follow their natural inclinations of motherhood but who worry about the loss of income to the family, and those women who desire to stay at home because they feel that their place in life is to be a mother and to raise a family according to Christian principles. Those women in the end will be disadvantaged by this Bill. I believe it is a Bill that should never have encompassed employment. Rather it should have enshrined the principles of equal opportunity for women. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.43) —We are considering clause 1 of the Bill. Quite frankly, it seems to me that some of the debate on clause 1, which concerns only the title of the Bill, would have been more appropriate for the second reading stage. I obviously reject the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in this place last night. I believe that the title of the Bill, which is the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, should remain. It is very interesting that some of the honourable members opposite who have spoken did not even understand that we are dealing with clause 1. I am convinced that they have not even read the Bill because I have heard all sorts of outrageous claims about quotas and people being forced to do this and that. There has never been any argument by those on this side of the chamber-and let us get this straight-that any partner to a marriage, woman or man, who wants to stay home to bring up the family does not have the right to do so. Hearing some members of the National Party, one would think that the only responsibility for bringing up children in Australia rested with women. That is what honourable members are saying. However, it rests with both partners of a marriage. Mr Nehl —You would find it hard to breast-feed, though, wouldn't you? Mr HOLLIS —That is typical of the approach of the National Party and, quite frankly, it is evident from comments made by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), the honourable members for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), and quite a few other members of the National Party when talking about affirmative action or the rights of women, that they think that the only right for a woman is to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Mr Nehl —Come off it. What nonsense. Mr HOLLIS —Just read the speeches. The honourable member should read the speeches of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), and other honourable members. That is what they are saying. The other point that I would like to raise is that nowhere in the legislation is it indicated that there must be quotas. We are not talking about quotas at all. As I have said, the National Party is misinterpreting the Bill when talking about quotas. We have always argued that the opportunity is there for people to compete on merit. There is no argument about that. If honourable members think that people are getting where they should be getting on merit, they should look at the top range of occupations anywhere in Australia, for example in the universities. We have only recently appointed the first female vice-chancellor of any Australian university. One can look at the top range of positions in the Public Service or in any company in Australia. Mr Hand —What about parliamentarians? Mr HOLLIS —Yes, as I say, what a great representation of affirmative action: There is hardly an overwhelming number of women National Party members representing that Party in this Parliament! How many are there? There is a preponderance of grey-suited and grey-shirted faceless people there. There is not one woman member. It was only recently that the Liberal Party had a woman member-only one. So, for members opposite to come into this chamber and hold their hands over their hearts and talk about their belief in the equality of women lacks credibility. They are damned by everyone in the gallery, when they look down on cockies' corner over there and see how many women members there are. That whole great sea of green over there is graced by only one woman member, and she is not even in the National Party; she is in the Liberal Party. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Hinkler and the honourable member for Cowper shall cease interjecting. They were heard in silence and the honourable member for Throsby will be heard in silence as well. Mr HOLLIS —Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Sometimes I wonder whether members opposite can get a Bill right. The National Party does not have many members here. I have sat through endless speeches here quietly and have not interjected but, of course, once members on this side of the House get up to speak the interjections begin. Honourable members opposite interject because they do not like what we are saying. We are giving them a few truths, and they do not like it. Many of them have been playing to the gallery for the past couple of days, when the farmers have been down here. Further, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), for example, is preparing for next week's edition of Newsweekly, and I suppose once again we will have to read his speech and see his photograph in that publication. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will probably be there as well. I now want to refer briefly to clause 1 of the Bill. I refer to the way that the Press had dealt with this Bill. This Bill presently before Parliament is important, and I support the original title of the Bill, not the title in the amendment. However, one would not think that it was an important Bill when reading the Press. I only read the New South Wales Press at the moment. Mr Hand —What is wrong with the Victorian Press? Mr HOLLIS —I should try the Victorian Press-as the honourable member for Melbourne says, it is far more balanced. From reports in the Sydney Morning Herald in the past couple of days one would think that the only speakers on the Bill in this chamber had been National Party members-although the speech of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) was also reported. As this is an important Bill I think it is worth more coverage than simply the reporting of some of the more outrageous statements made by members such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Perhaps in reporting the proceedings-I am afraid that it is Mary Louise O'Callaghan who has been reporting them-what she has been doing has been to show up just how red-necked, how ignorant and how out of touch with reality the members of the National Party are. Quite frankly, some excellent speeches have been made by members on this side of the chamber. Last night my colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), made a brilliant speech, as all his speeches are. He made a brilliant contribution to this debate. I did not see reference to that in the Sydney Morning Herald. Last night the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who as usual is present in the chamber, when speaking at the Committee stage, also made a sterling contribution. I refer also to the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who will speak later today and make his usual brilliant contribution. Do we see those speeches reported in the columns of the Sydney Morning Herald? No, we do not see that, but we see the more outrageous statements that have been made; for example, the comments of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), who was mouthing some comments made by a professor of philosophy, I think at the University of Sydney, talking about all these radical feminists taking over that university. What they have been saying is absolute rubbish. All honourable members opposite have to do is consider the number of people who occupy senior lecturing positions in the University of Sydney and see how many women are there. I know that the University of Wollongong has one female professor, but there should be an equal number of male and female professors in that place. If we do not work to achieve that, we are saying that the women of Australia are less intelligent than the male population. We are also saying that, in comparison with other countries-the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain and the United States of America, which members opposite are always fawning over-the women in Australia are less intelligent. Honourable members opposite should go out and tell that to the women of Australia. When the honourable members from cockies' corner are next addressing a Country Women's Association meeting- Mr Hand —Dad's Army. Mr HOLLIS —When Dad's Army goes out and addresses them they should say to the women present: `Dear ladies, how happy I am as a local member of Federal Parliament to be here today to talk to you members of the Country Womens Association who are less intelligent than any other women in the world. Your role in life is to stay at home and bring up the children'. That is what the honourable members opposite are saying, and they have damned themselves in their own speeches. So, I support the legislation. I reject the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party to clause 1, and I support the title of the Bill as it stands, namely, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.53) —I have been waiting for a long time for this opportunity to speak. I have a couple of points to make. I support the amendment. I find very, very interesting all this talk about women being able to compete and so forth. I would just like to tell the Committee that for the two elections before the most recent election a woman ran against me; she was given a fair opportunity to beat me, but she could not do so. The people of Tasmania wanted me-I am better looking! Anyway, they wanted me, so I am still here. I have listened intently to the contributions that have been made today. I support equal opportunity for women, and all my life I have fought against discrimination. I have five daughters, a wife and a mother-in-law-surely to goodness I know a little bit about it. I want those girls to be able to compete with men and other women, and if they are good enough they will get up there. But one does not do it with affirmative action. The reason why we are a bit suspicious is that we are suspicious of some of the architects that have sort of built this Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. We are concerned about the matter because they always talk about a network of family creches and goodness knows what; they always talk about the woman at home looking after her children as not being fulfilled. We are not critical of women who enter the work force. We are not critical of them at all. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Chair- man- - Mr GOODLUCK —I knew the honourable member for Melbourne would take a point of order. Mr Hand —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are discussing the title of the Bill. I say that the honourable member's comments are not relevant to that matter. Mr GOODLUCK —Sit down and be quiet. Mr Hand —If the honourable member does not mind I can be quiet until he stops interjecting. I intend to make my point of order. We are dealing with the title of the Bill. The honourable member's comments are not relevant to the title of the Bill. What is more, the comments being made are blatantly untrue. Mr Chairman, I think that perhaps you ought to direct that the honourable member refer to- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Whether the honourable member has said something that is true or untrue is for the Chair to decide. The Chair has been willing to allow the rather wide-ranging debate on this clause. I did draw some members' attention to relevance earlier. The debate seems to have broadened after that with the contribution of the honourable member for Throsby. The Chair is willing to allow a not too wide-ranging debate on the title of the Bill. I think honourable members should recall that we are discussing clause 1, which is the title of the Bill. Honourable members have been ranging rather widely and I think that is acceptable to the House. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am sorry for the interruption. Perhaps the honourable member for Melbourne might like to read Newsweekly next week. He has already accused me of having the speech- Mr Hand —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance as to when I should refute that accusation. I have not spoken in a sense about Newsweekly this morning. If the honourable member contributes to Newsweekly that is hardly my fault. I have not accused him of being named in it. Therefore, I ask that the accusation be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Melbourne has asked that the suggestion that he might read Newsweekly be withdrawn. Mr GOODLUCK —I withdraw that. If we are talking about misreprepresentation, a lot of people accused that the member for Franklin said this and the member for Franklin said that. Let me say once again, quite clearly, that the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) made such a statement yesterday. I have sometimes been much misunderstood on the subject. I have been called a male chauvinist. I have been accused of believing that my wife should be chained to the kitchen sink, barefoot and pregnant, and all that sort of thing. I have never said those sorts of things. As a matter of fact, my wife has equal opportunity with me any time. If she wants to be a mother and look after her children that is her business. Mr Rocher —I have heard that she is more than equal. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, she is more than equal. I thank the honourable member for that. That is the way I like things to be. We all have got equal opportunity. If we start introducing legislation, as some of these legislative architects are doing, we will get ourselves into strife. Before we know where we are the young women of Australia will be very confused. I must retaliate very gently for something the honourable member for Canberra said yesterday. She did not actually say the member for Franklin but she did say that a member had accused her of certain things when she had a little baby. All the member for Franklin said was that surely to God a member of this Parliament, with a high salary and a husband with a high salary, could have stayed at home a little longer with the baby rather than coming back to work within two weeks. I do not think it is so shameful to say those sort of things. The honourable member for Canberra then said that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who is one of my colleagues, had interrupted this conversation and put the Liberal point of view. That was my point of view, not the Liberal point of view. If anyone wants to have a shot at me they can at any time. If I have a point of view then I will express that point of view. The John Valders and other members of the Liberal party will never stop me if I have a point of view to express. All I have said is that if we have a member of parliament setting an example like that the women of Australia will get confused. That is all I was saying. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I hope the honourable member will come back to the subject of clause 1 soon. Mr GOODLUCK —I hope the young ladies of Australia are not confused. Let me say once again that I want them to have equal opportunity. I want them to be able to compete at every chance. If they want to compete they will compete on their merits, and they will get there. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) made the very interesting point that a lot of women are not in top executive positions because we have a changing world. Things are changing every day. More women do not want to get married. Regrettably, more women are separated. More women are getting back into the work force. If those women want to get up that tree they will demonstrate their own ability. The only difference, for the benefit of the honourable member for Throsby, is that men cannot have babies. Regrettably, that is one of the big things a lot of people seem to forget. I understand that point and I appreciate it. As to affirmative action, we will not achieve that. I know in my heart and soul that we will not achieve it. I know that the Anne Summerses of this world-she is one of the main architects of this Bill-will not change the views of people such as me. Mr Maher —Don't attack Anne Summers again. She is not in the Department any more. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member can squabble and rabble as much as he likes. When he gets to his feet he will have a good opportunity to reply. I say to the honourable member for Lowe that one day in a public forum we will debate the abortion issue. The sentiments the honourable member has expressed on that subject are very deep in my mind. I do not have anything more to say except that I only hope that this Bill when it goes through-it will go through-is able to improve sensibly and constructively the life of the young women of Australia. I only hope that it does not interfere with them to the degree that it confuses them and it stops them getting employment opportunities, that it does not create the bitterness that sometimes these sorts of things do create in our community. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.01) —I preface my remarks by saying that I am totally opposed to abortion and that I resent the fact that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) brought this matter up in the House. Also I resent his reference to Dr Anne Summers, who is no longer working for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and over whom the honourable member and I clashed on the sex discrimination legislation. The honourable member attacked that woman, who was sitting here to instruct the Minister and who could not reply. That was the most outrageous personal attack I have ever seen on an instructing officer in this Parliament. I think that what members of the Opposition have to realise is that legislation brought into this chamber is the work of the Government and not the work of people in the departments. The legislation is put up, accepted, amended or rejected by Cabinet and then accepted by Caucus. We all support this legislation. We all believe in affirmative action for women. I am disappointed that the Opposition proposes to drop the reference to affirmative action. The Opposition says it is in favour of affirmative action. There is plenty of evidence that young women in this nation are not entering some of the professions, trades and jobs at the same rate as some of the young men. In the faculties of engineering at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education and technical colleges the proportion of young men to women is 13:1. The proportion of young women to young men going into teaching is heavily biased in favour of women. That means that girls are ending up in the teaching profession in large numbers. They are ending up in a profession which tragically cannot offer employment on graduation. So there is a need for affirmative action, for somebody to try to assist young women to enter into professions in which they can obtain jobs, where they can be assured of work. I have a niece who studied chemical engineering a few years ago at Sydney University and has just recently graduated. Her entry to that course caused a sensation. There were five girls amongst hundreds of male students in the first year of that course at Sydney University. I am informed that all those girls when they finished got jobs, and that they got good jobs at that. There is a continuing bias not only in engineering but in law, medicine, agriculture and all the other areas that are considered to be male preserves. I am appalled that there should even be debate on this clause. The Opposition wants to drop all reference to affirmative action. There is a need for affirmative action. It is a phrase we should hear more and more in our nation. There is a need for affirmative action for ethnic people, who do not have old school tie contacts and who perhaps are denied promotion at all levels. Many of my constituents were born overseas and they are sometimes denied promotion perhaps because their English is not up to scratch or because they have trouble with written English. There is a need for affirmative action for black Australians. I ask: Who suffers from leprosy in this country? If one goes to Western Australia and other places one sees that it is the black Australians. That is why this Government is continually formulating policies for isolated Aboriginal Australians in an effort to improve their housing and their health. There is a need for affirmative action for women who are left abandoned and deserted with children. Yet, yesterday in this chamber the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) attacked the supporting parent's benefit. If there are abuses in the social security benefits area people are prosecuted. Thousands of people are prosecuted every year for making false statements on social security applications or not notifying a change of circumstances. The fact that there are abuses does not mean that women with little children should be left to starve and denied all government assistance. It does not mean that they should be amongst the deserving poor thrown on the Salvation Army or St Vincent de Paul to assist. Yet this is the policy of the National Party of Australia. I hope that it is not also the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia, but no doubt we will see when the vote comes. This is the whole purport of the debate in this chamber; we have been wasting valuable time discussing whether we should throw out the phrase `affirmative action'. I hope that the Parliament will not agree to this amendment. The Parliament knows that this legislation is, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, a very mild matter. It does not force any woman into a job and it does not force any large company or university in Australia to employ or promote a woman. It is simply a reporting measure which requires companies to report how many of their employees are male, how many are female, and what status they have. Women are to be promoted on merit, women will come into this Parliament on merit and they will go into all positions in the community on merit. This is not a draconian piece of legislation. It will not force women who do not have the qualities, skills or training into any job, yet according to the Opposition all reference to `affirmative action' should be deleted. I think that the women of Australia will see through this amendment. They will appreciate that the Liberal and National Parties are really not interested in affirmative action. They are prepared to let women continue in the divided employment society that we have now. Women invariably go into secretarial courses. Bright girls are told: `Don't bother to do engineering; you go to the business college and do typing and shorthand or do nursing'. That is very fortunate for men who can then employ such intelligent women, but a woman should be able to expand her interests and horizons. Why should women not be engineers, doctors or biologists? Why should they be channelled into social work? Why should so many social workers be females? Why should they not be training as pilots at Pearce Royal Australian Air Force base, for example? When I went to Pearce RAAF base in 1982, when we were in opposition, I found that there were no females being trained as pilots by the RAAF. I think that is a disgrace and women should have the right to access to any position or any job in this nation. The young women that I meet in schools and in the community are very exciting people with great talent and enthusiasm. I believe that the present situation will change eventually with more counsellors in the schools advising and encouraging girls to go out into the work force, the universities, the colleges of advanced education, the technical colleges and apply for any job in which they have an interest or aspiration. Girls should not be dominated by peer pressure. Families also must be encouraged to allow their daughters to take up a career that is not the usual nursing, teaching, or secretarial type of work. Girls should not be consigned to the checkout counters or to the shop counters, they should have a right to take any position that is available to boys. For the Opposition to carry on here today opposing a Bill that will encourage women to progress in the work force into any job on the basis of merit is a disgrace. I believe that the Australian people, male and female, will see it for what it is. The Opposition members are total hypocrites. They say they are opposed to discrimination but today we will see who votes against this legislation. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(11.10) —In addressing myself to clause 1, of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, which the Opposition has suggested should be called the Equal Opportunities in Employment Bill, I should like to make some broad-ranging remarks, but if honourable members will stick with me they will find that they do relate to this particular clause. This legislation in its present form is quite counterproductive to the interests of all Australians. First, it attempts to legislate for social change when it is quite clear that that social change sought by the legislation is already occurring. Secondly, it is irrational to propose legislation that will not and cannot be enforced by law. Thirdly, the legislation will provide no discernible economic benefit to the community. It will be another sizable cost burden imposed by government on business and will lead to another non-productive bureaucracy in Canberra. Finally, I am particularly concerned that the final outcome of this legislation will be vastly different from the principles of equal opportunity that the Parliament is espousing today. In other words, the consequences of this legislation may not have been thought through. My first point is that the legislation is unnecessary. I do not think there is any disagreement in this Parliament that women must have equal opportunity with men in any field. The imbalance of men and women in the work force has existed historically as part of our social structure. As our social structure has evolved this imbalance is being steadily redressed. It is also a function of the work which is now available. Most jobs now do not involve any heavy manual labour so women can compete on equal physical terms with men for the majority of jobs. There is also anti-discrimination legislation now in place. So where are the barriers? Increases in the female participation rate have occurred across all employment areas in Australia. For males the participation rate declined from 83.5 per cent in 1967 to 75.9 per cent in 1983, while that for females increased from 30.5 per cent in 1967 to 41.8 per cent in 1983. Today women make up some 45 per cent of the work force. There can be no argument that the social change desired by this legislation is occurring very rapidly and without the need for socialist intervention. The bottom line is clearly shown by the latest 1985 Commonwealth Employment Service statistics. There is a ratio of 2:1 between registered unemployed males and females. It gets worse for the long term unemployed. There were 157,330 registered unemployed males in the `nine months or over' category while there were only 51,548 females. Unless members of the Government do not believe their own statistics, we are targeting the wrong group in this legislation. Why is it that only half as many women as men seek jobs with the CES? It seems too obvious for words, but in the light of this debate it must be stated. The desire of women to find a paying job is interrupted by marriage, pregnancy and the rearing of children. That is a natural part of life and a desirable social goal for the majority of all Australians. The point is that the Labor social planners cannot expect a 50:50 work force ratio between men and women. We already have an evolving work force where women tend to want part time employment; there is a steady increase in married women entering the work force; younger and older age groups of males are finding decreasing employment prospects; there is a strong tendency to stay unemployed for longer periods and there is a shift away from full employment to part time employment. These are naturally occurring changes, some of which are lamentable. I can assure the Government that for the majority of Australians equal opportunity exists and is reflected by the statistics. That is apart from a small but significant vocal minority. Women are not represented equally at the administrative, executive and managerial levels with men. As of May 1984 there were some 375,800 males employed in this type of work as against 62,800 females. It is for this group of women that affirmative action is intended to apply. I was interested to read what Professor Hartmen of the University of Missouri said on the United States experience with affirmative action. She believes that affirmative action in the United States has helped privileged women and that the majority of other women have been left behind; that is the United States affirmative action program has only accelerated the trend in the top echelon. It has been unable to effect changes in the traditional labour markets beyond those that would normally have occurred. My second point is that I simply cannot see the need to legislate in areas where such legislation cannot or will not be enforced. Why have a law if it cannot be enforced? That is a basic question and one with which the Government should come to grips. The alternative to this legislation should be a campaign based on a uniform code on equal opportunity. To explain this point more clearly I should point out that this legislation over a four-year period will require all businesses employing more than 100 people to submit two reports annually to the Director of Affirmative Action showing how they are implementing this policy. This will involve about 50 per cent of the work force. The other section of the work force, those working in organisations employing fewer than 100 people-some 3.3 million workers-will miss out on the benefits of all this report writing. How will affirmative action be advanced in these sections of the work force? Any reasonable person would see that a publicity campaign would be far more effective in achieving results. The third point I mention is the economic implications of the affirmative action program. The existing pilot program has already been run in 30 companies and three educational establishments. According to the Business Council of Australia, it has cost one company $750,000 to participate. Businesses will be required to allocate staff and resources to the program, particularly in the initial phase, to keep up the paper work. The Government will establish yet another department, which will probably cost $1.5m to run in 1986-87. This will certainly escalate as the work load increases sevenfold by 1990. Will this contribute one bit to Australia's efficiency? Is business so slow that it does not select the right person for the job now? The strong inference is that business cannot see the wood for the trees, but the Government can. Many people may argue that affirmative action is a voluntary code, so we should not be all that alarmed. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned in his second reading speech, the Director could use this provision to prepare special reports on the employment of women in particular industries or occupations or to provide information on successful approaches and methods for effective affirmative action programs. On translation of the Hawke speak, it is a voluntary program as long as it achieves its objectives. I do not think anyone could be assured for a minute that if this legislation were passed it would not be amended substantially in the short term. Clearly it will not achieve its goals, if we go by the United States, Canadian or British experience. One of the main aspects I find distressing is that the Government has not considered the consequences. This is not surprising. We have had many disasters since the Labor Party came to office, where things have not been properly thought through. Some examples are the steady rise in the cost of rental accommodation after the disallowance of negative gearing; the imposition of the capital gains tax for investors; and the loss to investors in rural areas of Australia because the Labor Government has disallowed offsetting losses on primary production against other earned income-just to mention a few. I hope that someone in Government has sat down and thought through the possible long term effects of this legislation. Is it essential that the Government speed up the natural evolution process in this instance? This is further legislation that will lead to the fragmentation of society. By picking out sections of society for special treatment we will end up with reverse discrimination against the members of majority groups in society. As I have said previously, we may be led to believe that this legislation will help all women and is broadly based across society, but that is not true. It will probably advantage only a small elite section of the work force, if the experience of the United States and other countries can be used as a guide. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.20) —We are debating the first clause, which is the title, of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. As I said last night, I believe it is appropriate that the title remain, because the legislation is drafted to ensure that all large employers take seriously their obligations to their women employees. I will use two examples to show how true that assertion is. I feel sure that many honourable members on the other side, particularly those in the National Party of Australia, would echo the sentiments that have been expressed on the question of equal employment opportunity by Jim Kirk, the Chairman and Managing Director of Esso Australia Ltd. In an address he gave to the Institute of Directors in Australia in July 1985, he said: There is no doubt that EEO is a management issue for the 1980s and 1990s. I urge you to fight the introduction of EEO by legislation or government decree as I believe that to be counter-productive. Keep to yourself the right to act as you see fit-but you must act and be seen to act if you want to avoid force. That was said by a man who is in control of one of the largest companies in Australia. It is an interesting point of view-some would say it is a contradiction in terms-particularly given Esso's successful and voluntary affirmative action pilot program. I believe that the efforts of that company serve to illustrate how important are the principles of affirmative action; yet comments by someone such as the Managing Director give credence to those of us on this side who maintain that there is a need to ensure that those principles are put in place through legislation. I give a further illustration of the Esso case. In just five years to 1984 the number of women in the management professional area of Esso's work force has increased from 3 per cent to 11 per cent; up from 22 to 117 women professionals. These women include 11 engineers, 17 geoscientists, 31 accountants and 20 computer specialists. Those are fields, which traditionally over the years have never gone to women, where women are now receiving equal employment opportunity through affirmative action programs; albeit a voluntary one with this company, which is now being criticised by the Managing Director. Similarly, in the clerical and technical areas the number of women has increased from 39 per cent to 55 per cent; up from 181 to 291 women. This recruitment includes technicians, apprentices and trainee gas plant operators in non-traditional work areas. That is most important, because the success in getting women into those non-traditional areas, about which my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) spoke previously, is a significant achievement. It is through this basic tenet of the affirmative action legislation that the opportunity is there to regard people as equal. As I said in this debate last night, what we are talking about is not some way of saying that women should be regarded as more equal than men and there should be some positive bias in favour of them; we are suggesting that they should compete with men on an equal footing for available positions. If two people go for a job and their qualifications are taken into consideration, there should be no bias in favour of a man over a woman. I compare what has happened in the Esso situation with something that has happened in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I refer particularly to the Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd case in Wollongong. Women have been locked out of many sections of the workplace for a number of years and there has been an abject failure of other organisations to implement the affirmative action principles. Accordingly, those organisations need a gentle push in the right direction. As I have said, BHP is a case in point. Many of my constituents, as honourable members would know-certainly the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) who shares that great area of the Illawarra with the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) and me-are affected by some of the decisions that have been taken by BHP in respect of women in the work force. A very long running saga has developed in New South Wales Equal Opportunity Tribunal, where three types of complaints were lodged by a number of women; significantly, a large number of ethnic women. The honourable member for Lowe touched on this problem of women with English language difficulties, who are discriminated against because of difficulties of background and so on. The Tribunal heard three types of complaints from a number of women who sought recompense from AIS at Port Kembla. There was discrimination on the ground of failure to hire; discrimination in the threat of retrenchment; and discrimination in actual retrenchment. In that case last year employment practices were shown to discriminate quite clearly against women in the selection of employees for manual work. Yet, once hired, the practice of last-on, first-off effectively prevented any change in the workplace. Therefore, the opportunities for women in non-traditional areas were hindered. The Tribunal concluded that the first-on, last-off policy was unreasonable. The Tribunal stated: We think it was unreasonable and unfair to apply a gate seniority test to victims of past discrimination without making an appropriate adjustment in order to avoid exacerbating the adverse effects of that discrimination. That quite clearly demonstrates some of the problems faced by women in non-traditional areas. The results of that decision have been somewhat heartening. To their great credit, AIS-BHP-has had some positive input into the employment processes associated with its plant at Port Kembla. Women on the waiting list for employment have been contacted by AIS and some have already been employed. That speaks volumes for that organisation, although I note that it lodged an appeal in the courts against that decision. When we are talking about the problems in the work force and the problems with affirmative action, what we should be concerned about is the ability for women to compete effectively on an equal footing with men for a variety of tasks. Certainly we have seen that opportunity in professional ranks over some time now, but as I mentioned last night, in the non-technical side of things, the non-traditional areas of employment, women have been discriminated against positively for a long time. It is interesting to see how that has led in this day and age to the use of specific terms to describe how women's and men's roles in society have evolved. If we look at some of the more outrageous statements that have been made over time, such as those clearly demonstrated in Gloria Steinem's book Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, we can clearly get a feeling of how this problem has developed. For example, the nature of work has been a major area of understanding, beginning with that word itself. Before the advent of feminism and people becoming interested in affirmative action and equal employment opportunity, work was largely defined as what men did or would do; thus a working women was defined as someone who laboured outside the home for money masculine style. Certainly that would be one of the greatest putdowns I have ever heard. The equal pay for equal work concept came into play in the 1960s but fell short of helping women in the female, non-unionised jobs, and helped to create the term `pink collar ghetto'. Another quote is worth looking at too. In 1972 a National Aeronautics and Space Administration official's view of women's functions in space-yes, NASA started to train women for space-was that they were nothing more than a `sexual diversion on long duration flights such as to Mars'. Now, of course, NASA simply calls them astronauts, just like the men. This sort of language clearly demonstrates the way we have gone and why it is necessary that such positive legislation as this be introduced. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.28) —I think we should have some affirmative action for new members wanting to speak on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, judging from my difficulties in getting up to speak. The CHAIRMAN —Everything comes to him who waits. Mr MILES —I have had that comment made to me already. The CHAIRMAN —I was surprised that the honourable member did not pick me up for the sexism in the comment I made. Mr MILES —There are many things we could digress on, but I will not do so on this occasion. There is value in talking in Committee on this amendment after listening to other honourable members speak. I would like to say a few things about some comments which honourable members have been making recently here. I will take up one or two points made by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). For example, he talked about non-traditional areas, and indicated that somehow this Bill would move women or men into those non-traditional areas as part of affirmative action. This Bill will have no such effect whatsoever. That sort of comment is quite irrelevant. I would like to take up also a comment made by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who talked about the counselling of young people in our schools and in our society. I dare to suggest to him that there is no counselling given to our young people at the moment indicating that girls or boys should go into any stereotyped work areas. That type of counselling in schools has changed, and has been changed for at least 10 years. This Bill has nothing to do with that whatsoever. So those sorts of comments are quite irrelevant. Another comment which I was interested in was also made by the honourable member for Lowe. He said that people in the Public Service have nothing to do with the development of policy. He was referring to Dr Anne Summers, who was formerly the head of the Office of the Status of Women. People in this place know, and the Australian people know, that public servants perform a very vital role to government. Their ideas do come through in legislation. Let us have a look at some of the ideas of Dr Anne Summers. The following was said by Dr Summers less than a year ago: Targets were an integral part of affirmative action. This legislation is really nonsense. It is a sham; it is trite. In moving this amendment we are trying to clarify what this Bill really is all about, which is giving equal opportunity. It is not affirmative action in anybody's definition of the word. When we have a look at what is said in terms of affirmative action we find statements such as `to make Forward Estimates'. We say `I wonder what a forward estimate is' and the reply is `a quantitative measure in numerical terms'. That is setting a target if an employer takes it up and sets a particular target for men and women in the work force. It therefore does become a target but, of course, it is a self-imposed target. I suggest to employers that what they should do with this legislation is not to change the ratio of men to women in their work force one iota. I will be telling the large employers in my area exactly that because if they change the ratio they will be acknowledging that they were discriminating in the past, but it is likely that they were not; they probably were giving jobs on merit. If they change the ratio they will be virtually bound by the legislation of this Federal Government, which likes to pass legislation to change the social engineering of this country. I believe that social changes in Australia should come about not by legislation, but by natural changes. I will illustrate what has been going on by giving figures for the work force over the last 15 years. In 1970 males occupied 73 per cent of the work force; women, 26 per cent. Over the next 15 years the proportion of men in the work force dropped to 61 per cent, and the proportion of women increased to 38 per cent. If that natural progress were to continue without government legislation, without any more bureaucracy in this nation-which many of us know we can ill afford because of our high debt, and because it is an added impost on the Australian taxpayers which is totally unnecessary-by the year 2000 there would be more women than men in the work force. Therefore, there is no need for the involvement of government in this area. The social changes and values which are occurring in our society are occurring naturally and are orderly. There is another aspect to what is happening in our society and I refer to this in the last few minutes allowed to me. As women return to the work force we find that there is a greater number of families without an income. There are 150,000 families in Australia without one income; yet 54 per cent of Australian families have two incomes. At the same time as social changes occur-and I believe in equal opportunity for women and in women coming back into the work force-many working class families are losing out. There are many working class families in my area who are losing out because the families in which both the wife and the husband are well educated can compete more effectively in the job market. The consequence is that there are families which are becoming very wealthy at the expense of the working class families of Australia. I think that there is a greater priority for Australia than equal opportunity. I agree with it, but as far as priorities for governing this nation go, we should give priority to ensuring that every family has an income; then maybe some families could compete to have two incomes. I think that is a greater priority socially for this nation than is the priority of equal opportunity. I believe that within a family we can give equal opportunity to either the male or the female to be the breadwinner-I do not mind which. I think the priority of every family having an income is very important. Finally, this legislation is really based on changes in our society that have occurred in the last 10 or 15 years. One of those changes has been to move towards a materialistic society where the person who earns the income has the status. That person who earns a large income, who can buy better cars, a bigger house and so on is the person who is valued. I reject that notion very strongly. What we should do is put an equal value on those people who are involved in the nurturing and the personal development of human beings rather than trying to change all our population into people who seek material wealth. To achieve these goals, we should be putting value on the people who are caring for children and giving them a reasonable status in society so that they feel fulfilled. I do not mind whether that caring is done by me or by my wife; we are very happy to share that sort of arrangement. The problem is that some people, particularly the radical feminists, believe the only way in which women can get a foot in in this society is by going out and competing in male-dominated areas. That is total nonsense. They have sold the idea that there is a power struggle between men and women in society. There is not. Men and women are complementary, and they find enjoyment in life and use their resources best by working together. I believe that we ought to change this title to the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.39) —I want to take this opportunity to make a few points about the title of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill and to make a few comments about the speech made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). Anyone listening to this debate would think we were actually debating two different pieces of legislation. Believe it or not, this Bill is not going to force anybody out of the home; it is not going to force women into the work force; it is not going to force women to leave their children; it is not going to stop women being home makers; it is not going to do anything to discourage them from being mothers and staying at home; it is not trying to undermine the very valuable work that women in Australia do as mothers and supporters of their families. That is not what this legislation is all about. Mr Miles —Who said that? Mrs KELLY —The honourable member did. We could ask the members of the audience to arbitrate on this matter. One would believe that we were debating two totally different pieces of legislation. This legislation, quite simply, gives women of Australia opportunities to develop themselves and to obtain a position in employment which will enable them to contribute to their families, to themselves, to the economy and to Australia generally. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr Miles —But that will not do it. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Braddon says that will not do it. All I can say is that it has a chance of doing it. I do not know whether it is going to succeed. I do not know whether any legislation will actually do this totally. What has to happen is that attitudes have to change-the attitudes of people such as the honourable member for Braddon, but more particularly the attitude of my friend the honour- able member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), have to change. I was stirred to speak today in response to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Franklin. We have a tradition in this House that if we are going to refer to people and make comments about them we inform them in advance. Yesterday I raised a particular incident spontaneously after a speech from the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) because I wanted to thank him for the assistance he gave me three years ago. I did not make any reference at all to the honourable member for Franklin because I had not told him I was going to do that. But in a speech this morning, and I understand in another one last night, the honourable member for Franklin got up and criticised me and the way in which I run my life. He made comments about what I was supposed to do with my life. Mr Downer —Can't you stand it? Mrs KELLY —I did not say I could not stand it; I just intend to make a comment. In this legislation we are talking about the need for attitudes in our community to change. There is no doubt that no legislation will change attitudes. The point that I was making yesterday is that we would not have this legislation before us today if it were not for people who contribute a great deal to this debate in our community-people such as, as I said yesterday, the honourable member for Goldstein, Senator Peter Baume and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who is at the table. Those people have made a very constructive contribution to this debate. But we have also heard members of the lunatic fringe of the Opposition indicating their extreme position in this debate. I quote some of the comments made by the honourable member for Franklin: Some women just can't do certain jobs . . . You know, manual jobs and physical jobs they just can't do it. We've got to understand that and some men can't do the jobs women do, you know nursing and the other things, repetitive jobs. He implied that women are really good at repetitive jobs. Mr Goodluck —I didn't say that in the speech today. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member was reported to have said that in an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, written by a woman called Mary Louise O'Callaghan. He continued: Women are different from men. They want to be like a man yet they know damn well they are not. You know some women can't stand the sight of blood. What a fantastic contribution to this debate! It is amazing, is it not? Mr Goodluck —It was not said in this debate. Mrs KELLY —Worse than that, it is an article in a newspaper. More people read newspapers than read our Hansard, unfortunately. These are the sorts of stereotypes that exist in our community. I suppose it has been very worth while for us all to hear the sort of contributions that the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) have made because they show us the sorts of problems we have in the community and why we need this legislation. We are trying to create an environment where attitudes do change, where, when women try to join the work force all they have to do is be equal to the man, not better. The honourable member for Franklin has to admit that in this Parliament women have to be better than the men. All I am doing is comparing myself with the honourable member for Franklin. Opposition members have not made a great contribution; they have managed to get only one woman on to their benches. Opposition members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —I am glad the Opposition is showing some interest in this debate now. This legislation is simply trying to give women this opportunity. It is introducing management programs to try to assist women to get all the opportunities required to get adequate jobs in our community. The honourable member for Braddon also made reference to family incomes. This legislation would, in fact, assist the family income because it would help the women in the work force to maximise their potential to earn income. At least 8 per cent of families in Australia have women as the sole breadwinner. Mr Miles —Eight per cent? Mrs KELLY —Eight per cent of families have women as the sole breadwinner. These women have been in the very traditional female areas of employment-mainly sales and clerical areas. They have been in very lowly paid jobs and need to be encouraged and supported in their attempts to improve their status in their jobs. The honourable member for Braddon raised another point. He said: `We do not have to worry about this sort of legislation because there is an increase in the participation of women in the work force'. There is no doubt about that. It has occurred for economic reasons, because of social changes in our community and so on, but the fact is that 65 per cent of all those women in the work force are still working in the traditional clerical and sales areas. There is a sort of stereotyped view that all a woman can do is stand in a shop and sell, and type and take shorthand. Mr Goodluck —They are changing. Mrs KELLY —Attitudes such as those of the honourable member for Franklin are very slow in changing, and that is why we need this legislation. Yesterday when I spoke in this debate I thanked some of the members of the Opposition for their contributions. I overlooked the contribution that the Minister responsible for the introduction of this legislation, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), has made to this debate. Without women such as Senator Ryan this legislation would not be before the House. She has made an enormous contribution to the debate on women's rights, not only in a theoretical way but also by actually putting things into practice, as can be seen in this legislation before the Committee today. There are many aspects of this legislation that deserve serious consideration. Rather than my continuing to quote from some of the radical fringe views of the Opposition, I ask honourable members to consider this legislation seriously. They should look at the legislation that is before the Committee rather than listen to the interpretation of it by various opponents in the Opposition. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.47) —As a matter of principle, I resent government prescribing management and personal policies of business and I must therefore be critical of legislation requiring a prescribed affirmative action program. In saying that, I am mindful of the additional costs this legislation will inflict on an already overregulated and overburdened business community. I am concerned about the practical difficulties businesses face in implementing uniform legislation of this kind. Pages 6, 11, 12, 24, 25 and 26 of the report of the Government's own working party on affirmative action legislation record the concerns of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia, members who participated in the pilot program, the Victorian Employers Federation, the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia, the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, the Institute of Personnel Management Australia, Esso Australia Ltd, Lend Lease Corporation Ltd, and the Westpac Banking Corporation. Page 12 of the report notes: All of these submissions opposed legislation requiring a prescribed affirmative action program . . . The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) quoted Mr Jim Kirk of Esso. I refer him to that publication to get a different aspect. Pages 24 and 25 of the report cite the Business Council of Australia as strongly opposing `the view that legislation is either appropriate or necessary to achieve the Government's objectives of equal employment opportunity for women. The BCA went on to note: This view is shared by the whole of the business community (and, indeed, many in Government) and the Council believes there would not be widespread community support for the creation of a new agency. The BAC went on: A mandatory Government program with an expensive new bureaucratic structure would be seen as a further drain on Government expenditure, a departure from the commitment of State and Federal Governments for less rather than more intrusive and costly regulation . . . On page 25 of the report we are told that the Confederation of Australian Industry argued: Affirmative action legislation is unnecessary, undesirable, will add to employers' costs and will have counter-productive effects. Those are scarcely ringing endorsements. My in- principle doubt about this Bill was only strengthened when I examined chapter 3 of the working party's report dealing with the Government's pilot program that commenced on 2 July 1984 and ran for some 12 months. There were eight key steps in the Government's implementation strategy as set out for the pilot program. Of those steps, half-that is four-were not undertaken by all participants. One may ask: Which four? Step three was the process of so-called consultation with trade unions. Step four involved consultation with employees. Step seven was similarly ignored, probably because it required the setting of goals and targets to endeavour to improve the representation of women in all areas of the organisation. Step eight was also ignored: . . . the process of establishing monitoring and evaluation to assess whether the goals and targets were achieved and, if not, the reasons for this occurring. Again, that is scarcely an inspiring result, particularly as those steps not undertaken by all participants are the most difficult to implement and will prove most controversial in the work place. Anyone who doubts my view should consult page 12 of the report for the opinion of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which `opposed the inclusion of the setting of goals and targets as a requirement of programs.' I must also record my concern at the proposals that came from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Women's Consultative Council. The NWCC wanted all employers to be covered, including voluntary organisations, and called for the provisions of the Bill to apply to all employees, including casual and contract workers, to provide sanctions, and to speed up the timetable for private sector compliance. The ACTU wanted much stronger impositions, including coverage of all employers, a range of sanctions and penalties, the existing legislative proposal for union consultations to be strengthened, and the timetable for compliance to be shortened. Given the overwhelming influence of the ACTU on the Government it is quite likely that in the not too distant future we will see amendments to this legislation to expand its scope and the strength of its already intrusive powers. I believe that the legislators must pay attention to the unanticipated as well as the intended consequences of their actions. It has been suggested, most recently by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Peter Wilenski, that concern about the American experience with affirmative action is rather fanciful in the Australian context. I draw the attention of the Committee, firstly, to Article 1 (4) and Article 2 (2) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The respective articles allow for affirmative action on the American model, that is, so-called positive discrimination or reverse discrimination, giving preferential or compensatory treatment to members of racial, sex, ethnic or other groups. That may include quotas involving preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, or in admission to an educational institution. Australia has ratified both those conventions. Further, I remind the Committee of the willingness of the High Court in recent times to make what might be politely described as surprisingly innovative interpretations of the law and the Constitution. The Koowarta and the Tasmanian dam cases stand as testimony to Professor A. R. Blackshield's observation that the Court is deliberately modifying its interpretations of the Constitution `so as to bring them more closely into line with the country's political needs'. Leaving aside for the moment a debate about just what are the country's political needs, Professor Blackshield's observations serve as a timely reminder of the long term dangers Australia faces now that the High Court has abandoned the doctrine of strict constructionalism associated with such distinguished jurists as Sir Owen Dixon and Sir John Latham in the dubious search for contemporary political relevance. While not making any immediate prophecies, it might be useful to recall once again the warning issued by Sir Robert Menzies in 1974 that there might one day be a High Court that says: `The sky is the limit'. This concern is given added impetus when we consider the potential, if I might so describe it, of Australia's Bill of Rights. Returning to the immediate effect of this Bill, we are left with Dr Wilenski's assurance that quotas, that is, mandatory selection of a certain number of people from a particular group regardless of merit, can be effectively differentiated from targets. He referred to an estimate of the number that might be selected if so-called barriers are removed and positive steps such as recruitment and training programs are undertaken. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Government has a similar scheme to this proposal in operation in its Public Service. Like this Government, Canada maintains that its approach is reasonable, flexible and compatible with appointment according to merit. It maintains that there is a sharp difference between its approach and the American approach. That is not borne out by information included in the 1983 annual report of the Australian Public Service Board. Because my time is about to expire, I would like to refer honourable members to the words of the Public Service Commissioner, Jennifer McQueen. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.57) —We are looking at the first of 42 amendments that have been put by the Opposition in relation to this Bill. Mr Hand —Forty-two? Mr BLANCHARD —That is right, 42. I think the mere fact that there are so many amendments by the Opposition is not only a reflection of how seriously its members view this Bill but also how seriously they are divided in their views on it. There are no two ways about it: During debate over the past three days we have had speeches from members of the National Party of Australia and from members of the Liberal Party of Australia which reflect the divisions concerning this Bill that are real and deep within their own ranks. I was fortunate enough to be in the chamber a little while ago and heard the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) speak. There is no doubt that he seems to think that women's entry into the work force is an illustration of the natural and ordinary progression of women in society and argues that, therefore, there is no need for this legislation. As the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) pointed out, what is important is that women should have the right to be promoted on merit and they should have the right-- Mr Ian Robinson —They have got it now. What's wrong with you? You're asleep. Mr BLANCHARD —The honourable member for Page says that they have got it now. The facts deny that. He knows that, unless he lives in a cuckoo land. I refer to the West Australian of 26 February 1986 which has an article headed `Women still the losers on pay'. The article states: Women workers lagged well behind men in the average weekly earnings wages last year, according to official figures released yesterday. The figures issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that in November men earned an average of $414.50 a week while women earned $268.60. that is, $414 versus $268- The average for full time working males was $419.60 compared with $346 for women. If we look at the figures for all employees, including part time workers, they show that during the previous 12 months men received increases amounting to 6.4 per cent whereas women received increases of only 5.3 per cent. That is only one area where there is obvious discrimination in the workplace, but there are other areas of discrimination. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12 noon, the time allotted for the Committee stage has expired. Is the honourable member for Bradfield seeking the indulgence of the Chair? Mr Connolly —I suggest that, because of the limited time for the debate and the fact that the Opposition's amendments, which are quite extensive, have not been given serious examination, I seek leave that they be incorporated in Hansard. Mr Peter Morris —I am puzzled at the request, because there have been hours in which the Opposition could have moved them if it so wished. Having put that on the record, the Government is prepared to allow the incorporation so that the record shows what would have been moved had the Opposition made the use of the time available to it. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN) BILL 1986 (Amendments and new clauses to be moved by Mr Connolly) (1) Clause 1, page 1, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Short title ``1. This Act may be cited as the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act 1986.''. (2) Page 1, after clause 2 insert the following new clause: Purpose of Act ``2a. It is the purpose of this Act to promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees.''. (3) Clause 3, page 2, lines 3-10, omit the definition of ``affirmative action program''. (4) Clause 3, page 2, lines 11-21, omit the definition of ``authority'', substitute the following definitions: `` `authority of the Commonwealth' means- (a) a body (whether incorporated or not) established for a public purpose by or under a law of the Commonwealth, other than a higher education institution; (b) the holder of an office established for a public purpose by or under a law of the Commonwealth; or (c) an incorporated company over which the Commonwealth or a body referred to in paragraph (a) is in a position to exercise control; `` `authority of a State or Territory' means- (a) a body (whether incorporated or not) established for a public purpose by or under a law of a State or Territory, other than a higher education institution; (b) the holder of an office established for a public purpose by or under a law of a State or Territory; or (c) an incorporated company over which a State or Territory or a body referred to in paragraph (a) is in a position to exercise control;''. (5) Clause 3, page 2, lines 31-32, omit the definition of ``discrimination''. (6) Clause 3, page 2, line 33, omit the definition of ``Director'', substitute the following definition: `` `Director' means the Director of Equal Opportunity;''. (7) Clause 3, page 2, lines 34-37, omit the definition of ``employer'', substitute the following definition: `` `employer' means a person who employs a natural person under a contract of service;''. (8) Clause 3, page 2, after the definition of ``employment matters'' insert the following definition: `` `equal opportunity program', in relation to a relevant employer, means a program designed to ensure that- (a) appropriate action is taken to eliminate any unjustified discrimination by the relevant employer against women in employment matters; and (b) measures are taken by the relevant employer to promote equal opportunity in relation to employment matters;''. (9) Clause 3, page 3, after the definition of ``higher education institution'' insert the following definition: `` `merit' means- (a) the suitability of a person for the discharge of duties of the kind to be performed in a capacity in which that person is employed or is proposed to be employed, and (b) efficiency as defined by sub-section 50A (2) of the Public Service Act 1922 in so far as that definition is applicable, but does not include preference for a person by reason of the sex, marital status or pregnancy of that person;''. (10) Clause 3, page 3, lines 13-14, omit from the definition of ``relevant employer'' all words after ``Australian'', substitute ``and includes an authority of the Commonwealth, but does not include the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory, an authority of a State or a Territory, or a voluntary body;''. (11) Clause 3, page 3, after the definition of ``trade union'' insert the following definition: `` `unjustified discrimination' means discrimination that is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984;''. (12) Clause 3, page 3, after sub-clause (2) insert the following sub-clause: ``(2A) In this Act, a reference to an employer being an employer of a number of employees is a reference to an employer making available that number of places for full-time employees, whether those places are filled on a full-time, part-time, casual or temporary basis, or are filled by more than one employee on a job-sharing basis.''. (13) Clause 5, page 4, line 22, omit ``affirmative action program'', substitute ``equal opportunity program''. (14) Clause 5, page 5, lines 4-8, omit sub-clause (9). (15) Clause 6, page 5, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Employers required to develop, etc, equal opportunity programs ``6. (1) An employer who, on the commencement of this Act, is a relevant employer shall commence the development of an equal opportunity program on the operative day and shall commence the implementation of that program within the period of 6 months after the operative day. (2) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an employer becomes a relevant employer, the relevant employer shall commence the development of an equal opportunity program on the operative day and shall commence the implementation of that program within the period of 6 months after the operative day.''. (To be moved only if amendment No. (15) is defeated) (16) Clause 6, page 5, omit ``affirmative action'' (twice occurring), substitute ``equal opportunity''. (17) Clause 8, page 6, sub-clause (1), omit ``affirmative action program'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``equal opportunity program''. (18) Clause 8, page 6, line 26, omit ``each trade union having members'', substitute ``employees''. (19) Clause 8, page 6, line 37, before ``discrimination'' insert ``unjustified''. (20) Clause 8, page 7, line 1, omit ``affirmative action'', substitute ``equal opportunity''. (21) Clause 9, page 7, line 18, omit sub-clause (1), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(1) There shall be a Director of Equal Opportunity''. (22) Clause 10, page 7, sub-clause (1), omit ``affirmative action programs'' (twice occurring), substitute ``equal opportunity programs''. (23) Clause 10, page 7, line 32, omit ``, educational programs and other programs'', substitute ``and educational programs''. (24) Clause 10, pages 7 and 8, sub-clause (1), omit ``affirmative action to achieve'' (wherever occurring). (25) Clause 10, page 8, after sub-clause (2) add the following sub-clauses: ``(3) Guidelines issued under paragraph (1) (b) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after such guidelines are issued. ``(4) Either House of the Parliament may, within 15 sitting days after guidelines have been laid before that House in accordance with sub-section (3), pass a resolution disapproving of any of those guidelines. ``(5) Any guidelines disapproved by either House of the Parliament under sub-section (4) shall be taken not to have been issued, and guidelines the same in substance as the disapproved guidelines shall not be issued within 6 months after that disapproval.''. (26) Clause 11, page 8, after sub-clause (1) insert the following sub-clause: ``(1a) Directions given by the Minister under sub-section (1) shall not be directions in relation to particular relevant employers.''. (27) Clause 13, pages 8 and 9, omit ``affirmative action program'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``equal opportunity program''. (28) Clause 13, page 9, line 5, at the beginning of the clause insert ``Subject to sub-section (4),''. (29) Clause 13, page 9, after sub-clause (3) add the following sub-clause: ``(4) Where a relevant employer includes in the relevant employer's confidential report the material referred to in sub-section (3), the relevant employer is not required to include that material in the relevant employer's public report.''. (30) Clause 14, page 9, line 24, omit ``affirmative action'', substitute ``equal opportunity''. (31) Page 9, after clause (14) insert the following new clause: Reports by Subsidiaries ``14a. Notwithstanding sub-section 3 (2), where a corporation indicates in a report under section 13 or 14 that a corporation which is a subsidiary of that first-mentioned corporation is to lodge a separate report under that section, and the subsidiary corporation lodges such a separate report relating to employees of the subsidiary corporation, the first-mentioned corporation is not required in a report under that section to provide any information relating to the employees of the subsidiary corporation.''. (32) Clause 18, page 10, line 24, after ``further information'' insert ``in accordance with those sub-sections''. (33) Clause 30, page 13, line 7, after ``may'', ``insert ``with the approval of the Minister,''. (34) Clause 30, page 13, line 11, at the end of sub-clause (2) add ``with the approval of the Minister''. (35) Clause 31, page 13, line 13, omit ``may'', substitute ``shall''. (36) Clause 31, page 13, lines 16 and 17, omit ``affirmative action programs'', substitute ``equal opportunity programs''. (37) Clause 31, page 13, after sub-clause (1) insert the following sub-clauses: ``(1a) The Director shall consult each advisory committee in relation to any guidelines proposed to be issued under paragraph 10 (1) (b). ``(1b) The Minister and the Director shall consult regularly with each advisory committee established under sub-section (1) in relation to the matters referred to in that sub-section.''. (38) Clause 31, page 13, lines 27 and 28, omit ``affirmative action programs'', substitute ``equal opportunity programs''. (39) Clause 32, page 14, line 27, omit ``Penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 3 months, or both'', substitute ``Penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both''. (40) Clause 32, page 15, after sub-clause (3) insert the following sub-clause: ``(3a) For the purposes of sub-section (3), the Freedom of Information Act 1982 shall not be taken to be an Act which permits information to be divulged or communicated, or a document to be produced, contrary to this section.''. (41) Page 16, at the end of the Bill add the following new clause: Termination of Act ``35. This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 5 years after the day fixed under section 2.''. (42) Title, page 1, omit all words after ``Act'', substitute ``to promote equal opportunity in employment matters, to establish the office of the Director of Equal Opportunity, and for related purposes''. Question put: That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp. J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McCFife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Government's circulated amendments- Clause 19- Page 10, line 32, after ``may'' insert ``, subject to sub-section (2),''. Page 10, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ``(2) Where the Director proposes to name a relevant employer in a report under sub-section 12 (1) or (2), the Director shall, not less than 28 days before the day on which the report is submitted to the Minister, furnish the relevant employer with a notice in writing stating that the Director proposes so to name the employer and specifying the reasons for the proposal.''. Clause 32- Page 14, lines 8-10, omit all words from ``of the Director'' to ``this Act'' (both inclusive), substitute ``under an arrangement in force under section 33''. Page 14, lines 30-32, omit all words from ``of the Director'' to ``this Act`` (both inclusive), substitute ``under an arrangement in force under section 33''. Page 15, line 7, omit ``sub-section 33 (4)'', substitute ``section 33''. Clause 33, page 15, after sub-clause (4) insert the following sub-clause: ``(4a) In relation to higher education institutions, the Minister may make an arrangement with a Minister of a State for the Director and an officer of the State to co-operate, to the extent specified in the arrangement, in- (a) exchanging information relating to the development and implementation of affirmative action programs; and (b) developing guidelines to be issued under paragraph 10 (1) (b).''. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the remainder of the Bill and the circulated amendments of the Government be agreed to, and that I report the Bill with amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration of Senate's message resumed from 29 November 1985. Madam SPEAKER —Before calling the Chairman of Committees, I draw the attention of the House to the constitutional question this message involves. The message purports to repeat the requests for amendments contained in message No. 166 which the House rejected at its sitting of 28 November 1985. The `right' of the Senate to repeat and thereby press of insist on a request for an amendment has never been accepted by the House of Representatives. On several previous occasions when a request was pressed on the House by repetition the House had regard to the claim that the public welfare required passage of the legislation which was the subject of the pressed request and gave the pressed request the House's consideration notwithstanding that the House resolved to refrain from determining its constitutional rights. The House so informed the Senate of the terms of its resolution in its message to the Senate in reply. It is not certain whether the Senate's `right' to press a request by repetition is justiciable in the courts. However, it is a matter of constitutional propriety as between the Houses based on the provisions of sections 53 to 57 of the Constitution. Strong arguments that the Constitution does not give the Senate the right to press a request were advanced by Quick and Garran, who were intimately involved in the development of the Constitution. Their views may be found on pages 671-2 of their treatise on the Constitution. In 1943, some 40 years later, the question was examined by four eminent constitutional lawyers-Garran, Knowles, Bailey and Castieau-who, after considering other learned opinion, summed up the question in the following words: In our opinion, the Constitution in denying the right of amendment and conferring the right of request intended a substantial difference. In this we respectfully agree with the views expressed by Sir Harrison Moore, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and Sir John Latham. We think it clear that the Constitution did not intend to stultify itself by giving back in one clause what it had taken away in another. The essence of the difference between request and amendment is that in the case of a request the right of decision as to the form of the Bill rests solely with the House of Representatives. To press a request is to insist upon it-which is a contradiction in terms, and also in our opinion unconstitutional . . . Other more recent legal opinion has been of a similar view, including the opinions of Professors Richardson, Sawyer and Pearce. I respectfully agree with these opinions, as did Speaker Snedden on 21 October 1981 and Speaker Jenkins as recently as 20 August 1985. It rests with the House whether it will consider message No. 175 insofar as it purports to press the requests that were contained in message No. 166. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That this House- (1) endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 175 transmitted from the Senate in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985; (2) refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such message; and (3) resolves to consider the message in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.14) —I know how much the Leader of the House (Mr Young) likes to be reminded of the past. As a gentleman who has been in this place for a while, I know there are many things that he once said that he regrets saying. I thought it would be of interest to the House if we went back a little in history this afternoon to look at what, amongst other things, the Leader of the House has said about the subject of the statement that you have made, Madam Speaker, and about a motion such as this. It is most enlightening in terms of what is happening in this country today. We have a statement first of all by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) on page 2278 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 21 October 1981. There we find- Mr Young —Things have changed a lot since then. Mr SINCLAIR —Unfortunately I moved the motion on that occasion. It is amazing how roles can be reversed and how some of the arguments that were used in those times and former circumstances can land back for us to face. I think it is very interesting, therefore, to see what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He said, inter alia: I make the point that I am of the opinion-it is a personal view but I think it can be substantiated-that the pressing of the request last evening by the Senate certainly amounts to a failure to pass. So in three months from last evening, namely, 20 January next, the Government will be in a position to re-introduce this measure. If it is again not passed there can be a double dissolution. Now we are getting down to the shades of what this matter is all about. We know that the Democrats have no future. We also know that if they are to have a future their only chance is a double dissolution. So, I think this matter really needs to be viewed in a quite different light, Madam Speaker, from that high point of moral principle from which one might have first assessed your statement. It would seem that, first of all, the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General has already given judgment, albeit a few years ago, which suggests that this is the first of the processes towards a double dissolution. So, this is really what it is all about. It is not a matter of trying to put this legislation through in a form which is just going to allow the payment of benefits to veterans-and we will hear a little more about that in a moment. The Government has reduced the value and actual emoluments payable to veterans, and in a quite diabolic fashion-but that is for others to talk about in a moment. The important thing is that this would seem, by the very word of the man who today is Australia's Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Crown, to be the first step towards a double dissolution. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Attorney-General today said on that occasion, it is about time that this whole matter was resolved in constitutional terms. But far be it for the Attorney-General to be alone. I now refer to comments made by the then Leader of the Opposition-today's Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I am glad to see that the Minister is entering the House, because I am about to quote his words of wisdom. He, the former Leader of the Opposition, said in the House of Representatives on 21 October 1981, as reported at page 2280 of Hansard: There is ample legal opinion-that of Garran, Sir Harrison Moore, Sir Isaac Isaacs, Sir John Latham, and, of course, more latterly Professor Richardson the current professor of law at the Australian National University- Mr N.A. Brown —Gareth Evans. Mr SINCLAIR —No, he left out that eminent authority of the code. He continued: that makes it clear that there is only one occasion on which a message can be sent to this House from the Senate . . . We now have in place the first step towards the circumstances which in three months time will allow the Government to take subsequent action leading to a double dissolution. So, the leader of the mushroom club, who entered the chamber a few moments ago, himself also said that this was the first step towards a double dissolution. I think that we need to remember that he said, not only that it was the first step towards a double dissolution but also that we should consider this very serious defectiveness of the Australian Constitution. Of course, all these years later-I remind honourable senators, this was in October 1981-we have still heard nothing about the change to the Constitution. So, it is amazing how expediency seems to have dictated just what the Government has wanted to do. I think it is worth commenting that on page 2282 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 21 October 1981 the then Leader of the Opposition, today's Minister for Foreign Affairs, is recorded as saying, in relation to this particular tactic: All they ever intended to do was thrash the Government with a feather from a dodo. That seems appropriate. Perhaps we should now look at what the Leader of the House said previously, because on this very matter and the motion before us we find that the present Leader of the House also took a high stand on moral principle. At page 2283 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 21 October 1981 he is recorded as saying: I do not believe it is in the best interests of the Parliament or of the Constitution and specifically the best interests of the House of Representatives merely and glibly to fall into line especially when there is a bloke like the Leader of the House-- who at that time happened to be me- in the Government. One would not want to trust him too far with the tactics that will be adopted in the House of Representatives. How strange it is. I am delighted to note that the Leader of the House has reformed, that he has suddenly realised that my tactics were not too bad after all. He further stated on that previous occasion: We on this side of the House-- this is the Labor Party in opposition- are justifiably entitled to have some very deep suspicions about the way in which this Government is trying to manipulate and interpret for its own benefits what the Constitution has to say. I think that is all very enlightening. I am delighted to know that, belatedly though it might be-some four or five years later-at long last the Leader of the House realises that something that I said in this place not only happens to be true and accurate but in fact is the right way by which the House of Representatives can question the powers that are contested by the other place in this matter. But of course, more suspiciously, I think we all need to know that what the Government is really about is not putting a matter of high principle to us but providing the first step towards a double dissolution. We know that Hawke has got to try to buy his way out of the conflict somehow, and I can well understand that really when we are voting on this motion it is not a matter of constitutional propriety but a matter of the Labor Party trying hard, albeit belatedly, to get its act together. In so doing, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is rather hoping that he might be able to get something of a double dissolution coming along and that the people of Australia, hopefully, might return the Government to office. Let me tell both the Leader of the House and the members of the Government that we anticipate that election with relish. The sooner the Government likes to have the double dissolution the happier we will be to face the electorate. I can assure the Government that it will find this side of the House only too willing to accommodate it, whenever an election might be held and the polls contested. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.22) —I do not want to delay the House, Madam Speaker, but I point out that some vast changes have taken place in the four years since I made those statements referred to by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). The biggest change has been that I have moved from the seat opposite where the member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) now sits over to this side of the House. In that move a massive change takes place in most things that affect us, especially one's thinking towards the operations of the chamber, so by virtue of one's experience in this chamber sometimes one has to admit that what one said four years ago may have been incorrect. I am big enough to admit it. Secondly, can I say that the only people who have approached me to hold a double dissolution have been some members of the Opposition, because they say that the only way they can get their house into shape and elect a leader or re-elect the Leader that they require is to hold a double dissolution. Honourable members opposite want to clean up their house and clear up the issues of who is going to be on the front bench, who will be on the back bench, who will be the Leader, what will happen to John Valder, and what will happen to John Elliott, now that he is running Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The only way that they can straighten out these things is for the Government to do them the ultimate favour and hold a double dissolution. Well, the election will be held at the end of 1987 or early in 1988, whenever it is due. We are in good shape; the country is in good shape; and these sorts of debates are not getting things out of context. If John Valder stays the President of the Liberal Party it could even be that the member for Boothby could finish up being the Leader of the Opposition, with the member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) his deputy. My God, what a team we would have coming down on top of us then! Anyway, the Government will not interfere with what members opposite have to do in their Party, and we will not facilitate those changes. I just hope for the sake of democracy in the parliamentary institution that whatever members opposite do they do it better than they did it last September. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's requested amendments- Schedule A Requests by the Senate for amendments No. 1-Page 40, sub-clause 35 (1), definition of ``allied veteran'', line 22, leave out ``, before 1 September 1957,''. No. 2-Page 87, sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', sub-paragraph (a) (i), lines 35 and 36, leave out ``and before the commencement of this Act; or''. No. 3-Page 87, sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', sub-paragraph (a) (ii), lines 37 to 39, leave out the sub-paragraph. No. 4-Page 90, paragraph 69 (1) (a), lines 37 and 38, leave out ``and before the commencement of this Act; or''. No. 5-Page 91, paragraph 69 (1) (b), lines 1 and 2, leave out the paragraph. No. 6-Page 92, sub-clause 69 (2), lines 1 to 8, leave out the sub-clause. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.25) —For the information of honourable members and those participating in the debate, I table the explanatory notes to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 was passed by this House on 12 November 1985. The Bill is the culmination of an extensive review of existing repatriation legislation and a long process of consultation with the ex-service community. Its purpose is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the entitlements available to members of the veteran community. The Bill contains some significant extensions of benefits. However, the Bill failed to pass the Senate. That chamber made a number of wide-ranging amendments to the Bill and requested the House to make other amendments. While the Government does not accept all the requests and amendments made by the Senate, it does, in a spirit of co-operation and compromise, propose to make a number of amendments to the Bill. The Government proposes to deal in its amendments with all but two of the 41 amendments or requests made by the Senate. One, involving unpaid pension at the time of the death of a pensioner, will be resolved by administrative means. The other is an amendment to the standard of proof provisions of clause 119 in relation to claims for pension lodged prior to 15 May 1985. This amendment was moved because of the Opposition's phoney claim that the clause is retrospective. The Government does not accept that the clause is retrospective, nor does the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I ask honourable members to note the report of that Committee. The amendment would require all claims lodged before 15 May 1985 to be examined on the standard of proof applicable at the time, that is, without a requirement for a reasonable hypothesis of a connection with war service. It would also require all claims lodged before 15 May 1985 and decided since 6 June 1985 to be reconsidered. The amendment is therefore clearly unrealistic. It would mean that virtually all claims lodged before 15 May 1985 would have to be accepted. The cost of this has been estimated at $25m in the first year and up to $80m over three years. In addition, the Government would be compelled to find this extra $80m to pay pensions to those who have no moral claim to them, to those who are not able to establish the nexus between the injury or the illness from which they are suffering and their war service. Yet in a situation where even when there was no reasonable suggestion of a link between the veteran's incapacity or death and his or her service-where there was not even a scintilla of evidence suggesting a war service relationship-such a veteran would be able to make claims. The effect of this would be to shorten very considerably the amount of funds available to the Minister and the Department to meet the more legitimate and more extensive claims by those servicemen whose entitlements rest clearly on an established war service relationship. How often do we hear members of the Opposition saying to the public that there is a need to cut back on public expenditure, that there is a need to restrain costs? I think that many of those arguments are legitimate. The CHAIRMAN —I interrupt the Minister. I take it that the Minister is speaking to the proposition that the amendments requested by the Senate be not made. The Chair is in a difficulty in that it does not have a proposal before it at the moment. Mr HOLDING —I shall move that motion now, Mr Chairman. The requested amendments pressed by the Senate are not acceptable to the Government in the form that they are before us. They would be acceptable to the Government in another form and a schedule indicating those amendments and requested amendments acceptable to the Government has been circulated to honourable members. It is not competent for this Committee under the Standing Orders to agree to the amendments in the form which is acceptable to the Government at this stage because this Committee is empowered only to modify Senate requests for amendments and not to agree to amendments in their place. Therefore, I propose to move: `That the amendments requested by the Senate be not made'. Provided the report of this Committee is adopted by the House, I will move in the following terms: That, in the message returning the Bill to the Senate, the Senate be informed that its requests for amendments would be acceptable to the House in the form indicated in Schedule C if proposed in conjunction with certain amendments also indicated in Schedule C. Therefore, at this stage I move: That the amendments requested by the Senate be not made. Continuing with the line of reasoning I was putting to the chamber, the effect of the amendment would be that unwarranted pensions would be paid at the expense of the benefits, services and treatment entitlements of those who have already established their right to them. It could also mean that 27,000 claims decided since 6 June would go to the front of the determining queue ahead of everyone else for reconsideration, regardless of the outcome of the original decision. This would mean massive delays-delays of 12 months-causing severe hardship and distress to less favoured members of the veteran community, many of them widows who are awaiting a decision on their more recent claims. As I said earlier, the Government does not accept that clause 119 of the Bill is retrospective. The issue is phoney. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee does not accept that the clause is retrospective. The Chairman of that Committee, Senator Tate, in a letter of 12 March 1986 to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) restated the view of the Committee, expressed in its sixteenth report of 1985, and I table the letter. Senator Tate said: While it is clear that this provision will put applicants in a new and less advantageous position, the Committee indicates as a matter of record that it accepts the Government's view that the application of the altered standard of proof in the determination of claims and appeals after the date on which the amending legislation came into operation does not involve any retrospectivity (even though such claims and appeals may have been lodged or initiated prior to the commencement of the amending legislation). Senator Tate continued, and I ask the House to note his words: The Committee uses retrospectivity in its dictionary meaning of statutes having a retroactive operation, for example licensing or punishing past action. As Professor D. C. Pearce, a former Legal Adviser to the Committee, states in his standard work, Statutory Interpretation (2nd ed. Butterworths, Sydney, 1981), at page 149: Few Acts do not interfere with some existing right. The usual intention of a legislation is to make some change in an existing course of conduct. It is, therefore, appropriate to talk in terms of retrospectivity only where an Act affects rights by changing them with effect prior to the commencement of the amending Act. In short, to be termed retrospective, legislation must affect existing rights or benefits. By contrast, this legislation has an explicit savings clause-clause 6 of the associated transitional Bill-which guarantees the continuity of pensions at existing levels. It means that no existing beneficiary will suffer a loss or reduction of pension. The ex-service community also has not supported the amendment. A meeting of all ex-service organisations on 13 February 1986 opposed the amendment and called for the immediate passage of the Veterans' Entitlement Bill. Indeed, in an advertisement in the 19 March issue of the House Magazine the National Secretary of the Returned Services League, Mr Ian Gollings, said: The RSL with 269,767 members, Legacy with over 7,000, the War Widows' Guild with 25,000 and the TPI Federation representing 20,675 veterans are strongly united in calling on the Opposition to not press its remaining amendment. While it is calling for the Government to cut spending the Opposition is persisting with an amendment which would increase spending in an area where there is no demand from the ex-service community. The concern is that the action taken by the Opposition could jeopardise funding for repatriation hospitals and other urgent improvements in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The Government's amendments have been circulated to the Opposition and the Australian Democrats and I understand that, with the possible exception of the amendment to clause 119, they are acceptable to them. The ex-service community has also been fully consulted on the Government's proposals. For those reasons, I commend to the House the course of action that is now being proposed by the Government. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.36) —The Government has only itself to blame for the delays that have occurred to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and related legislation. The commitment of the coalition parties has been to fight unnecessary and unfair cutbacks on veterans and to fight for veterans who submitted claims and applications before May 1985. I wish to draw the attention of the House to page 4044 of Hansard of 29 November 1985 in proof of my comments. Here we are many months later about to resume consideration of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, yet these requests were first brought back to the House of Representatives on 29 November 1985 at 4.29 p.m. The Government adjourned the House and failed to take any measure to bring on the discussions on that particular occasion. It has been the Government's determination as to when this should be brought forward for further consideration because it controls the numbers in the House of Representatives. I want to spell out the coalition's attitude very strongly. We cannot be blamed for the delay because we have been absolutely responsible throughout all the deliberations on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. We have eventually reached the stage where, after a lot of consultations with the Returned Services League and other veteran's organisations, we have taken a very strong stand on a raft of amendments, some of which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has already referred to. The result of all these has been the removal of that discriminatory 40-year rule which no government of this country worth a pinch of salt should ever have dreamt up in the first place. Let me just remind the House and the nation that veterans and war widows especially were to have been subjected to a very unfair discriminatory proposal by the Government but for the stand of the coalition. Our stand has been to fight the cutbacks which have emerged along the track, some of which have been obliquely referred to in this Bill. I refer to the totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria tightening up, on which evidence was given in the Senate Estimates Committee yesterday. That has resulted in a reduction of between $20m and $24m in outlays for the Government on the granting of TPI. According to RSL figures, the cutbacks in travel allowances have already resulted in a reduction of $3m expenditure for the Government and the cutbacks in the dental scheme with unfair limitations on four categories of treatment which, in the words of a Launceston dentist are leading to veterans missing out on essential dental treatment, have led to reductions in expenditure of $5.6m since that infamous mini-Budget in which the veterans took more than their fair share of the cutbacks imposed by the Government at that time. Above all, we have the cutbacks of the assets test as it is applied to service pensioners. I will not dwell on that although it is not outside the scope of this Bill because the Bill revalidates the assets test for service pensioners. Already more than 13,000 veterans have had their pensions reduced or cancelled as a consequence of the application of the assets test. That burden has fallen very heavily on veterans, more so than on general pensioners. That is why the coalition has taken a strong and consistent stand on this legislation throughout its passage through the Parliament and that is why we will continue to do so. Our stand in no way affects the fundamental future operation of this legislation. In fact, both Houses and all parties have agreed to its future operation. Our stand now relates particularly to the matter of retrospectivity. I have much pleasure in reminding the House of some of the more relevant quotes that have come in from time to time on the issue of retrospectivity-an issue pursued by all veterans' organisations throughout 1985. I have a great deal of respect for those organisations. They were subjected to additional pressures to formulate a slightly different viewpoint in more recent weeks. Let me remind the House what the Partially Blinded Soldiers Association of Australia said on 2 February 1986 about retrospectivity. It said: The retrospectivity clause is outrageous. It appears as a deliberate attempt by the Minister or the Treasurer, or both, to avoid paying the disabled veteran money to which he is rightfully entitled. The Government is quibbling about a national debt owed to its disabled fighting men, those who preserved for us the benefits and way of life we enjoy in Australia today. I could say that at this stage my case rests, but I will continue and highlight the comments of the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association which likened the retrospectivity matter to `removing the goal post during a football match'. Those are fairly strong words and they reflect the concern that exists over the retrospectivity issue. While there is legal debate about the extent to which the legislation is retrospective, I am reminded of a letter from the late Senator Alan Missen on this matter. I went to see Senator Missen and asked him about this. He wrote in these terms: I believe the Committee report unfortunately does not fully cover the decision of the Committee and lacks clarity. At least a word should be inserted to show that the provision does not come within the definition of retrospectivity in a formal sense- as he explained to me by that he meant in a technical sense- undoubtedly it does lead to the imposition of real financial burden on applicants who commenced their proceedings while a certain state of law existed and then found themselves financially prejudiced by a later amendment of the law. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee itself went on to say, as the Minister mentioned a moment ago, that it was clear that this provision would put applicants in a new and less advantageous position. Our amendment goes to the nub of the question and provides two objectives: That the applications submitted before May that have not yet been determined should be determined on the basis of the law as it then stood; and that with those applications which had been determined, the veteran should have the right to make a claim for a review which would then also be on the basis of the law as it then stood. I have made a copy of that amendment available to the Government. I hope that the amendment will be properly dealt with in the Senate because Standing Orders and other factors preclude its being moved here. Our approach in both Houses has been consistent in respect of this Veterans' Entitlements Bill and I wish to emphasise that my stand has been predicated on the basis of wide-ranging co-operation, and that those out in the veterans' community at large, across Australia, are sick to death of the cutbacks, confusion and complex changes that this Government has brought to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. They want to see a determined stand made in their interests to ensure that the full and just entitlements are accorded to those who served their country in time of war. I wish to emphasise that there is a need, because of the complexity of this legislation, for a monitoring committee to be established. That committee should be independent and have particular reference to the TPI changes which are causing very real concern in many veterans' organisations. The committee should also ensure that the legislation is not having effects that were not intended and that proper recommendations are made after clause 119 standard of proof has been in operation for a long period. It is essential that such a monitoring committee be established. I call on the Government to proceed with its establishment after the passage of this legislation, to ensure that it be required to report back to the Parliament and that it have independent capability so that it can arrive at its conclusions free from any budgetary constraints. The subtle influence of the Department of Finance and the Treasury has been at the bottom of all that has happened in the past year. Let me put it on record that we on this side of the House are economically responsible, but we do not accept the right of any government of any political persuasion to implement cutbacks in areas such as travel allowances, dental schemes, Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and TPI criteria in a way which is unfair and unjust to those who served their country in time of war. I assure the House that the coalition has been consistent in its whole approach to this legislation and that, as a consequence of that approach, the veteran is much better placed today than he would have otherwise been if we had not taken our stand on this Bill throughout 1985. We are not opposing or unnecessarily hindering the progress of this legislation. We will co-operate in all the complex procedures necessary to bed down the raft of requests and amendments flowing from the Bill and therefore we will not divide on the motion. In fact, the motion as it now stands accepts all the amendments which have been brought forward by the coalition over a period, in conjunction and consultation with veterans' organisations the length and breadth of Australia. I make it very clear that our approach can be simply summarised as being a commitment to provide to the veterans the greatest generosity that responsible government can afford. That is the basis of my work as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the reason why we are determined to battle on behalf of the veterans. One additional area which will result in a benefit to Army, Navy and Air Force enlistees for the next period is that the Government has now accepted our amendment in relation to retaining repatriation cover for new enlistees until a proper defence compensation scheme is in place. That is how it should be and that reflects another victory for the democratic process of both Houses of this Parliament. I strongly commend the amendments, which are in accord with the coalition's policy. I ask the Minister for his comments in respect of items 24, 26 and 30 of Schedule C. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with sessional order 101a, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The House may at a later hour this day again resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.48 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the interpretation given yesterday by the Minister for Trade concerning the criteria by which a Minister in this Government determines what may constitute a conflict of interest in Cabinet deliberations and the Prime Minister's support of that interpretation, does the Prime Minister now assert that the Minister can be involved in a potential conflict of interest only if the assets of himself, his spouse or children are involved? Mr HAWKE —That is not my position. There is no change of mind. I was simply addressing myself to the proposition that was put by those honourable members on the other side of the House yesterday that if there was a holding of an interest by a mother or a distant family relative that necessarily and automatically meant a conflict of interest. I was at pains to point that out and that that would create a quite hopeless situation. The position of the Government is this: Firstly, any interest of immediate families is required to be disclosed. We go then to the point of saying that the disclosure of any interest of a person beyond the immediate family, which is set out in the guidelines, depends quite obviously on the individual circumstances of the case. It is simply not possible to lay down some single, general rule for such circumstances. It would be an absurdity. In regard to this case, the Minister quite clearly addressed his mind to the issue; he formed a judgment on it. I endorse the judgment he made. Mr LAMB —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm that the Indonesian appointed Governor of East Timor, Mr Maria Carrascala is due to visit Australia for two weeks in the near future? If so, is he coming as an official guest of the Australian Government? Will the visit be funded in any way by the Australian Government? What is the purpose of his visit, and what is his expected itinerary? Mr HAYDEN —The answer to the first three parts of the question is yes. The date of the visit has not yet been determined. The purpose of the visit is for general familiarisation and discussions with officials. Mr SINCLAIR —Recognising the Prime Minister's desire to ensure the public's recognition of the continued integrity of his Ministers, I ask him whether he would be prepared in this House to expose whether any declarations of a potential conflict of interest have been made before, during or after the sub-committee of Cabinet consideration of the BHP-Holmes a Court-Bell Resources Ltd affair in that sub-committee, in Cabinet or in Caucus? Mr HAWKE —Could I ask the honourable member to clarify the question? Is it in regard to this issue alone or is it in regard to any other matter? Mr Sinclair —Particularly on this issue, but specifically on any issue since that period. Mr HAWKE —So that I can give a complete answer covering the whole period of the Government, I can say without going into the details of each case that there have been occasions in the life of this Government when Ministers have disclosed an interest. I believe that that would be relevant to the question asked by the right honourable gentleman. In regard to the Bell claim on BHP, the situation is, as the Minister for Trade has indicated-and I agree with him-that is, when the group of Ministers who were appointed by Cabinet to deal with this issue met on the first occasion the matter was raised by the Minister for Trade and each Minister there was asked whether there was any conflict of interest. The answers were in the negative. Mr Howard —And nothing since then on that matter? Mr HAWKE —There has been nothing since then. Mr GAYLER —I direct my question to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. What is the Government's attitude to the Australian Democrats' amendments to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act? Mr COHEN —The Democrats have come up with a wonderous new idea. They propose to move amendments to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to, as they put it, strengthen the Act to present possible repetition of the Lindeman Island fiasco. It is not surprising that the Democrats have come up with this. They recently came up with a proposal to alter some legislation that would have effectively banned all forms of mining on the Queensland coast, from the Great Barrier Reef to Torres Strait. They wish to proclaim all Queensland islands within the Great Barrier Reef as world heritage property so that in future all works of any description would have to be approved by the Federal Minister for the environment. This brilliant proposal was supported by the recent Age editorial. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act covers all the reef up to the low watermark; that is the area of Commonwealth sovereignty. The islands are Queensland sovereign territory. The whole region is under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and is administered by the Authority, working in co-operation with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act covers all the islands and all the region. Should an island be threatened by an action that would seriously damage any part of the reef area, the Commonwealth could proclaim that area within 24 hours. In other words, there is no need to strengthen the Act because all the power that is required is already there. The Democrats propose to create an administrative nightmare that would require anyone who wanted to do good things to apply to Canberra for permission. We have a very good arrangement with Queensland-it works well. We have an excellent case of genuine Commonwealth-State co-operation. Should there be some unfortunate proposal the powers are there for the Commonwealth to act immediately to stop it. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister and remind him of his answer to the previous opposition question. Is he aware that Senator Button is a director of the Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd? Is he also aware that at the same time Senator Button was a member on the Cabinet sub-committee into the proposed Bell Resources Ltd takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, this company was the holder of 58,661 BHP shares valued at approximately $460,000 and stood to make a tax free capital gain of an additional $81,000 had the Bell takeover offer been successful? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question is that I had known at some time in the past that Senator Button had been a director of that company. I could not confirm to the honourable gentleman whether I had known whether he ceased to be a director. The answer to the second part of the question is no, I was not aware. Let me make it clear. If the honourable gentleman is suggesting that I should know what the shareholding, if any, of Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd is, I thank him for his feeling about the breadth of my knowledge, but I can assure him that I do not know what the shareholding of that company is. Mr HAND —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. I ask: Can the Minister assure the House that the Income Tax Assessment Act does not, either through the joint operation of sections 46 and 50 or otherwise, encourage any corporation to avoid tax, encourage takeovers and encourage any corporation to have a gearing ratio different from what they would have chosen on purely commercial and prudential considerations. If not, will the Minister advise the House of how much revenue will be saved by proposals under consideration by the Government which would counter the corporate tax avoidance? Mr HURFORD —I can assure the honourable member for Melbourne and the House that it is not this Government's intention under any section of any Act, in any way, to allow any sort of evasion or avoidance of tax, let alone, as was mentioned in the honourable member's question, encourage such tax evasion or tax avoidance. I am aware of the concern of the honourable member and many other honourable members of this House of particular schemes that may be in operation in relation to takeovers. I know that the Treasurer, the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office are, at present, carrying out an investigation of any alleged schemes, particularly relating to takeovers as there has been some publicity in relation to that in recent weeks. So work is currently being done in that area. Until that work is completed, I would not be able to say, one way or another, whether such schemes were in operation and whether any loss to revenue is taking place, let alone how much loss to revenue might be taking place. But I can assure the honourable member that after those investigations have taken place they will be announced. Cabinet is awaiting the results of the investigation. If any action needs to be taken, it will be taken promptly. Mr N.A. Brown —Did the Prime Minister say in his statement of 22 September 1983 that Ministers would be required to provide the Prime Minister with an annual statement of their pecuniary interests, including any interests where a conflict with public duties could foreseeably arise? Have his Ministers provided these annual statements? If they have, why have the returns not been made public as he promised they would be? Will the Prime Minister now provide the House with a list of the dates on which Ministers lodged their returns and will he publish them? Mr Duncan —Are you going to fill in yours? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I will. I hope the honourable member does the same. In particular, will he say why he has refused, through his Department, for almost three years, to publish the return of the Special Minister of State? Mr HAWKE —I cannot answer off the cuff what the state of the periodicity of the returns has been. It is a perfectly legitimate question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will ascertain what the facts are about the time of lodgment and inform him accordingly. Mr TICKNER —Is the Minister for Health aware of the serious allegations contained in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the Ciba-Geigy Aust. Ltd chemical company which suggests that crops may have been harvested after being sprayed with the company's chemicals, although parts were treated with chemicals during a trial stage before they had been approved for release on the market? It also alleged that the company has not replaced a cattle dip chemical which was shown to be carcinogenic, although it had agreed to do so with the New South Wales Government seven years ago. Will the Minister thoroughly investigate these matters? Can he inform the House what action he proposes to take as a result of these most serious allegations of corporate malpractice? Dr BLEWETT —My attention has been drawn to the story published on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald on an internal memorandum from Ciba-Geigy. Certainly some of the points in that memorandum raise matters of very serious concern. The National Health and Medical Research Council has advised me that it has taken appropriate action in each case on becoming aware of the particular problems. It has also advised me that regular contact is maintained with all the major chemical companies marketing pesticides and agricultural chemicals to ensure that those companies are aware of NHMRC concerns and information requirements. I must say that I am not satisfied completely with that information and have asked for further details. I think it is important to point out that poisons and pesticides legislation is a matter for State governments. The NHMRC develops recommendations to the Sates on poisons scheduling and maximum permitted residue limits for pesticides in foodstuffs. As I have just said, at this stage I have yet to receive a full report from the Department and through the NHMRC on the Ciba-Geigy document. I will certainly be happy to come back to the honourable member and to the House with the full details. Mr IAN CAMERON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the leap in farm debt from $4.7 billion in 1982 to approximately $8 billion today, as well as the doubling of the interest rates since he has been Prime Minister, I ask: Firstly, will the Government prepare a comprehensive drought relief program for rural industry now that many regions of Australia are entering a major drought situation; and, secondly, will the Government make at least $120m available to primary industries to subsidise interest rates, as it has done for housing? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he understands that my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, will be making a very detailed statement to the House on the whole matter of rural industry and the need for assistance on Tuesday of next week. Some of the matters to which the honourable gent refers will be covered in that statement. I can assure him that no matter has been consistently receiving more attention from the Government over recent times than the issue of our rural industries. I would suggest that the evidence of that is in the statement that the Minister will be making to the House, which represents very many hours of consideration, not merely by the Minister and his Department but by the Cabinet, and also in the primacy which I will give to this matter personally in the overseas visit which I will undertake commencing next Tuesday. I will be doing my best in the United States of America and in Europe to advance the interests of that sector of the Australian community which I know the honourable member has so close to his heart. Mr DUNCAN —I address my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. Has the Minister read an article in the Australian Business magazine of 1 August 1984 entitled `Bending the tax rules with gold?' Is the Minister aware that gold bullion may be bought and sold anonymously in Australia with impunity? Is the Minister aware that anonymous trading in gold bullion is widespread and greatly facilitates tax evasion and money laundering? What steps will the Minister take to provide for the licensing of gold bullion traders and for recording the identities of all parties to each gold bullion transaction that takes place in this country. Mr HURFORD —No, I have not read that particular article back in August 1984. I do know that from time to time I have read other articles which have made allegations in relation to the tax avoidance, or even tax evasion, elements of trading in gold bullion. I also know that inquiries have been made of treasuries and other appropriate bodies-tax offices is one-in order to investigate the charges that have been made. To date nothing has been found to be feasible to close off any loopholes that there may be. However, it comes as a surprise to me for the honourable member to suggest that licensing would be one arrangement, because it is my understanding that licensing of gold bullion dealers takes place right now. I will take on notice the question he has asked and I will see whether there is further information that can be given to him. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the following Motion of Censure: This House censures the Prime Minister for 1. His weak and abject failure to dismiss the Minister for Trade; 2. Condoning the failure of the Minister for Trade to make full and frank disclosure of matters which may have given rise to a conflict of interest; 3. Allowing the Minister for Trade to remain within the Ministry despite his proven record of poor judgment and a failure to understand the propriety demanded of a Minister; 4. Breaking his promise that Ministers in his Government would disclose any matters which may involve a conflict of interest; 5. His failure to maintain proper standards of ministerial conduct; 6. His blatant double standards relating to ministerial propriety; 7. His expedient and opportunistic interpretation of rules he himself has laid down for the conduct of Ministers; and 8. His continued choice of cronyism and factional survival in preference to his duty as Prime Minister to maintain both real and apparent standards of integrity. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the motion. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, we are quite happy to take the motion forthwith. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.22) —I move: This House censures the Prime Minister for 1. His weak and abject failure to dismiss the Minister for Trade; 2. Condoning the failure of the Minister for Trade to make full and frank disclosure of matters which may have given rise to a conflict of interest; 3. Allowing the Minister for Trade to remain within the Ministry despite his proven record of poor judgment and a failure to understand the propriety demanded of a Minister; 4. Breaking his promise that Ministers in his Government would disclose any matters which may involve a conflict of interest; 5. His failure to maintain proper standards of ministerial conduct; 6. His blatant double standards relating to ministerial propriety; 7. His expedient and opportunistic interpretation of rules he himself has laid down for the conduct of Ministers; and 8. His continued choice of cronyism and factional survival in preference to his duty as Prime Minister to maintain both real and apparent standards of integrity. I commence my remarks on this censure motion by saying that there is only one issue involved in the affairs of the past 48 hours and that is the propriety of the behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I remind the House of a number of things that have been said on the subject of ministerial propriety and ministerial behaviour. I start first of all with a comment made on 27 April 1982 by none other than the Leader of the House and Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The Leader of the House would be the world's greatest expert on ministerial propriety, would he not? The Leader of the House would know more about ministerial propriety than just about any other member of the Hawke Government, because he has been more guilty of breaching the standards of ministerial propriety than any other member of that Government. Let me remind honourable members of what the Leader of the House-the honourable member for Port Adelaide- had to say on 27 April 1982: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. Nothing is more important than the relationship between the Government and the people of Australia. Those were the words of the Leader of the House and Special Minister of State in 1982. I now go on to a comment made by none other than the Prime Minister on 16 November 1977: If a man . . . shouts from the roof tops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly those same standards applied to himself. How relevant are those words. How prophetic it was of the Prime Minister to say in 1977 that if a person shouts from the rooftops about propriety in high places he should watch out that those words do not come back to bite him. That prophecy made by the Prime Minister applies with deadly accuracy to his colleague the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). Nobody in my memory, in 11 years in the Parliament, more used and abused the forms of this House to shout from the rooftops about ministerial propriety than did the Minister for Trade. Those who sat on the Government side before 1983 will remember that day after day he traduced reputations; he insulted family members; he used the sanctity of the privilege of this House to traduce the reputations of innocent Australians outside this Parliament. If ever a man made for himself a future burden because of the standards he then demanded of others, if ever a person impugned the reputation and the decency and integrity of honest members of the former Government, it is the present Minister for Trade. It is therefore not surprising that in 1982, in a moment of total reflection, he also had something prophetic to say. This is what he had to say: Getting stuck into them-- that is the Liberals- means you've got to be pretty careful about your own conduct because, if you're even slightly flawed it's going to become a matter of much greater interest to them than if you are sitting there back in Parliament and saying nothing. They were the words of the present Minister for Trade back in 1982. I can tell him and the Prime Minister that the issue is of enormous importance to us because what has occurred on this occasion is a total breakdown in the standards of disclosure required of a senior Minister of the Crown. All the bobbing and weaving and squirming of the Prime Minister, his redefinition of rules that he laid down in 1983, his contradiction today of what he said yesterday, his colleague's contradiction yesterday of what he had said earlier in that same day, the fact that the Government has now adopted such an absurd position on this issue that it no longer has a tenable position on the disclosure of material interests, demonstrate the trap into which the rantings and ravings of the Minister for Trade when he was in opposition have led him. There is only one issue involved, and it has nothing to do with whether this Government or any other government maintains a public register of the pecuniary interests of Ministers or members of their immediate families. It has nothing to do with that. That is a total and comprehensible red herring. There is only one thing involved and that is whether or not, in the circumstances applying to the Minister for Trade, there was a potential for a conflict of interest to arise. The Prime Minister cannot hide behind the narrow definition of the immediate family. He cannot hide behind that kind of legalistic approach. The simple fact, as the Prime Minister ought to know and ought to have admitted yesterday, and as the Minister for Trade ought to have known when he went to the meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee, is that conflicts of interest can arise involving the activities and assets of people associated with a Minister other than members of that Minister's family. I remind the House and the Prime Minister of a very celebrated case in the United Kingdom in relation to the House of Commons involving a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Reginald Maudling, who was forced to resign from the Government because of his association with and the business interests of not his mother, his sister or his Aunt Agatha but a former business associate by the name of Poulson. That was the principle applied then. The issue involved was not whether there was any relationship; the issue involved was whether in all the circumstances there was a potential conflict of interest. Everybody knows that if a man who stands to gain as a beneficiary under an estate to the tune perhaps of a quarter of a million dollars goes out of this Parliament and tries to tell the average Australian that he may not have a conflict of interest in that kind of situation, there is not a man or woman who would believe him. I say to the Minister for Trade that there is not a man or woman on this side of the House who believes him. I dare say that there are many men and women on his side of the House who do not believe him either. There are many people sitting at the back of the Government's own benches who do not believe him. They believe one thing about him-that he has become a colossal liability to his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no alternative. He has to come into the Parliament to defend the Minister for Trade. He does not have the strength of character to get rid of the Minister, any more than he had the strength of character or the numbers to get rid of the Special Minister of State when he should have after the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He does not have the strength of character to get rid of the Minister now, when he should have got rid of him a couple of years ago. If this happens again in relation to another Minister, as surely it will, he will not have the strength of character to get rid of that Minister either. When it comes to making a choice between his duties as a Prime Minister and cronyism and factional survival, we can bet our bottom dollar that this Prime Minister will always choose cronyism and factional survival. He will never do his duty as Prime Minister. He will never apply to his Ministers the standards of propriety and conduct that were applied to Ministers in the former Government. If ever there were a demonstration of conduct that would stand as a memorial to the high standards of conduct of the Ministers in the former coalition Government, it is a comparison of their conduct with the pathetic failure of this Prime Minister to put his duty ahead of his cronyism and factional survival. By failing to get rid of the Minister for Trade for a demonstrable failure to make a disclosure of matters that may have given rise to a conflict of interests, this Prime Minister has added yet again to his long list of broken promises. An example of the Prime Minister's lack of credibility is the number of promises that he has broken. His failure to match the expectations and the commitments that he made to the Australian public has become very apparent. Let us remember his glowing statement of September 1983 when he stated: It is right and proper that they should do so. The public, the electors of this country, are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives; to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour; to be reassured that a Minister's private interests, whatever they may be, do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government. Mr Rocher —Who said that? Mr HOWARD —They were the words of the Prime Minister. Those words were worth as much as that famous promise that he made in 1983 when he said: `There will be no capital gains tax'. The words were worth as much as that promise that he made in Adelaide in November 1984; `We have sown the seeds and we are going to reap the harvest of lower interest rates in 1985'. Those words were also worth as much as that promise that he made in the South Australian election campaign: `We will not lift the interest rate ceiling: You can bet on that. We will not lift the interest rate ceiling'. They were worth as much as the promise that he made: `There will be no assets test'. They were worth as much as the promise that he made that he would not increase taxation on lump sum superannuation payments. They were worth as much as the promise that he made that this year inflation would be down to 5 per cent. So the list goes on. The Prime Minister, by his actions over the Dawkins affair, has not only broken yet another of his solemn promises made to the Australian public, but he has also condoned the remaining in office of a Minister who has clearly failed to match the high standards of disclosure that should properly be required of Ministers of the Crown. Yesterday it was plain for everybody in this House to see the embarrassment of the Prime Minister when he tried, in his super clever fashion, to pretend that what the Opposition was asserting was ridiculous when contrasted with the practices and the standards of the Fraser Government. Of course, to his great embarrassment, the Prime Minister was caught out. That demonstrated more graphically than anything else the vast gulf that separates both sides of this House so far as ministerial propriety is concerned. Ministerial propriety is not something that can be codified neatly. It is not something that is susceptible to a legalistic interpretation. Ministerial propriety rests on an instinct for honour and proper conduct. If that instinct is absent and if the person occupying the ministerial office has no instinct for honour and proper conduct, the Government cannot expect a performance of the high standards of a Minister from that person. It is perfectly plain that the Minister went along to a meeting of seven Cabinet Ministers to make a decision on the most sensitive and highly publicised commercial issue in Australia over the past 40 years, knowing that his mother holds $250,000 worth of shares in one of the companies under scrutiny and even has the concern and presence of mind to ask everybody present `Have you got any interests to declare?', in other words, self-righteously and pompously he put everybody else on the rack. Having done that, he then made a deliberate decision. It was not an oversight, because what the Prime Minister did today was to take the debate a little further. When he was asked about the Minister, he said that the Minister addressed the matter and that he made a judgment that it was not necessary to make the disclosure. I have to say to the House that I do not believe that; I do not think that is right. I am not the least bit persuaded by what the Prime Minister said but, if in fact that is the situation, the Minister is incompetent, because his judgment is bad and if, knowing that his mother has shares in the company and knowing the sensitivity of the matter it was not in his mind, he is also incompetent and, on either count, he ought to go. By the Prime Minister defending him and saying that he shares the judgment, the Prime Minister has implicated himself in the bad judgment of his ministerial colleague. To use the words of a number of correspondents in this morning's Press, the Prime Minister has made an absolute mockery of the rules of ministerial conduct. As far as this Government is concerned, there is no longer such a thing as a code of ministerial conduct and behaviour relating to pecuniary interests. From this day forward anything that this Prime Minister or any of his Ministers have to say about declarations of interests by Ministers or anybody else in the House is so much nonsense and ought to be totally discounted by everybody in the Australian community. This Prime Minister has demonstrated that it is quite okay to have a great long list of requirements, to get people to fill out forms, to move fancy resolutions and to make fine sounding speeches about ministerial propriety and the declaration of pecuniary interests but, when it comes to the crunch and one of his own mob is caught in the web, then we have to forget about the whole lot of it. We have to run around those rules, reinterpret them and pretend that they do not exist. We have to contradict today what we said yesterday, because that is what the Prime Minister did and anybody who heard the tortuous answers that the Prime Minister gave yesterday would know that he was quite dishonestly and selectively relying upon a very narrow interpretation of the rules. I therefore return to what I said at the commencement of my speech. This matter deals with one very simple proposition which is whether or not, in the circumstances involving the Minister for Trade, there was a potential conflict of interests. It has nothing to do with whether it involved this or that member of the Minister's family. That is not the issue. It could have involved a business associate of the Minister or it could have involved a close personal friend of the Minister. There can be circumstances where the relationship between a Minister and an individual dealing with the Government is sensitive and important. Why does not the Prime Minister ask the Minister of State about that? His relationship with somebody dealing with the Government turned out, on a very celebrated occasion, to be very sensitive and very important; so it has nothing at all to do with whether or not a relationship exists but, rather, whether, in all of the circumstances, the facts suggest that a potential conflict of interests arose. On this occasion, that was clearly the case. If, on this occasion, the facts do not bring forth that conclusion it seems inconceivable to me and to others on this side of the House that any facts can bring forth that conclusion. The Prime Minister, by his actions and weakness, his inability to discipline and expel from the Ministry the Minister for Trade and by breaking a promise has further confirmed in the minds of the Australian public that, when it really comes to the crunch, when he really has a gut issue upon which to make a decision, when he has to choose between duty which might be lonely, hard, unpopular and give him a few sleepless nights but it is still the right thing to do, and cronyism, he will take the latter course. When one has to make that choice, but one has an alternative, and that is to smooth it all over, to pretend it has not happened, to stand by one's cronies, to serve the interests of factional survival, one can be absolutely certain that yours truly, the present Prime Minister, will always choose the latter course of action. This has occurred not only on this occasion in relation to the Minister for Trade, it applied to the Special Minister of State. If ever anybody deserved to get flung out of the Ministry, it was the Special Minister of State. One cannot do much worse than go into a car park and blab one's mouth about something that might affect the national security of this country. Yet here he is, as large as life, sitting on the front bench, continuing to enjoy the fruits of office, continuing to enjoy being a member of the Hawke Government. That is an example of the Government's standards. They apply not only to Ministers-the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Trade. Of course, we all remember that when the crunch really came on a political issue such as the MX missile, and on issues that were of enormous importance to this country, the Prime Minister once again was willing to choose expediency instead of his duty to do the right thing and the strong thing. I conclude my reading from the remarks of Sir John Simon on the principles applying to Ministers: Inasmuch as the secrets of the Government are specially in charge of Cabinet ministers, no minister and particularly, no Cabinet minister, must in any circumstances put himself in a position where he is not able to be the complete guardian of those secrets in that there is any possibility of any private interests being served through a knowledge of those secrets. I put it to the House that that definition applies immaculately to the circumstances of this case. The Minister for Trade should go and the Prime Minister should be censured for not making him go. Mr Tuckey —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.43) —Let me at the outset get rid of the unbelievable hypocrisy which has characterised the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who referred to the vast gulf between the Government of which he was a member and this Government on the question of standards, of probity, of instinct for honour. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the Prime Minister continues his speech, I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. I will have the same courtesy for the Prime Minister. The institution of parliament relies on freedom of speech. The Prime Minister has the same rights as everyone else. Mr HAWKE —Members of the Opposition set their standards, they say, and there is a vast gulf. Let us look at their standards. Let us take the most obvious example that occurred in 1982. They established a royal commission in 1981 to look at what had happened in the meat industry. They did not have a Cabinet committee of inquiry; they established a royal commission. Mr Justice Woodward, their appointed royal commissioner, brought down his report, which included one of the most damning indictments of a Minister-the then Minister for Primary Industry-in the history of this country. What did that Government that members of the Opposition talk about, the one with these great standards, do? They talk about the absence of cronyism. I will tell honourable members opposite what it did. The then Prime Minister went into a cabal with the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and with the leaders of the National Party of Australia. They said: `Here we have this royal commission report, damning a Minister in a way in which a Minister has never been damned before by a royal commission. What shall we do?' The Minister thought that he had better resign. But we could not have that, could we? What did the then Prime Minister, this man of standards, this man of probity, do? What did this Government with an instinct for honour do? It set about attacking the royal commissioner. It did not accept his report, which demanded, on any standards of decency, the resignation of the Minister. What did it do? Did it accept the resignation of the Minister? No, it did not. It attacked and damned the royal commissioner. That is the standard of honour and the instinct for decency of members of the Opposition. Let us hear no more of this vast gulf. In government honourable members opposite were not only grossly incompetent but also totally dishonourable. There has never been another instance in the history of this country when a government has appointed a royal commission, that royal commission has brought down a finding which cried out for the resignation of a Minister, and the then Prime Minister has said: `No, we will not do that. We will attack the royal commissioner'. The speech that has just been delivered must rank as the most hypocritical ever delivered in this Parliament. Having established the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, let us restore some rationality to this debate. Let me rehearse the rules about conflicts of interest that apply to Ministers and the history of those rules. Before this Government was elected the history of conflicts of interest was one of the previous Government being dragged, screaming and kicking, by the then Labor Opposition towards the registration of Ministers' and members' interests. It was as a result, Madam Speaker, as you will recall, of the sustained pressure from the then Labor Opposition that the previous Government commissioned the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. When the report was finally received it took the then Government nearly six months just to table it. At that belated stage it moved to ask Cabinet Ministers to declare their private interests to the Prime Minister and to establish some rules in the declaration of interests. Those rules were stated broadly, but not, I might add, as some gullible observers have been led into believing because of some high sense of probity but rather because that Government was too frightened to define them with any precision. Its sense of probity and its rules were so well defined that the then Minister for Primary Industry, I remind members of the House, and the public, was able, under its rules-its rules, characterised by an instinct for honour and of great probity-to authorise a payment of $800,000 to the Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd in which he was a direct and substantial shareholder. Like so much of the Fraser Government, it was a matter of form without any content, of rhetoric without any substance. When this Government came to power we moved to give meaning and content to those nebulous rules. We defined the rules for Cabinet Ministers. We required full details to be lodged with the Prime Minister and we published Ministers' interests in this House. We have in addition spent the last two years dragging this Opposition, still kicking and screaming, towards a registration of members' interests. Members of the public may care to review the debates on the motion on members' interests to appreciate the contribution and attitude of the Opposition on this matter. One member of the Opposition, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), said quite openly that he hoped it would provide him with more dirt for him to throw at members of the Government. That is a measure of the Opposition in this matter. Where the Government has sought to establish probity, the Opposition rakes for muck. If one asks specifically for the position of members of the Opposition, it turns out that they are opposed even to declaring their spouses' interests to this House. That is their high minded position in this matter. They want members on this side of the House to declare interests that they do not even know about, while they declare nothing and hide behind their own self-interest. It will be interesting to see whether they have sufficient respect for the institution of parliament to submit to its resolution in this regard, or whether as usual they will be driven by self-interest and fear. The relative positions of the Government and the Opposition have been and remain perfectly distinct. The Government's position has been one of giving substance and codification to the requirements of public duty. The position of the Opposition has been to avoid and evade at all times on this issue. The rules covering Ministers are clearly set out in paragraph 215 of the Cabinet handbook-published, I might add, for the first time under this Government. Those requirements are explicit in requiring Ministers to declare the private interests of themselves and members of their immediate families. The phase `immediate families' is explicitly defined in the guidelines issued to Ministers when completing their public interest returns. Madam Speaker, I table the guidelines for the information of the House. It is interesting to reflect on what might have happened to the previous Minister for Primary Industry under those rules. The rules are explicit, they are clear. They were made clear in my statement to this House on 22 September, and they were not opposed by the Opposition. They are a significant advance on the loophole-ridden vagaries of the previous Government. It is a matter of record and of pride to this Government that these standards represent the highest form of standards adopted by any government for the conduct of its Ministers. As can be seen, these rules were properly applied in the Bell-BHP considerations. When the ministerial committee was formed to deal with the Bell Resources bid for BHP the conflict of interest arrangements which I have set out applied to the committee. In fact, as is known, when the committee first met it was the Minister for Trade who raised the issue of a conflict of interest. In response to his question I asked each Minister in turn whether any conflict of interest existed, and each replied in the negative. The Minister for Trade made the judgment at that point that any holding of his mother's, the details of which he was unaware, did not constitute a conflict of interest for him. That judgment was sound both within the formal conflict of interest rules and, putting the rules aside, it was taken, as I shall demonstrate, as logic and common sense would dictate. The Opposition has tried to suggest that by raising the issue himself the Minister for Trade was not expressing his natural concern for the proprieties of government but was indulging in clever deceit. It is a useful rule of life, Madam Speaker, and Occam's law should be remembered: To reject a fanciful explanation when a simple one is at hand. This event shows simply that the Minister for Trade was alive to the issue and had tested it in his mind. It indicates that he was sensitive to the Cabinet as a whole being able to operate unimpeded by personal interest. It indicates that he had considered the issue and found no personal interest of his own which would conflict with his public duty. Indeed, the individual questioning of Ministers in Cabinet that day was a fuller process than was technically required by the rules of this Government-let alone, of course by the rules of the previous Government. No doubt, in the face of these facts, the Opposition would assert that the Minister's judgment was either deliberately negligent or deficient. The fact that the Minister himself raised the issue immediately despatches the first of those two possibilities as being quite nonsensical. So, let us examine the second possibility. There is no doubt that the correct view in these matters, reflected from the Bowen report, 1979, right through to the resolution of this House in February this year, is that the interests of a Minister's immediate family are shared by a Minister, who cannot divorce himself or herself from them, no matter how principled or well-intentioned a person he or she is. For this reason the Cabinet rules established by my Government and the parliamentary rules established by this House are explicit in this regard. Beyond immediate family, no sensible or useful single line can be drawn. Individual members and Ministers enjoy quite different circumstances in their lives, and what might be appropriate to one may be unnecessary or inappropriate to others. All situations could only be encompassed by throwing a net so widely as to make any formal scheme of reporting unworkable. In addition, a wide throwing of the net is an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of a large number of citizens, who are entitled, unless there are clear public interests to be served to have their privacy. Considerations of interest beyond immediate family must therefore be individual to each case. We ask ourselves: `What is the case here?' The Minister was not aware of the size or the details of his mother's holdings. His mother is an independent woman, she has her own means. Conversely, the Minister is not dependent on his mother. By community standards they are both people of means. Their financial affairs are separate. On these facts, the only practical judgment is that their interests are separate. There is no link beyond that of maternity which would require the public interest to dictate that the Minister inform himself of the details of his mother's wealth or disqualify himself where those details may conflict with his public duty. The only judgment that commonsense and logic allow in balancing these issues is the judgment that the Minister made-namely, that there was no conflict of interest-and it is a judgment that I endorse. The Government's position in this matter is clear. It has a history and a clear record of demanding high standards of behaviour from Ministers. It has codified and strengthened the hitherto vague and loophole-ridden efforts of the Opposition, and it has not shirked the difficult positions in this area. In this issue, Madam Speaker, the Government has observed the proprieties of Cabinet beyond what was required by the rules. The Minister's judgment has been vindicated by the facts. By contrast, history indicates that Opposition members, when in a scandal-ridden Fraser Government and latterly in opposition, have resisted at every turn any disclosure of interest by Ministers or members. The contrast is stark. They repudiated a royal commission which demanded the resignation of one of their Ministers and they attacked the royal commissioner. Members opposite are hypocrites and they will be so judged by the people of this country. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.57) —Madam Speaker, it was once stated: `If a man shouts from the rooftops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly those standards applied to himself'. I wish that I had said that, or that I had even thought of it, but I did not. That is a quote from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) from the Canberra Times of 16 November 1977. We are discussing today the action of the present Government. The time has passed when the Prime Minister can continue to justify his failings, either of propriety or of financial management by blaming others, even if they came before him. The Prime Minister is in charge of the Government and he personally set the rules. The Australian people who trusted the Prime Minister are entitled to expect that he will keep to those rules without excuses such as those that we have been hearing over the past two days. The Prime Minister made the rules but yesterday he tore them up-all except, of course, the declaration of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), as he has never made one. Mr Young —Oh, yes? You want to wait and see. It is a beauty. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, well when it gets out we will believe it. Although it has been said before, it is worth pointing out again to the Prime Minister that he is a Prime Minister whose promises must always be qualified with a `use by' date. I hope that the Minister for Trade will be the next speaker in this debate. It is an opportunity that I did not give him the last time we debated the propriety of his actions and his tax dodging. I just hope that he will get up and explain to the Prime Minister, his Cabinet committee colleagues and to his lame duck Caucus colleagues, who apparently can be rolled by anything that comes under his recommendation-it would not hurt if he explained this to the people of Australia also-why he misled people; why on such a simple issue as telling them that he did have a knowledge of his mother's holdings he went to the Prime Minister, having not been included on the Cabinet committee, and took the special opportunity to ask for the job but did not tell the Prime Minister that he should consider what could amount to a remote conflict of interest. He could have indicated to the Prime Minister that he wanted him to know, as he supported him, and did not want to mislead his Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. He could have pointed out that he did not want them to think later on that he had talked them into something that they did not believe in and that he had talked them out of an inquiry into BHP. He said he would not like them to think he misled them as to the potential benefit to him. I ask the Minister for Trade why, considering all that, he did not tell his colleagues? Why did he not do that? That would have been simple, it would have been proper, and it would have protected his mother's confidentiality, because none of this would have surfaced if he had done just that. That is the point we are on about here. We are not going to have our attention diverted. I hope the media will not have its attention diverted by all these side stories. Are we to be diverted shortly by a wisecrack variety show from the Special Minister of State? Is he going to give us one of those shows on this very serious issue or will he stand up and be serious about it? Is the Special Minister of State going to ask why he was misled on this issue and why the Minister for Trade did not have the decency to tell him of his very substantial interest in the welfare of the Bell bid? We have a situation now in which apparently there are new downgraded rules designed yesterday to fit the problem of the Minister for Trade. The only thing that one has to do now is to declare a conflict of interest for one's own affairs and those of one's spouse or dependent children. Of course, those rules have been changed to meet the particular circumstances. Let us have a quick look at the responsibilities of Senator Button, about whom I have raised some questions today. He has admitted in the other place that he is a director of that company, and a director is a director is a director. I believe he said he did not know about those shares because he had not been going there for the last two or three years. Well, the shares were bought in 1969 and 1976. In fact, the company bought only about 6,000 shares and the number has now grown to 58,661. They were worth on 10 March, when the Minister was attending those Cabinet meetings, about $371,000. Of course, had that Bell offer the Cabinet was considering been successful the shares would have been worth $452,000-and meant an additional profit tax free, as with the other $400,000 possibly of $81,000. Let us look at who the beneficiaries might be. Let us look at the names of the directors of that company. The Chairman is Ken Stone, the directors are Stan Bitmead, Donald McIntosh, John Button, Frank Nelson, Harold Souter-are there any names honourable members opposite recognise?-James Williams, Edward Parker, Jim Davis, George Crawford, Maxwell Burr-I am sorry, Max-and Frank Hurley. More importantly, we find that not only is Senator Button a director but he is also a trustee. We then find out who the beneficiaries are. The beneficiaries are the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the Australian Post and Telecommunications Union, the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union-The Australian Labor Party has the biggest holding of all-the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union and the Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia. What about these people? Who are they to Senator Button? They are his political benefactors, the very people he relies on. Where do Senator Button's interests lie in this matter? They lie in staying on there and protecting the profits of that company. Let us get it straight. The honourable senator tells us in his own declaration of interest that his directorship of that company brings him no direct pecuniary gain. But a director is a director is a director. The Australian public is entitled to ask where, during those committee meetings, did that director's interests lie? Did they lie with that company-as a director he is obliged to look after that company; he has committed himself to that-or did they reside with the Australian people, who have given him their trust and voted for him? The clear question of conflict of interest is there. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has told us today, nobody told. We know that the Minister for Trade asked, to demonstrate this wonderful conscience he has which he subverts every time there is a dollar in it. We know that the Prime Minister has told us they did not answer. Of course, the puerile excuse of the Minister for Trade that he did not know the gun was loaded is no excuse, not with the high-sounding phrases of the Prime Minister when he came to this place. It is funny that just yesterday it seemed that the propriety of Malcolm Fraser was going to be made a subject of this debate. The Prime Minister was putting examples about Malcolm Fraser's mother. Let us see what the House of Representatives Practice said about the basis of a code of conduct. It states: The public- these are the people of Australia whom the Prime Minister is so often interested in quoting- is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of its government. Office holders may be required by the nature of public office to accept restrictions on certain areas of their private conduct beyond those imposed on ordinary citizens. I ask the Prime Minister what that is telling him. I ask the Minister for Trade what that is telling him. I would ask Senator Button, if he could hear me what that is telling him. It says that they have a responsibility, and that responsibility is to know a little more. One does not have to be a director of Industrial Printing Publicity Co. Ltd. That is one's choice. One does not have to do certain work for one's mother in regard to her financial affairs and help her conduct the share portfolio she manages. By the way, the shares are no recent purchase. They are probably older than the Minister himself. The reality is that when one has even a little knowledge, one is obliged to know. Time and time again Senator Button has had put in his hands the balance sheets and the affairs and the accounts of that company. Honourable members cannot tell me that since 1969 something did not ring a little bell to the effect that there was a growing mountain of BHP shares. It is totally inappropriate. It is a great pity because I thought better of Senator Button. I class him 1,000 miles ahead of the Minister for Trade-the most accident-prone Minister bar the Special Minister of State. Mr Young —We are still here, though. Mr TUCKEY —We know about that and we have complained about it. We know how your side of politics operates. We are still waiting to hear the Special Minister's laugh show. The reality is that people such as the Special Minister of State are obliged to know and there is a penalty when they flunk it. The penalty is that that person should resign. The penalty for the Minister for Trade would have been missing out on that very select committee. Let us remember that he took evidence in secret, then went out and said to his Cabinet colleagues and his Caucus colleagues-that lame duck Caucus that honourable members opposite have so magnificently created to their own benefit and their own power base-`We are going to make a recommendation to you, but we got all the information in secret. We will not tell you one thing about it, but trust us. Trust us because we want you to change your minds'. Mr Chynoweth —I would rather trust them than you. Mr TUCKEY —I do not mind if Government members are misled by their leaders. I have called them a lame duck Caucus. If they want to stay in that state, be my guests. The reality is this- Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I am telling honourable members of the circumstances they have overlooked. The reality is that the Minister went to his colleagues and said: `I heard it all in secrecy. I am telling you to change your minds. I am telling you there should be no inquiry whatsoever into the Bell takeover of BHP. However, I am not going to tell you that one of my secrets is that if the takeover succeeds you might make me a millionaire'. That is what he did not tell his colleagues. He kept a lot of secrets, did he not? And Government members believed him. If they want to go on believing him and some of their other leaders, then good luck to them. Certainly I am not concerned, but I can tell them that I do not think the Australian people will believe them again. I think they can understand the difference between children and parents. I think they can understand that if one is going to get something by way of inheritance one is not going to get it from one's children. What a mockery the Government, and the Special Minister of State in particular, have made of this whole issue. The Special Minister of State is the Government's fun and variety man. He has come in here with all his high-sounding phrases about public declarations but we do not even have to argue the point, as the Prime Minister tried to do, about our position on public declaration. The requirements of a Minister are as old as this parliamentary system and if a Minister has a known conflict of interest or if there are circumstances surrounding him which can be discovered by inquiry-and the Dawkins and the Lee-Steere families have been trading shares for probably 200 years-he should ask where he stands. He does not have to expose that sensitive information to the public, as the Government is demanding of this Parliament, he just needs to tell his Prime Minister and his colleagues. If the matter is insignificant-and the Prime Minister tries to tell us that 30,000 Bell Resources Ltd shares, or $250,000 worth, are insignificant-then the Minister's Caucus colleagues will judge that. That is a fair procedure. It is fair to the Minister himself, to the Opposition and to the people of Australia. The Prime Minister has forgotten that and yesterday he tried to get to the fine print of his statement and argue his way out of it. It was unbecoming of him and I expect that he will not do it again. He can take it from me that he looked pretty poor yesterday. That is what we are on about. We are on about propriety and a 500-year-old rule of ministerial responsibility. The Minister for Trade and his Prime Minister have both abandoned it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the Leader of the House. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If members of the Opposition have exhausted themselves, I now call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State and Leader of the House)(3.14) —I think Opposition members place themselves in the dock by their behaviour in the Parliament and their refusal to listen to what is being said in the debate. I see that they are all leaving the chamber now. I do not mind if they leave, it will be on the record and it will make no difference at all to what I have to say. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is leading out of the House the worst Opposition that we have had in this Parliament since Federation. That is why they are all leaving; they are gutless, they have no ability and no principles. They do not deserve to be in this Parliament so it is a good thing that they have walked out. Mr Sinclair —Come on, Dawkins; dingo Dawkins! Mr YOUNG —You talk about dingos; Opposition members are carrying on like dingos. Let us examine the behaviour of these people under these circumstances. They use the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) as their hitman. They want to use him all the time and they hope that he can dig up a bit of dirt, whether it is about the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) whom he hates. I notice that the Geraldton Guardian, one of the papers in the honourable member's area does not like what he is doing. I say this to the honourable member for O'Connor: In 15 or 20 years when the revival of the Liberal Party of Australia might be on the road, the first person the Party leaders will dispense with will be you. You do not suit their ilk at all. They will use you while they are in trouble but as soon as they look like being successful again you will go down the chute. If you think that you will sit up here on the front bench with all the private schoolboys you have another thing coming. You will be shanghaied out of this Parliament so quickly that you will suffer from shock. What a sham we have had. The Opposition came back here on Tuesday and said that the big issues were housing and housing interest rates. It said that oil prices and affirmative action were other major issues which should be discussed. This is the first time in the fourth year of the Hawke Government that this Opposition has kept an issue going for three days. It is nothing that affects the lives of the people of Australia; there is not one shred of evidence that anything the Minister for Trade did influenced his decision in the Cabinet sub-committee. Yet the Opposition has squeezed the lemon for three days because it has not got the ability to talk about any other issue in this country. Yesterday morning we read that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) was put there because of all the bright ideas he had. The shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and his Leader were going to tell us what they would do with wages and the labour market. That was reported in yesterday's paper, but after six months in Opposition they have not written one word about a wages policy, not one word. One has to look behind the shroud. Why must the Opposition raise this issue on three successive days? Why did they not move the censure motion on Wednesday? People are entitled to ask why this was not done when the issue exploded on Wednesday when the honourable member for O'Connor asked his question. Why was there no censure motion then? Opposition members said: `Oh no, if we move the censure motion on Wednesday, what will we do on Thursday and Friday?' We should have a rule that the Remuneration Tribunal will look at the Opposition and say that on the days it does not perform it will not get paid. I can tell honourable members opposite now that they would be getting less than the dole. Their performance is so bad. Just listen to item 8 of the Leader of the Opposition's resolution. It says: His continued choice of cronyism and factional survival in preference to his duty as Prime Minister. If one removes the words `Prime Minister' and substitutes `Leader of the Opposition' one has the correct statement because no one has ever seen the Liberal Party so disunited, so full of cronyism, so full of factionalism as it is under the leadership of the honourable member for Bennelong. He gets up in this place and attacks me and tells me that he intends to keep the heat on me. I can put up with the heat from John Howard. He should join the Australian Labor Party for a while and get a feel of the real heat. One day in the Labor Party is worth 25 years of John Howard. If Opposition members think that the people of Australia will ever elect that pipsqueak as Prime Minister-my God! He dares to have a shot at the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He claims that the people of Australia would not like this situation. I only hope that the polls keep going the way they are going at present because they show that there is far more substantial support from Liberal supporters for our Prime Minister than for the Leader of the Opposition. The bloke that the Liberals threw out, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), sits there quietly. He is not asking any questions or speaking in these debates. That is not the sort of leadership that he gave the Liberal Party. The Party was more united in those days. The present Leader talks about factionalism. Perhaps he should ask himself why the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and others are sitting at the back whilst some of these mules are sitting at the front. That is all to do with factionalism. That is why the Opposition cannot perform. What happened in the Liberal Party room? Liberal members had three meetings over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover by Mr Holmes a Court. Did they receive any calls from John Elliott? Was he on the phone saying, `Hold your horses boys, slow it up a bit'? What was happening with John Elliott? I understand that he is a big force in the Liberal Party. Did people at the Liberal Party meetings get up and say: `Before I speak, Mr Chairman, I want to let you know that mum has $10,000 in BHP, and she is feeling all right; I do not expect to get it for six months'? Could one imagine that? The Opposition has said that everyone in the Fraser Ministry declared their interest before they had a discussion on any issue. They would never have got any business done. They had their hands in every till in Australia and they all declared it. I am pleased that the Opposition is so enthusiastic over this issue, because come 1 July the people of Australia will obviously say that if members of the Liberal Party can squeeze this matter out for three days, obviously they will conform with the resolution passed by the House and fill out their declaration of interest. This Parliament makes the laws for the people of Australia to carry out. If we pass a resolution making it law for us to declare our interests, which some honourable members opposite want to defy, why should not the people outside defy all the other laws we make in this Parliament? Ask yourselves that. The Opposition wants to shimmy shammy with it. The fact is that the conservatives of this country have always been opposed to the disclosure of members' interests. Of course there is a grey area in all of these matters. This matter of disclosure of members' interests has been debated for decades. The Menzies, McMahon and Gorton governments had very clear guidelines. Billy McMahon went before the Riordan Committee into Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and said that it was left to the Minister to decide what he should disclose to the Prime Minister. He said that sometimes the Prime Minister was interested and sometimes he was not. That was Billy McMahon, the ex-Prime Minister, giving evidence to the Riordan Committee about the disclosure of public interests. That has always been the case. The House of Commons has had difficulty with the rules it has applied and there is no sanction if members there do not comply. Even after the deliberations of the Riordan Committee, the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest and whatever else we try, this Parliament will not get it exactly right, but it will evolve eventually that the people of Australia can expect that parliamentarians in the national Parliament will disclose their public interests so that when debates take place on matters of national interest we are able to see in very general terms what a member's private interest is. That has been the policy of the Labor Party for decades. Mr N.A. Brown —What about your declaration? Why was that refused under the Freedom of Information Act? Mr YOUNG —I will tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about it. He is kinky about my private interests. I talked to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and told him that I had complied with all the rules which had been laid down. When the pecuniary interests of Ministers were tabled in 1983 I was not a Minister, which is why my declaration was not tabled. The Prime Minister announced after that that in future Ministers' declarations would be tabled along with the declarations of all other members of parliament. If Opposition members want to know about the sorts of problems they can get into, I refer to a very interesting article I read in the New Idea. I do not normally get New Idea, but since members opposite have been in opposition I have been reading it regularly. There is an article by the widow of Phil Lynch. Phil Lynch was not a personal friend of mine but he was a very dedicated politician-dedicated to the Liberal Party-as was shown by his performance in this Parliament. When the Liberal Party got into trouble in 1977, when Phil Lynch was ill, there was a public dispute about whether he had disclosed to the then Prime Minister some private interests he held in Victoria. Phil Lynch, until the day he died, considered that everything he did was proper and correct and that there was no question about what he did. Malcolm Fraser sacked Phil Lynch while he was in hospital. Not only that-honourable members opposite should read the article in the latest New Idea-but people from the Liberal Party would not even talk to him. Honourable members opposite should read the article to see the sorts of problems which can be presented to a political party on these issues. The former Government sacked Phil Lynch, not because of anything that it thought was right or wrong but because it swung with the motion of the 1977 election. So even a person as highly placed in the Liberal Party heirarchy as Phil Lynch had to suffer as a result of what the Opposition is saying. Now the Opposition is putting to us that the Minister for Trade should have said `Mum has some shares in the Bell Resources Ltd' because that would have made some difference to the debates. He took the decision that it did not. Billy McMahon gave evidence before the Riordan Committee that that is exactly what the Ministers did in all the time of the Menzies Government. They determined whether there was any conflict, because there was no direct beneficial interest. The honourable member for O'Connor said: `There is a direct beneficial interest, because if the relationship between the Minister for Trade, Dawkins and his mother is good, he can expect to be a direct beneficiary of the will'. That may be so. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who has been on television talking about the fact that his spouse does not want to-- Mr Spender —That is not what I said. Mr YOUNG —He does not want to declare his spouse's interest, or his spouse will not declare? Anyhow, there are a number of spouses, including the spouse of the honourable member for North Sydney, who feel that they will not declare. The Opposition is saying that the spouse will not declare or should not declare, but it is also taking the matter one step further by saying that the Minister for Trade, and anyone else who might serve in this or any future Ministry, has to consider and declare the interest of any member of the family, no matter how distant. There is a certain amount of ridiculous nonsense about that sort of proposition and obviously it will not work. I return to the theme I put to the Parliament in the first place. There is no end to a debate of this nature. The Parliament, by testing, will have to evolve a method of getting some disclosure. Mr Sinclair —That is rubbish. You know that. Mr YOUNG —The right honourable member is on record, going back 20 years, as being totally opposed to the disclosure of member's interests. The House of Commons, the United States Congress and four State parliaments in Australia do it, but he does not want the Commonwealth Parliament to do it. We will do it, by resolution of this House. There will be a register of members' interests. We have taken the advice of the Standing Committee on Members' Interests in terms of the way in which the form ought to be designed. There is a split of opinion about how far we should go in this Parliament. One can read in the Press on any day of the week, when this issue comes up, it will break about fifty-fifty; 50 per cent say that there should not be disclosure and 50 per cent say that there should. But it is something that the Parliament has to decide. This Parliament has decided that way. I conclude on this point. It is rather ironic that the Prime Minister of the first Government to institute this procedure, for which there has been a crying need for years and years in this Parliament, should be censured for the actions he has taken. A lot of other Prime Ministers should have done it but did not. It is indicative of this Government-a fact which must be faced up to by the Opposition-that this is the best government Australia has had since World War II. It is the best not only in terms of policy and administration but also in the way in which these matters are presented to the public, and that is why it will be re-elected whenever that chance may come. The opportunity for all honourable members to declare their interests is now out of the way. All of the phoney opposition that we have had in the weeks since we have passed this resolution-we have read it in the newspapers, heard it on the radio or seen it on the television-has now dissipated because on 1 July, because of the Opposition's actions of the past three days, we can take it that every member of the Opposition will comply entirely with the resolution passed by this House. Other extraneous matters involved with the disclosure of members' interests will come before this Parliament this year, next year and for decades and it will be for future generations of parliamentarians to sort out the best way to do those things. To try to censure the Prime Minister on this matter is a matter of nonsense. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C.A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. 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, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hawke, R. J. L. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Goodluck B. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. 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, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hawke, R. J. L. 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. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(3.40) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Trade making an immediate statement to this House to explain his duplicity in not disclosing the potential conflict of interest in his participating in the Cabinet Sub- committee- - Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the right honourable member for New England be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald. Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. J. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. 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. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —It being past 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do no adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.47) —I second the motion. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the honourable member for Menzies be not further heard. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G.B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. (Teller) Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. BCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. 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. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sub-section 6 (5) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present a report by the Remuneration Tribunal on compensation arrangements for members of parliament, the Federal judiciary and the Inter-State Commission. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Heritage Commission for 1984-85. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —In view of the hour of the day I do not want to take too long on this matter, but I want to make a personal explana-tion in respect of misrepresentations made of me contained in the Daily Telegraph newspaper and the Age newspaper today. The Daily Telegraph article referred to a Press conference I had yesterday after the publication of the unemployment statistics. The report of the Daily Telegraph of that Press conference stated that in the course of the Press conference I had said that the coalition parties `had not done any substantive work on plans for creating employment'. I did not say that. Indeed, I was not even asked that question, as I recall, and I certainly did not say that. The thrust of what both the reports contained-and this is the misrepresentation-was that I had said in substance that the coalition parties had no employment policy. I know that honourable members on both sides of the House would regard that as an extraordinary proposition, anyway. Let me say that it is not true. Let me also say, for the purpose of the personal explanation, that I did not say that, nor did I say anything to that effect. I made it plain to anyone present who was listening who had an ounce of brains or commonsense that at the last Federal election- Senator Willis —The Press would be interested in that. Senator N.A. Brown —I hope that the Press reports that part, too. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate his personal explanation. Mr N.A. Brown —I am simply responding to the interjection by the Minister, who should know better. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest the honourable member ignore it and bring his personal explanation to a close. Mr N.A. Brown —It is very interesting because most members of the Press who were present-the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will recall this because he was also there, with the same group of journalists-did not report such an absurd proposition as that. The point was made in the course of the Press conference that at the last election the coalition parties had a published employment policy and that that was the policy. Mr Peacock —A very good one. Mr N.A. Brown —As the former Leader of the Opposition, who was responsible for that policy, together with other policies at that time, makes the point, which is quite correct, it was a good policy. The point is that I have been misrepresented in the sense and that the thrust of those two articles was-and I do not refer to others; I specifically omit any reference to others-as I have said, that we did not have a policy. I made it plain that we did. I thought I had made it plain, and it should certainly be made plain, that that policy, like all policies of all political parties, is, of course, under review. That was simply the point that I was making. I will not take up any further time. I simply say that it is unfair for members of Parliament of whatever side of politics to have to put up with journalism which can only be described as juvenile and undergraduate of the worst order. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Cunningham,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Kent,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur and Mr Mildren. 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 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. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Price,Mr Ruddock and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Mr Hicks,Mr Ruddock and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Lee and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: The Sandinista Government has brought about improvements in the Nicaraguan people's welfare, especially in health and education, and, as shown by a poll generally considered to have been fair, has the support of the majority of the people. Under President Reagan, the United States has conceived, organised, trained, armed, financed and directed the Contras, forcing the Nicaraguan Government to divert scarce funds to self-defence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that as an ally of the United States, and as a member of the security council, the Australian Government will do its utmost in arguing for a halt to all United States aid for the Contras. Your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to include private psychologists' services in medicare, when those services are conducted by clinical psychologists recognised as qualified by the Clinical Board of the Australian Psychological Society. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens asks that: The Government of Australia propose to the United States of America that the continuation of the lease of the facilities at Pine Gap depends on their agreeing to the Soviet proposals of a staged programme to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education department. 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 assembled in parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. 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. Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities. Brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi and transnational consortiums. We would ask the Government legislate, effective price control and anti monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the certain electors of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the 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 3 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 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully requesteth that the `Plant Variety Rights' Bill be stopped. We feel that plants are one of our greatest resources and should therefore be freely available to anyone. We do not wish any person to have monopolising rights over a plant for any reason. It is important for our children and theirs to have freedom in this field. We appreciate your giving our feelings attention and humbly pray they will be appeased. by Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. 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 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. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State Aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election policies for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled and to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government- (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon States-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon States to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapons tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All federal members of parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Grace and Mr Price. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page 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 Ian Robinson. 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 Parkes in New South Wales 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 unions. 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 Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of 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 unions. 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 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 request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth: 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 has 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 national 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. by Mr Tickner. 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 Dr Watson. Petitions received. Madam Speaker-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious plight of families with building society mortgages resulting from the Government's broken promises on housing. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Hodgman-We will finish up with a hammer and sickle over the Speaker's chair. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will not make that sort of comment when I am in the chair. Mr Hodgman-You will not put it there; he will put it there. Madam SPEAKER —I feel that is casting aspersions on the Chair. Mr Hodgman-Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am casting aspersions on the Minister. I am saying that if the Minister gets his way we will end up with a hammer and sickle over your chair. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. l. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.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. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. MBeale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. (Teller) Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- Page 3, paragraph 5 (1) (a), lines 33 to 35, leave out the paragraph. Page 3, before paragraph 5 (1) (b), insert the following new paragraph: ``(a) a period of 5 years has elapsed from the day of commencement of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Act 1986;''. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.19) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In so moving I should explain the background of what is being proposed by the Senate and why the Government is accepting these amendments. The proposed amendment is to clause 5 of the Bill which relates to registration. Clause 5, as passed by this House, had in sub-clause 1 (a) provision for a period of three years to elapse from the day of commencement of this Act before the Builders Labourers Federation would be able to reapply for registration in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We believed that provision was important, as I explained to the House previously during the Committee stage of the Bill, because in our view it was necessary for there to be such a period in which the BLF was not able to come before the Commission in any form. We believed it was necessary to have a period in which the industry could settle down on a new basis without the BLF being in any way a factor before the Commission and there being no concern about its prospective reregistration. We believed that a three-year period was sufficient for that purpose. The Bill also provides that, following that three-year period, if the Federation were to seek to reregister it would have to overcome two important threshold points which are also included in clause 5. It would have to convince a full bench of the Arbitration Commission that the registration would not be inimical to the system of conciliation and arbitration and would not be damaging in any way to the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those were the two key grounds found by the Commission to be areas where the BLF was massively in breach and therefore this would clearly be a massive problem for the Federation to overcome unless there was a dramatic transformation in the nature of the organisation. However, once the Federation overcame those obstacles, if it were able to do so, it would then have to face registration in circumstances where the work had been reallocated and presumably there would be very strong opposition from the unions that had received the allocation of that work and probably from other parties as well. In our view, the provisions in the current Bill are sufficient for the purposes of ensuring a situation in the building industry in which there would be no prospect of the Federation being around for a considerable number of years. I point out that, in 1975, when the Federation sought to reregister, it took 18 months to do so despite the fact that there was no opposition from other unions, employers or governments to its application. In a situation where the Federation would have to leap the threshold issues which I have already mentioned and also face strong opposition to its registration from unions and other parties, it would be highly likely that it would take several years for it to achieve that, if in fact it could achieve it. I believe that it would be very difficult indeed. Essentially, we believe that the provisions in the Bill would be satisfactory and would meet the needs as the Government sees them. However, the Senate has decided to amend that to increase the three-year period of exclusion from the Commission to five years. We are concerned that, if we rejected this, there would be delay and this legislation would possibly be jeopardised. That is something which we could not contemplate and, therefore, in the circumstances facing us-the need to get this legislation through as quickly as possible and not to jeopardise its future-we believe the Government should accept this amendment; and we do so accordingly. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(4.25) —I wish to indicate my deep concern about the increase in the number of years of deregistration from three to five. An additional two years is not a small increase. I would further point out that this is not a provision that the Government agreed to and it is certainly not a provision that we in Caucus voted on. I understand the feelings of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on these matters and have every respect for his position. I do not wish to embarrass him, but I believe that the three-year provision to which the Government agreed was more than adequate. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(4.26) —I feel very similar to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) about this matter. I have been particularly unhappy about the way in which this matter has been handled over the past 10 days or so. I was required to be party to a decision in this matter in the Australian Labor Party Caucus. I had not seen the legislation and I was quite unhappy about that situation. I now find that I am placed in a position in the dying hours of the Parliament's business today where a decision which has been made by the parliamentary Caucus, namely, that deregistration should be for at least three years, is to be overturned on a decision which has not been reached by the Australian Labor Party Federal parliamentary Caucus. When I came into this place, I signed the parliamentary candidates' pledge which says quite clearly that on all questions before the Parliament I should vote as the majority of the parliamentary Labor Party may decide at a duly constituted Caucus meeting, provided that such decisions do not conflict with the Party's policy. This decision has not been to the Caucus. I feel quite strongly about it and I certainly do not intend to support it. I wish to make one more point about this matter. In my view there are considerable doubts about the constitutionality of a provision which says that a particular organisation cannot be reregistered for a certain period. There is quite a difference between saying that an organisation is deregistered and saying that there is a time limit upon which an application for reregistration can be entertained by the appropriate body. I have the gravest doubts about the constitutionality of that and I do not think that dealing with this matter in the dying minutes of this parliamentary sitting day is appropriate. We could have dealt with the matter on Monday. It is not as if the Parliament is rising for a fortnight; it is a matter of three days and I do not accept the need for such haste. I am fully aware of the fact that my attitude will put me in some conflict with some of my colleagues but, as far as I am concerned, the rule book is the principle by which I stand. When I came here everyone in my electorate knew that as a member of the Labor Party team I would be bound by Caucus decisions. That is my decision. I have always abided by the rule book and I intend to do so on this occasion. Mr KENT(Hotham)(4.28) —I wish to register my opposition to this amendment. In my opinion, it is bad enough to send a trade union to Coventry, but a majority decision was made to do that for three years. I do not accept that that is now extended by two years. Before I came into this Parliament, I was a working man and I always supported the workers. I accept the proposition that the workers may make many mistakes, but basically they are not wrong. My instinct is that, if we introduce legislation to punish and send to Coventry a particular organisation, no matter how justified that action may be on various pretexts, I should not be a party to an amendment on which there was no majority decision to extend the period of Coventry. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(4.29) —I also share the comments of my colleagues. I am very concerned about this matter. I know that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has great goodwill but I am very concerned about the way in which this amendment has been accepted. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.29) —The Opposition welcomes the Government's capitulation on this matter. Only a day or so ago, we heard from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) how important it was that the Builders Labourers Federation should be deregistered but that it was all right if a period of three years passed before that union was allowed to apply for reregistration. Although we accept the proposed amendment, we made the point then and we make it again now briefly, without going into the merits of the whole issue, that the BLF really should be de- registered and put out of business permanently. If one does not impose a long period on the Federation's deregistration, one will end up with exactly the same problems that have occurred with the BLF over the past 10 years. The BLF will simply take a holiday for a while and then will rise like some sleeping Frankenstein and go back to its normal course of industrial lawlessness, blackguarding the workers. I still cannot see why the Labor Party does not have more sympathy for building workers. The BLF will go on to do the best it can to destroy the building industry. Unless we put the BLF out of business permanently, we will just postpone its illegal and lawless activities. Obviously, we cannot say that it can never apply for reregistration, but we can do the next best thing and impose a long period of deregistration on it. Unless the Government does that, it will not put the BLF out of business. We make the point again that if the Government is serious about putting the BLF out of business, it must impose a 10-year period before the BLF can apply for reregistration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We do not resile at all from our position that the BLF must be put out of business properly and permanently, and the only way to do that is to impose a very long period-we suggested 10 years-of deregistration before it is able to apply for reregistration as a body. We make the other point that this is something of an improvement-we had three years and now we have five years. We think that it should be 10 years, but five years is better than three. Mr Holding —Come on! Mr N.A. Brown —What is the problem? Is this your portfolio? Do you want to take over? Mr Holding —I would do a better job than you would. Mr N.A. Brown —All right, listen to some of your own back benchers. I turn to them because at least we have had, in the face of this craven capitulation, four members of the Labor Party-I will give them some credit-with a bit of backbone. They have been prepared for once in their lives to stand up and say, for the first time since I have been here, that they are not prepared to be pushed around by the Ministers in this Government who come in here, apparently without even telling the Caucus what they propose to do-certainly without getting approval from the Labor Caucus. The Minister did not get approval from the Labor Party Caucus to accept this change from the Senate, did he? No. One honourable member is shaking her head. I hope that she does not mind my putting it in this way, but she is happy to identify herself. What sort of outfit is the Government running when the Minister can come in and make a major change such as this without consulting the Party? It is the most extraordinary thing. Has the Government thought about the nature of deregistering a trade union by legislation? Has it thought about what it is doing here and the precedent it is establishing? I tell the Government that in the future, when my side of the Parliament is in government, if we find that the conduct of a trade union justifies deregistration by statute, we will do it. We will not want to hear any people in the Labor Party standing up and saying that that action is too Draconian; that the union should be given a hearing or an outing before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; that we should not deregister a building union just like that, by passing a Bill through the Parliament, simply because we will have a political majority in the Parliament. We will want to hear that. We will do it and this legislation will be a precedent on which we will rely, because the Labor Party-the so-called workers' government-deregistered a trade union for the first time in Australia, or any comparable country, by statute, by legislation, by the fiat of a government which happened to have a majority at the time. This legislation is very significant and establishes a very significant precedent. As though that were not enough, the Minister has come in here, without consulting his Party colleagues, and said: `Not only will we put them out of business by statute for three years, we will now put them out of business for five years'. If members of the Labor Party have any backbone, at the first opportunity they get they should give this Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a rocket, otherwise they will stand condemned in the eyes of their trade union colleagues and in the eyes of the Australian people as being craven, backboneless rubber stamps-if that is not a contradiction in terms, which I suppose it is. Labor Party members will be condemned for being backboneless and weak for allowing the Executive Government to run rings around them and to change Caucus decisions without consulting them, talking to them or telling them that the Government is going to impose an additional two years purgatory on the Builders Labourers Federation. Apparently it was not enough to see the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) misleading the Caucus by implication only comparatively recently by not telling Caucus about the thousands of dollars that his family had an interest in so far as the Bell Resources Ltd-Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd case was concerned. How can Caucus members sit there and allow that sort of thing to go on and be so naive and gullible? The Australian Labor Party is naive and gullible if it allows this sort of thing to be done by the Executive Government without any consultation with the Caucus. Why are honourable members opposite sent here as their Party's representatives? Why are they financed in part by the trade union movement? What is it expecting in return? Is the trade union movement getting anything from them at all? It is getting nothing. Honourable members opposite may as well go back to their electorates and resign because it is no use their coming here if they are going to allow the Executive Government to run rings around them and change Cabinet and Caucus decisions without even telling them, let alone asking them whether or not they agree. Would it not be common decency for Executive Government to ask whether or not Caucus agrees with the change? I believe it should ask, and I say to those vacant Labor Party benches over there that if the Labor Party does not want us to come back next week and condemn it-this has really sent honourable members opposite into some degree of agitation; I wonder why-and say that members of the Labor Party are cowardly, backboneless individuals because they did not even ask a question of the Minister about this in the Caucus room, I strongly advise them to take this advice, which I give to them freely: I strongly advise them to raise this in the next Caucus meeting and tell the Minister and his leader exactly what they think of them and where they can go. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.37) —Like the honourable member for Menzies and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) I, too, am on side with those who have just spoken, and I said so yesterday. I refer the House to the Hansard for 9 April where, at page 1880, I said: The legislation . . . is in all probability unconstitutional. On page 1881 I said: Is this not legislation which usurps judicial function- That is precisely the point made by the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). I further refer the House to page 1895 of Hansard, where I said: Who has ever heard of a proposition that there are some things under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that are only to be done by way of judicial function? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) must be sacked. He is incompetent. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.38) —At least we can say that four members of the Australian Labor Party have some backbone. Mr Coleman —Not much. Mr N.A. Brown —No, not much. At least four members of the Labor Party still subscribe, after all this, to at least some principle, and to the most elementary principle on which the Labor Party was founded and built-that the Caucus has some say in things, that the parliamentary party should be consulted. At least there are four of them but it is a matter for great regret that others whom I am sure may well have had the same view have not been able to express their opinions, but we look forward to hearing those opinions at a later date. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.39 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986. Mr Campbell asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: What is the reason for the apparent break down in the telephone system in Parliament House resulting in (a) difficulty in obtaining outside numbers, (b) frequent wrong numbers and (c) congestion causing difficulty in obtaining lines? Madam Speaker-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (c) Telecom Australia officers have advised that difficulty in obtaining outside numbers and congestion causing difficulty in obtaining lines can be caused by: (i) shortage of exchange lines relative to demand (ii) faulty exchange lines. From 20 March 1986, five additional exchange lines were provided and faults to five existing lines were rectified. (b) Telecom has advised me that no complaints of wrong numbers have been recorded in 1986 but some problems of this kind are understood to have occurred due to malfunction in the Parliament House PABX during high traffic periods. A specific fault in this area was traced and fixed on 25 March 1986. The remedial action taken should result in improved service but members can assist by ensuring all faults and problems are reported to switchboard operators as this enables early diagnosis and rectification. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 2142) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) Is it a fact that his Department is currently conducting negotiations with the Bureau of Meteorology to reduce observer staff numbers at airports around northern Australia. (2) Is it also a fact that (a) the particular weather circumstances prevailing in northern Australia impact on aerial ambulance services and (b) cutbacks are being made in a number of northern areas, in particular Rockhampton, Mt Isa, Cairns, Port Hedland and Alice Springs. (3) Does he expect that these reductions in staff will result in the lowering of safety standards as well as interfering with the life saving service carried out by these ambulance services. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, except at Rockhampton, where outside the hours of duty of Bureau of Meteorology observer staff observations will be provided by Department of Aviation staff within their normal hours of duty. When observations are required for special flights outside the normal hours of duty of either the Bureau or the Department, arrangements have been made for the recall to duty of either a Bureau or Departmental officer to provide the necessary observations. (2a) Weather has an impact on all aviation operations within Australia during adverse meteorological conditions. (2b) Except at Rockhampton there will be no reduction in the number of observations made in Northern Australia. The current level of observation will continue at Mt Isa, Cairns, Port Hedland and Alice Springs. There is a proposal to withdraw Bureau of Meteorology pilot briefing staff at these locations. This proposal will not affect the availability of forecasts provided for the safe conduct of aircraft operations. (3) The Department of Aviation will not lower safety standards. Meteorological information now provided will continue to be available. The life saving service performed by aerial ambulance services will not be affected. These flights operate under the protection of special procedures established to ensure their safe conduct, including the provision of necessary meteorological services. (Question No. 2862) Mr Tickner asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Does the training of all law enforcement officers by the Federal Government encourage the development of non-sexist and non-racist attitudes in the administration of the law. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are two components to the approach taken by the AFP in developing non-sexist and non-racist attitudes, namely: (1) Formal Training-Stage 1 training for AFP recruits includes a human relations course which covers non-sexist and non-racist values. The course is a two day series of lectures and discussions, led by a variety of experts-including representatives from the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Migrant Resource Centre. The lectures are reinforced by subsequent practical exercises. (2) Administrative Action-There is a strong and active commitment among AFP instructors and administrators to break down the career barriers caused by stereotyped assumptions about the role of women and minority groups in the AFP. The Australian Police College in its role as the national, senior management staff college for the Australian police community has been active in the development of non-sexist and non-racist attitudes. (3) In July 1985, a special police-aboriginal relations workshop was held at the College, involving representatives of the aboriginal community as well as experts on aboriginal education, health, welfare, employment and culture. Particular emphasis was placed on obtaining the views of aboriginal women speakers. Consideration is being given to the scheduling of a further police-aboriginal relations workshop and a police-women studies workshop in 1987. (4) The College pursues a very active EEO program and in recent years the College's library and research resources have been considerably expanded in the areas of women, migrant, youth and aboriginal studies. (Question No. 2910) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: How many people in each State and Territory were engaged in (a) full time and (b) part time TAFE courses in each year since 1982. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) Figures on TAFE students undertaking full time or part time studies are provided in the attached tables for each of two main series: streams 1-5 and stream 6 as defined. The data for 1985 are not yet available. While the statistics provided accord with definitions used in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's annual publication Selected TAFE Statistics, it should be noted that the South Australian data for 1983 and 1984 are subject to revision, and some inconsistencies remain in State reporting of student data. TAFE STREAM 1-5 1982 Part time Full time 1983 Part time Full time 1984 Part time Full time New South Wales... 254,392 24,050 268,824 28,380 292,549 33,039 Victoria... 155,843 19,239 158,392 23,622 154,927 24,338 Queensland... 58,384 5,784 71,937 7,264 83,135 7,507 South Australia... 97,549 2,672 111,230 3,383 98,614 2,962 Western Australia... 59,057 6,556 65,584 6,828 74,890 7,320 Tasmania... 15,640 1,564 15,913 1,972 16,907 2,116 Northern Territory... 8,098 365 7,819 647 7,503 710 Australian Capital Territory... 18,658 1,440 19,878 1,797 23,057 1,596 Stream 1 (Professional): Courses/programs which lead to professional status (including teacher education) or which enable professionals to update their technology or to specialise. Stream 2 (Para-professional): Courses/programs provided for those preparing to enter or progress with middle-level or technician occupations. Includes a wide range of `certificate' and some `special' courses/programs which are similar in complexity and purpose. Includes some short courses/programs designed to enable para-professionals to update their technology or to specialise. Stream 3 (Trade): Apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship and pre-employment courses/programs in apprenticeable trades. Also includes post-trade and other courses/programs for advanced skills of a non-technician nature. Stream 4 (Other skilled): All other skilled trade and vocational courses/programs relevant to basic principles, skills or knowledge but which are not included in Stream 3. Includes short training courses/programs in additional on-the-job skills. Stream 5 (Preparation): All courses/programs which can be broadly described as preparatory (matriculation and diploma entrance), remedial (mathematics, English for migrants etc), and those with vocational orientation not classified elsewhere. TAFE STREAM 6 1982 1983 1984 New South Wales... 46,389 68,831 109,564 Victoria... 97,910 96,498 115,043 Queensland... 44,780 64,239 75,762 South Australia... 39,676 49,564 36,664 Western Australia... 38,498 59,297 50,955 Tasmania... 14,912 15,831 19,515 Northern Territory... 7,261 6,445 7,766 Australian Capital Territory... 8,335 8,946 7,858 Stream 6 (Adult Education): All courses/programs in home handicrafts, hobbies, self-expression and cultural appreciation are part time. (Question No. 2974) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What has been the real increase in the level of funding to the CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research between 1982-83 and 1985-86. (2) What has been the source of the funding in 1985-86. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There has been a real decrease in funding of 6.7%. (2) Ninety per cent of the Division's funds are from Appropriation and the remainder are from wool, wheat and meat industry funds and also from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). (Question No. 2979) Mr Tickner —asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What was the level of funding to the CSIRO for rural research in (a) 1982-83 and (b) 1985-86. (2) What was the increase in real terms. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (a) 1982/83 funding available to CSIRO from all sources for rural research:...$150.3m (b) 1985/86 funding available to CSIRO from all sources for rural research:...$111.0m However, if major capital works such as the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory are excluded the figures are: (c) 1982/83 funding:...$99.4m (d) 1985/86 funding:...$110.5m (2) After excluding major capital works such as the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, there was a decrease, in real terms, of 7.6%. However, if the figures are adjusted to include the proportion of expenditure on biotechnology research which has applications for the rural sector the figures become: (a) 1982/83 funding:...$106.9m (b) 1985/86 funding:...$138.8m This represents an increase in real terms of 7.8%. (Question No. 3139) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What happened to the Women In Development Unit of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) following its reorganisation as a result of the reporting of the Jackson Committee. (2) What new measures is ADAB planning (a) which will increase the access of third world women to the benefits of Australian aid, including training aid and (b) to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by Australian aid projects. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Women in Development Unit of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) consisted of a single officer at Class 8 level in the Bureau's Policy Development and Co-ordination Branch. Following its re-organisation ADAB has: re-established this position of Women in Development Officer (Class 8) in the Bilateral Planning, Co-ordination and Review Section; established a new Sectoral Studies Section and appointed a senior adviser at Class 11 level who is responsible for health, population and women in development issues; and established a Women in Development Steering Committee at the Assistant Director-General level to oversee and review the integration and application of women in development objectives across all areas of the aid program. The Women in Development Fund is being utilised to stimulate activities specifically designed to promote the advancement of women in developing countries. The Fund was allocated $500,000 in 1985/86. 2. These changes are designed to increase the participation of women in developing countries in the development process and also to increase their access to the benefits of Australian aid. To assist in meeting these aims, women in development guidelines and practices are being incorporated, on an institutional basis, into all levels of aid programming in ADAB. In the field of training aid, ADAB is continuing a policy of working towards a total trainee intake comprising 50 per cent women. (Question No. 3180) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 February 1986 (redirected to the Minister for Finance): (1) Under the Commonwealth/State Government arrangements for national disaster proposals, is there a difference between funds available for restoration of roads and funds for repairs to sewerage and water supply facilities; if so, what are the reasons for the difference. (2) Is it a fact that in some areas sewerage and water supplies are the responsibility of local authorities. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Under the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA), the Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the States to help meet the cost of relief and restoration relating to eligible natural disasters. The arrangements recognise that the States have the primary responsibility for the provision and administration of relief measures. Expenditure by the States on the restoration of assets of a public undertaking which provides community, social or economic services outside the normal market mechanism, either free of charge or at a nominal charge well below the cost of production, is covered by the NDRA. On the other hand expenditure on the restoration of assets owned by a financial or trading undertaking which recovers all or a significant proportion of its operating costs is not eligible under the scheme. Whether a particular service provided by a local authority would be covered by the NDRA would depend on the circumstances of the case. Under the arrangements, that would be a matter primarily for consideration by the States in the first instance. Since charges are not generally imposed on road users, State expenditure on the restoration of roads damaged by an eligible natural disaster would usually be covered by the NDRA. On the other hand, some or all of the cost of the provision of sewerage and water supply services would often be recovered by charges on users, either directly or indirectly through general rates. In these cases, State expenditure on the restoration of such facilities would not generally be eligible for Commonwealth assistance under the NDRA. It is considered appropriate that financial and trading undertakings, like private businesses, should meet the cost of damage caused by natural disasters through commercial insurance, or internally funded self-insurance. Such insurance costs are a normal business expense and, like other costs, should be reflected in charges. (2) Yes. (Question No. 3199) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, on notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) Have the programs for eradication of cattle diseases initiated by the Fraser/Anthony coalition Government been successful; if so, is the $4 per head levy paid by beef producers still required to fund eradication programs. (2) Will he reduce the levy to $1.50 per head as requested by industry leaders. Mr Kerin —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) The national bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign was not initiated by the `Fraser Anthony coalition Government'. It commenced in 1970 as a co-operative Commonwealth/State/Industry program, and has been successful in its progress to date. In respect of brucellosis, Australia was declared provisionally free (that is, a prevalence of less than 2 infected breeding cattle per 1,000 head) in January 1986. Western Australia and Tasmania are free of the disease. Australia's success at controlling bovine brucellosis compares very favourably with equivalent programs in overseas countries. At 30 June 1985, there were only 193 (0.13%) infected herds containing 202,550 breeder cattle (1.6%). This is expected to be reduced to 48 herds by 30 June 1986, 8 herds by 30 June 1987 and nil infected herds by 30 June 1989. It is confidently anticipated that Australia will be declared free of bovine brucellosis by 1992 or earlier. In respect of tuberculosis, Tasmania is free of the disease and New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT are provisionally free (ie. a prevalence of less than one infected animal per 1,000 head). Major difficulties have been encountered in extensive pastoral areas in Australia's north due to lack of facilities for controlling cattle. Nevertheless progress to date has been steady. There were 347 (0.2%) infected herds at 30 June 1985 carrying 1.75m head (7.8%). It is expected that the number of infected herds will be reduced to 283 by June 1986 and to 235 by June 1987. The Commonwealth is acutely aware of the need to plan with care the progress of the campaign from now till its completion in 1992. Recrudescences of brucellosis are a very real possibility and every effort is being made to maintain the present level of monitoring activity. Based on projections of income and expenditure of the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account in the years up to 1992, the $4 per head levy is being examined. The factors which impinge upon these projections are complex and the Government is considering these factors in association with the estimated projections. (2) No request has been received to reduce the levy to $1.50. However the Cattle Council of Australia and other organisations have requested that it be reduced to $2.50. This request is being considered in the light of the information available on the future conduct of the campaign. (Question No. 3262) Mr Moore asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, 19 February 1986: (1) Will any local authorities affected by Cyclone Winifred receive less disaster relief as a result of amendments to the natural disaster relief arrangements than they would have prior to the amendments coming into effect. (2) Will local authorities affected by bushfires in N.S.W. and Victoria experience changes to their natural disaster relief arrangements under the new amendments. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Under the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA), the Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the States to help meet the cost of relief and restoration relating to eligible natural disasters. The arrangements recognise that the States have the primary responsibility for the provision and administration of relief measures. Following a comprehensive review of the scheme, a number of changes to the arrangements were phased in during 1984-85 and 1985-86. The major changes were: (a) increases in, and indexation of, annual base amounts of State expenditure (above which a State is entitled to Commonwealth assistance) so as to restore cost-sharing between the States and Commonwealth to a more equitable level; (b) transfer to the States of responsibility for selecting, within agreed guidelines, the specific measures to be eligible for assistance; (c) exclusion from the scheme of financial and trading undertakings of State and local governments other than railways (non-trading undertakings continue to be eligible); (d) inclusion of formerly ineligible minor disasters within the scheme. The effect of these changes to the arrangements on local authorities, including those affected by Cyclone Winifred, would depend on the way in which the scheme is administered by each State and on the nature of the services provided by the authorities. Services provided by local authorities outside the normal market mech- anism, either free of charge or at a nominal charge well below the cost of production, would continue to be covered by the NDRA. On the other hand, services for which a significant proportion of costs are recovered from users would not generally be eligible. Whether a particular service provided by a local authority would be covered by the NDRA would depend on the circumstances of the case. Under the arrangements, that would be a matter primarily for consideration by the States in the first instance. (2) Yes; the changes to the arrangements apply to all States and to all eligible natural disasters. (Question No. 3306) Mr Fife asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) How is a determination made between urgent and non-urgent surgical cases in repatriation general hospitals. (2) How many patients waiting for surgery had been classified as non-urgent for (a) more than 18 months, (b) 12-18 months, (c) 6-12 months and (d) 3-6 months in (i) orthopaedic, (ii) urology, (iii) vascular and (iv) other categories, at 1 March 1986. (3) What action is being taken to reduce the waiting period. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The determination between urgent and non- urgent surgical cases is made by the surgeon. (2) As at 1 March 1986, the numbers in the waiting lists for surgery in Repatriation General Hospitals were as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) More than 18 months 12-18 months 6-12 months 3-6 months Orthopaedic... 67 161 317 416 Urology... 6 99 225 317 Vascular... 1 21 55 94 Other... 11 79 446 797 Total... 85 360 1043 1624 Of these totals the following are community patients: 50 87 328 433 (3) Various measures are being taken to reduce waiting times for surgery. They include the use of public and private hospital facilities, regular review of waiting lists by surgeons and registrars and continuing efforts to recruit staff. RGH Concord has a major redevelopment project involving the construction of six additional operating rooms together with other support services. (Question No. 3322) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Did his Department request the Embassy of the USSR, in September 1983, to provide prompt, adequate and effective compensation to the Australian Government for the lives and property of the 4 Australian nationals aboard the Korean Airlines flight No. 007. (2) Did his Department subsequently advise the Soviet Union of specific losses, damage and injury for which Australia considers the Soviet Union responsible under international law. (3) Has the Soviet Union provided all of the required compensation; if not, (a) why not and (b) what additional action is his Department proposing to take. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The next-of-kin of the Australian victims have all been seeking compensation through litigation in the United States and direct contact with Korean Airlines. None has requested the Australian Government to pursue claims on his or her behalf. (3) The Soviet Union has not accepted responsibility for the destruction of the Korean aircraft, and has refused to accept claims for compensation by all claimant Governments. The Australian Government nevertheless maintains that the Soviet Union is responsible for shooting down the KAL aircraft and will continue to assert its position at all appropriate times. (Question No. 3327) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say how many Australian citizens are in Indonesian jails; if so, what are the (a) charges and (b) sentences imposed on each prisoner. (2) Is he satisfied that Australian citizens charged with drug related offences are being represented adequately in Indonesian courts. (3) Is he also able to say how many have been charged with drug related offences and subsequently acquitted. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Currently there are known to be eleven Australian citizens imprisoned in Indonesia, as follows: (a) Charges (b) Sentences imposed Possession of 10 grams of Marijuana 1 year 10 months plus fine Rps 200,000 Possession of 3.9 kilograms of Hashish 9 years plus fine Rps 2,000,000 Possession of 426 grams of Heroin 7 years plus fine Rps 10,000,000 or further 6 months Possession of 219 grams of Cannabis and Hashish 3 years plus fine Rps 300,000 or further 4 months Possession of 5 grams of Hashish 4 years plus fine Rps 500,000 Possession of 355 grams of Heroin 10 years plus fine Rps 1,000,000 Possession of 27 grams of Hashish 4 years plus fine Rps 1,000,000 or further 2 months Possession of 25 grams of Hashish 3 years 6 months plus fine Rps 500,000 Possession of 20 grams of Hashish 4 years plus fine Rps 200,000 or further six months Possession of 10 grams of Marijuana 5 years plus fine Rps 250,000 Possession of 410 grams of Hashish 17 years plus fine Rps 5,000,000 or further 6 months. (2) Every country has the right to ensure its citizens receive the benefits of the same laws, administration, protection of rights and means of redress for injuries which a foreign country affords its own citizens. Provided these conditions are met, there is normally no ground for complaint or representation by the Australian Government on behalf of an Australian citizen who is in conflict with the law of a foreign country. All Australian citizens charged with drug related offences are given the choice of selecting a legal representative from a list supplied by the Australian Mission. It is emphasised to the accused in writing that it is their choice to select a legal representative and that neither the mission nor the Australian Government can accept any responsibility for the honesty or otherwise of the chosen legal representative. I am satisfied that this procedure is of assistance to the accused. (3) No statistics are maintained on this point; but my information is that over the last two years no Australian citizen known to have been charged with drug related offences in Indonesia has been subsequently acquitted. (Question No. 3375) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that there is a threat of citrus canker entering Australia via citrus imports, particularly from the United States of America; if so, what quarantine measures are being taken to prevent the entry of the disease. (2) Is research being undertaken to assess the potential threat to the citrus industry if the disease enters and spreads within Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no threat of citrus canker entering Australia via citrus imports particularly from the United States of America. The importation of citrus is not permitted from areas in which citrus canker exists. This in effect precludes imports from Asia, Pacific Island countries, Africa, Central America and South America. Citrus imports which are not considered to pose a quarantine risk are currently permitted from California (USA), Israel and New Zealand. Although canker was detected in Florida, USA, there is no threat of canker spreading to other States because of the strong measures taken for its eradication. (2) No research is being undertaken to assess the potential threat to the citrus industry if canker enters and spreads within Australia. However, information is being constantly gathered from overseas research and the progress of the current eradication campaign in Florida is being carefully watched. Action plans have been drawn up for eradication of exotic plant pests and diseases should they appear in Australia and the plan for canker was put into effect when the disease was recently detected on Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Thursday Island in the Torres Strait. Eradication on these islands is considered feasible because of their isolation and the limited number of trees involved. (Question No. 3580) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) To what extent has his Department been involved in supplying information or data for inclusion in the proposed peace studies program for secondary schools. (2) If data has been prepared, which sections of his Department participated in its preparation. (3) What material was included and from what source did it originate. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has not been involved in supplying any information or data for any specific proposed peace studies program for secondary schools, nor has any information or data been sought from the Department for this purpose. (2) My Department makes available background information on a wide variety of international issues including the United Nations system, the Conference on Disarmament and on Australia's role in disarmament to individuals and organisations, including secondary schools, on an ad hoc basis. Information on these topics is also contained in the Department's regular publications which are freely available, including to secondary schools. The Department is of course willing to provide information or data in its area of responsibility. (3) The information supplied in this background material and in the Department's publications is drawn from a great variety of sources, including the United Nations, and is prepared by various sections of my Department. (Question No. 3582) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Are any of the members of the International Year of Peace (IYP) organising committees in each State and Territory members of organisations that have been granted funds under IYP grants; if so, what (a) are their names, (b) organisations they belong to, (c) sum granted to their organisation and (d) was the purpose of the grant. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. There is no ban on members of organisations which receive IYP grants being also members of IYP consultative groups. (a) (b) (c) Sum (d) Name Organisation granted Purpose $ Dr H. Cohen W.A. IYP Group People for Nuclear Disarmament (W.A.) 4,000 Advertising for Palm Sunday Rally Mr J. Lomax Tas. IYP Group Derwent Valley Peace Group 300 Purchase of a slide projector and material for use by speakers on peace issues In addition, there are a number of members of the National Committee on Peace and Disarmament who fall into the same category as those above as follows: Dr P. Williams Scientists Against Nuclear Arms 3,000 Assist with visit to Australia by Dr H. DeWitt Ms M. Robertson People for Nuclear Disarmament (N.S.W.) 10,000 Assist with Peace Bus project Mrs E. Mattick Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 2,000 Assist with the publication in book form of the best Junior Media Peace Prize entries