Tuesday, 6 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. I draw your attention to section 72 (ii) of the Constitution which states: The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament- . . . . (ii) Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity: I draw your attention also to this morning's edition of the Age newspaper. Many other newspapers have reported the same story but, for the sake of giving an example, I shall use the article in the Age, which is headed `High Court to judge Murphy'. The article states: The High Court will conduct its own inquiry into whether Mr Justice Murphy is fit to continue on its bench. The Government last night indicated that the finding of the unprecedented inquiry by the six other judges would determine its attitude to Mr Justice Murphy's future. Madam Speaker, I put it to you that section 72 (ii) of the Constitution lays down very clearly the procedures that are to be followed if a judge is to be removed from the High Court. The responsibility for making that determination rests entirely with the Parliament. I ask you whether you can inquire into the reported actions of the High Court and on whether the Court by conducting its own inquiry into the suitability of a person sitting on the Bench of that Court in fact constitutes a prima facie breach of the privilege of the Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I appreciate what the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) has said. Maybe he is not aware that a further statement has been issued today by the High Court which made clear that the justices do not intend to conduct an inquiry or to make any findings. That statement was made in order to clear up any misunderstanding, and one would hope that the Press and other sections of the media will get it clear that the High Court is not conducting an inquiry and will not be making any findings. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) that, as is usual in these matters, I will take what he says on board and will report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Attorney-General to the statement just issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court, in which it is said, inter alia: The Justices do not intend to conduct any inquiry or to make any finding as to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy in order to resolve any controversy as to His Honour's judicial status, rights or duties. They did not agree to do so yesterday. I ask the Attorney-General to explain to the House and to the nation his extraordinary conduct and that of his Government in allowing the view to be put abroad, as it was and which was confirmed by his statements and actions, that the High Court justices would in fact conduct an inquiry into the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy. I ask the Attorney-General to offer some explanation to the House for the damage that he has potentially done to one of the most important institutions in this country. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I object strongly to the inference that there was in any intention, action or statement of mine anything which could be interpreted in any way as damaging the High Court. I make it very clear that the statement that was issued under my name was issued with the authority, consent and approval of the Chief Justice. It is outrageous that the Leader of the Opposition should now try to jeopardise the situation by suggesting that I have done anything other than issue a statement on behalf of the Chief Justice with his approval. It is a matter of record that there was a meeting yesterday between the justices of the High Court and Mr Justice Murphy. The Leader of the Opposition might also advert to the statement made today which makes this further point: The function of the Court is to decide cases in open court and not to conduct private inquiries. The Court has no function to perform as to its own composition, though its members, of course, have an abiding concern with the preservation of public confidence in it. It was that concern which led the meeting of the justices yesterday to consider what, if any, part it was appropriate for them as individuals to play. In the course of discussions in that regard, Mr Justice Murphy sought an opportunity to see the relevant material in the confidence volume of Mr Justice Stewart's report and make a public response to it. In the meantime, he volunteered not to sit. The other members of the Court agreed to postpone further discussion-I emphasise that; in other words, I understand there will be a further meeting-until Mr Justice Murphy has made such response as he wishes to make. I think that is where the matter should be left. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. John Bannon MP, Premier of South Australia. Also present in the gallery is Father John Momis MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Papua New Guinea Parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend to the visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr KEOGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has he noted the frequent expression of opposition from the Queensland Premier to the provision of aid for the world's poor and his concern that aid to Third World states can be misappropriated by petty tyrants and their hangers-on? I am sure that the Minister would recognise the expertise of the Queensland Premier in relation to the actions of petty tyrants and their hangers-on. Can the Minister assure the House that Australian aid to Third World countries is safeguarded from this sort of theft? Mr HAYDEN —In the provision of Australian aid to Third World states we have in place a system of what I believe to be fairly effective monitoring and safeguards to prevent misappropriation. The system is very similar to that which applied under previous conservative governments and it is being followed by this Government. Up to this point I have had no evidence that there has been any misappropriation of Australian aid in any part of the world. I dare say that there could be instances on occasions, but I think these would be very rare occasions. However, I have no evidence of this. I have heard complaints of this nature over the years by the Premier of Queensland. As a resident of Queensland, I would feel grossly humiliated if anyone described my State as a Third World state. However, if anyone said that the standards of the Queensland Government were those appropriate to a Third World state conducted by a petty tyrant, I think I would be less sententious. If we are talking about aid for economic development, I recall immediately that in the 1985-86 Budget for Queensland the total outlay of capital and recurrent expenditures was in excess of $6,700m. The amounts provided from the Commonwealth Government for this purpose totalled nearly $3,500m. So, in short, the Commonwealth Government is funding the Queensland Budget to the tune of nearly 52 per cent of its total outlays for recurrent and capital expenditures. That is aid for economic development. If the honourable member is implying that that is aid for economic development in a State where Third World standards are applied by a petty tyrant, I leave that description with him without quibbling about its appropriateness. The question is whether there is a misappropriation of this money which the Federal Government provides to the State Government of Queensland and, if so, should the Federal Government seek to have more effective controls in place. I noted in one of the weekend papers that the police in Queensland are seeking to interview a third person-a public servant or a former public servant of Queensland-involved in scandals associated with misappropriation and fraud of public funds within the Queensland Film Corporation. Honourable members will remember that the mentor of the Premier of Queensland, Mr Allan Callaghan, and his wife are before the courts on charges of fraud and misappropriating in excess of $60,000. I really think that if the Premier of Queensland has genuine concern as to the effectiveness and probity with which federally funded economic development programs are administered, he should look at more than half of the Budget of the State of Queensland. He should look at his own conduct. When I look at newspaper headlines on this matter, such as `Qld Government blocks Callaghan queries', `Gag on funds affair' and `Petersen's shop closing on Callaghan affair', I recall how quickly the Queensland Government sought to conceal the illegal conduct of those people who were close to him and cronies of his. One of the distinguishing features of the Government in Queensland is the way in which people of modest means and even lesser talents blossom in riches after a stint in the Ministry of the Queensland National Party Government. In fact, it was not so long ago that I was talking at a social function informally to a senior Minister in the Queensland National Party Government who said to me: `Bill, politics have been good to me. I have become rich since I have gone into the Ministry'. I think that sums up pretty much the ethos of too much of what takes place under the administration of the Premier of Queensland. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, led by Mr Chong Peng. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —I ask the Attorney-General: In view of his claim that the remaining justices of the High Court of Australia are not involved in any inquiry or involved in any enterprise involving a potential finding as to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, will he please inform the House of what steps the Government now proposes to take to resolve the controversy surrounding His Honour's judicial status, rights and duties? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In my view the Government would not be taking any action until such time as the meetings that are taking place between Mr Justice Murphy and the other justices of the High Court are concluded. Mr BILNEY —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted reports that the summit nations meeting in Tokyo adopted recently a number of decisions in relation to international acts of terrorism? Has the Minister any comment to make on those decisions and the relevance they may have to the situation in which Australia finds itself? Mr HAYDEN —Australia has repeatedly called for the more effective implementation of international legal measures against terrorist acts. Of course, we strongly support the role of international fora, such as the United Nations, in helping combat terrorism. In regard to the specific matter raised by the honourable member for Kingston, who has been quite diligent in his concern in this area, let me say that the specific measures agreed upon by the Summit Seven in Tokyo are matters which Australia has already implemented or taken steps to implement. We already have strict controls on the export of arms and munitions manufactured in Australia. We have already reduced the permitted size of the Libyan Mission in Canberra from seven to five persons. We already monitor closely the movement of persons convicted in or expelled from other countries for terrorist activities. We already have extradition arrangements with 96 countries. A government task force is currently reviewing and extending our extradition relations. Strict visa and immigration controls already are in place. We already enjoy close working relations in the counter-terrorist field with our friends and allies. Earlier this year we initiated a new round of discussions with other countries to improve co-operation in this field. The Australian Government firmly believes that terrorism is an unacceptable means by which to pursue political objectives and has made this position clear on numerous occasions. The fact that we are well ahead in anticipation of the decisions of the Tokyo Summit I think is a convincing demonstration of that. Mr HOWARD —I again refer the Attorney-General to the statement made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia today and to the Attorney's endorsement of it. His Honour said, inter alia: The Justices do not intend to conduct any inquiry or to make any finding as to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy . . . In view of that statement and his endorsement of that statement how does the Attorney-General explain his statement made on the AM program this morning? The Attorney-General said, inter alia: But it's very clear and we think it's sensible that the High Court itself felt of its initiative that there were no difficulties well that's fine with the Parliament, I'm sure. Critically, he said: Nobody would disagree with the decision of the High Court. If the High Court is not involved in matters leading to a finding, why on earth did the Attorney-General mislead the public in talking about a decision and the acceptance of that decision by the Australian public? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it ought to be made very clear that the meetings which were held yesterday between Mr Justice Murphy and justices of the High Court were by agreement between the justices of the High Court and Mr Justice Murphy. If we look at the statement that was issued both yesterday and today it appears clear that those meetings are still in train. It is on that basis then when we are talking about the question of what might be the outcome of those meetings-- Mr Howard —What about the decision? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point is that they are not making a finding. The justices are deciding as to the conduct. Mr Howard —Decisions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think we ought to look at it from this point of view that as soon as the acquittal of Mr Justice Murphy was announced I am aware the Opposition, through the honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, and Senator Chaney, said that it had no objection to His Honour resuming his position on the Bench. Mr Howard —That is not what they said. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That was the way- Mr Howard —You have got that wrong, too. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know the Opposition wants a second chance to correct it but that is the position. Further matters arose in the course of the week. Apparently, it is on that basis that the High Court decided to have a meeting. On that basis the question then arose as to what was the nature of the meeting. I was not apprised of it in advance. From that point of view when I asked yesterday as to the nature of the meeting I was told that it was about His Honour being given an opportunity by his brother judges to make an explanation. That is still the position. Nothing has happened that would prejudge that issue. From the point of view of what is happening at present, that meeting was commenced and has now been adjourned to allow His Honour to make some explanations to his brother judges. Arising out of that we will know what the position of the High Court is. Mr Howard —If they are not making an inquiry, why is it happening? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They want an explanation from their brother judge as to the accusations made. Mr Howard —But what are you going to do? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has been indicated to the Court that the Government is interested in the outcome of those discussions. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. Is it true that, when the Commission for the Future was established, it ran into a good deal of criticism from the print media? How is the Commission performing? Is it meeting the goals set for it? What organisations are involved with it? Mr BARRY JONES —It is already clear that the Commission for the Future is filling a significant gap in providing information about science and its social impact that has not been previously available. The events of the past few months-for example, the Challenger disaster and the Chernobyl disaster-have brought to the surface very deeply held community anxieties about the social and environmental impact of science and technology. The Commission is an appropriate forum where materials for community debate are available. The Commission has been in full operation for only eight months. Already it has a very impressive work program. I am glad to inform the House that it is now working in close collaboration with every State government, including the Queensland Government and the Government of the Northern Territory. Indeed, two seminars organised for the Northern Territory Government are being conducted in May. By the middle of this year activities will have been undertaken in each of the States in collaboration with the States. In addition, it is working closely with sectors of the business community-the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures and the Confederation of Australian Industry. It has a very impressive publication program. In connection with the Australian Bicentennial Authority, a major youth futures project will be a major contri- bution towards the Bicentenary. With the Australian National University, there is a research project on demographic trends and their social implications. With the trade union movement, it will conduct workshops on the implication of information technology on unions and, with the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the development of discussion papers on relevant subjects. I want to say something for members of the Parliament. In the United States last December, I was deeply impressed by the work of the Congressional Clearing House on the future-something funded by senators and congressmen out of their own pockets. That indicates the seriousness of it. It is designed to help congressmen come to grips with long term issues before they become either lost opportunities or unavoidable crises. We expect to hold a series of seminars at the Parliament. The first of the seminars will be conducted here on 29 May. It will be a dinner meeting on a split charge basis, naturally, at which Sir Gustav Nossal will speak about biotechnology and its implications. I want to see significant numbers of members come along to this first seminar for parliamentarians. The Commission expects to hold a series of seminars between now and the end of the year. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney- General again to this statement of the Chief Justice: The justices do not intend to conduct any inquiry or to make any finding as to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy in order to resolve any controversy as to His Honour's judicial status, rights or duties. In view of that statement, and the absence of the resignation of Mr Justice Murphy, is it not now urgent that the Government take immediate action to set up an inquiry by special Act of Parliament to examine the matters relating to Mr Justice Murphy and section 72 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice having made it perfectly plain that the other six justices will not conduct any inquiry or make any finding in relation to Mr Justice Murphy? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I invite the honourable member for North Sydney again to look at the other part of the statement also issued today relating to the meeting yesterday. It made the point that, in the course of the discussion that the justices had with Mr Justice Murphy, he sought an opportunity see the relevant material in the confidential volume of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions conducted by Mr Justice Stewart, which he has not seen, and to make a public response to it. So, on that basis there has been a discussion about a matter on which His Honour has not seen the material, and, of course, he wants to make a response to it-not to us but to his fellow judges of the High Court. In the meantime, the members of the Court agreed to postpone further discussions. On that basis then I think it is quite appropriate that in relation to the matters in volume 2 of the Stewart report there would be an opportunity for His Honour to discuss the matter with his colleagues, and the Government has agreed to make that section of volume 2 available to him at the request of the Chief Justice. Mr Howard —But this is not the only matter of concern. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, it is the only matter-- Mr Howard —It is not the only matter. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease talking across the table. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is the only matter of concern as far as the High Court is concerned. I can understand honourable members opposite having political concerns. It is quite unfair to think that, when Mr Justice Murphy has a meeting with his brother judges, honourable members object to the meeting and, further, appear to object to the meeting being postponed so that the judges can have further discussions about a matter of which His Honour at present is not aware. Of course, the Government agreed to make those relevant sections of that report available to his brother judges on the High Court. In other words, the mere fact that the meeting was held surely would not be a cause of objection by the Opposition. The mere fact that the meeting has been postponed should not be a cause of objection by the Opposition. It is a question of a judge of the High Court asking and getting the agreement of his brother judges to have a discussion with them about the merits of accusations or allegations made in volume 2 of the Stewart report. On that basis we know that the matter is a continuing one and, of course, it will be bought to some finality when those discussions are finished. Mrs KELLY —Is the Treasurer aware of the Opposition's commitments, if elected, to abolish many of the Government's major revenue measures while also promising to introduce many costly new policies? What effect would the implementation of such promises have on the Budget deficit, and how would they be funded? Mr KEATING —The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware of commitments. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! If all honourable members were quiet there would not be any necessity to ask the Treasurer to speak up. Mr KEATING —As to the second part of the question, the effect on the Budget deficit would, of course, be disastrous. What we see from the Opposition is a total absence of any semblance of a credible economic policy, and it does not matter whether one looks at wages policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy or whatever, there is a total absence of any coherence in policy. Let me detail some of the revenue losses to the Budget of the principal Opposition policies: Income splitting, $2,500m; the child care rebate, $180m; abolition of fringe benefit tax, $625m in a full year; the abolition of the foreign tax credit system, $50m; reinstitution of entertainment expenses, $310m; reinstitution of negative gearing, $100m; full flow-on of world oil price reductions, $400m; abolition of fuel excise indexation, $180m; restoration of fuel freight equalisation, $115m; abolition of export inspection charges, $50m; abolition of lump sum superannuation tax, $300m in a full year; repeal of the assets test, $140m; and abolition of the sales tax on wine, $60m. That list alone amounts to $5 billion. In addition, there are the rural promises of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Bearing in mind that this Government takes the view that there is a requirement on public policy to see a reduction in the starting point deficit for this year, that is, on top of any savings task a reduction in the existing nominal deficit of 1985-86 for 1986-87, one has to wonder and ponder what the state of fiscal policy would be with a $5 billion-plus deterioration in the deficit if that was not met with commensurate reductions in outlays. The fact is that, if that was not met with commensurate reductions in outlays, the stimulus to the economy would be such that the current account exacerbation would be so marked as to send our current account out of control. Alternatively, with that kind of fiscal policy, an enormous weight would go on to monetary policy and interest rates to try to hold the economy in some kind of check. That would be the consequence of allowing that kind of Budget deficit blow-out of the kind portended by the promises of the Opposition. If, on the other hand, those opposite say that they will fund these things by reductions in public sector outlays, I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said at the National Press Club on 28 August: If you're honest about it, and you want to bring about major cuts in on-going recurrent expenditure, you have to look at politically sensitive areas. There's a limit to how much you can save by sacking bureaucrats, making everything work more efficiently. I could not agree more with that statement, but the fact is that that statement was made at the time of the Leader of the Opposition's policy speech for leader before the Press Club last year when, posing as a rational Liberal with a rationalist policy, he went on and urged his Party and the Press that they should have a leader of the Liberal Party who has a rational economic policy. In the months since that he has degenerated into populism and political opportunism of a kind which was never associated with the honourable member for Kooyong. Given the fact that we are about to see a repeat performance by the Leader at the National Press Club this week, he might tell the National Press Club and the Government how he will fund $5 billion of lost revenue in extra commitments, how the Commonwealth's fiscal policy would possibly hold up under those circumstances, what he would do with the current account deficit and monetary policy, or, if he intends to save the $5 billion, from where the cuts in public expenditure would come, other than from taking it off bureaucrats of the kind he mentions in his former speech. We might hear, in terms of the kinds of criticisms which are directed to this side of the House, some rational view about fiscal policy from an Opposition which is bereft at this stage of any decent notions of economic policy whatsoever. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer the honourable gentleman to his answer to the last Opposition question when he said that when the discussions being conducted by the justices of the High Court of Australia had been completed the matter relating to Mr Justice Murphy would be brought to finality. Will he please inform the House of the procedure to be adopted by the Government to bring that matter to finality? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it is very easy to say that, when the meetings of the High Court justices with Mr Justice Murphy are completed, we will be advised as to their views. Mr Howard —Is that a finding? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, as to their views. On that basis we would be able to take whatever action was necessary. Ms JAKOBSEN —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the recent statement by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Ian Tuxworth, in which he described Aboriginal land rights as a blight on the nation, claimed that clerks in Canberra made decisions for the Northern Territory and accused the Commonwealth of pitting whites against Aborigines and Aborigines against each other in land rights claim decisions? Can the Minister advise the House whether there is any substance in these allegations? Mr HOLDING —There is no substance in these allegations. Mr Everingham —Rubbish! Mr HOLDING —I am interested to hear that comment, because the legislation that we are talking about is legislation of the Fraser Government, and one of the few pieces of legislation for which that Government may well take some credit. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory knows as well as honourable members opposite who voted for the legislation that every Aboriginal land rights claim is part of a judicial process. Evidence is given before a tribunal and, on the basis of the recommendation that comes from that tribunal to the Minister, which recommendation has to take into account the views of any other interest, the Minister makes a decision in respect of land rights. That has been the process followed by previous Liberal Ministers, and it is the process that I have followed. For the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to make the sorts of allegations that he has is simply nonsense. I am bound to say something in respect of the Chief Minister's reference to clerks in Canberra, given the recent fiscal malfeasance of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I would remind honourable members that 80c in every dollar that is spent in the Northern Territory comes out of the Commonwealth taxpayers' pockets. So, if one wants to talk about clerks in Canberra, there is a great deal of evidence to show that clerks in Canberra would be far more honest in their dealing with public moneys than the way in which those funds have been handled in the Northern Territory. Let us deal with it. I think it is a matter known to everyone that at the moment the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has some internal difficulties with his own Party-and well he should. When the Chief Minister was a Minister and in receipt of a salary of $70,000, having moved his residence from Tennant Creek to Darwin, he continued to claim travel allowances up to the extent of $10,000 until the former Chief Minister caught up with him and made him pay it back. Let us look at some of the financial operations that have been going on up there. I say quite frankly that, clerks or no clerks in Canberra, if any Aboriginal organisation conducted its financial affairs in the way the Chief Minister has been prepared to play with the Commonwealth dollar in the Northern Territory, I would sack it and I would be bound to sack it. Let us look at some of the exercises that have been carried out. Mr Sinclair —If you want to make a statement, do so. Don't abuse Question Time. Mr HOLDING —I find it interesting that Mr Tuxworth, who is fiscally dodgy, is now being defended by the Leader of the National Party. I will say this: If the Chief Minister had accepted some advice from the Leader of the National Party, he might have got away with it. Let us look at the handling of the financial responsibility in the Northern Territory. We have heard honourable members opposite bleat about the great principles involved in the Mudginberri abattoir dispute. What are the facts? Under the administration of Mr Tuxworth, funds were advanced out of a total budget allocation which was described as the Agricultural Development Marketing Authority. A sum of $1m was to be made available to all primary producers and farmers in the Northern Territory to give them advances while they were waiting for payment-a perfectly reasonable proposition. The only difficulty was that by the time the Mudginberri abattoir got its slice of almost $1m there was $8,000 left for every other primary producer. What did the Northern Territory Government do in order to overcome that fiscal embarrassment? It endeavoured to guarantee a loan-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker-- Mr HOLDING —Oh, hullo! We do not have to worry; he did not sign a cheque in his father's name. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under our Standing Orders there are procedures for answering questions without notice. I suggest that this is more material for a statement. The Minister has gone on inordinately. He is not now canvassing matters that were the subject of the original question. I suggest that it is about time he drew his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker- Mr Chynoweth —Rogues gallery. Mr Tuckey —Does anybody want to stand up and say that again? Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for O'Connor have a point of order? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I draw attention to your statement of 20 February 1986 in which you said: `I will not tolerate from either side allegations or imputations of a personal nature'. The Minister did just that as the right honourable member for New England approached the Leader of the Opposition. He made references to cheque books. I ask him to withdraw it and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to deal with him. Otherwise this will just go on and on. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party was speaking into his microphone before I recognised him, at the same time as the Minister was continuing to speak, not realising that there was a point of order. If the honourable gentleman said anything that was personal or offensive, I am sure that he will withdraw it. Mr HOLDING —I thought I did not say-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman did not say anything personal or-- Mr HOLDING —I said that I was not going to say that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory ever signed a cheque book in his father's name. That was all I said. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr HOLDING —I withdraw. Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask you to rule, under standing order 145, that this answer is not relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —The point I was making, and it is entirely relevant-- Mr Sinclair —You have to wind up and you know it. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will keep quiet. Mr Sinclair —He is abusing Question Time and he knows it. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will heed the Chair. Mr HOLDING —It is not an abuse of Question Time to point out the gross abuse of public moneys. In order to secure more funds for Mudginberri-- Opposition members-Five, four, three, two, one. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the House that it is normal when the Chair rises to his or her feet for the House to show some respect for the authority of the Chair. The Chair will not put up with the House taking part in this counting out process. I urge honourable members now to take heed of advice that has been given by me and by the Leader of the National Party that it is incumbent upon every member of this House to observe the Standing Orders. The behaviour of the House is not getting much better. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. Successively over the years you and your predecessors have ruled that answers need to be relevant in accordance with Standing Orders. The Minister has been making an inordinarily long statement. In the past, Speakers have required that Ministers keep their answers within the bounds of the Standing Orders. I suggest that might apply in this case. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, further to that point of order, I say to you what I said across the table to the Prime Minister. It is now a number of years since my colleague the Leader of the National Party was involved in certain court proceedings. Those proceedings were resolved completely in his favour. A jury of his peers totally cleared him. I can only point out that constant references to that matter are doing him a great disservice. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair asked for a withdrawal from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister withdrew his statement. He will now complete his answer, and I hope that he will do it quickly. Mr HOLDING —The point I was making, which was a very simple point, was that, in order to secure funds for the Mudginberri arrangement, Mr Tuxworth secretly negotiated a $2m advance from the Westpac Banking Corporation on the basis that all the banking transactions of the Northern Territory Government would be transferred to Westpac, to the disadvantage of every other bank in the Northern Territory. The point is simple. It is no wonder that Mr Tuxworth would go to Queensland to try to misrepresent the processes of this Parliament with regard to Aboriginal land rights when his own record of financial abuse and mismanagement is an absolute disgrace. I find it interesting that he is supported by the Leader of the National Party. Mr STEELE HALL —I address my question to the Attorney-General. In order that all interested parties may consider the position of Mr Justice Murphy in a proper constitutional manner, I ask: What are the requirements for the appointment of a judge to the High Court and what are the requirements for the dismissal of a judge of the High Court? How do those requirements pertain to a judge continuing to hold a position on the High Court? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The usual requirement for appointment is that a person must have reached eminence in the legal profession, although that would not necessarily be the legal position. The removal of a judge, as defined in the Constitution, may be brought about because of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. That would require a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. Those are the two legal issues. Mr Steele Hall —And the continuing holding of that position. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question of continuing to hold office would relate to incapacity. In that sense, there is the usual uncertainty as to what might be deemed to be a period of incapacity. In this case we are talking about the standing down of a judge to enable legal proceedings to be pursued. His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, was brought to trial. He was acquitted on the prosecution case and he was deemed to be not guilty. The question that the honourable member is now mindful of relates to allegations that supposedly have been made in a secret report of another royal commission. Mr Steele Hall —I made no such comment. I am asking about the formal requirements for the appointment and dismissal of a High Court judge. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I gave the honour- able member the answer. The honourable member then interjected and asked what would be the position if there were some sort of interregnum, which is the case at the moment. There has to be some resolution of matters that are not yet known to His Honour because they are in a secret volume of a report which relates to a number of other people and a number of other matters. The Chief Justice of the High Court asked whether that information could be furnished to him, and that was done. Arising from that there have been some discussions. Mr Steele Hall —How does that relate to the Constitution? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Boothby is not allowed to ask a supplementary question. He should wait until the question has been answered. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The position is very clear: His Honour is a member of the High Court and he has agreed to stand down until his brother judges have further discussions with him about allegations of which he is not aware, but of which they are now aware, and which are contained in a volume of the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. At this stage, it in no way affects any position on the High Court. Mr CAMPBELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Is the Minister aware of a forthcoming series of auctions arranged by Australia Post to dispose of its philatelic archival reserve? Can the Minister explain why Australia Post would want to organise such a sale and what the estimated revenue to Australia Post would be? If archival stocks are to be sold, why do we bother to collect them in the first place? Mr DUFFY —I have received a number of letters from philatelic societies and individuals expressing concern about this project. The philatelic archival collection consists of two parts: First, albums containing original stamp designs, reference photographs, proofs and examples of issued stamps; and, secondly, stocks of stamps which are surplus to those featured in the album collection. It is from the duplicate stocks that the items to be sold have been selected. This sale will create a fund for the acquisition of items which would enhance the Australia Post philatelic archival collection. In earlier years postal authorities made no particular effort to retain material of philatelic significance and consequently a wide range of items and even many modern varieties are needed to make the collection something of which Australia can be proud. Therefore, the sale can be seen as good asset management in that it is the disposal of surplus items to obtain material that the collection currently lacks. In answer to the second part of the question, there will be a series of four auctions planned over a period of two years. The first will take place after Stampex in August 1986. The expected turnover from Australia Post's archival auction of $1m probably represents 15 per cent of the combined annual turnover of all Australia's stamp auction firms. It should be emphasised that collectors will have a unique opportunity to purchase top grade material, the quantities offered will be strictly limited and the proceeds of the auctions will be used strictly to enhance Australia Post's philatelic archival collection through the purchase of important items which are currently lacking in the collection. The Clerk-I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That this House censures the Attorney-General and the Government for the incompetent, bungling and negligent manner in which they have handled matters relating to Mr Justice Murphy and his position on the High Court of Australia and the extent to which such conduct has comprised and embarrassed the High Court and the denial to Parliament of its opportunity of exercising its rights under section 72 of the Constitution. Mr Young-The Government proposes to accept the motion forthwith. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.54) —by leave-I move: That this House censures the Attorney-General and the Government for the incompetent, bungling and negligent manner in which they have handled matters relating to Mr Justice Murphy and his position on the High Court of Australia and the extent to which such conduct has compromised and embarrassed the High Court and the denial to Parliament of its opportunity of exercising its rights under section 72 of the Constitution. Shortly before Question Time today a statement was issued in the name of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, which must undoubtedly rank as so far the most extraordinary and remarkable event in the saga of events surrounding the position of Mr Justice Murphy on the High Court of Australia. I wish to make clear from the outset that there is only one person on trial before the Parliament today; there is only one person and one group of people against whom the criticism of the Opposition is directed-the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia as the first law officer of Australia has handled this matter with almost breathtaking incompetence. Yesterday the Australian nation and the Australian people were treated to an extraordinary series of events, a series of events that involved comings and goings not only between the Government and the Opposition but also between various Ministers and the justices of the High Court and between the left wing cheer leaders in the Australian Labor party who support at all costs the retention of Mr Justice Murphy as a justice of the High Court of Australia and those people who would keep the present membership of the High Court of Australia intact, whatever may be the cost to that institution. Throughout the whole of yesterday one thing was abundantly clear and that was that the Government did not have the faintest idea of how to handle this matter. Not only was the Government unable to reach a conclusion as to how the matter should be handled but also, above everything else, the Government was not going to do anything that might cause division and dissension within its own ranks. Let there be no doubt that there is serious division and dissension on this issue within the ranks of the Government. One only had to observe the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) when he arrived at the Parliament yesterday morning. What did the Foreign Minister say? Did he say that the matter should be looked at? Did he adopt the monastic silence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) over the weekend? Did he say that the matter raised serious issues of principle affecting the High Court? Of course he did not. What the Foreign Minister did immediately he arrived yesterday morning was to say to the Australian public that as far as he was concerned Mr Justice Lionel Murphy should remain on the High Court of Australia. That is really the kernel of the Government's problem. The reason why the Government has abdicated its role as the Executive of this country in this matter, the reason why the Prime Minister's leadership of the Government on this issue has been found wanting, is that the Prime Minister is petrified of the effect within his own Party of steps being taken to remove Mr Justice Murphy from the High Court of Australia. That is why, to their very great shame, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have allowed the High Court of Australia, which is without doubt the most revered institution in this country-an institution that stands between the citizens of this country and the loss of their fundamental rights-to become involved in a most unconscionable way in this particular matter. From the very beginning we have endeavoured, as an Opposition, to treat all of the matters surrounding Mr Justice Murphy not in a partisan political fashion but out of respect for the High Court of Australia. I remind those opposite and those elsewhere who would seek to categorise what we have done as merely being an exercise in attacking a justice of the High Court who has Labor Party antecedents that the person who charged Mr Justice Murphy was the Labor appointed Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby. It was Ian Temby, a former Labor Party candidate for the seat of Nedlands in Western Australia, a former member of the Australian Labor Party who was appointed by the Hawke Government, who finally decided that Mr Justice Murphy should be charged. I would remind the House that the Senate inquiry was established after the Government had rejected attempts by the Opposition to establish a non-parliamentary procedure to judge whether there should be further investigation into the Age tapes. I would also remind the House that action was taken by the Opposition in the Senate only after it became apparent that the Government was not going to embark upon a non-parliamentary adjudication of whether there was something in the Age tapes. So I want to say right at the outset of this debate that any suggestion that the Opposition has behaved in a partisan political fashion, any suggestion that the Opposition has not been concerned from the very beginning with the reputation, dignity and standing of the High Court of Australia, is completely false. The really bizarre, really erratic nature of this matter and the extraordinary conduct of the Attorney-General become apparent when we examine the events of the last 48 hours. Everybody remembers what happened yesterday. We opened up our papers this morning and found an extraordinary unanimity of opinion in all the newspapers to the effect that the judgment to be made on Mr Justice Murphy will be made by his brother judges of the High Court. The Attorney-General went on television and radio last night. He allowed the impression to be created that a decision will be made by the other judges of the High Court about Mr Justice Murphy. He talked on the AM program this morning of a decision being made by those judges. However, he had the unbelievable gall when the Chief Justice's statement was presented to him at Question Time today to say: `Oh, yes, that was our intention all along'. It was the Attorney-General's intention all along that there should not be an inquiry. If that is not an inquiry how can the High Court make a decision? If the judges of the High Court are not going to make a decision who is going to determine whether Mr Justice Murphy should remain on the High Court? The Government cannot pretend now to the Parliament that it does not have doubts about Mr Justice Murphy. I am quite sure that those honourable members who surround the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), up there in the corner of the House, do not have any doubts about Mr Justice Murphy. However, I can tell them that the Prime Minister has plenty of doubts about Mr Justice Murphy. A week ago when he came back from overseas and he was asked what he thought of the verdict in the Murphy trial he said: `I am delighted at the result in Mr Justice Murphy's trial and I expect him to return to the Bench of the High Court of Australia'. That is what he said last Monday week. He was prepared to endorse Mr Justice Murphy's return to the Bench of the High Court. Yet, less than a week later when confronted with the same question during the Sunday program what did he have to say? He said he had absolutely nothing at all to say on the matter. It is perfectly plain that between last Sunday and last Friday there has been a very significant change of heart on the part of the Prime Minister. However, the issue becomes even more bizarre when we examine the answers of the Attorney-General, both here in the Parliament and generally yesterday. Perhaps the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister can enlighten us on the matter when one of them speaks during this debate, but are we to assume that until the intervention of the judges of the High Court last Friday-until they were prepared to do what the Government lacked the courage to do-the Government was going to do nothing about this issue? Are we to assume that the Government was prepared to allow Mr Justice Murphy to return to his place on the Bench this morning? Are we to assume that the Government was prepared to allow the controversy that clearly exists in relation to his position on the High Court to go unresolved? Are we to assume that, in the interests of preserving the Government's fragile factional unity, it was prepared to allow that controversy to go on and do potential damage to the standing of the High Court of Australia? Are we to assume that, until the matter was taken out of the Government's hands by the judges of the High Court, it was prepared to sit on its hands and do nothing about it? Are we to assume that when it comes to the crunch honourable members opposite will always prefer factional unity to doing their duty? Are we to assume that when it comes to a choice between the reputation and standing of the High Court of Australia and the Government's own political expediency it will always choose political expediency? What are we entitled to assume from the Government's conduct, from its negligence, from its failure properly to inform the Australian public, from its failure this morning when the newspapers around Australia proclaimed a proper belief, as a result of what happened yesterday, that the six continuing judges of the High Court were to make a judgment on Lionel Murphy? Are we to assume from its silence in the face of that-as we are entitled to assume-that as far as the Government is concerned it does not matter what happens to the reputation and the integrity of the High Court of Australia as long as the Government and the Prime Minister are spared political embarrassment within their own ranks? That is the only reasonable conclusion that the Australian public can draw from the Government's extraordinary behaviour in regard to this particular matter. The Government's extraordinary behaviour on this issue is little different from its extraordinary behaviour in relation to the Age tapes. After all, it was this Attorney-General-he had some pretty spectacular company on this issue-who branded the Age tapes as a fake. It was this Attorney-General who, along with Neville Wran and Gareth Evans, ran around the country, saying that the Age tapes were all fakes. It was this Attorney-General who, shoulder to shoulder with Neville Wran, agreed with what Neville Wran said about the police who had done their duty in relation to the Age tapes. It was this Attorney-General who allowed himself to be associated with attempts to denigrate the personality and character of people who had risked their careers in order to further the fight against crime. It is no wonder that this Attorney-General has behaved in such a negligent manner on this very sensitive issue. It almost passes belief that somebody posing as the first law officer of Australia, in regard to something affecting an institution which goes so much to the heart of the rights and liberties that we have in this country, could behave in such a negligent manner. He had every opportunity this morning to call a Press conference to correct the false impression that had been created last night. He had every opportunity to own up to the fact that he had failed properly to inform the Australian public. He had every opportunity to say to the Australian public: `Look, there has been a monumental misunderstanding. You have all got it wrong. It was never intended that the justices of the High Court of Australia would sit in judgment on one of their brethren. That was never intended, despite the fact that I talked about a decision, despite the fact that I talked about an adjudication being made'. He had every opportunity in the world to do that. But once again-as he has done from the very beginning, along with his Prime Minister-he has sat on his hands and has done absolutely nothing about it. Once again it has been left to the High Court of Australia to pull the fat out of the fire for the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General seriously saying that all of this was intended-that, from the very beginning, what was going to happen would be perfectly plain? What the Attorney-General has done is to allow the Australian public reasonably to draw the conclusion that an agreement had been reached between the Government and the justices of the High Court for the latter to make a judgment relating to the future of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Otherwise, would the Attorney-General have appeared on television last night and this morning and said: `Of course, if they make a finding in the judge's favour, that ought to be the end of the matter'? I ask the Attorney-General: Is that still his position? Is the position that, if the justices find-or whatever one calls it now, because it is not an inquiry-in favour of Mr Justice Murphy, that means that his Government is satisfied that the judge should remain on the High Court? What happens if they find in the opposite way? What will he do? What are the procedures that he will establish in order to give effect to that decision? Will he hold a further inquiry? Will he bring the matter back to the Parliament? What will he do in relation to section 72? Does he believe that the Parliament has a role in this matter? What is the nature of the correspondence, if any, that he has exchanged with the Chief Justice of the High Court? What is the nature of the disclosures, if any, that he has made to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy relating to the Royal Commission? For example, I would like to know from the Attorney-General whether the full contents of volume 2 of the Royal Commission report have been made available to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Have they? Mr Lionel Bowen —They couldn't be. Mr HOWARD —They could not be. I am pleased to hear the assurance from the Attorney-General that the full contents have not been made available, because the issue as to whether they have been made available is very interesting. Throughout this matter the Attorney-General has behaved with an extraordinary lack of candour and frankness. He has allowed false impressions to be created. He has preferred that political expedience and the political integrity and the political advantage of the Government take precedence over the position of the High Court of Australia. Throughout this matter the Government has not properly understood that there is a real community concern about the status of the High Court of Australia. I remind the House-I particularly remind the members of the Government-that the standards required of a justice of the High Court of Australia go far beyond questions of bare guilt or innocence. It is not as simple as that. It is not a question of whether somebody is guilty or not guilty of a criminal offence. The standards required of a judge of the High Court go far beyond that bare standard of guilt or innocence. I remind the House of the statement made by the former Attorney-General, Senator Evans, before he became Attorney-General, when he was speaking about another judge and trying to undermine that judge's position on the High Court. I remind the House of the quotation he made from the remarks of Winston Churchill in 1954 regarding the position of a judge: A form of life and conduct far more severe and restrictive than that of ordinary people is required from judges and, though unwritten, has been most strictly observed. They are at once privileged and restricted. They have to present a continuous aspect of dignity and conduct. Far more freedom is granted by the convention of our way of life to Members of Parliament, to Ministers or to Privy Counsellors . . . The judges have to maintain, though free from criticisms . . . a far more rigorous standard than is required from any class that I know of in this realm. I put it very calmly to the House out of interest and out of concern for the position of the High Court of Australia in our community that no self-respecting Attorney-General, no self-respecting first law officer of this country, could have done otherwise than have really grave doubts of his own over the last week that Mr Justice Murphy may be perceived by the Australian community as not having met the high standard laid down in that statement endorsed by his colleague, Senator Gareth Evans. I put it to the Attorney-General that it is a failure of his own duties as the first law officer of this country that he appeared to be unwilling to do anything about those concerns until the intervention of the High Court. I invite the Attorney-General to assure the House that before last Friday, before he became aware of the concerns and the interests of the judges of the High Court, he had it in mind to establish a procedure to resolve the controversy that surrounded Mr Justice Murphy. If he did have that in mind, I invite the Attorney-General to explain to the House what procedure he had in mind. I invite the Attorney-General to tell the House how he intended to bring the procedures of the Government, by inquiry or whatever, to bear on the circumstances that must have been concerning him as the first law officer of the Commonwealth because there can be absolutely no doubt that any Attorney-General, properly applying himself to the circumstances of this matter, must have reached the conclusion, well before last Friday when the High Court, according to the Attorney-General, intervened in this matter, that Lionel Murphy could not go back on to the High Court of Australia this morning without some kind of further inquiry. I would say to the Attorney-General that, if he had not reached that conclusion before last Friday, then he is not fit to occupy the office he now holds in the Hawke Government because no Attorney-General properly applying his mind to the circumstances of what has transpired could have done other than to have reached that conclusion. So, I would say to the House that this Attorney-General is deserving of the strongest possible censure. He has handled this matter in a negligent, bungling fashion. He has not only damaged his Government but, more importantly than that, he has damaged an institution that the Australian public holds more dearly than any government, whatever its political persuasion, and that is the High Court of Australia. On those grounds the Attorney-General and this Government are deserving of the strongest possible censure of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Is the motion seconded? Mr Spender —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.14) —I reject the accusations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I reject them on political grounds, I reject them on legal grounds and I reject them on personal grounds. The honourable gentleman comes in here today as the pillar of integrity and states: `I come with clean hands in this matter'. This is the position: He addresses his remarks to the secret volume of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions which he has had in his possession since last Thursday morning. Have we heard anything about that from the honourable gentleman in terms of what he now says today? Mr Howard —If you release me from the obligation of confidentiality, I will. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! It is obvious that honourable members are going to attempt to disrupt this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has moved what is, in effect, the most important motion that can be moved in this House, which is a censure of the Government and of the Attorney-General. It is not just a motion of censure of the Attorney-General; it is a motion of censure of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence and the Attorney-General, who has been called upon to give an account of his stewardship, should also be heard in silence. I ask honourable members to give both the Attorney-General and the House that dignity. I call the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point that volume 2 is a confidential report that was given in confidence to the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday morning. If there was some issue in that which adverted to the continuance of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy on the High Court of Australia, I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might have at least raised the matter in some way or another. Mr Howard —Didn't you listen to me yesterday? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am listening to the honourable member. Opposition members should not come in here today on the basis that this is all a surprise. I point out that the Leader of the Opposition knows more than his colleagues about this matter; he knows what is in that volume and he knows that much of it has already been the subject of investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. I am making these points because members of his Party were part of that Senate Committee and they made findings about all or most of these matters. These are matters of record. Opposition members come in here today on the basis that something has been hidden. I will read to honourable members what the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), and Senator Chaney said on 29 April: In view of the jury's finding in the trial of Mr Justice Murphy, the Opposition does not propose to take Parliamentary action in terms of section 72 of the Constitution based on the specific issues dealt with in the criminal trial. Opposition members were quite clear about the position on 29 April. That is the point. What has happened since? Opposition members know what has happened since. The accusation is: Claims that the trial was politically motivated are plainly wrong. It should be remembered that the prosecution was launched by the Director of Public Prosecutions . . . I am very grateful for the final paragraph, which Opposition members will not mind my reading since I am under censure. It states: The Opposition welcomes the expression of confidence by the Federal Attorney-General in the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales, Mr Clarrie Briese. I thank Opposition members for that. The point at issue is this: The issues in the Stewart Royal Commission report naturally would be of concern to a Government which is in the process of examining the whole report, but as Opposition members know-I do not have to say this too loudly-the report was made confidential on the basis that there are going to be prosecutions, action and people involved in the courts and it cannot be discussed here. We assume from what the Leader of the Opposition has said today that he has already made up his mind that His Honour Mr Justice Murphy should not be on the court. Mr Howard —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What other issue does the Leader of the Opposition know of? Has he raised one today? He has not raised one. The only other issue surely must be something else that he knows of and has not raised. Let us make it very clear that all matters are within the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition. Can he think of something to raise? Can he do it? No. He raises this stupid issue here and says: `There must be something wrong because the High Court of its own volition has had a meeting amongst its own judges'. Is it not entitled to have a meeting amongst its own judges? Is it not entitled to do that? What particular issue was the Government going to hang its hat on in terms of making some further inquiry at this stage? Mr Tuckey —You are like a drowning man. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If I am a drowning man, I would hate to see the honourable member in view of his conduct recently. Let me make it very clear: The High Court, through the Chief Justice, asked me on Friday whether the Chief Justice could have a copy of the relevant sections of volume 2. Is it not my duty to give it to him? I did that. During that conversation I was mindful, for the first time, of the fact that there was to be a meeting of the judges yesterday. I was told of that on Friday. Naturally we were anxious to know what they might be going to determine at that meeting. Of course, they were going to discuss any matter that they felt might have affected His Honour Mr Justice Murphy's capacity to return to the Bench today. The issue is that in the process of that I said: `Well, we will see what the position is on Monday'. That was agreed-we would see what the position was on Monday. That happened to be yesterday, as honourable members know. Yesterday I was told by the Chief Justice to issue a statement. This is the position I am in as Attorney-General. The statement reads: The Chief Justice has advised the Attorney-General that this afternoon Mr Justice Murphy met his fellow judges, and arising out of that meeting it was agreed that he would voluntarily refrain from sitting on the Court until such time as he had had an opportunity to answer all matters allegedly involving him as identified in volume 2 of the Stewart Report as well as any allegations made by Mr Don Thomas. The Attorney-General was further advised that Mr Justice Murphy's statement by way of an answer is to be made available for consideration to the Court. They are the words of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). Let us make it very clear. That was the position yesterday. Everyone then said that that was a bit unusual, and we acknowledged that position. Nevertheless, one would not want to be saying: `Look, you should not have had the meeting. It was outrageously wrong for you to have the meeting. Now that you have had the meeting and you have agreed to have another one, we do not want you to have the other one. We want to step in and do something now'. On what basis are we going to move at this stage? The Leader of the Opposition knows full well what is in volume 2 of the Stewart report. The High Court, in the sense of what one would call natural justice, has said that its colleague ought to at least know what is in volume 2 as appertains to him. That is a matter that is known to the Leader of the Opposition- Mr Howard —Nothing else. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —And nothing else. I emphasise that. I am saying that it was made available at the request of the High Court. Mr Howard —Just the Murphy sections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. How many times does one have to get this through the Leader of the Opposition's head? How many times have I got to tell the Leader of the Opposition that we would not be able to make the whole of volume 2 available? He knows that that cannot be done. I have already explained that there are prosecutions pending. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He just wants to make accusations here on the basis that he feels that something is being hidden. He knows the issue more than anyone else. The Leader of the Opposition has never raised it in the context of Mr Justice Murphy not being entitled to remain on the Court until today. He has raised it in the context that he worried about the fact that the justices of the High Court decided to have a meeting. That was their initiative. Mr Howard —We are worried about you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition will always be worried about me because I might leave him where he is. I am very mindful of his conduct over the years. What action to take because of some sort of suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the position of the High Court! If the High Court is in any difficulty today, it is because of the political machinations of the Leader of the Opposition, raising an issue of censure of me and the Government because of what that High Court itself is doing. It was the High Court itself that decided to have the meeting. There is no evidence at the present time that we would be able to look at other than volume 2. The Leader of the Opposition knows what is in volume 2. From that point of view, justices of the High Court met and decided that one of their brother judges ought to have the opportunity to answer to them, and they happen to be judges, on allegations that have arisen out of volume 2. The point that we want to emphasise is the reference to an opportunity to do it. They agreed to adjourn their meeting yesterday to enable that to be done. All hell has broken loose today with the limited Leader of the Opposition acting as if there is something wrong, there is a cover-up, and he has to attack immediately. The only thing we should be complaining about, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is the fact that the justices of the High Court decided to have a meeting with their brother judge, that they agreed to let Mr Justice Murphy make an explanation, and that they agreed to have another meeting. That is the position. Where does the Leader of the Opposition think that leaves the Government? Are we to move in on the basis that, because there has been a meeting of the High Court judges, we must immediately assume that we have to take action? On what basis would we take action? Would we take notice of the expression of a view that they might have? That would be very relevant to the future of the High Court and to the future of Mr Justice Murphy. Would it not be relevant to know what the High Court judges consider to be the position? We are talking about the proper conduct of an Attorney-General and the proper conduct of a government. Is it not very relevant at least to listen to any views that might be expressed by the justices of the High Court? Do members of the Opposition want to deny them that? How ridiculous that would be. How unprincipled Opposition members are to move a censure motion on the grounds of damage to the High Court. They know the Government's position. As far as we are concerned, if the High Court had made some of its views known yesterday that would have been welcome. It decided to make the point that it wanted to hear His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, and we have been asked by it to make available to him the relevant sections of volume 2 so that he can reply to them. We want to make it very clear that what we are doing here is in full accord with a request from the High Court and with the competence of the High Court. It is in full recognition that we are anxious to preserve the integrity of the High Court. The Opposition itself admitted on 29 April, through its shadow spokesman, that it would not further pursue section 72 of the Constitution in regard to Mr Justice Murphy. The only avenue we have is section 72. Opposition members know that. The Parliament has no other avenue. That is the position. Mr Sinclair —What are you doing to enable us to discharge that responsibility? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am astounded to hear the right honourable gentleman opposite say in surprise `What?'. That is the position. If there is to be any action it has to be a parliamentary process. Let me make the Government's position very clear. I think any government and any parliament would welcome the High Court being in a position to express a view about matters. On that score the High Court justices' statement today makes their position very clear. They issued a statement today in which they said: `We have had discussions with His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, and he sought an opportunity to see the relevant material of the confidential volume'. Are we to assume that because that has happened we have to stop any further meetings, that we have to move in here to do something? The honourable gentleman opposite is saying: `Murphy ought to be off the Bench. He is not fit to be there'. He has already prejudged the issue. That is what he has done. He has done it deliberately, out of malice and out of personal conviction. Honourable members opposite have no more knowledge of the matter than they did last week, and nor have any of us. We do not have the opportunity to discuss the matters with Mr Justice Murphy, but members of the High Court have that opportunity. They are taking that opportunity and will continue to do so. They will form a view as to the-- Mr Howard —Form a view? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Naturally. Does the honourable gentleman want them just to say: `Oh well, we had a discussion with Mr Justice Murphy but we are not going to tell you anything'? Does he think that will be the position? I doubt it very much. Following the request by His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, the justices of the High Court have said: `We agree to postpone further discussion until such time as Mr Justice Murphy has made his response'. I can tell honourable members opposite that there will be another meeting of the High Court and there will be another meeting between Mr Justice Murphy and the High Court. I do not object to that, and neither does the Government. We would then know the position of the High Court. I reject right out of hand the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition was caught by surprise by this matter. He has had volume 2 all the time, and the statement he has made today ought to be thoroughly rejected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.29) —We have heard from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) one of the most astonishingly disorganised defences ever offered by any first law officer, I should think, in this country or anywhere else. Let us start with some of the things that he said. I listened in wonderment as he said to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) across the table `Why do you not address the secret volume?' as though he wanted us to address-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes. Mr SPENDER —Yes, he says. That is the issue. The point that does not seem to have penetrated the mind of the Attorney-General is that we cannot address the secret volume because it is secret, because it is confidential. Does he not understand that? We have never addressed that volume because it is confidential. We have not referred to the contents of that volume, as the Attorney-General well knows. The Attorney-General will find no reference being made to it in here, or anywhere else. Mr Lionel Bowen —What is the basis of the speech? Mr SPENDER —What is the basis of the speech? The basis of the censure motion is the Attorney-General's extraordinary conduct. If that does not enter into his mind-- Mr Lionel Bowen —You haven't even got volume 2. Mr SPENDER —He really does need-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! I ask the honourable member to address himself to the matter rather than to answering interjections. Mr SPENDER —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me just take one by one some of the things the Attorney-General said and try to put them into order, because it is very hard to fit the Attorney-General's thoughts into any order at all. He said that there were issues in the confidential report-the report that we cannot refer to-that would naturally be of concern to the Government. He asked: What other issues are there? Since he has posed that question, let me give him an answer. He may recall that the Director of Public Prosecutions made a decision this week. The Attorney-General would have read about it if he was not advised of it. That decision was not to proceed with a fresh charge against His Honour Mr Justice Murphy. In that decision the Director of Public Prosecutions made it plain that he was not going to follow written advice of senior and junior counsel to the effect that a fresh charge should be laid against His Honour Mr Justice Murphy. I put these questions to the Attorney-General: Does the Attorney-General really say that that was a matter of no consequence? Does he really say that that is not another issue that needs to be examined? Does he suggest that that is not something that would not occasion concern? Does he think that it is possible, that it is conceivable, for His Honour to resume his position on the Court without any doubts whatsoever arising out of that joint opinion? It surely must be determined one way or another, and it should be determined as quickly as possible. That is common sense, because otherwise His Honour Mr Justice Murphy will be allowed to go back on to the High Court Bench with that matter hanging over his head. How could the Attorney-General possibly think that there is nothing that needs to be considered? He asked: `On what basis have they moved the censure motion?'. The answer is that if the Attorney-General wanted to and was willing to make a decision he would understand very clearly that the High Court cannot make a decision. His Honour the Chief Justice obviously felt so clearly that the Court's position was being misrepresented that he took the course of issuing the statement that we all have before us today. Let me remind the House once more of what that statement said: Yesterday there was a meeting of the Justices of this Court, including Mr Justice Murphy. In some way, a misunderstanding of the intentions of the Justices has arisen. Let it be quite plain that the misunderstanding did not come from this side of the House. It did not come from the Opposition; it came only from the Government. As soon as it became apparent to the mind of the Attorney-General that there was a misunderstanding, what should he have done? He should immediately have corrected it. How could he possibly view the morning's headlines and the editorials without understanding that, on his present story, there was a gigantic misunderstanding as to what was going to happen. For example, the Australian devoted an editorial to it, headlined `Court acts where Government failed'. The headline in the Age stated: `High Court to judge Murphy'. Could anything be clearer? There could be no clearer misapprehension than that on the basis of what the Attorney-General tells us is the present situation. I go on to what Mr Gregory Hywood had to say in the Australian Financial Review, in a front page article headed `Murphy to be judged by his peers'. The article opens with these words: In the face of Justice Murphy's decision not to resign, despite qualms over his return to the Bench by his peers, the High Court has decided to judge him itself. Is that not incontrovertibly plain? Was it not plain to the Attorney-General that there was an extraordinarily damaging and unprecedented misapprehension in the minds of the public and in the minds of the media as to the course that the Court was taking and as to the role that the Court was going to take? Why did the Attorney-General not step in and immediately correct that impression? He did not do so. He had until lunch time to do so. What happened? Only when a statement was issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court did he do anything. Let me say lastly, in relation to some of the specific points that the Attorney-General raised about the High Court, that he put the High Court in a position, as it were, of resolving the matter. Let me be perfectly plain: The Court has offered no direction to this Government. It cannot give a direction to this Government. It is for the Government to determine what it should do if it believes that there are issues that need consideration under section 72 of the Constitution. It is plain to every observer that there are those within the Government who believe that there are issues that need to be considered within section 72 of the Constitution. Yet, this extraordinary false impression was allowed to remain and we had the equally extraordinary performance by the Government in trying to avoid responsibility for the conduct of a matter which is vested by the Constitution in this Parliament and not in the High Court. Let us recall the sequence of events. On Monday of last week, His Honour Mr Justice Murphy was found not guilty. It was then made plain that His Honour was going to return to the High Court. Last week two significant events took place. First of all, there was the release of the report on the Age tapes of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. There was immediate speculation about what was in the confidential volume. That is something that we on this side of the House have not referred to, but it is on the public record and it is a matter of public speculation that seven specific matters were put to Mr Justice Murphy. That is the first item. The next item, as I have said, was the joint opinion given by Mr Callinan and his junior. The Attorney-General has access to that joint opinion. Should he not have immediately called for it? How could he possibly sit by and say: `Look, true it is that there is a joint opinion, but I am not going to pay attention to it'? Did he not know of its existence before the announcement was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions that he would not go forward with charges? Of course the Attorney-General must have known. So the Attorney-General knew. When he got the Stewart Royal Commission reports he knew the effect of what was in them insofar as Mr Justice Murphy may have been mentioned. The Attorney-General knew of the advice of Callinan and his junior to the effect that Mr Justice Murphy should be charged. Were not those matters that needed to be considered? How could he possibly have said what he said on the public record as recently as yesterday? He said: Well Cabinet has met tonight, and they're quite satisfied to think that the High Court has had a discussion with Mr Justice Murphy and internally at the moment the matter may be able to be resolved. But the Government was put on notice only last Friday that there was some uncertainty about the position. It wasn't until Friday we knew there was a meeting being held today. If that meeting can resolve the matter well and good. Is that not the core of the problem? The Attorney-General has come into the Parliament and said: `It was only last Friday that we knew there was some uncertainty about the position'. What position is he talking about? It is the position of Mr Justice Murphy. What issue does this relate to? It relates to Mr Justice Murphy going back to the High Court. I ask the Attorney whether it did not occur to him that with the speculation in the public arena surrounding the confidential volume and with the existence of a joint advice by senior and junior counsel to the effect that a High Court justice should be charged-a justice who had only just been acquitted by a jury on a quite separate matter-those matters were extraordinarily important? Did they not strike the Attorney as having a bearing on whether Mr Justice Murphy should go back to the Court? Did he not consider that, if the judge were to go back to the Court on Tuesday, in accordance with his stated resolve, there may be problems of public perception about whether he should or should not return, that the Court might be damaged, that its integrity might be questioned and that there might be speculation about its standing and its dignity? Did these matters not occur to the Attorney-General? If they did not, how is it possible that he can be the Attorney-General of this country and be the person who must consider fundamental constitutional problems when they arise? Did he not seek advice before the matter was drawn to his attention by the High Court as to whether there were issues which concerned Mr Justice Murphy and which needed to be examined before he went back on to the Court? If he did not, I regret to say that he has not the least understanding of his job. Mr Lionel Bowen —You do not know what you are saying. Have you looked at the second volume? Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General gave that volume to us. I have read it and I make no reference to it because I cannot, despite the invitation to us to refer to the secret volume. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Court did not have volume 2. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General interjects that the Court did not have volume 2. Once again this illustrates that he does not understand the problem. Under section 72 of the Constitution if there is a matter touching misbehaviour of a justice or a judge in the Federal court system, there is only one body that can deal with that matter-the Parliament of this country. No one else can deal with it. It is not only dangerous constitutionally, it is not only cowardly, but it is also unwise in the highest degree to seek to transfer responsibilities from the government of the day, which must make up its mind as to whether there is a matter that needs to be considered, to a court and to hope that somehow that court will resolve the political issues that concern this Government. The political issue is this: There are divisions within the ranks of the Government. One of the consequences of those divisions is that if the Government had taken action to establish a commission of inquiry into Mr Justice Murphy, insofar as matters are arising or may arise under section 72, there would have been the most God almighty brawl in the ranks of the Government Party. We all know that. So what was done? In order to avoid a break in the ranks and the kinds of divisions that have been made apparent by, for example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) when he made it clear in an off the cuff interview that he thought there was no impediment to Mr Justice Murphy's return to the Court-and the Foreign Minister would have understood that position-- Mr Hawke —He referred to the legal right. Mr SPENDER —The Prime Minister interjected that the Foreign Minister was referring to the legal right. I hope when the Prime Minister gets up he will affirm this Government's position one way or the other. Does this Government believe that there should be an examination of matters touching and concerning Mr Justice Murphy? Does it hope that the High Court will resolve those matters for it? If nothing happens and the High Court says that it cannot do anything as it is saying now-and Mr Justice Murphy is there-what will this Government do? The Prime Minister must be able to tell us that and tell us that bluntly and directly if he wishes to do so. However, judging by his track record in this regard, I do not believe he will wish to do so. Let me sum up. We have unprecedented speculation; we have had no opportunity taken by this Government to seek to resolve matters; we have an unprecedented avoidance of responsibilities by this Government; we have a transference of responsibility to the High Court in the hope that that Court will determine matters for the Government and force Mr Justice Murphy to resign and therefore incur whatever odium follows from that; and we have a failure on the part of the Attorney-General and the Government to understand that at the end of last week there were problems relating to Mr Justice Murphy going back to the High Court. Those problems arose out of public speculation concerning the Stewart Royal Commission and the joint opinion that said that Mr Justice Murphy should be charged with a further criminal offence. If the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General do not understand these important matters they should not be in this House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.46) —This motion is totally unfounded and is probably the most contemptible censure motion that has ever been moved in this place by this totally contemptible Opposition. At the outset let me make it clear that I and this Government have total and unqualified confidence in the competence and integrity of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I will now proceed to establish why that is so. Right at the beginning I will pick up some of the latter remarks of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). He went to the statement issued today by the Chief Justice and sought to find comfort in a sentence in that statement. That sentence began: Yesterday there was a meeting of the Justices of this Court, including Mr Justice Murphy. The second sentence said: In some way a misunderstanding of the intentions of the Justices has arisen. The conclusion from honourable members opposite is that the Attorney-General was responsible. Is it not surprising then that both this statement today, issued by the Chief Justice, and the statement issued on his behalf yesterday by the Attorney-General, were discussed by the Chief Justice with the Attorney-General before their release? In the discussion that the Chief Justice had today with the Attorney-General before the release of this document there was not one word, not one syllable, of criticism of the Attorney-General by the Chief Justice. Where does that put us? I will tell the House: The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has made not a single word of criticism. He is not critical of what the Attorney-General has done because there is no ground for criticism of the Attorney-General. However, members of this benighted Opposition put themselves above and beyond the Chief Justice, who has no criticism of my Attorney-General, but they do. The problem facing this country is that it has an Opposition that has automatically inserted into its eye the prism of dishonour. Members opposite are themselves dishonourable people and every issue at which they look, they look at through that prism of dishonour. The tragedy is that members of the Opposition come there with this hypocrisy. They profess their concern for the institution of the High Court, but by their every word and action they seek to bring it into disrepute. What are the facts in this matter? I will give them to the House. First of all, we had the acquittal of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy and in respect of that acquittal-and this is the first item in the sequence of events last week-the position put on behalf of the Opposition was that in view of the jury's finding in the trial of Mr Justice Murphy it would not propose to take parliamentary action in terms of section 72 of the Constitution based on the specific issues dealt with in the criminal trial. That was the Opposition's position at the beginning of the week. What happened then? On Wednesday of last week the Government received the reports of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions and immediately on receipt of the reports-both volume 1 and the confidential volume 2-the processes were initiated involving the Attorney-General to undertake the appropriate examination of the reports and recommendations of the Royal Commissioner so as to inform ourselves of the appropriate action to take in the circumstances. On Friday what happened? Did the Attorney-General, in the terms of the pathetic language of those moving and seconding this motion, attempt to transfer responsibility from government to the High Court? Did the Attorney-General ring up the Chief Justice? I will tell the House what happened. The Chief Justice contacted the Attorney-General. That was the course of events. The Attorney-General did not contact the Chief Justice. The concern put by the Chief Justice to my Attorney-General was that the High Court had some worries-and obviously I have to be delicate about this in deference to everyone involved in the High Court-and some problems. It wanted the opportunity of examining this. In the course of that discussion, which was first on the telephone and then with the Attorney-General meeting with the Chief Justice of the High Court in the High Court, the Attorney-General was told that members of the High Court had in fact arranged to have a meeting with Mr Justice Murphy on Monday of this week. That was the information given to my colleague the Attorney-General, that at their initiative they were going to have a meeting to consider this matter. The Attorney-General obviously took note of that. That was something that the Attorney-General, I and the Ministers considering this on Sunday and then the Cabinet on Monday morning when it first began its consideration, properly took into account. Do honourable members think that the people of Australia would begin to tolerate a situation in which this Government, having been told by the Chief Justice of the High Court that members of the High Court were going to be looking at this matter, that they were going to have discussions with Mr Lionel Murphy, said: `Thank you very much. It is nice to hear that. We will take no account of that at all'? It would have been intolerable if the Attorney-General had taken that point of view or had recommended such a course of action for this Government. What we did, of course, was to say that it was entirely appropriate that the members of the High Court should discuss this matter. In fact, it was put to the Attorney-General. The thought would not have entered his mind-it certainly would not have entered my mind or the mind of any other member of the Government-to suggest to the High Court that it should meet. Further than that, it was entirely appropriate that this Government, which has acted with total propriety and caution in this matter, should itself not rush to conclusion as to the appropriate course of action without allowing the process properly initiated by the High Court to run its course. Would it be suggested by any objective observer that it would not be a relevant consideration for the Government to take into account what the attitude of the High Court judges might be on this matter? The Opposition has tried to say that they were not conducting an inquiry. Of course, it is obvious to everyone that it was not within the capacity or the constitutional powers of the High Court to conduct a full inquiry into this matter. How could it? It was not a suggestion that it was going to do that. However, members of the High Court have given an opportunity to their fellow judge, Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, to express to them in written form his position in regard to those matters contained in the confidential volume-volume 2-of Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission report. Is it not appropriate that they should make that judgment? It is now obviously an open secret that in that confidential volume 2 there are matters concerning Mr Justice Murphy. He requested, and his brothers have granted him, the right to give in written form his response to those matters. Could any reasonable person suggest that that process is not relevant to the Government's consideration? Let me make this clear: What we are saying is that that does not make the Government functus officio, that that is the end of it. Of course, as the statement of yesterday which was authorised by the Chief Justice and which was incorporated in the Cabinet's decision, says: The Attorney-General was further advised- let me emphasise this to the House and to members of the Opposition, if they can get it into their bigoted skulls- that Mr Justice Murphy's statement by way of an answer is to be made available for consideration to the Court, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Democrats. It was going to be made available to the Court. What did the Court say today? The last sentence of a statement by the Chief Justice states: The other members of the Court agreed to postpone further discussion until Mr Justice Murphy has made such response as he wishes to make. In other words, in their statements, of yesterday and of today, they make it clear that they will receive the written statement of Mr Justice Murphy and they will have further discussions on it. Clearly, they are not going to be issuing a judgment of the High Court but they will be, obviously, coming to some conclusion. They cannot have a written response from him and then not consider it and come to some conclusion. I suggest that every reasonable member of this House-and there are few on the other side-would recognise that it is appropriate that this Government, before it exercises its duty and responsibility in this matter, should have available to it an understanding of what is the reaction of members of the High Court. It is impossible for this Government to discharge its primary duty, which arises under section 72 of the Constitution, without allowing the members of the High Court to go through that process-a process which was initiated, not by the Attorney-General in some attempt to transfer responsibility, but by the Chief Justice of the High Court himself. Speaking on behalf of this Government, we are not going to be disrespectful to the High Court and say to it: `You can have your exercise and it is irrelevant to this Government'. Let us look, therefore, in terms of what I have said, at the language of the censure motion so that it can be rejected, as it should be, comprehensively and unequivocally by this House. The motion refers to the words `incompetent, bungling and negligent manner'. Not one step that has been taken by the Attorney-General has been incompetent, bungling or negligent. He has acted with perfect propriety, competence, diligence and expedition at every point. Let me go to the next point. The motion states that his action has `compromised and embarrassed the High Court'. What a presumption from these people when the Chief Justice of the High Court himself has made it perfectly clear that there is not one element of dissatisfaction on the part of members of the High Court as far as the Attorney-General is concerned. There is the position of the High Court-there is no embarrassment at all. The miserable people on the other side of the House-particularly their miserable Leader, who is going down and down in public estimation, who has gone to the bottom of the polls in terms of his total incompetence in the area of economics and who has got down into the gutter with the least likely members of his Opposition-now seek to usurp the function of the High Court itself. Where the High Court will make no adverse judgment on the Attorney-General, he seeks to make an adverse judgment. The people of this country will make their judgment about him. The Leader of the Opposition also refers in his motion to the `denial to Parliament of its opportunity of exercising its rights under section 72 of the Constitution'. There has been no such denial; there will be no such denial. This Government will consider this matter in the light of the process being undertaken by the High Court. There will be no transfer or abrogation of the rights and responsibilities of this Government. When we have considered the position of the High Court, the conclusions that it may come to and the form in which they may come, if we believe as a government that the invocation of the processes of section 72 is necessary, that will be done. This is a contemptible Opposition. This is a contemptible motion and it should be thrown out. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. 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. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC. Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N. Halverson, R. G. Smith, W. Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W. Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidHoward, J. W. Webster, A. P. Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, 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. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AlanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hawke, R. J. 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. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Hurford, C. J. Nehl, G. B. Staples, P. R. Edwards, Dr H. R. Beazley, K. C. Downer, A. J. S. Darling, E. E. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-I wish to inform honourable members that I have approved the Australian Telecommunications Commission exercising powers it has under section 10a of the Telecommunications Act to form a subsidiary company. Telecom has formed a wholly owned subsidiary company under the Companies (Victoria) Code known as Telecom Australia (International) Ltd. The company has been established to enable Telecom to respond to a tender for international consulting and project management work, in respect of the Indonesian Telecommunications Authority, Perumtel. Six copies of the company's memorandum and articles of association have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —by leave-The Opposition agrees with the decision of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). We believe that the formation of a subsidiary company by the Australian Telecommunications Commission is a sensible thing for it to be doing. Regardless of how Telecom Australia is constituted, it is extremely important that Australian expertise be used in order to try to earn export income for this country. In the case of Indonesia this would be an extremely important bridge building exercise between the two countries in the event that Telecom were successful in getting this tender. I believe that in regard to a number of our statutory authorities, as well as the private sector, it is extremely important that Australian expertise in high technology and other engineering and related fields is used in South East Asia and the South Pacific on a commercial basis operating as effectively as possible. This is important for Telecom in order for it to extend its own knowledge of the application of its technology to different terrains and, at the same time, hopefully boosting its revenue so it can also then proceed to improve its capital investment within Australia itself. 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 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 John Brown,Mr Fife,Mr Howe,Ms McHugh,Mr Martin and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Blunt,Mr Drummond,Mr Halverson and Mr Reith. 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: Persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 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 Fife,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodges and Mr Reith. 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 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce 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 remain 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 we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interests of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that: This country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at its source, as follows: Firstly, a 2% annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6%. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That if funding is cut for pre-school education as proposed by Government, all 4 to 5 year old children in South Australia will suffer greatly; both educationally and socially; especially the many children with special needs requiring early detection and remedial help, and these and other children of many families, who will not be able to afford the high fees which will necessarily be charged. The system as it is caters for all children from all economic areas-surely this is as it should be-please leave things as they are. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and especially the dangerous powers vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and (ii) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in Government spending. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that any proposal by the Government to adopt a flat rate family allowance scheme would cause considerable hardship to low income families. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to give due consideration to the effects of such a proposal on Australian families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned believe that the quality of reception of the Brisbane SBS UHF television station is of a very poor quality in many of the Brisbane suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to erect a translator capable of providing a service comparable to that of the major cities in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. 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: (a) That Australia's record high interest rates, currently at levels up to four times higher than competitor O.E.C.D. member countries, are causing severe hardship and damage to this nations small business and farm sectors. (b) unless immediately reduced these artificially boosted interest levels will inflict irreparable harm to the national economy. (c) the individual initiative and job creation potential of the small business sector is in danger of being permanently crippled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (1) The government will immediately reverse its interventionist policy which is artificially boosting interest rates in Australia to their highest level in 50 years. (2) The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will honour their 1983 election pledge to bring interest rates down from their then level of 12.5%. (3) The Australian dollar will be allowed to float to find its own level in accordance with the Government's stated de-regulation objectives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: Your petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray. That a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of the Chirita family (father) Marin Chirita and (Fiance) Marc Codruta to be allowed into Australia and that the rights of Ion Chirita be recognised in Queensland. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That numerous provisions exist in industrial legislation and awards which purport to provide special protection to women workers but which have been shown to be detrimental to their achievement of equality in employment. Noting the relevant provision in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to which Australia is a party your petitioners request that urgent action be taken to ensure that these legal barriers to equality be removed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Languages Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Languages programs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programs could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that farmers' choices of seed material may be restricted due to the controls placed on the use and propagation of seed stocks; 5. Plant Variety Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the farmer, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax-payer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's agricultural resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 destabilising 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 weapon 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 Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that: The youth of Australia desire a secure future. Australians desire a world in which international co-operation is a high priority. Young people want a speedy end to international & national terrorism and conflict. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia do all within its power to achieve these goals. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices. (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully request: 1. That the government increase the proportion of Australian food aid going to areas outside central government control. The present formula is to give 1 tonne of food to non-government areas for every 3 tonnes to the central government. We request Mr Hayden to reverse this ratio in order to reflect the actual needs. 2. That the government use every means available to pressure the Ethiopian government to allow international aid, freely given, to pass freely to the non-government areas, particularly Tigray and Eritrea. 3. In view of Sudanese support of Ethiopian refugees, and the drought in that country, now as severe as that in Ethiopia, we request that Australian aid to the Sudan be substantially increased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of 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 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 Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) 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 Australian Government provision of: 1. Official recognition of the ANC and SWAPO as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia; 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the ANC and SWAPO 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 ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable 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. 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 the State of Queensland 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 the present justice system in this country or 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 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 Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. 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 the Cowper 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 Nehl. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. 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 worlds 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 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 Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Somerset Dam in the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we object to the hasty and ill conceived relocation of the public telephone facility at Somerset Dam on the grounds that- (a) it does not meet the needs of the area; (b) it does not have the support of the local Community; (c) it is open to vandalism; (d) it is poorly lit. Your petitioners therefore request that: A further public telephone service be made available at the previous location or if this is not possible that the present public telephone service be resited at its previous location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the 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 union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limit the investor's ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 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 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 Employers 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 that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Land Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The adverse effect of the Government's economic and other policies on young Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.21) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. 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. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Hurford, C. J. Nehl, G. B. Staples, P. R. Edwards, Dr H. R. Beazley, K. C. Downer, A. J. S. Darling, E. E. Wilson, J. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.25) —by leave-I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the remaining sittings of this week on Wednesday 7 May at 9 a.m. and Thursday 8 May at 9 a.m. It is merely to give the House an additional two hours sitting time in which to debate the remainder of the program set down for this week. I have advised the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) of the move, and it will enable us to facilitate more debate in the House on the major matters coming before us over the next two days. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.26) —The Leader of the House (Mr Young) makes this motion sound all sweetness and light. One would think that the business of government was in the very best of hands, that there were no traumas about taxation, no problems about a bungling, inept Attorney-General, no difficulties about the membership of the High Court and no difficulties about the opportunities for small business, for families, for farmers and all the people in our community. It is on that basis, therefore-of our expressing continuing concern that the Parliament has a maximum opportunity to debate matters of importance to the community-that we do not object to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. However, I suggest to him that, because we have been so forthright, so willing, so concerned and so supportive, he will see it appropriate that, instead of introducing the guillotine or the gag during the course of the debate on the two tax measures coming before the House tomorrow and on Thursday, he be prepared to ensure that if the debate is not completed it continues on the next occasion the House meets. Indeed, should he wish to return next week for us to resume the debate on the tax Bills, we would be always willing to meet his request. Indeed, quite seriously, the people of Australia need to know that we are to be given two very brief days to look at two Bills which will catastrophically change the financial circumstances of many tax paying Australians. They are two Bills in their packages which affect every citizen of this country, and we are most concerned on this side of the House to have both an adequate opportunity to consider them at the second reading stage and also an opportunity to deliberate on their detail in Committee. We regard anything less than a full debate on both packages as totally unsatisfactory and we would be therefore not only supporting this measure but looking forward to supporting the Leader of the House when he introduces whatever motion he sees fit to perhaps extend the sitting hours through next week. Perhaps he would like to sit all day Friday. Perhaps it is desirable to continue the sittings through until when the House is scheduled to return. We would be quite pleased to debate those matters and, of course, to consider further the responsibilities of this Parliament under section 72 of the Constitution with respect to the membership of the High Court. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.28) —in reply-I welcome the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) in saying that honourable members opposite see the necessity to sit an extra couple of hours. On the matters that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has raised about the extra time, I will look at the matters of public importance for the next two days and the general business items set down for Thursday, to see whether more time can be made available to us. I thank the right honourable member for his suggestions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.29) —The amendments to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act before the House this afternoon are of their nature quite significant and have the support of the Opposition. The proposal seeks to amend the Act which was first introduced and debated in this House in 1974. The purpose of the original legislation was, primarily, to give the Government a mechanism by which the Commonwealth could identify, evaluate and co-ordinate direct and indirect impacts of Commonwealth decisions on the Australian environment, whether they be physical or social. The purpose of the Act has been to upgrade the role of environmental factors in decision making so that they are considered along with economic, technical, financial and other considerations before decisions are taken. The administrative procedures established under the original Act involved the Minister responsible for an environmentally significant proposal submitting information to the Minister responsible for the environment, which was then assessed. A decision was then made by the Minister as to whether an action is environmentally significant and whether an environmental impact statement is required. The Environmental Assessment Branch in the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment currently has a staff of approximately 15 people. Over recent years they have had to consider thousands of proposals. About 100 have been subjected to an environmental impact statement. Only on two occasions has a public inquiry been required by the Department and these were both under the Whitlam Government, although the resulting decisions were made by the Fraser Government. The Minister is well aware that they were the Ranger inquiry and the Fraser Island inquiry. If an environmental impact statement is required, it must be prepared in accordance with specific guidelines under the Act. After appropriate examination of all the available public comment it is submitted to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment for evaluation. The Minister may then make a recommendation of what action he regards as appropriate. The background to the amendments proposed by the Minister is worthy of some consideration. In October 1979 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation tabled its first report on environment protection-the adequacy of legislative and administrative arrangements. The recommendations included in that report were for greater consultation with the States, restriction of Commonwealth involvement to areas of direct control, and the introduction of memoranda of understanding to be agreed between the Minister responsible for the environment and other Ministers of the Commonwealth Government within a period of six months of the proclamation of the amendments to the Act. Further, the report went on to suggest amendments to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act to allow the Minister for Science and the Environment, as he then was, to request and be provided promptly with information on proposals from Commonwealth Government departments and instrumentalities and to allow a Minister to recommend to the proponent Minister that the Act be revoked. The report from that inquiry was first tabled in 1979, that is some seven years ago and 3 years since the Hawke Government was elected. I find that, in itself, significant because we have been told on so many occasions by both the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen) and by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that environmental issues are of some significance to this Government; yet it was well into the second term of the Government before it made any attempt to introduce the amendments which were proposed in 1979 and recommended again by the House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee last year. The Government has not complied with the essentials of its own policy on environmental assessment. The 1982 and the 1984 environmental platform of the Australian Labor Party states that a Federal Labor government will: Review and amend the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75 to ensure that- The Minister for Environment can initiate action under the Act to enable an environment impact study to be prepared on any development project deemed of national significance. There is no effective definition, of what can be deemed `of national significance' in the Act as it currently stands or in the amendments. It continues: (d) Means are provided to enable individuals and groups to enforce the procedures of the Act. The Minister in his second reading speech tried to justify the Government's decision not to give to the Minister responsible for the environment, the power to invoke the Act by designating a proponent for a proposal. Nor has the Minister managed to introduce an effective memoranda of understanding between the DAHE and other Commonwealth departments and authorities to provide a basis to identify proposals which are environmentally significant and to be assessed under the Act. However, in 1979 when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recommended that such memoranda be developed, five departments and authorities agreed. They were the departments of Administrative Services, Aboriginal Affairs; and Housing and Construction, the Postal Commission, as it then was, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister, in his summing up on this debate today, to tell the House how many other departments have, in fact, been added to that rather unsatisfactory list. Mr Cohen —It is a Cabinet secret. Mr CONNOLLY —Let us make it a public one. As the world is reeling from the Chernobyl crisis of the last few days, it is undeniable that governments must take ultimate responsibility for the environmental impact of all their policies, whether they be in the area of energy and resources or even taxation. It is imperative that Commonwealth Government departments accept their responsibility to the Australian environment and utilise the expertise in a department and elsewhere to evaluate the impact of government projects and programs. I would like to take some of the time of the House in the context of this debate to make a few observations on the comparison between the way we have administered the environment in Australia under our constitutional provisions and the way other countries, notably the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, have administered their environments. The events of the last few days bear very serious examination because we are facing the constant problem that humanity's knowledge of technology, with all the advantages that can achieve may at the same time also bring upon us and upon our neighbours massive social, economic and environmental problems. We should be very pleased that in this Parliament and in Australia we are able to debate these issues in an open society with freedom of the Press. When problems of this nature are created, embarrassing though they may be to governments of the day, at least the Australian electorate has the right to know the facts. It is a matter for deep concern that the Soviet Union's handling over recent days of the Chernobyl disaster emphasises more clearly perhaps than any other way the fundamental differences which are there for all to see between liberal democracies on the one hand and Soviet-style controlled states on the other. On Sunday, 27 April the Soviet Union announced that there had been an accident the previous day at the nuclear-powered reactor at Chernobyl. The announcement followed a panic which spread across Europe following abnormally high readings of radioactivity in neighbouring countries. This accident involved a fire and explosion in a reactor causing the emission of dangerously high levels of radioactive material. It is reported that some 50,000 people have been evacuated from the site of the reactor and its surrounding areas. We were told that at least two people are reported dead, though frankly it is hard to believe those figures, while 20 to 25 are critically ill and about 200 others are hospitalised. Radiation at the accident site is still high at approximately 150 roentgens. It is worth noting that 400 is fatal. Meanwhile, radiation fission has been blown over a number of countries both to the east and to the west of the Soviet Union. The effects of radiation have been sufficiently serious to cause surrounding states to apply extraordinary precautions. Sweden has reported radiation of up to 100 times normal levels and the population has been warned against drinking rain-water in coastal areas. Finland has reported 10 times the normal level of radiation in some areas. West Germany has reported three times the normal level in northern districts. In Austria, children in the Carpathia district are not being allowed to play outdoors, while in the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland where rains have been heavy, there has been identification of 10 times the normal radiation levels. In Greece four times normal radiation levels have been recorded and fruit and vegetables have to be washed thoroughly before consumption. Polish children are forbidden to consume milk and vegetables and given iodine injections, while milk from grain-fed cows has been taken off the market. Italy has had to destroy vegetables from contaminated regions in northern Italy and there are reports that the wheat crop of the Ukraine, which is the wheat bowl of Russia, has probably been very seriously contaminated. In addition, there is the constant problem of contamination of soil water courses as well as the environment in that area of the Ukraine. Even in Japan there has been advice that people should not drink rain-water after radioactive clouds brought levels 30 per cent higher than normal. It is clear that the impact of this disaster goes much wider than the immediate region in which the accident occurred. People in both western and eastern Europe have been endangered by the resulting radioactive fall-out. Yet there has been virtually a stunned silence from the Australian Government over the repercussions of this disaster. It has failed to act in a responsible manner to co-ordinate Australian experts to review the disaster, and has not expressed any concern to improve safety and design standards internationally including the Soviet Union. I would hope that the Australian Government, through the International Atomic Energy Agency at least and by supporting the proposals discussed in Tokyo this week, would be a party, and one of the first, to an international agreement to ensure that higher standards can be maintained for the protection of the interests not just of the nations which have nuclear power but of the surrounding nations. The greatest error in what has occurred at Chernobyl has been the grotesque inability and unwillingness of the Soviet Union to tell the truth to its own people or to the world and to persist with some extraordinary belief that, if one has a disaster and one keeps it quiet long enough, everybody will forget. Merely attacking the United States, which has been the Soviet Union's technique in recent days, does not improve one iota international understanding of what is indeed a very critical situation. I have mentioned these points merely to emphasise to the House that, in a country such as Australia, we talk about environmental matters to various degrees, depending on the emotionalism of the subject under review. Throughout it all there is the underlying fact that the continuation of humanity on this planet depends to a very large degree on the capacity of individual states to apply policies which are sensible and appropriate to the time. But, above all else, we are only part of an international reality. We have to share both the successes and the failures of our neighbours. In a field such as the generation of power from uranium, there is not the slightest doubt that the world must continue to use uranium energy, despite the views of the left wing. It is equally certain that we have to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that all nations which utilise nuclear power for peaceful purposes do so in a manner which protects the interests not only of their own people but of mankind generally. This man-made disaster of frightening proportions underlines the enormous responsibilities which governments must accept to ensure that developmental programs, whether they be for the generation of nuclear power, the utilisation of natural resources or the expansion of our cities, be consistent with what the natural environment will bear. Australia's history is not without its own environmental failures. These have included massive soil erosion, major bushfires, salinity, the introduction of foreign species such as rabbits and prickly pear, the pollution of our rivers and seas, Queenstown-type dieback of vegetation, atmospheric pollution in our capital cities, and serious atmospheric pollution associated with coal powered electricity plants as experienced in the Hunter Valley. While most of these examples of environmental degradation are primarily the responsibility of State governments, their impact can affect the lives of millions of people elsewhere. For that reason it is worth noting the views of Professor O'Connor of Murdoch University on this particular subject. I think his comments are very appropriate: If the last 10 years have proved anything around the world it is that, to be effective, environmental planning should arise from widespread public concern rather than be arbitrarily imposed from above. It is fundamental that the processes be seen as a whole, and legislation is not enough. We need the participation of an informed public-and the operative word here is `informed'. It would indeed be heartening if the rising consciousness of the need for scientific and technological responsibility were matched by a corresponding sense of responsibility and awareness in the general public. Those views are worth noting because, clearly, it is not just a role for government acting alone. Governments must lead and be prepared to follow in those areas of common concern where it can be demonstrated that the truth is understood and the facts of the situation are available for all to appreciate. It is for these reasons that the coalition supports the need for environmental protection and thus supports the amendments in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill, which will enable greater public consultation in complex administrative procedures for environmental protection. It is very difficult in many ways for the layman to comprehend the situation which exists today in environmental terms. In the face of burgeoning technology, we seem to have an inescapable increase of environmental problems. It is difficult for the layman to decide just where they are in the face of the growing volume of errors of fact that find their way into the media concerning environmental matters. This is a very serious problem and one which is becoming a major obstacle to the formation of sound public policies on environmental matters. Eminent experts hold opposite opinions from all sides of an issue. I often wonder that the ordinary citizen, who only wishes that the right decision be made, can be capable of determining fact when `truth' is asserted from so many points of view. Why is it that experts disagree on such matters? Why should there be endless controversies over such products as lead and asbestos, the effects of which on health have been known for many years? Are people being irresponsible or is there something about these problems that just naturally generates confusion? How can we gauge the public willingness to accept risks? If we are to make a contribution to the development of criteria for environmental quality, surely it is vital that the public's attitude to environmental risk taking be understood so that we can get on with the business of developing Australia without the endless bickering and arguments that seem to surround so much of our development proposals on a day to day basis. What is involved in the judgment of environmental quality? Clearly there is an urgent need to explore this before we can be faced with ever tightening controls and, ultimately, over-regulation. It seems that environmental quality itself is not directly measurable, but surely we should assess the risks so that when we weigh these on the balance of social values and public aspirations an acceptable level of environmental quality can be judged and hopefully defined. It seems that we must define environmental quality in terms of the environmental risks that are judged to be acceptable both by the people at large and by regulatory authorities whose responsibility it is to represent the people. This may be a broader definition of risks than that which is normally associated with environmental impacts where the concept of zero risk seems to be taken for granted. Nothing can be absolutely free from risk. Almost any intervention in the environment by one group in society or another can, under the right circumstances, adversely affect the rights of others by causing environmental damage. Because nothing can be absolutely free from risk, we must acknowledge that there are degrees of risk and, consequently, there will be degrees of acceptability of risk. It is the role of government in particular to encourage a community debate on the issues, provided we have the ability to give to the community the facts from all sides upon which it should be able to make a judgment. Before we set out to influence the future direction of environmental impact assessments and related matters, we must concern ourselves with developing an appreciation of the attitudes involved in the acceptability or non-acceptability of the risks perceived to be associated with various aspects of the environment. Because we have failed to understand the differences between these two activities, we have had to face major environmental misunderstandings over recent years. A review of Australia's experience with environmental procedures over the past decade more than confirms that really no one is totally happy with them. The public and conservation groups are unhappy because they feel the procedures do not go far enough and that they are only introduced after the decision to proceed has been made, while legislators and administrators also have difficulty in assessing genuine public attitudes and putting the ideas of scientists into practice. Many complex studies never seem to deliver the promised facts and often make decisions even more difficult. Miners and developers are unhappy because they do not always know where they stand and feel that the rules sometimes change along the way and appear to be very elastic, depending on who shouts loudest. Consequently environmental decisions may not be integrated into the planning process to the extent that they ought to be. There is unease among resource developers that they may be forced by regulatory authorities into studies that are expensive, often more expensive than necessary, and they are not even sure that the outcome of those studies will in fact be taken into account. There is above all the risk, which is always present, that the so-called consultants that do the work are not necessarily capable of coming up with the results that the proponents of the proposal may wish to see. Scientists and consultants are not happy because, in the face of uncertainties in knowledge and in environmental science, they feel compelled to give opinions on the basis of inadequate information and get little preliminary guidance from regulatory authorities. There is some truth in all of these attitudes, and the Government clearly must stop dallying around and delaying taking decisions on reports such as those which have been before this House in recent years, because of the very real difficulties that it is creating for those whose function it is to develop Australia. It is clearly the responsibility of government, State and Federal, to ensure that those developments are carried out and conducted in a manner which maintains the need to give the highest possible yield on the invested capital while at the same time minimising the risks of environmental damage in the long term. The Government's proposed amendments have failed to address the Australian Labor Party policy initiative, which was to amend the principal Act to provide means to enable public interest groups to ensure that the assessment procedures are adhered to. It is clear that the Government has also failed to provide for such assessment, with administrative procedures being so vague and with so much ministerial discretion that it would be difficult to show that procedures were not necessarily followed. Secondly, there is no necessarily available enforcement procedure, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, under which a third person could appeal against a decision made where assessment procedures may not have been fully followed. The coalition, despite these weaknesses, has welcomed the amendments in the current legislation, which provides for scaled down environmental impact statements, to be known as public environment reports or PERs. These are to be low cost statements to apply to proposals of minor environmental significance. The changes are as follows: There will now be a firm requirement rather than a vague obligation to provide information to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment about the need to provide an EIS. Secondly, under the proposed amendments the Minister will have a maximum of three months in which to respond to requests for information regarding an EIS. Thirdly, any commission of inquiry will have to report to the Minister within a set time period which will be laid down in its directions. These amendments are a valid attempt to streamline and thus reduce the cost of providing environmental impact information on projects, especially those of no great environmental significance. However, the Bill fails to clarify what is really entailed in a PER. Nor does it make clear at what level of impact it would apply. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in his second reading speech mentioned that there will be a series of administrative procedures, but he failed to detail any of these procedures in the amendments he proposes in that context. These matters are important because the basis of administrative procedures in relation to the proposed PERs will have a major impact upon the private sector, which actually has to operate within the context of amendments to this legislation. I am concerned about the capacity of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, for example, to ensure that the assessment branch will be able to handle the new PER procedures. As I said in this House when we debated this matter on 23 May 1985: There was a real problem at that stage that the staffing of the environmental assessment branch of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment was significantly below its capacity to operate under the Act as it then was. At that time there were 12 staff. I am informed that that number has now increased to 15, but if 15 staff were not sufficient to carry out the obligations under the Act in its original form, I think the Minister has a duty to assure the House that appropriate arrangements will be made to make sure that sufficient staff are available or that there will be other changes in his Department to ensure that the new PER procedures are adequately conducted under the terms of the Bill. I finalise my observations by saying that the Opposition is supporting these proposals. We do so in the belief that they will involve a number of simplifications to the excessive costs and delays which currently are in place under the old environmental assessment procedures. The introduction of PER procedures should be significantly helpful, especially to business which is involved in the development of Australian resources-ultimately to pay the bills which this Government has run up in recent years. For that reason we are supporting the legislation. However, it is important to ensure that it is carried out in a consistent manner which is sympathetic to the needs for protection of the environment while at the same time ensuring that sections of the community which have a point of view to express have the right and opportunity to do so, and that decisions are made in the most expeditious manner possible. It is the delays in the decision-making process which over the years have added many millions of dollars to the ultimate costs of projects. With the exception of two commissions of inquiry referred to primarily, I am unaware of any major project which has not proceeded ultimately, despite the significant delays which have often taken place, caused by various environmental groups and other organisations which have the right to a point of view. In no sense do I limit that, but they must be expressed within the context of an administrative system which ensures that these issues can be debated and discussed in appropriate forums and the matters expeditiously settled in the interests of the community. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.55) —I am pleased to speak on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill. I was very pleased to hear from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that this Bill will go through with Opposition support. The Bill before the House is a further example of this Government's care and concern for the environment. Indeed, I believe that when future historians look back they will view the care for the environment expressed by honourable members on this side of the House as one of the outstanding achievements of this Hawke Labor Government. Our record in regard to care for the environment will live long after we are no longer here. This Bill includes amendments to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act of 1974. All of these amendments are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Commonwealth environmental impact assessment process. The amendments follow a careful and comprehensive review of the Commonwealth EIS process which has been in operation for over 10 years. As honourable members will know, or indeed should know, the Act which this legislation will amend was introduced in 1974 by the Whitlam Labor Government at a time when environmental impact legislation had been enacted in only a few countries. Since that time, the need for such legislation has been widely recognised. I believe that over 40 countries now have some form of impact assessment legislation or are well advanced in preparing such legislation. The amendments now being debated can be regarded as fine tuning of a successful piece of legislation in the light of experience gained since its introduction. Many of the amendments are aimed at improving and increasing public participation in the environmental impact statements and Government decision making. This is consistent with this Government's view that the operations of Government should be as open as possible. There is no doubt that people today are more aware of the environment. We want to protect and enhance our environment. In recent years there has been a more general international as well as national acceptance of the means and processes by which the environment can be conserved and our resources better used. The Bill will continue to provide for the preparation, public review and submission of environmental impact statements for proposals of major environmental significance. The amendments will provide, however, for the preparation of public environmental reports for proposals with less complex or less important environmental implications. This, I believe, is very important. The PERs will generate more public participation. Proceedings will be opened up more to the general public. It will often be more appropriate to use public environmental reports than the EIS. The EIS system has often been a very complex, time consuming and expensive exercise. These statements, I am afraid, sometimes go in for overkill. Of course, many decisions in regard to the environment are State matters. Here I pay a particular tribute to the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales and successive State Ministers in that Government for their pioneering work in the environment. This Bill will apply where the Commonwealth Government is involved through a Commonwealth department or authority. Governments at all levels must never lose the ability to listen to local people in matters relating to the environment. They are the people who stand to lose most from any adverse decision. They are therefore strongly motivated in their drive to build up a wealth of information on the questions, and to develop a network of professional advice. I have a particular interest in this legislation because of recent announcements concerning the proposed move of the Royal Australian Navy and other defence-related activities to the Jervis Bay area. Although as a result of the last redistribution this area is no longer within my electorate, it is one in which I have a particular interest. As the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation was at pains to point out in its 1975 report on Jervis Bay, the area is one of outstanding beauty. Its environment is both unique and fragile. The area contains several rare species of flora and fauna, and its waters display a variety of corals. It also contains areas of considerable significance to local Aboriginal communities. Anyone who has visited Jervis Bay or been on a boat trip around its foreshores could not help but be impressed by its beauty. The area is renowned throughout Australia for its pure white beach sands and the clarity of the water. For these reasons it is an extremely popular recreational area not only for local people, many of whom have settled there upon retirement, but also for thousands of regular visitors from Wollongong, Sydney and Canberra. The area is also popular because of its excellent fishing. In fact, it is a very important fish-spawning ground, thanks to its abundant beds of seagrass. The seagrass also plays an important role in maintaining the extraordinary clarity of the bay's waters. Conversely, because the water is so clear, the seagrass grows well below normal depths. These are the very factors that make the bay's marine environment so fragile. Any increase in the water's turbidity will drastically affect the health of its seagrass and, in all probability, its fish population. For these reasons the 1975 report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation emphasised the environmental and recreational values of Jervis Bay and advocated the establishment of a marine reserve. It also recommended against the industrialisation and excessive urbanisation of the area. Now it seems that the Navy will be building up its presence in the area. Although I can see the logic of this decision from a defence and a planning viewpoint, and indeed from an economic point of view, I must say to this House that I am very worried at the possibility of irreparable environmental damage to the overall area, its beaches, the water, and especially the seagrass, which for thousands of years has contributed significantly to the charm and beauty of Jervis Bay. For these reasons, I was most pleased to learn that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, under the chairmanship of my colleague and friend the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who as usual is here in the House with me and who will follow me later in this debate, will be visiting Jervis Bay this year on 10 and 11 June to gain an overview of the present situation. Mr Milton —It is important. Mr HOLLIS —Indeed it is, and I will welcome the honourable member there. I see this as an important step in encouraging public participation in the environmental assessment of the naval transfer. Certainly, this is one area where it will be most important for our Government to obtain advice from and listen to not only experts but also the local people. I feel sure that this Government will approach any developments in the Jervis Bay area from an environmentally sound and responsible position, but I will personally follow developments very closely and do my utmost to ensure that no government of which I am a member will act with anything but the greatest respect for the bay's environment and for the principle of full and honest public participation at all stages of environmental assessment. Public participation has long been the centre of the environmental impact assessment process. The ability to obtain local knowledge and to seek public reaction to development proposals before decisions are taken has been held to be one of the strengths of the EIA process. However, participation in practice has often been characterised as tokenism. Critics have maintained that public comment on EISs relating to project development has been sought either following major decisions on a project or too far in advance of any decisions, when insufficient planning has been undertaken. In other instances, the public has complained that, having sought comment, the administering agency has provided no feedback regarding action taken as a result of that comment. This Government is well aware of the problems I have mentioned, particularly those relating to public participation. With the introduction of public environment reports, a proposal will be described, the environmental implications will be examined, and the necessary safeguards to protect the environment will be set out. A report will be prepared in circumstances where it is desirable that the public be made aware of the environmental aspects of a proposal and of measures to protect the environment, but where the preparation of an EIS is not warranted. At this time when public attention is focused strongly on questions of economic growth and development in Australia, it is important that we do not lose sight of the need to protect our environment. It is this Government's view that sustained and sound economic growth can be achieved in harmony with its goals for protecting the environment. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.06) —To many of my fellow Tasmanians, Federal environmental legislation is like a red rag to a bull because it is a matter of history, a matter of fact, that in recent years, to a large extent, much of Tasmania's destiny has been directly affected by legislation-namely, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, which was a product of the Whitlam Government. When we deal with such legislation, we should not deal with it on the basis that the current Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will always hold the portfolio. I want to make it very clear that in many ways the current Minister has acted commendably in approaching his ministerial duties. We are about to put on the statute books an amendment to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 which the Opposition does not oppose because it can be fairly argued that it actually improves the Act. That does not dissuade me from saying in this debate that when I look at the original Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, and bearing in mind the Tasmanian experience-I note the presence in the chamber of my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-I believe, quite frankly, that the original Act should be torn up and redrafted. I think it is bad law and it has been abused. It has been extended beyond its original intentions in a manner which I find totally unacceptable. The Minister, in his second reading speech, described the Act in the following terms: The Act is a cornerstone of the Government's environment protection legislation. At the end of his second reading speech, the Minister said; The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 is a major piece of legislation which, since its introduction, has significantly assisted Ministers in taking environmental implications properly into account in government decision making. I do not query that statement, but my complaint lies in the manner in which the original Act is being abused and misused by persons and parties whose interest is to obstruct and prevent development and the sort of economic progress to which the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) referred just a moment ago. Quite frankly-I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Franklin agrees-in Tasmania, we have had a gutful of their actions. Unfortunately, in relation to two major issues the entire force and power of the environmental movement-some of its members are quite lunatic in their actions-has been directed upon Tasmania. In one case, a decision which was taken by the Government of the day in Canberra had enormous implications for Tasmania. It led to a High Court case. The decision in the dams case will be well remembered by all honourable members present in this chamber. Tasmania still continues to suffer from that decision. I am not just talking about its suffering financially; I am talking about what the decision has done to our State and to the aspirations of Tasmanians. I share their sadness at what occurred. More recently we have had a situation of which the Minister was well aware and in which he was directly involved, leading to the agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian governments in December last year. I note but do not intend to debate the Minister's comments in relation to the situation that has transpired subsequently. In most cases I imagine the availability of a PER-and I do hate these acronyms-will mean a saving of costs to the developer because he will be relieved of the cost of an environmental impact statement. In other words, instead of having to provide an EIS the proponent will be up for only the cost of a public environment report and that will mean a saving of costs. I suppose it can be fairly said that, in some other cases where the Minister would not direct an environmental impact statement, the situation now is that the proponent will be up for the cost of a PER where previously there would have been no cost at all. The public should remember that it is the proponent who carries the burden of financing the environmental impact statement or the PER which is to be ordered as appropriate under the legislation. That is just another additional cost on development which a proponent is obliged to shoulder. I ask a rhetorical question. I know the Minister himself suffered to some extent because of the number of persons, many of whom appear to have no direct interest, who take advantage of the Whitlam legislation by becoming involved, in some cases to a substantial extent. Does the Minister really feel that section 10 of the Act as it currently stands is appropriate? It is being amended but the plain fact is, as I read section 10, that I or any other person in Tasmania could, for example, harass the Minister by notice in writing to him requiring him to inform on a wide range of environmental proposals in all sorts of other parts of Australia which have nothing at all to do with Tasmania. I note that the amendment in this Bill will mean that the Minister will bind himself and future Ministers to responding within a period of three months. Previously there was no time limit. I do not think it is uncharitable to suggest that there may well be people with all sorts of malevolent intents in their minds who might very well like to have the Minister tied up responding to numerous requests for information under section 10. This is where the whole legislation falls down in my view. As the honourable member for Franklin has pointed out on previous occasions, anybody can take advantage of the Federal environment legislation in broad to have anything that he or she thinks is of significance effectively recorded on a register. It is very easy to put something on the register and very difficult to get it off. While I concede that there would be many who would genuinely ask for particular parts of a particular State to be placed on the heritage register, the complaint I have is that it is damned easy to get them on the register, but very hard to get them off. Mr Cohen —That has nothing to do with this legislation. Mr HODGMAN —It has, because it is part of the package that your predecessor and philosophical father and mentor, Mr Whitlam, brought in and put on the statute books in 1974. I make as a general comment my complaint that the legislation is so widely drawn and so capable of abuse that people with minds that are not reasonable and rational can abuse it. I do not have to remind the Minister that there are lunatics in the conservation movement who have attacked not just people on our side of the House but the Minister himself in a most disgraceful manner when he has had the courage to make right decisions. It is a matter of record that what was done to the Minister on the occasion of his visit to Hobart a year or two back, I am now convinced, was done not by Tasmanians but by a group of itinerant Victorians who happened to be in the State at the time the Minister came. That is a fact. I refer to the incident when the Minister was entering the public buildings in Hobart and I take it no further than that. Those people were not Tasmanians. Mr Cohen —How about the 500 loggers who met me at Hobart Airport? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison does not need the ministrations of the Minister. Mr HODGMAN —That is all right. They were very decent, hard working people and it is about time that a few people here in Canberra realised that the timber industry in Tasmania, which is being properly run, employs one out of seven Tasmanians. Every time there is an amendment to the law or a change in government policy which impacts upon their livelihood, they take the view, in which we support them-the honourable member for Franklin has said this very eloquently, as have the honourable members for Bass (Mr Smith), Lyons (Mr Burr) and Braddon (Mr Miles)-that they should stand up and fight for their rights. I draw to the Minister's attention an article in today's Melbourne Age written by Stephen Mills which is sufficiently to the point for me to invite the Minister to comment in his response. It is relevant to the overall issues which are before us. It says this: The Federal Government is considering expanding its use of export licence controls to force the Tasmanian Government to restructure its timber industry. The move, which would be designed to protect native forests that are designated part of the national estate, would represent a big modification of Cabinet's decision last December to expand wood chip exports from the state. A legal opinion prepared by the Attorney-General's department is believed to have confirmed that the Federal Government has powers to force a change in Tasmanian logging for the domestic market. Because the Federal Government has the power to grant export licences, conservationists led by Tasmanian MHA, Dr Bob Brown, have urged that licences be withheld unless the Tasmanian industry agrees to limit logging in national estate forests. Mr Chynoweth —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I am ashamed to hear somebody say `Hear, hear'. Once again we have Victorian socialists telling us how to run Tasmania. I continue to read the article: The Federal and Tasmanian governments have been unable to agree on ways of implementing the Cabinet decision and more than four months later have yet to sign a joint statement on management of the state's forests. The agreement will be delayed by another month while the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray, is overseas. Just listen to this: Conservationists believe that with the Tasmanian elections over, the Federal Government is under less political pressure to help the woodchipping industry. Mr Goodluck —Who wrote this? Mr HODGMAN —Mr Stephen Mills of the Melbourne Age. The article continues: At the same time they argue that the Government must be seen to defend its conservation credentials. A recent inspection of the Tasmanian forests by prominent Government backbencher, Senator Graham Richardson (New South Wales) has added weight to this argument. Mr Chynoweth —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I am appalled that there are `hear, hears' from Moscow corner. I urge the Minister not to be sucked in by this sort of approach from people who are not interested in the future of Tasmania, who are not really even interested in the environment, but who are interested in making a political plaything of our State. I commend the Minister, not on everything, but on most of the things that he has done, for having been reasonable and rational. But he will not be here forever and this legislation, while it has its good points, certainly has its barbs and stings. Mr Cohen —I cannot survive any more praise from you. Mr HODGMAN —It is not the easiest thing in the world for me to praise any member of the Hawke socialist Government, so I will limit my comment to that. The amendment to section 6 of the principal Act gives this and future Ministers the power to require-that typical socialist word-the supply of information. Before that, the situation was that the Act did not give the Minister power to require. In his second reading speech the Minister said, in a delightful turn of phrase-- Mr Goodluck —Require? Mr HODGMAN —No, he did not say `require'. In the second reading speech he said that the legislation was not sufficiently clearly expressed. The Government will now amend it so that the Minister can `require'. I urge the Minister to be sparing in his requirings because Tasmania has had a gutful of requirements from Canberra over a period of 12 years since this Whitlam legislation hit the statute book. I will not vote against the Bill because it improves the Act, but I itch for the day when we can tear up the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and start again and do it properly. Tasmanians have no reason to be grateful for Mr Whitlam, for his Government or for that legislation. The fact that it was not opposed by the Opposition of the day does not affect one iota what I now say. That Act has been bad news for our State and, if it is used again to put Tasmanians out of work and to put Tasmanian businesses into bankruptcy, the conse- quence-- Mr Goodluck —And it got Sanders elected. Mr HODGMAN —It got Sanders into the Senate, but he is a oncer and he will be out next time. I conclude my remarks on these notes. I am grateful to the Minister but I do not like this law. I think the sooner we get back into government, which will be at the next election, and we rip up the legislation and do things properly, the better it will be for all Tasmanians and all Australians. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.21) —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I must state at the outset, before I refer to my prepared text, that we are looking after the people of Tasmania. This Government has decided to look after their environment for them because past Tasmanian Liberal governments and the present Liberal Government have done nothing in this area. They have allowed trees to be chopped down and the environment to be destroyed. In future Tasmania will be a beautiful place for the whole world to visit. It will be one of the few places in the world where we can see our natural environment in a pristine state. I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986. The Government has responded to recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I am proud to say I have been a member for the last two parliaments. In 1979 the Committee tabled a report on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The Government gave a partial response to the report in October 1984. In May 1985 the Committee tabled a further brief report. The Government responded to that report on 17 April 1986. In both the 1979 and 1985 reports the Committee recommended that the Act be amended to allow the environment Minister to trigger the legislation. The Government has not agreed with that recommendation. It argues that the power to trigger the legislation should remain with the proponent Minister but the matters which are considered to be environmentally significant will be clearly defined in memoranda of understanding between the environment Minister and other Ministers. The Committee also recommended that the environment Minister be empowered under legislation to request and be provided with information so that he can determine the environmental significance of a matter and make recommendations to the proponent Minister accordingly. This amending Bill provides that the environment Minister can request additional information, which must be supplied, but only after the proponent Minister has triggered the legislation by assessing that a project is environmentally significant. I am disappointed that the Government has not agreed to the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee which states: If after the consultation there is disagreement, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to recommend that action be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act; This recommendation seeks to give the Minister the final say. The decision by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to allow woodchipping to go ahead in Queensland is a good recent example of the need for this power. An environmental impact study was not called for. I just wonder how many more Ministers will not call for an EIS on matters that affect not only their particular portfolio or department but also the environment of Australia. In regard to this matter, the platform of the Australian Labor Party states: Allow the Minister for Environment to initiate action under the Act to enable an Environmental Impact Study to be prepared on any development project deemed of national significance; The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) must have this power. His Department has the expertise to determine whether any significant damage will be done to the environment. It can look at each EIS with expertise and rationality. I believe that there is expertise within the Department. I would be pleased if the Minister were given that power and were left with the final responsibility. I also take this opportunity to raise in the House my concerns in regard to the greatest environmental accident that has occurred in my lifetime. I refer, of course, to the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We have been receiving various reports about the loss of life and the damage that has occurred. Even if only two people have died in the accident, it is important that the whole world is informed fully on exactly what has happened. The USSR has always claimed to be an advocate of peace and disarmament. What better way of showing the devastating effect of nuclear accidents and the catastrophic effects of a nuclear war than to give us all the details of this relatively-so we are told-small release of radioactivity. This small release of radioactivity has excited people all over the world and caused a great deal of fear. We can see the reaction of some people by the hysterical headlines that have appeared in our papers. Let me quote a few. The Daily Sun, a Brisbane newspaper, carried the headlines `Death Rays Spread', `World on time bomb', `Thousands await death', `Fallout to circle globe', `Reactors primed for world disaster', `Killer gas clouds spewed out by atomic fire' and `Slow death stalks thousands'. The newspaper contained an article which stated: More than 100 nuclear reactors around the world were `potential weapons just not going off' . . . Another article in the Daily Sun under the heading `50,000 fled N-fire' states: The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster forced the evacuation of almost 50,000 people, the suspension of local farming and destruction of livestock, a high-ranking Soviet official said today. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald under the heading `The world's first meltdown' stated: The scale of the disaster at the Chernobyl atomic power station in the Ukraine is still unknown, but the Soviet Union has apparently experienced the world's first `meltdown' in an operational atomic power plant. The editorial went on to say: The Chernobyl disaster underlines the mutual fate of East and West, our mutual enthusiasm for the most advanced science and technology. But it also exposes some of the outstanding moral and political differences between East and West. Were it not for those winds which took radioactive clouds to Sweden and its vigilant radiation monitors, we might never have learned of this terrifying Ukrainian event. A meltdown is a fearsome novelty in itself, but the routine secrecy of Soviet public life, the coy inexactness about casualties and what is really going on makes it far more frightening. The Australian of Thursday, 1 May, carried an editorial under the heading `Grim lessons from nuclear disaster'. The editorial stated: The disaster at Chernobyl is an indictment not only of the Soviet Union's nuclear industry but of the basic principles on which Soviet society is conducted. The Soviet authorities will find it difficult to explain to their citizens how such an incident could have occurred. They will find it no less difficult to placate those neighbouring countries whose inhabitants' lives and well-being have been put at risk. It is important that people here in Australia, even though we are thousands of miles away from this disaster, are fully aware of what is happening there. It is also important that the people of Australia are aware of just what their Government is doing at the present time in relation to the nuclear industry. There has been a groundswell of opinion for many years within the Labor Party for some sort of legislation to be brought into this House regarding nuclear weapons and the nuclear industry. Recently the Australian Labor Party group which is called Labor Parliamentarians for a Nuclear Free Australia, of which I am a member-I am pleased to see that a member of the group's executive, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), is in the chamber at the moment-has distributed a small publication which contains a proposal for legislation. An extract from this publication states: The ALP Caucus voted unanimously to set up a committee to consider the Government's legislative and other responses to the Democrats' Bills. The members of the Committee are: The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), Senator Richardson, Senator Cook, Senator Tate, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). The Committee has not yet completed its deliberations. Areas of discussions are: Opposition to the staging of nuclear weapons in Australia; opposition to the carrying on of a nuclear power industry by the States, which could be achieved by prohibition on the importation of nuclear hardware; and opposition to the manufacture, testing and the permanent stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia. Labor Parliamentarians for a Nuclear Free Australia believe that Australian Labor Government legislation to prohibit the testing, manufacturing or permanent stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is imperative and would be an important contribution to the International Year of Peace. It is not only important to Australia but it is important to the world. The members of our group believe that such legislation is vitally important to maintain the integrity of the Labor Government on nuclear issues and we will be doing all in our power to convince the Government to act. We are very heartened that this is a cross-factional piece of legislation that is being proposed tonight. I now call on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to allow a full and frank look at this human and environmental disaster by a team of journalists from a non-nuclear power such as Australia to report back to the world therefore allowing an opportunity for the present inhabitants of this earth to learn of the dangers of the nuclear industry. We are custodians of this planet for a very short time. We must leave it to our children and our children's children in a fit and proper condition. In my maiden speech in May 1983, which was devoted to peace and disarmament and the halting of the arms race, I stated: If we compare the planet earth-a beautiful green, blue and white jewel-with photographs of other planets, is it any wonder that it is written in the Bible that the Creator loved this world-my world, your world, our world-a world that can easily be turned into a dead radioactive waste by man's stupidity. We must act now. I concluded with this prayer for peace which I think is relevant now: Lead me from death to life, from falsehood to truth; Lead me from despair to hope, from fear to trust; Lead me from hate to love, from war to peace; Let peace fill our heart, our world, our universe. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.33) —I begin this speech by acknowledging the Government's approach to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill. The allowance for public environmental reports for proposals of a less complex or environmentally sensitive nature is a step in the right direction. In giving the public more say on issues which affect them directly the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has recognised the power of community interest in certain matters. As well, the establishment of a time limitation for a Minister to reply to a request for information and the bringing down of the final report of a commission of inquiry will improve the administration of the environmental assessment process. Also it is encouraging to see that the Government has decided that more consultations between the Department, other governmental authorities and public interest groups will be allowed for the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This discussion will continue until the EIS is completed. However, what happens after that? The theory behind environmental impact assessments is that if a project is rigorously assessed in terms of its short and long term effects on the environment, if the costs and benefits of that project are weighed and compared to those of feasible alternatives and if those assessments are widely publicised and the public comment considered, socially optimal decisions concerning the project will result. However, there is no formal or legislative basis for the public to participate during the third stage, that is the carrying out of the project. This means that environmental impact assessment, as far as the public is concerned, has been reduced to a mere preliminary step rather than the dynamic on-going process it should be. If the Government were really serious about more public participation and involvement in this ongoing process it should also include a monitoring phase-in in this Bill. A comprehensive monitoring program not only contributes to effective regulation and management of the project, minimising adverse impacts on the environment, but also assists in predicting the environmental impacts of future projects. Until the public's continued participation in projects under development is encouraged then there will have to be negotiation on a case by case basis. The Dutch have recognised the importance of public input into projects. The Dutch Government has established a special commission for the review of EISs consisting of independent experts who review the EIS from a scientific-technical point of view. For each project under review a working group of six to eight persons is formed from the approximately 110 members of the review commission. This group may give advice only to the competent authority-its opinion is not binding on the execution of the proposed activity. It seems to me that this is a step in the right direction and that the Government should investigate instituting such an approach in the Australian context. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation concerning the concentration of the decision-making power for EISs in the environment Minister's portfolio. The Government, for reasons best known to itself, has decided not to do this and to continue to allow each individual Minister to decide for himself whether an EIS is required for a proposal. Whilst I can understand the arguments for and against accepting that recommendation-I think the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) instanced a situation in which Ministers had disagreements-I must say that it is important for the Government to be seen to be doing the right thing. Obviously, if each of our departments were sufficiently responsible for their briefs we would not need a Minister for the environment. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government should give the Minister the power he deserves-not the illusion of power. It is my belief, which has been reinforced recently by statements in the Press, that if the Government is not seen to be more conscious of a commitment to conserving our environmental heritage it could be faced with the formation of a new conservation-based political party. We have seen such parties in Europe. They have had some success in various elections. A green party concerned solely with conservation issues or reflecting a coalition with other groups advocating changes in social values could have an effect such as that of the Australian Democrats in the Australian Senate where they exercise a power greatly disproportionate to the number of people who vote for them. It is in the interests of both the Government and the Opposition to take heed of these rumblings in the electorate. Whilst we in opposition can only warn of such happenings, the Government is in the position of doing something about it. Therefore, I call on the Hawke Government and the Minister to make the tough decisions on environmental issues. I do not want to embarrass the Minister about certain issues in Queensland but he appeared to run away from making a responsible environmental decision because, as he said at the time, he did not want to have a bun fight with the Queensland Premier during an election campaign. I can understand that because we all know who would win. I give credit to the Minister for being wise enough to know that in a confrontation with the Queensland Premier he would not win. After all, there was to be an election in a couple of weeks. Not since the Franklin Dam controversy has there been a firm, public stand taken by this Government on conserving our environmental heritage. I repeat: Now is the time for the Government to be seen to be doing the right thing. It can begin by reconsidering parts of this Bill. Conservation is a relatively new phenomenon of our modern society. Since man emerged from the security of his cave dwelling and effected a lean-to of tree branches and grasses, he has exploited the environment. As time passed and the human population expanded, the riches of the earth became better known and this led to the beginnings of trade and commerce between countries and between individuals. As man profited through the use of his abundant resources, he began, unfortunately, to demand more and more from them. Fortunately, in the beginning man was wise enough to replace what he took, as far as possible. He rotated his crops and rested his soils; he replanted his forests; and he monitored the development of wildlife. However, as time passed, a careless disregard for the welfare of our natural resources emerged and overtook the sensitive approach used so long ago. I hope we return to that sensitive approach. Now, unfortunately, instead of people being cognisant of the need to preserve the environment, we must legislate in order to protect our environment. That is not peculiar to Australia. Unfortunately, it is a world-wide phenomenon. It was with these thoughts as a background that I put my name on the speakers list for this debate. I suppose that, as someone from rural Australia, I do have a special concern for rural problems. Agriculture has always been a major importance to the Australian economy. History records that it provided the basis for the settlement and development of the nation. Now, despite the growth in the tertiary and mining sectors, it continues to be the major single source of export income. Australia does not have an abundance of productive land for a continent of its size. Our soils are a finite resource; they are non-renewable. Unfortunately, far too many generations of Australian farmers have looked upon the use of the land as their divine right. I share the views of the honourable member for Dunkley that we must get across to people the concept that they do not own things such as land or the environment. In effect, we lease it from the generations that will follow. Until we adopt that attitude we will always have a need for environmental legislation. I would much prefer that everyone loved the environment with sensitivity and passion, so that they wanted to protect it, come what may. Our environment is characterised by extreme seasonal and annual climatic variations, which predisposes us to soil degradation through wind and water erosion. Our soils become saline and we have depletion of chemical and physical fertility. Some of our rivers may not flow for part of the year. When they do, the salinity and pollution arising from agricultural and other uses of the land create problems along river frontages. The interdependence of soil, water and the vegetative components of land and the need to consider them together are well known. Decisions must be made which reflect this interdependence, so that the whole component works as a unit. Our problems do not end in rural areas. Our cities are faced with other problems. Air pollution, water pollution and demands made by a growing urban population are the city's price for modern development. Sydney-and I respect the views of people who may live there-has the unflattering title of being one of the most polluted cities in the world. As an Australian I am ashamed of that title. So, it is not surprising that a strong environmental and conservation movement has sprung up over recent years. I would like to think that I am part of it, and I am proud of that. The development of the Australian conservation movement can be traced back to scientific and popular natural history groups, formed in the second half of the last century and in the first decade of the present century. The Hon. Hal Wootten, QC, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, has said that when a lover of nature acquires an ecological perspective a conservationist is born. In reality, we should all become conservationists because we are discussing our nation's prosperity. I am not ashamed to admit-I am proud to admit-that I am a conservationist at heart. A close affiliation with the land and a love of our native bush give one that ecological perspective so needed to protect our natural heritage. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(5.45) —In rising to support the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986, I am pleased to note, as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, that the Government has responded to many of the recommendations contained in reports of the Standing Committee, either by way of amendments contained in the Bill or in responses which will come by way of amendments to administrative procedures under the Act. In 1979 the Committee tabled an extensive report on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, to which the Government provided a partial response, and, as a result of that response, the Committee tabled a further brief report in May 1985. I take the opportunity tonight to enlarge on some of the remarks made by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) in his excellent speech. In both the 1979 and 1985 reports, the Committee recommended that the Act be amended to allow the Environment Minister to trigger the legislation. Unfortunately, as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has indicated, that particular recommendation has been rejected by the Government. It is important, in my view, to make it clear that the Committee recommended that the environment Minister be empowered under the legislation to request and be provided with information so that he could determine the environmental significance of a matter and make recommendations to the proponent Minister accordingly. The amending Bill provides that the environment Minister can request additional information which must be supplied, but only after the proponent Minister has triggered the legislation by assessing that a project is environmentally significant. If the proponent Minister considers a project not to be environmentally significant, the environment Minister has no powers. The Minister, in his second reading speech, indicated that it is not necessary for the environment Minister to have the power to trigger the legislation, as matters which are considered to be environmentally significant will be clearly defined in memoranda of understanding between the environment Minister and other Ministers. I must point out that, given that the Government has rejected the Committee's recommendations relating to the power of the environment Minister to trigger the Act, it is important that memoranda of understanding be agreed to between various Ministers. The Government has agreed that the memoranda be negotiated. It is important to note, however, that by 1979, five years after the Act came into operation, only five or six memoranda had been agreed to. By 1985, 10 years after the Act came into operation, only two additional memoranda of understanding had been agreed to. By April 1986-12 months after the then Department of Home Affairs and Environment had advised the Committee that memoranda of understanding would soon be reached with all government departments and authorities-no further memoranda have been agreed to. I am most concerned that many memoranda of understanding have not been completed, particularly in view of the significance of the memoranda in relation to the operation of the Act. In the circumstances, it would be appreciated if the Minister could give an undertaking that the completion of the remaining memoranda of understanding will be sought by his Department as a matter of urgency. In this respect I refer to a recent decision of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to approve the export of woodchips from Queensland, which was alluded to also by the honourable member for Dunkley. The approval covered a new export woodchipping industry to be established in Queensland and northern New South Wales by a company known as Hollow Tree Enterprises. The 250,000 tonnes per annum to be exported is to be made up of three components: Firstly, sawmill waste from northern New South Wales; secondly, thinnings from eucalypt plantations; and, thirdly, the clearing of a large property in the St George area of Queensland, which makes up about a quarter of the volume. The problem with the approval given by the Minister for Primary Industry is that there has been no opportunity for public comment, or independent scientific or economic comment, on the proposed manufacturing activities of the new company. Such comments would no doubt have drawn attention to the fact that the clearing of marginal land is questionable both economically and environmentally. Soil erosion inevitably follows the clearing of marginal land for woodchip purposes and the State and Federal governments are likely to be called upon to provide drought relief. Again, I think in this respect the speech of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), who preceded me, referred to the problems of soil erosion. It is true that the Department of Primary Industry consulted with the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment on the proposal but-and this is the crux of the whole matter-the Department of Primary Industry has not provided memoranda of understanding as envisaged under the Act. In consequence there is a lack of guidelines as agreed between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment which could guide the Department of Primary Industry in determining the environmental significance of the woodchip proposal. I submit to the Minister that it is irresponsible of all those departments, including the Department of Primary Industry, not to have completed memoranda of understanding after all these years of operation of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. For the information of the House, let me mention some of the matters which will affect the environment to a significant extent, such as: (a) proposed actions which will give rise either directly or indirectly to adverse effects on the physical or social environment including: an impact on the eco-systems of an area; a diminution of the aesthetic, recreational, scientific or other environmental quality, or value, of an area; an adverse effect upon an area, or structure that has an aesthetic, anthropologic, archaeologic architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social significance or other special value for the present or future generations; the endangering, or further endangering, of any species of fauna or flora; the degradation of the quality of the environment for example by pollution or problems associated with waste disposal; the curtailing of the range of beneficial uses of the environment; increased demands on natural resources which are, or are likely to be, in short supply. There are, of course, also proposed actions in respect of existing structures, existing national parks and Aboriginal land claims. I hope that the Minister can indicate that those departments which have not yet completed memoranda of understanding will be urged to do so by their respective Ministers and that the Department of Primary Industry can be asked to reconsider the woodchip proposal accordingly. I would like also to draw attention to the fact that the Government intends to improve the administration of the environmental process, and I welcome that. However, I ask the Minister to indicate what time frame the Government has in mind in making the improvements effective because, for example, it is essential that the procedures relating to the preparation of environmental impact statements are improved as soon as possible. In this respect I have in mind again the decision of the Minister for Primary Industry to permit the export woodchip venture in Queensland to go ahead as I have mentioned previously. In making my closing remarks, I must respond to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) in his comments about nuclear power and the serious accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine which has been mentioned by other speakers, including the honourable member for Dunkley. The honourable member for Bradfield stated that there was no doubt that the world needed nuclear power. I would assert that there is a lot of doubt about the safety of nuclear power and whether in fact we need it at all. We should be concentrating on matters such as the use of wind and solar power and on other forms of power which do not involve danger from radioactive poisoning, whether accidental explosions at nuclear power stations or the serious radioactive pollution which arises from nuclear weapons testing. Whilst it is true that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been excessively secretive about the Chernobyl accident-and I do consider that that is irresponsible-it has at least ceased testing its nuclear weapons, which is more than can be said for the United States of America or France. In closing, I welcome and fully support this Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.55) —The remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), in relation to the Soviet Union at least ceasing testing of nuclear weapons and the United States of America not having done so seems somewhat irrelevant to the legislation before this House. There is going on in Australia and across the world a great deal of work and a great deal of research into the use of solar and wind power and, were this research easy and were the results readily obtainable, I am sure that there would be a much greater use of solar and wind power than there is at present. Coming from the Northern Territory, where we in fact are carrying out research of our own into both areas and where the use of solar hot water systems is common throughout the entire area, and having travelled the world on occasions looking at other places such as Israel and California where experimentation on the use of solar power is going on, I do not think that there is any easy solution. If the honourable member believes that there should be a shut-down of all nuclear power stations throughout the world, he should first of all visit Japan and see the catastrophic consequences such a decision would have on that absolutely energy starved country. I now turn to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill. I always welcome any streamlining of Government procedures and, since the purport of this legislation is to achieve that end, the Opposition supports the Bill. However, I am concerned that the new proposal for public environment reports could, instead of expediting procedures, perhaps only cause additional delays. This new level of environmental impact assessment has the potential to create problems rather than solve them. Firstly, particularly since there is no information from the Government on the exact rules for a public environment report, and the Minister is given total discretion on its requirement, its introduction could mean more regulatory barriers to project development, which this country desperately needs if it is to create the jobs to do any good in attacking the massive unemployment problem that persists throughout Australia. Secondly, I know that project developers and mining companies in particular fear that, having undergone the processes of a PER, any contentious proposal would still then have to go through the full processes of an environmental impact statement. I raise these questions because, as the representative of the Northern Territory-an area of Australia with considerable experience of the delays caused by lengthy environmental inquiries-I am more than aware of the obstacles and overkill involved in the whole environmental protection business. Anyone who doubts this might like to look at the history of the Ranger uranium mine project's development in the Alligator Rivers region of Arnhem Land. The requirement for environmental impact studies was no small part of the delays to that project which took more than a decade to get off the ground, partly because of a series of Commonwealth impositions in the name of environmental protection. Let me recite the history of that project so that members, particularly those opposite, have some idea of the stringency and the frustrations of complying with environmental requirements. The ore body was discovered in 1969. By May 1972 an Alligator Rivers region environmental fact finding study had been completed. Two years later, in May 1974, the environmental impact study was available. In May 1975-now six years after the ore body discovery-supplements I and II to the environmental impact study were ready for perusal. The following month the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry was instituted. By October 1976 the first Fox report was completed. By 1977-now eight years after the ore body discovery-the second Fox report was released and by May that year the Commonwealth felt able to approve mining. In June 1978 the Environmental Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act was in place and the Office of the Supervising Scientist and a co-ordinating committee were established. By January 1979 there was agreement established on environmental requirements for the Ranger uranium project. In May that year the Uranium Mining (Environmental Control) Act was brought into force. In October 1980 mining at the Ranger site actually got under way-a mere 11 years to the day since the ore body was identified. Today for every three miners on site there is one person overseeing the environmental aspects of their work. The Ranger and Nabarlek projects today carry the dubious distinction of being the most environmentally supervised mines in the world. Those mines are subject to a host of environmental and other regulations. Again, to give honourable members some idea of the scale and weight of regulations, I shall list some of them. Let me start with Northern Territory legislation. There are some 22 pieces of legislation which impact directly on these projects. These include the Aboriginal Land and Aboriginal Sacred Sites Acts, the Conservation Safety and Construction Safety Acts, the Control of Roads and Control of Waters Acts, the Environmental Assessment and Mines Safety and Control and Mining Acts, the Jabiru Town Development Act and the Native and Historical Objects and Areas Preservation Acts. There is also the Litter Act, the Prevention of Pollution of Waters by Oil Act, not to mention the Notifiable Diseases and Plant Diseases Acts, the Explosives Act, the Fire Prevention Act and the Fish and Fisheries Act. That list of legislative requirements is by no means exhaustive. On top of that we have the Commonwealth Acts-including the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Act, the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, the Koongarra Project Area Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and, of course, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act which is proposed to be amended by this Bill. From this honourable members might understand both my enthusiasm for any promise to streamline the legislative impost upon such projects, and my doubts about the necessity for more legislation. I have not even mentioned the Radiation (Safety Control) Act, nor the Silicosis and Tuberculosis (Mine Workers and Prospectors) Act, nor the Mines Safety Control Act, which are just part of the health and safety legislation with which the projects must conform. There is no doubt that uranium mining in the Northern Territory is the most regulated, supervised and controlled industry in the world today. Perhaps many would believe that that is the proper order of things, and perhaps, too, I would agree. But the fact is that, having put into place this elaborate set of controls and regulations, having created an Office of Supervising Scientist with something between 75 and 100 employees both at Jabiru and Bondi, to directly supervise the projects, the Minister does not listen to this bureaucratic conglomerate. The fly in the ointment in this case is my old rival-the ultimate response to the tradition of Yes Minister, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, except that this is one public servant who regularly says `No Minister'. In doing so he often goes against the advice of the well-endowed and well-funded Office of the Supervising Scientist, and causes the responsible Minister to do the same. To give the most striking example, the Ranger uranium mine is spending time and effort looking for alternative ways to dispose of water, as a result of an apparent ANPWS refusal to allow the release of water into Majela Creek. Despite the lengthy and duplicative environmental legislation from both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth, there is no legal or technical barrier to the release of some water into the creek-and yet the mining company is prevented from doing so by the Minister's office. The Minister has clearly taken advice from sources outside the OSS. There is only one other possible source for such advice, the head of ANPWS. Even stranger, the Minister responsible is not the Minister responsible. I will explain. In the convoluted way that Commonwealth legislation works, while the OSS and the ANPWS come under the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the powers used to prevent the release of water fall under the Minister for Resources and Energy. We have thus a situation in which one Minister receives advice from the proper authority on such matters-the OSS-takes contrary advice from another area-the ANPWS-and advises his colleague in Resources and Energy to act on that advice. If we are talking about streamlining procedures on environmental protection, it might be a good idea if the Ministers could get together and decide who does what, and who has the power to do what. I will finish off with a not atypical story of the sheer stupidity of the environmental regime at Ranger, despite all the good intentions of the Act. It has been calculated that if Ranger were to release one million cubic metres of water into Majela Creek, which is about the amount of water it needs to release in order to overcome immediate problems, it would amount to two giga becquerels of radium. The OSS has recently reported that there is no environmental hazard or serious consequences of a release of 88 giga becquerels into the creek, and has even put some 610 giga becquerels into the creek to test precipitation. Yet the Ranger mine is still denied permission to release its mere two giga becquerels into the creek, because of the conflicting advice that comes from the non-expert area of the fading and duplicative empire of the ANPWS. That is how environmental protection is working there. Huge amounts of money and staff, scientific testing and agreement, and then the Minister-in cahoots with his colleague in another place-overrules all the rules and institutes his own decisions. I said at the outset that I welcomed any move to streamline environmental protection legis- lation. Perhaps the Minister will now understand whence I gain my inspiration for such a view. I support the Bill. I welcome any other legislation that will alleviate the burden of regulation and control imposed on those much maligned forces in our midst which would dearly love to help Australia's trade balance back up on to a more even keel. After all, everyone would agree that by ridiculous over-regulation we have given this country a bad case of osseogluteal bursitis. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.06) —I am pleased to join my colleagues the honourable members for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), La Trobe (Mr Milton) and Throsby (Mr Hollis) in supporting the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill. I am also pleased to note that the Opposition is supporting this legislation. We have a wide variety of environmental problems in this country. I will just give an indication. We have problems with dry land soil degradation; salinity; water conservation; the preservation of city bushland areas; proper coastal management, which is a major issue of concern to me; and also an emerging problem, that is, the use of off-road vehicles, four-wheel drive vehicles, in a variety of bush locations in Australia. They are just examples of some of the problems we are facing. I am pleased to note that the New South Wales Government is moving to deal with the latter problem; that is, to prevent four-wheel drive access into certain areas. It is a matter that we in Western Australia ought to be looking at very seriously. Unfortunately there is a tendency for people to believe that the bush-bashing model, developed in the television advertisements, of drivers of four-wheel drive vehicles should be practised wherever it can. The environmental impact is very serious. In Western Australia we have some areas where there has been serious environmental damage already caused by the misuse of four-wheel drive vehicles. In Western Australia we can focus upon three major themes of environmental concern-coastal, forest management and pastoral concerns. In my opening remarks I identified some particular problems there. With respect to forest management, a strong case can be made for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to have an inquiry into forest products, particularly the issues that have arisen in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania with respect to forest product industries. Clearly there is great community concern about the environmental impact of those industries. I believe that we, in this Parliament, would be recognising an important community concern if we were to take that issue up. Let me turn very briefly to a couple of issues of concern in Western Australia which I would like to identify. One of those is a proposal in the area of Margaret River in the south-west of Western Australia to construct a 3,000 metre runway at a commercial airport. I am informed that that would impact seriously upon important forest areas and would have a serious impact on other businesses in the area, in particular some activity being carried out by a local community concern, Bardo caravans, whereby people can go into the bush area and admire the karri, jarrah and red gums in that area. If there was not an effective EIS, this proposal would allow those parts to be destroyed. Clearly a case is to be made for an effective environmental impact study arrangement. This legislation addresses that matter. Because of time constraints, I will move very quickly to another issue of concern in Western Australia, that is, Shark Bay. There are moves to give it World Heritage status. I am pleased that the Western Australian Government is giving greater concern to World Heritage listing of a number of important areas in Western Australia. I commend that State Government. I commend the Minister in this respect and the community around Shark Bay for taking a very positive attitude towards this issue. On that theme, I commend the Western Australian Environment Minister for announcing that Bungle Bungle will become a national park. I think that that is an important move and I believe that the community will feel very pleased with that. I would also add that there are a couple of areas of concern locally to me. The Star Swamp area is on the register of the National Estate. I am very pleased with that and I know that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, is pleased, because the Star Swamp area is a matter of some concern to him. The State members of parliament in the area were very pleased to support the listing of Star Swamp on the register of the National Estate. At the present time the Karrinyup Trigg Dune Reserve is also on the register of the National Estate. The Heritage Commission is shortly to conduct some inquiries. I would urge State members of parliament to give similar support to the listing of the Karrinyup Trigg Dune Reserve on the register of the National Estate in the same way as they supported the listing of Star Swamp. Another area of environmental concern that I would like to address is this: There has emerged a view that any environmental concern runs counter to proper economic considerations. I do not hold that view. I believe that there is substantial money to be made from the viewpoint of tourism out of protecting the environment. I must say that I was totally unconvinced by the evidence given by the action departments to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation with respect to their need to be untouched by this legislation. I am of the view that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment himself should have the capacity to initiate an environmental impact statement, because I still believe that the adversarial view whereby there is a tendency to see any environmental matter as being opposed to economic development still exists. I do not believe that that is the case. The future lies with tourism, and tourism means that we must have a good environment for people to enjoy. People will not come to this country or travel around this country unless there are good things for them to look at. Mostly, those people are concerned with the natural environment. Let me deal with a specific matter in the suburb of Scarborough where inadequate planning was done, where an inadequate EIS process was conducted, by both the State Planning Authority and local government, so much so that large construction has occurred on the beachfront at Scarborough. That large scale construction has had a significant impact on the local community. The television reception is being interfered with and the people there are experiencing a significant decline in the quality of their lifestyle because inadequate planning and inadequate environmental assessments were carried out. That is not good enough. What this legislation looks towards is effective public input. I conclude by saying that I believe that what we ought to be doing as well with this legislation is ensuring that it looks not only at new projects but also at some existing projects. I believe that, if we were to follow this properly, we would end up with a better environmental protection arrangement. Finally, I am pleased to commend this Bill to the House. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(6.13) —In entering this debate on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill I wish to direct most of my remarks to the controversial Daintree forest area of north Queensland. I believe it is appropriate as a Queenslander and someone who lived almost 20 years of my life in north Queensland that I should make a few comments in regard to this area. In early October last year I was driven over the new road from Bloomfield River to Cape Tribulation, north of Cairns. I am indebted to the Douglas Shire Council and in particular to its Chairman, Councillor Tony Mijo, and his Deputy Chairman, Councillor Greg May, for meeting me at the Bloomfield and driving me south to Mossman in a four-wheel drive vehicle. The completion of the road through the Daintree forest is a triumph for the Douglas Shire Council and in particular for its Chairman, Councillor Tony Mijo. It is a triumph for local residents of the Bloomfield River district who were promised the road 50 years ago. For many of these old timers of the district, over many decades, access north and south was by sea only. Of more recent years, a road was constructed north to Cooktown. This new link south will fulfil a promise and a dream. More than 40 kilometres of road, rough and primitive as it is by today's standards, was constructed at a cost of $600,000. This is an outstanding effort by the Douglas Shire Council and a credit to the construction contractors who undertook the work. The area which the road traverses is a beautiful one, with much of the road overlooking the sea and passing through a mixture of forest and rainforest areas. In some areas to the west of the road are magnificent rainforests covering majestic mountains. I now address some comments on the question of the possible damage to valuable rainforests and fringing reefs. First, let me deal with the rainforests. To suggest vast areas of unique rainforest have been destroyed is absurd nonsense. That argument is pursued by irresponsible elements of the environmental lobby. Disturbance of the rainforest is minimal-indeed the road passes through ordinary forests for many kilometres. Additionally, vast areas of rainforest remain untouched, with less than one per cent of the area being affected. In a short time, the rainforest canopy will return, leaving only the width of the road without tropical growth. This regrowth to the road edges has happened to all such roads through tropical rainforest areas. I now turn to the fringing reefs and claims that damage will be caused by stormwater runoffs. In my view, these claims cannot be justified. Polluted runoffs from rivers and streams have been happening along the Queensland coast for centuries and, since vast areas have been farmed over the past 100 years, the waters issuing from coastal streams have been even more polluted. There is no evidence that these reefs have suffered. Currently the Palmerston Highway linking Innisfail with the Atherton Tableland is being straightened and widened. Some rainforest is being destroyed in this works program. But not a word is heard from the greenies. If this were a new road being proposed today, the greenies would be up in arms. Personally, I have a concern for the environment, both the built and the natural environment. The greenies have lost the battle to prevent this road construction from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield River, and so they should. Their actions were unjustified and their motives highly suspect. Their arguments about untold damage to rainforests and fringing reefs are spurious. I applaud the Douglas Shire Council and the Queensland Government for pushing ahead and completing this road. The local State member of parliament and Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, Martin Tenni, has been supportive of Councillor Mijo and the local people. A great deal of work is yet to be carried out to make the road an all-weather one. In this battle between the Douglas Shire Council and the greenies, the Council has won hands down. I believe the media has been less than responsible in reporting on the damage to the rainforests and on the odd washout that has occurred since the road was formed. Every new road, particularly in high intensity rainfall areas, will experience some scouring of cuttings and washouts of creeks and gullies. This will occur until banks consolidate with vegetation. In conclusion, I wish to put a question or two to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is seeing the passage of this legislation. Where does the Minister stand on the construction of this road, because in the Courier-Mail of 18 March it was reported that the Courier-Mail had some documents that it had obtained under the freedom of information legislation and those documents clearly indicate that the Minister has been somewhat two-faced on this particular issue? Mr Cohen —No way. Mr HODGES —The Minister can refute these statements if he likes, but publicly he has been critical of the road's construction and yet he privately offered the Queensland Government help to quieten down public reaction. Mr Cohen —That is not true. Mr HODGES —That is what the documents quoted in this article in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 18 March 1985 say. Mr Cohen —That is not true. Mr HODGES —It is up to the Minister to refute adequately those comments. It also raises the question of where the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) stands on this particular issue. Does he support the people of the Daintree area, the Bloomfield River area and Cooktown or does he agree with some of the ratbag or lunatic greenies who have been very prominent in their opposition to this project? The Opposition supports the legislation before the Parliament. There are a number of other issues that I would like to bring forward but, unfortunately, time does not permit me. We have made an agreement with the Government and I will honour that agreement. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(6.19) —in reply-I wish to start at the end and comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). His allegation about the Daintree road and my having offered to help Mr Tenni publicise the case for the road is not correct. This was a scurrilous bit of selective editing by a journal that got hold of the information under the Freedom of Information Act. When I met with Mr Tenni he told some quite incredible stories about drug running off the coast in the Daintree area, stories about big liners going past in the middle of the night and dropping drugs off. I will not go into all the details, but it was an extraordinary, almost bizarre story. At the time I said to him: `I am amazed that that has not been published in southern journals'. He said: `Well, they won't print it'. I said: `I think that is a very interesting story'. It had nothing to do with the Daintree forest legislation. I said: `If that is happening, if people are using that area for drug running, it ought to be publicised'. I offered to give him some contacts with journalists who would print that story. That was taken out of context in the usual selective editing carried out by journalists and applied to the discussions that we had had on the road. That story has been thrown up on a number of occasions. What can I say? It is just a pack of lies, to put it in the nicest possible way. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. It has been a very moderate, well thought out debate, and all the contributions have been helpful. I appreciate the support from the Opposition for the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill. I wish to deal with some of the comments made earlier. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) made his usual thoughtful contribution. It is a pleasure to be shadowed by someone like him. I wish to take up just one point. I do not want to be nitpicking, but he said that the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry and the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry were directed by the Fraser Government. That is not correct. They were directed by the Whitlam Government but acted on by the Fraser Government, to its great credit. I just want to get that straight. There has been a bit of discussion by both the honourable member for Bradfield and others about matters of national interest, and how one defines the national interest. Of course, that is a difficult thing. We have had only two public inquiries into matters of national interest so far in the 12 years of the Act-the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry and the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The honourable member for Bradfield also made some comment about the Government not responding to the recommendations of a standing committee, the Hodges Committee. That Committee reported in 1979. The Fraser Government had not responded to its recommendation by 1983, so I think it is a bit hot to criticise this Government. I tabled a statement in October 1984 outlining the Government's proposed amendments and its responses to the Committee report, so I think we responded much faster than the previous Government. Let me deal with the general question of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. When I came into this Parliament in 1969 there was no environment legislation of this nature; in fact, there was no real environment legislation at all. Now, of course, we have quite a number of pieces of environment legislation, the most important being the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act although, of course, there are others dealing with the National Estate. Those who complain now that this legislation is too regulatory and too restrictive are those whose forerunners in the same Party complained in 1973, 1974 and 1975 when this legislation was first introduced. As I said, when I entered Parliament no one gave a damn about the environment. That has all changed today. No government, State or Federal, can ignore the environment. While it is true, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said, that there are costs involved in forcing proponents to have environmental impact statements and now public environment reports, I think that is inevitable. If we are to protect the environment we have to study the impact of what we are going to do in that environment. Now every company is conscious of the environment because it is aware of the fact that it may have to do an EIS. Right from the beginning of a project companies think of the impact on the environment of what they are about to do. If an EIS costs money, so be it. We try to keep those costs within reason. But let us remember that some of the projects that we are talking about, such as Ranger, involve hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment. The cost of an EIS on some of these projects may run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, but in terms of the totality of the project and what will be saved by having a close, intensive study of the environment, I think it is well worth it. We do not order EISs irrationally, illogically or on an ad hoc basis. A great deal of thought goes into whether an EIS is requested. I refer to the new interim step, if you like, for a PER. We now have a situation where it may be nip and tuck as to whether one would want an EIS. The impact on the environment may not be that significant. We will have this fall back position for a PER for a more modest, and hopefully, less costly statement. As the honourable member for Denison pointed out, that can work both ways. Whereas at times we would have said that we would not require an EIS, we may require one now, so we may be up for some costs. We will just have to wait to see how it works out and what the final result is. The honourable member for Denison talked about the original Act being abused and misused. He said that it ought to be torn up and redrafted. I can only say to him that the original Act was in place in the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser Government, and I do not think honourable members opposite made any significant attempt to amend it. Certainly, in three governments, they had the opportunity. I compliment the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) who was my predecessor in this position as Minister responsible for the environment. I remember his speeches when he was in Opposition prior to becoming Minister. He is a changed man now. In his concern about the environment he sounded like someone who would have been happily at home on our side of the House. I think it was having the portfolio that changed him. I only wish that it had done the same for the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) when he was Chairman of the Standing Committee. The speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was totally irrelevant to the Bill, so I do not think there is much point in commenting on it. It was a very interesting dissertation on pollution in the Ranger area, but it had nothing to do with the Bill. I do not have the time now to go into the whole history of the Daintree, as the honourable member for Petrie would perhaps have liked. My position has been set out in that many speeches that I am quite happy to give him a bound copy of the collected wisdom of Barry Cohen on Daintree. I do not agree with his view, although I agree that obviously some roads over a period have had to be built through forests. The question in relation to Daintree and all the other rainforests is that so little of it is now left untouched. From 75 per cent to 80 per cent of our rainforests have disappeared. Mr Hodges —That is no reason for not having a road go through it. Mr COHEN —No, but we have to take that into consideration in any future plan about the rainforest. We are very concerned about what the National Party Government in Queensland might have planned. There are real estate developments in that area-some of the most hideous real estate developments I have ever seen. Logging is going on in the area, and there is the possibility of mines. Add to that a road and that opens up the potential for more of those sorts of things. As I said before, we have to take into account the fact that so little of that virgin rain- forest is left. Sure, roads have been built through rainforests before and the rainforest has survived. It was interesting to hear the comments of the honourable member for Petrie on the fringing reefs. We are doing some research on those fringing reefs but it is too early yet to tell the impact of some of the siltation that has come down from the road. So far-this finding is preliminary-it does not look as if damage has been done, but we will need to wait to see the full results of that survey work. I return to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison, who commented on the Tasmanian woodchip situation. No agreement has been reached with the Tasmanian Government. That debate took place in Cabinet before Christmas and there was gross misrepresentation of Cabinet's decision by both the environmentalists and the timber industry. I do not have the exact phrase that was used, but basically they both selectively quoted the last paragraph in the statement that was put out. I gave a list of the places not where I felt that no logging should occur but where the National Estate value should be preserved. I did not say that there would be a total ban on all logging in those National Estate areas. The loggers tended to interpret me as saying that, and the environmentalists thought the opposite. What we have said to the Gray Government is that we need to work out an agreement so that we can protect those National Estate values and, so far, I must agree with the honourable member that we are having difficulty in reaching an agreement with that Government. Mr Gray will be away for a month, and therefore it has been delayed further. But we are sticking to our guns so that those National Estate values will be preserved. A number of other matters were covered. Incidentally, the last point I mentioned had nothing to do with the Bill either, but as the honourable member for Denison raised it, I thought I would answer it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.32 to 8 p.m. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986. Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill 1986. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 3. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow this course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.03) —The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill cover a large number of interesting items which were addressed by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) not only last week but also some considerable time ago. In the case of the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, the items under consideration provide bounty for, among other things, stainless steel products. It introduces a bounty on hovercraft, which are now being produced in Australia and which will improve communications in the north of the country. The Bill also makes certain modifications to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act and the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act. The Bill corrects minor omissions in the drafting of the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act and also relates to the subsidy on grain harvesters and equipment. This amendment to the principal Act will close loopholes relating to sale prices. That Act was introduced a considerable time ago. The second Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, covers a wide range of items, many of which raise significant points which bear discussion. I refer first to the developing countries preference scheme-DC preferences, as they are known in the jargon-which came about in the 1960s with the recommendation that something be done to facilitate trade among the minor nations of the world. Australia was one of the first countries to initiate and accept the principle of DC preferences. These preferences were extended primarily to countries in the Pacific but also to many other areas. This scheme was taken up by the developed nations in the 1960s and 1970s and became well used by a number of trading nations. The only trouble with that scheme was that it tended to make the manufacturing nations more aware of what could be achieved by putting into a developing country their own manufacturing or `added value' schemes for their products. This did little to add to the level of trade throughout the world. It merely redistributed the trading process rather than expanded trade. While such preferences could give trade to certain nations, equally trade could be lost to those nations if there was any significant improvement or change in their general status. This Bill applies particularly to the change in status of Portugal. Portugal was afforded DC preferences, as the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) will understand. Despite its enormous history, that country was rated a developing nation. Since then Portugal has joined the European Economic Community and as a consequence the DC preferences will be withdrawn from it. Portugal will now be in the same position in relation to tariffs as other members of the EEC. It is regrettable that the scheme has not worked out in the way in which it was hoped initially. Countries in receipt of those preferences, particularly those which are neighbours of Australia, would have benefited substantially if some consistency could have been applied to the scheme. In my period as the Minister responsible for Customs, it always amazed me how we managed to measure `added value'. Let us consider the motor car plan in particular because it contains the same principles as those that were applied to DC preferences. One could buy steel from a foreign country, import it into Australia and press that steel here. The pressing of the steel made the total product Australian made. This always struck me as being a rather quaint way to go about achieving `local content' and exactly the same principle has been applied to DC preferences in certain countries. One could buy something from Japan, or some other developed nation, have it brought through a DC preference country in which certain local `added values' were effected. The actual value of the addition was weighted very heavily by the processing of a particular part which made that DC preference applicable. That item was then brought into Australia with a local content of 50 per cent added under that particular stance. Because of that I believe it is high time that some attention was given to the DC preference scheme and I am pleased that some action has been taken in this area. The work of Dr Hughes is to be commended because it brings to the fore some of the anomalies in that area. Unfortunately this matter has been taken up in no small way in foreign affairs negotiations. Some nations have taken the view that because they had a DC preference background and that preference had been withdrawn by Australia, they should act against Australian exports. It is sometimes very difficult to regard South Korea as a developing country, yet that country is afforded these concessions. While we export considerably more to South Korea than we import, any act to withdraw DC preferences would be taken very seriously by the South Korean Government. The reason for the granting of a concession by way of DC preferences has never struck me as being relevant to the situation that pertains today as opposed to the situation when the concession was first granted. South Korea is not the only country to fall into that category. A number of other nations have benefited from it. I note that the DC preference scheme has been extended to the South Pacific Forum Islands following a commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1985. Many countries that surround Australia, particularly those in the Pacific, are very badly in need of an infrastructure or some form of local industry. If we are to grant concessions which are meaningful in terms of their longevity, development and democratic government, it is important that we pay some attention to the regional economies of those countries. I hope that the points which have been raised in relation to developing nations do not transfer to the Forum countries under the preference scheme promoted under the principal Act. It has a lot to commend it. However, we ought not to allow the position of Portugal and other nations to which we afford substantial DC preferences to influence the usage of these provisions. While the act of establishing developing country preferences was undoubtedly well intentioned, the ultimate outcome has been that international trade has not been increased by it. People have been using the rules to their own advantage rather than for developing trade. Because of that, the process here in relation to one country might well be extended and some of the areas that Professor Hughes reported on might well be applied to some of the other countries in receipt of these preferences. I have referred to what I consider to be two significant areas in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. In addition, comment could probably be made on a wide range of items which are covered by the Bill. I notice that the legislation deals with assistance given to the shipbuilding industry. Ships of a certain size which are constructed in this country have attracted substantial bounty assistance. The taxation considerations have made it very profitable for certain individuals to export such vessels. We are not talking here of the smaller craft but of the significantly larger luxury craft, some of which are produced in Queensland. The net effect on revenue of a bounty and the tax considerations make the production of some of these boats a highly profitable operation. I do not think the taxation aspects of shipbuilding assistance have been grasped. The Bill is also concerned with the wool content level of New Zealand carpets. I think Australia has been wise in continuing to encourage the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. This is something that was brought about in no small way by the former Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony. Despite the fact that he represented a constituency which did not benefit in any way from closer economic relations with New Zealand, he pursued that course to what I regard as very great benefit to Australia. It is not in our interests to have a nation which is closely related to us in a significantly worse economic position than ourselves. Mr Anthony and the Government of the time saw the wisdom in pursuing CER. Many considerations have impacted on Australian industry as a result of that agreement. Despite the pressures that have arisen, I am pleased to see that the current Government has gone along with the agreement. The cross-relationships in a business sense between Australia and New Zealand have undoubtedly been very significant for this country for a decade or so. They have been significant not only in terms of economics but also in terms of general living standards and the security and structure of the South Pacific area. This is only a small item. However, I am pleased to see that the current Government has given its support to CER. It is an agreement which is supported by the Opposition. On top of that, the legislation deals with grain harvesters. It seeks to maintain the duty treatment in regard to metal parts. Also, concessions are given in regard to the reimportation of certain items which are sent from Australia, subjected to certain processes and then returned. Unreasonable limits have been placed on such items in the past. In addition, amendments have been made to the passenger motor vehicle tender quota arrangements which have applied under the car plan from 1 December 1985. I think the motor vehicle industry as a whole is worth commenting on. The post-1984 plan of the previous Government and the minor amendments that have been made in recent times have all led in the one direction-a direction which has required the Australian producers to recognise the need for a smaller range of vehicles. At the same time there is a need for a more competitive vehicle to be sold on the Australian market. There is no doubt that there was heavy competition from outside Australia when the exchange rates were more favourable. The 80:20 market share was policed in this regard. However, the calculations of market shares sometimes were subject to swings. I presume that because of that some producers who did not have a quota were able to import into Australia under the tender quota scheme certain ranges of products which they could not produce in Australia economically. This allowed them to compete over a wide range. I gather that the recent very substantial drop in exchange rates has made imported cars essentially very much dearer. I do not have to point only to the price increases to which Japanese cars have been subjected in the last nine months or so. Because of that I doubt whether there is today the very strong degree of competition in the Australian market that there used to be. Nevertheless, the motor car industry is in substantial recession. Sales in the quarter to the end of March were down by about 25 per cent on the previous year. I understand that the same pattern is being continued with respect to sales in April. This undoubtedly reflects part of the Government's taxation policy. The motor car industry is essential to Australia. I make no bones about it. The complexity of that subject is something which ensured that when we were in government we spent an enormous amount of time coming to decisions on that industry. There are questions in this area relating to the tender, the quota, the market share, the Australian content and the position of the Australian component manufacturers. It is an area which impacts enormously on the whole engineering section of the Australian economy. It impacts on the consumer and affects very much the balance of payments of this nation. The arrangements that we have today do result in some high production costs. However, I believe that over a period we will see some reduction in that. Reduction in production in this area will place continuing strains on the motor vehicle industry. As a consequence of this I hope that there will be a realisation of the prevailing economic forces which have to be taken into account. Another amendment to the principal Act contained in this Bill relates to textile, clothing and footwear policy and concerns changes to the tender rates. Other amendments concern an increase in the concessional admission for component parts for heavy commercial vehicles. This is contained in Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. There are amendments to the importation of tableware and other goods of ceramics. I am always interested to see the rates of tariff sometimes applied in relation to imports of ceramics, which are very big in Australia at the moment. Also on top of that, concessions in relation to vice regal usages have been restricted and there are amendments to the definition of track-laying type. Finally, I address a few comments to one area which the Opposition will be seeking to change. I refer to the proposals in this Bill in regard to telecommunications and related equipment. The Industries Assistance Commission report has been brought down. At present the majority of products under reference receive an ad valorem tariff protection of 30 per cent. The Bill proposes to phase down the general rate over a four-year period to a long term rate of 20 per cent. The IAC recommended the 20 per cent rate but proposed a shorter phasing in period. This applies to a very significant part of technological development in Australia particularly as it relates to communication and fibre optics. Fibre optics represent a very significant breakthrough in the whole area of communication throughout the world. Certainly, its development will enable far greater use of the communication channels in Australia. It will allow far greater adaptation to its many services than we can presently take through the copper cable, through the satellite links or through the existing shortwave channels. Because of that, it is in itself a revolution. It enables the huge use of the transfer of data and other related services. I could not help being impressed by what I saw in America with the use of fibre optics in regard to its rapid development and implementation. In recent times it has been introduced into the communications network in this nation. Currently it is being added to the Sydney-Melbourne link. Certain parts of Melbourne and Sydney are being wired with fibre optics. Fibre optics will enable a far cheaper communication and far wider use. Because of that the use of fibre optics is something to be encouraged in every sense. I, like the Minister for Science whose portfolio includes the Commission for the Future and such things, believe that fibre optics will probably have an immense implication for, and put pressure on the whole of, the development of communications, not only in terms of what we readily acknowledge but in terms also of data processing, banks communications, sales, recordings and many other things. I think it will have an immense impact. Mr Barry Jones —There is not much enthusiasm for it in the metals industry. Mr MOORE —I can quite imagine that. Perhaps if one were a wise and prudent investor copper would be on the out and not on the in. I foreshadow that the Opposition will be moving that the 20 per cent tariff be phased out much more quickly to enable this technology to be introduced at a faster rate than is currently the case. It is noted in the IAC report that local production has not gone ahead at the rate which we would expect to meet the demand. Because of this I do not see a good reason to continue to prop up the tariff on a particular product if local manufacturers have not swept into its production at the rate which generally, I think, is required in this nation. Because of that we will be moving at some stage amendments to Schedule 4 and Schedule 9 to give effect to that at a later stage. Considering that I have spent 25 minutes on Customs tariffs, that must outdo even the Minister on that subject. The Opposition will not be opposing the Bill but will be moving this amendment to bring into line what we regard as an essential part of communications development in the entire area of industry. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) drew my attention to a report in the Age of 6 May in which it was stated: The High Court will conduct its own inquiry into whether Mr Justice Murphy is fit to continue on its Bench. The honourable member referred to section 72 of the Constitution which, inter alia, provides that justices of the High Court of Australia shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council acting on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The honourable member raised the reported inquiry as a matter of privilege in terms of the constitutional responsibilities of the Parliament. After the matter was raised, further references were made in the House to the role it is understood justices of the High Court may play in this matter. A breach of privilege is an infringement of the collective or individual rights or immunities of one of the Houses of Parliament, its committees or members, and a contempt is defined as any action which obstructs or impedes a House, a committee or any member or officer of the House or which has a tendency to produce such a result. There can be no doubt as to the gravity of the responsibility of the Parliament under section 72 of the Constitution. However, as I understand the position, no action has been taken by the justices of the High Court which could be construed as attempting to usurp the role of the Parliament under the Constitution. On the information available to me I do not find any evidence of a prima facie breach of privilege such as would warrant precedence to a motion on the matter. Debate resumed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(8.29) —I rise to speak on the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 and cognate Bill. The first Bill proposes a number of amendments to certain bounty and subsidy Acts administered by the Comptroller-General of Customs. The most important measures in this Bill to which the proposed amendments apply are the Bounty (Computers) Act to enable bounty to be paid under the provisions of that Act on modems and multiplexers, generally used with computers; the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act to introduce separate bounty schedules for high alloy steel bar and products and stainless steel flat products and the Bounty (Ships) Act to enable bounties to be paid, under the provisions of that Act, on certain hovercraft. I would like to concentrate on those three items this evening in the short time I have. I shall speak quickly and briefly to each area. In relation to modems and multiplexers, for 20-odd years I was a member of the computer industry as an office equipment technician and also a manufacturer and designer of computer room equipment. Mr John Brown —An outstanding designer. Mr CHYNOWETH —I must admit that some of my designs were excellent. I also manufactured ergonomic equipment, so I am quite aware of what has been happening in the computer industry. However, recently there have been great advances in Australian industry. We in Australia have some of the greatest technicians and designers in the world. Our problem is that we do not get out and sell the product sufficiently. We have the designers and manufacturers. We have the scientists with the intellect to invent these things. But we do not get out into the rest of the world and sell the product. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and also the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) have tried to make certain that industry is more aware of this problem. For quite a number of months they have been trying to generate more interest in the management and skills of selling. I also mention that the Chisholm Institute of Technology in Frankston has an entrepreneurial course. It has set up a course to enable people who have a certain idea, or who think they have a good idea, to go to school and learn how to manufacture, market and look after it after it has been marketed. These sorts of innovations that have been brought in, fostered and helped along by this Government, will in time create a tremendous base for the expansion of Australian industry. Some of the computer industries that have been set up in the last few years in the electorate of Dunkley are quite surprising. Many people say that in Australia we do not have the manufacturing capabilities to manufacture silicon chips. However, there is a small factory in Frankston which at this moment is designing and manufacturing silicon chips. It is designing and manufacturing high technology car dashboards, the design of which has actually been bought by the Japanese and is being made over there. That is the sort of thing that is going on. We also have another factory that is involved in knitting jumpers. This may not seem to be a high technology area, but it gets its designs by satellite from Italy. The designs are sent to this factory in Frankston. We in Australia are world leaders in these sorts of things. We do not wave our flag often enough and tell enough people about it. In the electorate of Isaacs, which is next to my electorate and which is represented magnificently by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), there is the Labtam organisation. This is an Australian organisation which was set up several years ago to manufacture scientific and industrial equipment, mainly scientific instruments. It has branched out into the area of computers. It is well known overseas, but it is not very well known in Australia. Its technology is highly regarded. I believe that recently it received a contract from China for $3m worth of high technology equipment. This is happening not only in Victoria but all over Australia. As I said before, we have the skills and ability to design and manufacture these things. What we need are the skills to go out and sell them, to tell the world that we can do it as well as anyone else. This bounty will enable those manufacturers and designers to go out, I trust, sell the products, create more work and benefit the whole of Australia. The other area I would like to refer to is the area of high alloy steel products. As a turner and fitter, I have worked with steel and have gained quite a lot of satisfaction from turning an inert mass of steel into something functional. I recognise the quality and necessity of some high alloy steels. This steel is essential not only in the heavy engineering area but also in the light engineering area, in the manufacture of dies and gigs. It is also of strategic importance to Australia. We must always manufacture our own steel. We cannot rely on obtaining it from other countries. We cannot rely on overseas suppliers getting their supplies here on time. Many large engineering works are going on and are planned in the future with a requirement for alloy steel. Comsteel used to be the manufacturer of this steel. It is now done by Vickers Comsteel. There has been an amalgamation since Lysaghts was taken over by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Stainless steel, which is one of the best known alloy steels in Australia, is being used extensively in the new Parliament House. We are all aware of the huge flag pole which cost so much and which is made of stainless steel. People do not appreciate the value of alloy steel. That flag pole which is made of steel probably will not rust for 200 years. There will be no diminution of its effect over that time. It will be a symbol that will be seen by thousands and thousands of people who travel to Australia. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, I was being nice to the Opposition. I was explaining how I used to work for a living as a turner and fitter, unlike the mob sitting opposite, who attended silvertail schools to become lawyers so that they could get their money by lying. That is not what I did. I worked hard. I was explaining how turners and fitters need alloy steel. Only one member of the Opposition has come into the House to listen to the debate. It is a disgrace. Mr Robert Brown —He wouldn't know. Mr CHYNOWETH —He would not know. He is one of those people who drink 2,4,5-T. He has a definite brain problem. He would not know what I am talking about. I was explaining how important it is for this country to have its own alloy steel industry. I assure honourable members that the steel makers of Australia will be listening to this debate with bated breath. The workers at Port Kembla, Whyalla, Newcastle-- Mr Hollis —Port Kembla. Mr CHYNOWETH —I have mentioned Port Kembla. I mention also the workers at Hastings, where I used to work. I used to work at Lysaghts. Many honourable members would not realise that. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who represents those people now, is not present. He is probably having dinner somewhere. Honourable members opposite are not interested in looking after the steel industry. I thought that he would have spoken during this debate, but obviously he will not. As I said, steel is a strategically important industry. We must have that industry here. These bounties will assist in maintaining a viable industry. I am quite certain that the managing directors of BHP will not worry about Bell, Mr Elliott or whoever else tries to take over the company. They will be listening to the debate tonight. The other area that I would like to move on to now relates to hovercraft. Hovercraft within Australia are a new area, but are something in which the rest of the world is not too advanced. Great Britain has quite a few large hovercraft, but there is a definite market in Australia for small hovercraft. We have plenty of flat land up in the Northern Territory. They can go over water; they can go over the rocks in the gibber plains of South Australia or up in the Kimberleys. All these areas are crying out for a craft that is mobile over rough surfaces and small rocks where cars cannot go. This bounty that will be paid to hovercraft manufacturers will assist them. It will also assist Australian industry to develop in a new area. Hello, we have the honourable member for Flinders back in the chamber! Mr Reith —On a point of order, I ask the honourable member for Dunkley to withdraw the inferences contained in his gratuitous remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -There is no point of order. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am quite certain that the honourable member for Flinders will have an opportunity in the future to speak on the steel bounty. As I was saying, the hovercraft industry is a new industry and needs some sort of bounty and protection to make certain that it gets off the ground. I am certain that this bounty will assist, and I commend this Bill to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.42) —It is good to see the House getting slightly lively on a subject like this, because it is disappointing that so few members of this Parliament show a great deal of interest in the problems of Australian manufacturing industry, and that is, of course, what this package of legislation is all about. I cannot trust in the sincerity of honourable members opposite in being here because the reason they are here is that they are concerned a quorum will be called; they are not here because they have a genuine interest in this legislation. I do want to get on with my discussion of the legislation rather than continue this party political badinage across the Parliament. Tonight I want to discuss two aspects of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill which is the main piece of legislation before the House and I want, in the first place, to make a number of general points about these measures and, secondly, to say a few specific things, time permitting, about developing country preferences. First, as far as the general points are concerned, in introducing this Bill the Government has foreshadowed several positive measures that I would certainly support. There is a commitment in this legislation on the part of the Government to reduce some of the anachronistic forms of assistance that we have depended upon in Australia for our industries, in particular, the continual emphasis that we placed on tariff assistance. The decision in this legislation to import duty free parts used to build ships is a positive measure. There has been a very slight reduction in the level of tariffs on woollen and carpets imported from New Zealand. There has been a much more positive and significant measure taken in reducing the 15 per cent tariff on grain harvesters and parts to zero and replacing that tariff with a bounty. Finally, amongst the positive measures has been the decision by the Government to support the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and reduce the tariffs on the telecommunications industry from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. The reduction in that tariff from 30 per cent to 20 per cent will save Australian consumers of telecommunications equipment some $10m per year. As that indicates, these tariff reductions, small as I suppose in general terms they are, will reduce costs for Australian manufacturers who import this equipment for their own use and it will also reduce the cost to Australian consumers who are the end users of many of these particular products. I believe many members of the House, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minster for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), have now recognised that tariffs have been a significant obstacle in Australia to structural adjustment and, because of that, Australian industry has been less innovative and has developed less efficiently than it should have done over the years. Indeed, I think there is now a great recognition in the House that tariffs represent the most primitive and ineffectual form of industry assistance. Tariffs, of course, ignore the real cause of the problems of our industries in Australia and, indeed, the imposition of tariffs that have been so much part of Australian industry policy for many years now has only exacerbated many of the causes of our problems rather than alleviated such problems. The only people now left in this Parliament who really favour high levels of tariff protection, as distinct from other forms of industry assistance, are those intellectual cavemen of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. For those who are listening to this debate it is worth noting that there are very few members now of the Labor Party left in this chamber, only to confirm the point I made earlier about a quorum. The Opposition, however, has one basic concern with this legislation and that was already enunciated by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), and that concern relates to the optical fibre and optical fibre cable industry. There is a quite extraordinary inconsistency in the legislation and the Opposition has moved an amendment to draw the Government's attention to that inconsistency in the hope that subsequently the Government will support our amendment to ensure that this whole package of measures actually makes sense. The inconsistency is that the Government has introduced a 20 per cent tariff on imports of optical fibre and optical fibre cable, yet all the other measures in the Bill apparently reduce levels of protection. So, the Government has increased protection from a minimal level of duty to 20 per cent in this particular case. It seems to me quite an extraordinary anomaly, particularly when there has not been a great demand from the industry, to receive this kind of industry assistance. The Government gives no explanation for why it has made this particular change. Indeed, honourable members opposite may be interested to know that the optical fibre and optical fibre cable industry already receives very substantial assistance from the Government by way of, first, Commonwealth Government purchase preference arrangements and, secondly, through the whole system of offsets. Those points are well recognised in the Industries Assistance Commission report on telecommunications and related equipment and parts which the Government claims it is acting on in this legislation. The Australian optical fibre and optical fibre cable industry is already developing and developing very rapidly. Indeed, it is true to say that it is developing very effectively and has been so doing, of course, for more than the last three years. Those developments are based very much on decisions by Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to buy and install digital telecommunications equipment. That, of course, is part of the future of telecommunications, and it is good to see that Australian industry and the Australian public authorities involved in this industry are participating in its development. It is true to say that the optical fibre industry and optical fibre technology will be part of a much broader development in technology being used in things like cable television, which may eventually come to Australia in the years ahead-indeed, I think that over the next 10 or 20 years that will be inevitable-and it will also be used in medicine and, of course, office communications. The Australian industry, without any tariff protection-without a 20 per cent tariff-is getting involved already in this technology and really is getting a significant share of the action. Of course OTC and Telecom have been maximising their local content, but as a result of that three manufacturers have already established themselves in Australia. In the past they have been importing the glass fibre needed for this particular development, but they have announced that they will soon be starting to manufacture optical fibres and optical fibre cable in Australia through a firm called Optex Australia, which was opened in February of this year. The Government argues that this 20 per cent tariff is needed in the interests of neutrality. Yet, when one looks at the decisions the Government has made on modems and multiplexes one can see that it has apparently not favoured the principle of neutrality. The Government has continued to adopt the minimal rates of tariff protection and instead added a bounty. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it is trying to be neutral and, on the other, its policies clearly indicate that it is not neutral at all. One remains completely confused as to why it should have introduced this particular measure. Introducing this measure, introducing a 20 per cent tariff, will only create the traditional problems that tariffs have created for Australian manufacturing industry ever since our industries first started to get going. It will impose an additional cost on the consumers of optical fibres; it will impose additional cost to downstream manufacturers; and it will also create the one problem that tariffs have created for so long-they have taken away the incentive for Australian industry to change when the international market-place demands that Australian industry change in order to compete. The Australian optical fibre industry will be left with the same problems, regardless of this measure, with which the whole of Australian industry is associated. I know that the honour- able member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is deeply concerned about this issue. That is why he is in the House tonight. The industry will be struggling with an extraordinary cost structure in this country which takes absolutely no account whatsoever of the international market-place. Just this week a whole range of new taxation measures will be rushed through the House. The result of those taxation measures will simply be an increase in the fiscal cost of capital in Australia. Already, as the Business Council of Australia has pointed out in a recent document, our fiscal cost of capital is the fourth highest out of the 15 major manufacturing nations in the world. So we have the fringe benefits tax coming in exacerbating that problem; we have, as everybody in Australia now knows, the highest interest rates in the world; and we have an inflexible wage fixing system which is also creating significant problems for manufacturing industries struggling to compete internationally. The additional problem we have always had in Australia is the small size of our domestic market and the need, therefore, for industry to export if it is going to survive. It is difficult enough for it to do that with the cost structure that this Government has created for it; it is also difficult to do with the very inefficient economies of sale, or lack of economies of scale, that our manufacturing industry in Australia has. Indeed, those diseconomies of small scale are one of the consequences of the reliance in Australia on tariff protection which has been so much of our industry policy for so long. We have a very large number of firms in Australia and an extraordinary large number of manufacturing firms. Because of the large number of those firms, they are not getting the necessary economies of scale. If we look at the statistics, we can see that the real value added per establishment in Australian manufacturing industry has actually declined over the last six years in all industries, with the exception of textiles, clothing and footwear. So we do have very significant problems. It is important that those problems are properly recognised by the Government, not by a continual reliance on tariff assistance, but by looking at more progressive and imaginative ways of helping Australian industry and indeed taking the problems of Australian industry seriously. I have already explained what sorts of measures honourable members opposite might like to consider, but they choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the cost structure problems that we have in our manufacturing industries. They throw their heads back, as one honourable member over there did, in laughter at these problems as every manufacturing business in Australia is struggling to survive at this time. Having discussed some of those issues, perhaps in conclusion on the issue of manufacturing industry I should make the one point; that is, if we are going to continue to be effective as a manufacturing nation we have to find ways of achieving cost advantages. I think that has to be a recurring theme in our manufacturing industry. I come from the State of South Australia. In the 1930s that State was basically an agricultural-based economy. Manufacturing industry in Australia was in other parts of the nation. The only way that State ever became a manufacturing State was by achieving significant cost advantages over New South Wales and Victoria. That was as a result of the inspiring policies of Sir Thomas Playford, the Liberal Party Premier of that State for a world record breaking 28 years. He remained in office because he was conscious of the need for a South Australian manufacturing industry to be cost competitive. That is something we have to practise as a nation, not just as a State. Having discussed manufacturing industry, in the last few minutes available to me I would like to say something about the issue of developing country preferences. The Australian system of developing country preferences provides the preferential import arrangements for some 136 countries. In this legislation the Government is introducing new and simplified rules. I very strongly support the initiative in this instance of the Government to simplify our DC preference arrangements. The Government has decided that it should support the recommendations of Dr Helen Hughes who has produced a very fine report on DC preferences. I recommend that honourable members opposite take the time to read it. It is a very good report. In support of Helen Hughes's recommendations, the Government has decided that the DC preference should be 5 per cent below the tariff level. That is a change from the present DC preference which is in the vicinity of 10 to 15 per cent below the general tariff level. That compares very favourably, if one can look at it in those terms, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of about 5 per cent. I think we ought to start following the lead of the other OECD countries and move as much as possible towards reducing that differential between tariff rates. Mr Robert Brown —Wind up. Mr DOWNER —I am supporting the honourable member. The Government has decided to allow duty free imports from the South Pacific Forum countries as a result of a recent initiative in the South Pacific Forum. Developing country preferences do not make a great deal of economic sense. The reason for developing country preferences, as every honourable member of this House knows-and I know I am only preaching to the converted-is to enhance Australia's foreign policy. As Helen Hughes said-I heard an honourable member opposite saying her report was a very good report and he claimed he had read it-developing country preferences are `not grounded in economic theory'. Indeed, developing country preferences are based on a very false assumption, the assumption being that developing countries cannot compete in the markets of the developed world. That certainly is not the case. I would have thought any shopper in Australia would be aware of the very great capacity of a number of developing countries to compete in our market-place. Developing country preferences divert international trade rather than adding to the general stock of international trade. As Helen Hughes has said, they do not make an awful lot of economic sense. Countries which have really benefited from developing country preferences are not the least developed countries; they are not countries such as Bangladesh which really do need real assistance and are not getting any from this Government-I will come to that matter in a minute; they are the newly-industrialised countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and so on. They are the countries that are benefiting from these preferences, not the countries in the greatest need. But the foreign policy considerations are vastly important, as the honourable member for Kooyong knows full well. They are particularly important now because this Government is the Government which has slashed Australian aid; it has reduced enormously Australia's aid budget from the high levels achieved by the Fraser Government, particularly when the honourable member for Kooyong was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever in the issues of North-South dialogue and is a government which has turned its back on developing countries. It said to developing countries and to the poor people of the world: `We don't care'. Of course it makes a laughing stock of those on the other side of the House who claim to be people with some compassion. All that we have left now is developing country preferences. I think it is a good thing that the Government has continued, for foreign policy purposes, to support these preferences. In conclusion, this omnibus legislation before the House is relatively important legislation and should be given greater consideration than perhaps it is being given by the House. Many aspects of the legislation are basically positive, but I hope that the Government, in particular the Minister, would look again at the decisions on optical fibres and optical fibre cable because that is a decision which is inconsistent with the general thrust of the legislation and which, frankly, is pretty incoherent. So I hope the Government will review that decision and, in reviewing it, the simplest thing for it to do is to support the amendment which will be moved by the honourable member for Ryan to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill. I would have thought that that would be a simple option for the Government to adopt. There are aspects of the legislation that are good. I am glad that the Government has continued with developing country preferences. In conclusion, I make one point about foreign policy: I wish this Government would show a bit more concern to developing countries, to the developing countries in our own region in particular. The Government seems so obsessed with placating the Australian Council of Trade Unions and doing deals with that organisation and so uninterested in the problems of not only those in need in our own community but those in need around the world that it is a Government whose record will end up by being, if nothing else, a record of negligence. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(9.01) —The speech of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) can be summed up by a word he just used, that is, incoherent. Sloganeering does not solve national problems. To get up and give a big lecture about-- Mr Connolly —Your whole policy is a list of slogans. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Obviously the honourable member for Bradfield has not read anything. To get up and give a big lecture about how the debate is between those nasty people who want to increase tariffs and those wonderful people who want to reduce them-and that is the totality of the trade and industry policy according to the honourable member for Mayo-is to indicate the total comprehension that one can get from the Liberal Party at the present time. If we were to go for a situation in which the totality of all protection were removed from this country at the present time, if we were to go to that extreme right now, what would we be left with in manufacturing industry? We would be left with nothing whatsoever. The totality of our manufacturing industry would collapse. Therefore, I hope no one is suggesting that in this House. On the other hand, if we were to go for the other extreme situation we would set up massive walls of protection, as some people maintain that I have been suggesting. In fact, I have said nothing of the kind. It is easier to misrepresent and rubbish a person's position than to actually try to analyse and examine the situation. The honourable member for Mayo has attacked a certain section of the Labor Party-the Left of the Labor Party. The honourable member for Mayo is in good company with many others who feel that this is the appropriate way to go, such as Mr David Clark of the Australian Financial Review, who finds it so important that he has run not one but two major articles in the Australian Financial Review attacking the paper that I have written on the reindustrialisation of Australia, and attacking not the essential elements of the paper but in fact attacking a totally misrepresented position. In fact, he did not even look at the proposals. In his first article, for example, David Clark said that I was advocating increases in tariffs, whereas I made it perfectly clear that I was not. If we have learnt one lesson following the devaluation it is this: The devaluation consisted of in effect an increase of 20 to 25 per cent in tariffs and there is, nevertheless, still continuing penetration of imports. I distinctly rejected the proposal that there be increases in tariffs. So much for the member for Mayo and those people who would seek to misrepresent me. The fact of the matter is that we are not advocating increasing tariffs as a solution to the current extremely difficult situation in terms of the trading position in which we find ourselves. Those who suppose that that situation is something simplistic that can be resolved by some kind of simple formula are mistaken because, in fact, a complex and difficult set of proposals is needed. At no time has the economic strategy of a nation in this area of protection consisted of a simple formula. In every case any responsible government must look at a combination of approaches. It must look at a combination of policy measures. In some areas it might be appropriate at a given moment to reduce some tariffs while implementing other forms of assistance; in other areas it might be appropriate to introduce a tariff for a short period of time; and in other areas it might be important to introduce some form of flexible quotas when a devaluation approach may not be working. It has been said by the honourable member for Mayo, a claim that is repeated over and over again, that it was the introduction of a massive tariff regime which created all the difficulties in Australian manufacturing. This claim has been made over and over; but the fact of the matter is that it betrays historical ignorance, because the tariff regime was not introduced until after a long period in which import licensing was the major approach of the Australian Government. From 1952 to 1960 import licensing was the major approach. It was after that point that we had a change to the tariff policy. Even if we assume that it is correct that the tariff approach did stultify industries and did lead to a situation where those industries grew to become outmoded in their technological processes, the fact of the matter is that that tariff regime was not introduced until the 1960s, long after the buildup of industrialisation in the 1950s. It is simply not true to maintain, as has been maintained by some, that the import licensing situation which was introduced to deal with the very serious import problem had no positive effect on the buildup and industrialisation of Australia. In fact, honourable members can read the evidence, and I refer to a book on this matter by Dr Graeme Moffatt in the 1950s called Import Control and Industrialisation. Dr Moffatt makes the point that import licensing at that time had a very positive effect on the development of industries, contrary, by the way, to the claims made by Mr David Clark on behalf of Dr Moffatt. So the fact of the matter is that under certain circumstances certain protective mechanisms can be used and can be involved in a positive process. I turn now to another aspect of this matter. Those people who maintain, as has been maintained by David Clark and by other people here, that, by introducing any form of control on imports, we therefore have a beggar thy neighbour attitude, that we are attacking the Third World countries and that we do not allow sufficient imports into this country, are mistaken because the proposal is not simply to introduce some kind of import restriction and leave it at that. The proposal is: How does an import strategy tie in with a general growth strategy in the economy as a whole? That is the fundamental point. How do we tie in import strategy with a fundamental and general growth strategy? That issue has not been sufficiently addressed, certainly not by the Opposition, for many years. Even when the Opposition tried to have a growth strategy, it never addressed the combined issue of what to do when one has a growth strategy and there is a higher level of imports and a big penetration of imports. This is one of the most fundamental problems facing Western economies. Unless we can develop an answer to this particular theoretical and practical problem not only Australia but many Western nations will be in severe difficulty, because it appears that two things have been put before the people in these nations. On the one hand there is either a slow growth or no growth strategy, a reduction in growth to limit imports, and, on the other hand, there can be an increase in growth but a sucking in of imports. So they are faced with this dilemma, this contradiction. Because they are faced with this dilemma, they are making the wrong choices. If there is anything that can help the Third World at the moment, that can help developing countries at the moment, it is the general expansion of the Western economies. Those Western economies are not expanding in the way that they ought to, given their financial positions and given their economic situations. What are the Western economies doing, especially the Japanese economy, which now has a massive trade surplus and a massive current account surplus? They are refusing to expand their economies and therefore to attract imports from other less developed countries. That is an outrage. Let us look at the situation in relation to the dilemma that I have raised. The fundamental point is this: We must find a way of resolving the problem which, for example, the French socialist Government encountered. When it tried to expand France's economy, to get growth in that economy, there was a massive sucking in of imports and it was forced into a deflationary path, a reduction of growth, and the kind of pressure that goes with it. We want to avoid that sort of problem in Australia, and we have to work towards a resolution of this matter at the theoretical and practical level. If as part of that process we are to talk about some form of import control, so be it. We should not shudder at that suggestion and throw up our hands as if this were the worst possibility in the world. Let me say one other thing in relation to this matter. If we try to reduce imports by reducing growth in our economy, we will still be reducing our imports; there is no question about that. What is the point of being forced into a deflationary process whereby we reduce both imports and domestic growth? How does that assist an economy? We should ask ourselves why we should not try to deal with the problem of the sucking in of imports in a different way, retaining the same level of imports as we would have if we slowed down our economy but allowing room for domestic manufacturing and domestic growth. There is no question that we can adopt that strategy and that that sort of strategy is possible. (Quorum formed) Before the interruption I was talking about the importance of getting a sensible strategy in relation to the whole question of how we relate growth, importing policy and industry policy. The Opposition has absolutely no policy in these areas. Indeed, it tries to throw out slogans as an answer to the very complex problem which we face. Up to the present we have not heard from any members of the Opposition as to what they would do about the severe deterioration in Australia's terms of trade that we have experienced in the last six months and how they would try to come to grips with the fundamental economic and trading problems which have been created as a consequence of that situation. All we have heard from honourable members opposite is how, for example, a reduction in tariffs by itself is supposed to help alleviate a very difficult situation without putting into place important alternative measures. We have heard of no alternative measures from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) or from the honourable member for Mayo except, of course, the latter's suggestion, in line with the usual old formulas, that we have to reduce wages. Whenever the Opposition gets into trouble and has no idea of how to run with a difficult problem it talks about a further reduction in wage levels. It puts that forward as a solution to the fundamental problems facing us in terms of the balance of payments and the reduction in the terms of trade. The processes involved in the Bill before us concerning developing country preferences are important. They are important not only for foreign affairs considerations, as the honourable member for Mayo tried to suggest, but also for humanitarian considerations that have to do with our obligations to the rest of the world. It is not good enough to say: `We have to please some of these nations in our area and therefore we have to do something about developing country preferences'. The fact of the matter is that these poor nations need substantial assistance. It has been mentioned by the honourable member for Mayo that the developing country preference system has not always benefited the poorest nations or those which are in the worst difficulties economically. I accept that point but, again, the honourable member for Mayo did not offer any solution or make any suggestion. All he said was: `The system has not worked very well in the past, so we will leave it at that'. The fact of the matter is that we need to target the developing country preference system in the future to try to help those poorest nations. One of the ways in which we can try to do that is to make planned trading arrangements with those particular nations. We need to try to make specific planned trading agreements with the poorest nations in the world in such a way that they can be assured of markets in our country. Another issue that has never been addressed by the Opposition is this whole question of bilateral planned trading arrangements with particular nations, especially the poorest nations. But when I attempt to address this issue in the paper on reindustrialisation, what do we get? We get the usual snide comments and attacks without any looking at the proposals which are put forward. If the honourable member for Mayo is genuine in his suggestion that he wants to help the poorest nations of the world, I suggest that he look at the whole question of trading arrangements with those nations so that we can assist them and develop our trading situation at the same time. It has been said in this debate that the whole issue of protection for industry is somehow confused and has to be put aside from general macroeconomic and industry policy; that we can proceed with the whole question of determining an industry policy, a macroeconomic policy and even a trading policy, without determining what we will do on this crucial issue of importing policy. The fact is that all of these areas are inter-related intrinsically and that unless we develop an importing policy that is consistent with what we are aiming at in industry policy and with a macroeconomic strategy based on growth, we will not develop the kind of comprehensive framework that we need to resolve the fundamental problems that we have at the moment in respect of Australias terms of trade, balance of payments and general trading situation. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.20) —I open my speech by commenting on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill and in particular on the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), which was so well enunciated by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), whereby the proposed tariff of 20 per cent on optical fibres will revert to 2 per cent. As has been said, optical fibres will be used particularly in the communications industry in this country, which is a developing industry. It is regrettable to think that the tariff will be increased from 2 per cent to 20 per cent and will therefore cause an extra burden and stifle development in the communications industry which is developing so rapidly. I believe that we now have three manufacturers of optical fibres in Australia. They produce only small amounts of the fibre. They produce a few thousand kilometres of the hundreds of thousands of kilometres that will be needed. I do not see that it is necessary to protect these industries; they have been doing quite well so far. I urge the Government to reconsider and to look at the Opposition's amendment. I direct the rest of my comments to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, in particular to the part dealing with high alloy steel products. Two types of high alloy steel are produced in Australia; namely bar products and flat products. The flat products are mainly made from stainless steel. Under the present system bounties are paid on a sliding scale-the more that is produced the less percentage of bounty is paid and the less that is produced the more percentage of bounty is paid. When bounties were first introduced the Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd was the only major producer of both bar and flat steel products. However, now most high alloy bar steel in this country is produced by one company and most of the high alloy flat steel is produced by another company. I am not forgetting the fact that the Atlas company and Overall Forge Pty Ltd produce small amounts of bar products. Because the production of high alloy flat products has been relatively buoyant, bounty payments to Comsteel, which produces bar steel, have been lower than they otherwise would have been. It is proposed in the legislation before us tonight to split the bounty allocation of $9m roughly on a pro rata basis between the two steel producers so that the low producing bar steel producer, Comsteel, will not be averaged up and, therefore, miss out on bounty payments. At first blush that may seem a reasonable proposition. However, on looking closer a number of important points of principle emerge, which cause me to object to what is proposed in this legislation. Not the least of these points is the fact that it will cost the taxpayer of Australia more. In fact, this part of the Bill does little more than then benefit Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd at the taxpayer's expense. Before I turn to that point, I shall look first at the companies involved. As I have said, Comsteel produces bar steel and it is located at Waratah near Newcastle. It is 38 per cent owned by BHP, 38 per cent by Vickers, United Kingdom, and the remaining 24 per cent is owned by the public. The bar steel it produces is used in tool and die production in the car, aircraft, defence, mining and oil industries. Flat steel is produced by the BHP coated products division which was formerly under the control of Lysaghts. It is, of course, 100 per cent controlled by BHP. It produces flat steel consisting of strips, sheet and plate, and the division is located at Unanderra, near Port Kembla, which is near Wollongong. The flat stainless steel is used mainly in the car and building industry, in making containers, furniture, white goods and domestic appliances. The financial impact of this legislation is interesting. It is to be made retrospective to 1 July 1985. For the 1985-86 financial year, we are told that as result of this legislation bounty payments will rise from $3.5m to $4.3m. In other words, it is an $800,000 increase. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr COBB —It is $800,000. In other words, the taxpayer will have to find the extra money. It will cost more. Mr Hollis —What would you do with it? Give it to the farmers? Mr COBB —Honourable members opposite certainly have not. If we look a little more closely at what Comsteel's special division produces, it does not just produce high alloy steel; it produces carbon steel, low alloy steel and medium alloy steel. Mr Slipper —This is a brilliant speech. Mr COBB —I thank the honourable member. Only the high alloy steel is eligible for this bounty. In fact, it amounts to less than 50 per cent of the plant's total output. It is interesting to see the employment figures for Comsteel. In March 1985 there were 243 employees. We can assume that approximately 120, at most, would be involved in high alloy steel production. In other words, the taxpayer of this country will be giving an extra $6,600 subsidy to each worker in this plant. I am talking at this stage only about the bounty subsidy. It makes one wonder where we should draw the line. This company already gets tariff protection. The average effective rate of assistance through tariff protection to high alloy steel production is already running at a rate of 40 per cent. That is seven times the basic protection for steel in this country. At a rate of 40 per cent, it is running at almost twice the average effective rate of protection assistance to manufacturing as a whole. One may wonder what this protection amounts to in dollar terms. In 1981-82-these are the latest figures that I could get-the taxpayer of this country was subsidising the steel industry to the tune of $150m in tariff protection. The figure is higher than that now. It makes one wonder how many downstream jobs are lost as a result of this protection. No doubt it would run into thousands. Mr Robert Brown —You want to destroy the steel industry. Mr COBB —I do not; I want to rationalise it. The present bounty will already increase to 50 per cent the effective rate of protection given by tariffs to high alloy steel products. In other words, the subsidy per high alloy steel worker is already running at several tens of thousands of dollars. Quite frankly, I think we must doubt the wisdom of adding another $6,600 per worker. Mr Slipper —Churchill would be proud of you. Mr COBB —He certainly would. On top of these tariffs, we have the depreciation effect which has taken place in the recent year or so. This has given a de facto increase in assistance to the steel industry of something of the order of 38 per cent. I think that the taxpayers of this country would be reluctant to give any more, as is proposed tonight. Against these arguments I concede the point that there has been an increase in market prices for imported molybdenum, which is an ingredient in the production of alloyed steel. So despite all that protection given by tariffs, bounties and in other forms, it is worth examining why Comsteel, which produces high alloy bar steel, is in such a depressed position. If we examine the problem we will see whether the extra assistance is justified. We can also compare it with BHP's flat steel producer, the BHP coated products division. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables relating to this position. I showed them to the previous Minister on duty, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 Comsteel's Domestic Sales of (Bountiable) High Alloy Steel Bar Products Competitive Imports Total Competitive Market Comsteel's Market Share (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (per cent) 1979-80 ... 26,109 7,517 33,626 77.6 1980-81 ... 19,045 9,546 28,591 66.6 1981-82 ... 17,081 11,306 28,386 60.2 1983 ... 8,730 5,056 13,786 63.3 1984 ... 13,050 9,690 22,740 57.4 January-March 1985 ... 3,350 4,343 7,693 43.5 Source: 1979-80 to 1981-82: TAA Report No. 57 on Certain High Alloy Steel Products, 23 December 1982. Later figures: Comsteel's submissions to the SIA. Table 2 BHP Coated Products Division of Stainless Steel Flat Products Competitive Imports Total Competitive Market BHP Coated Products Division Stainless Market Share (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (per cent) 1979-80 ... 22,058 6,965 29,023 76.0 1980-81 ... 21,627 9,341 30,968 69.8 1981-82 ... 19,180 10,634 29,814 64.3 1983 ... 17,696 8,189 25,885 68.4 1984 ... 22,618 14,843 37,461 60.4 1st Q 1985 ... 5,689 4,723 10,412 54.6 Source: 1979-80 to 1981-82: TAA report (previously referred to). Later figures: Companies' submissions to SIA. Mr COBB —I thank the House. It can be seen from those tables that both Comsteel and the coated products division have had decreases in their sales. These decreases are expressed as a percentage of total domestic sales between 1979 and 1984. However, in the case of Comsteel the decrease was much greater. It dropped from 77 per cent to 43 per cent. But the figures showing tonnage output are much more revealing. The output of flat steel over those five years remained constant at 22,000 tonnes, whereas the output for bar steel-Comsteel's division-has halved. It has gone from 26,000 tonnes down to 13,000. Some of these differences are due to the downturn in demand for bar products, compared with flat products. That raises the question: Why should we give increasing subsidies to products which are going out of fashion? There are other reasons for the differences. There are production differences between bar and flat steel plants due to the way that operations are run in those plants. Quite frankly, in recent years, the technology at Comsteel's Waratah plant at Newcastle has been woeful. For example, in the 18 years from 1966-67 to 1983-84, it has invested only $5.6m in its total special steels division. That is one-third of $1m per year. Mr Slipper —Does the area have a Labor member? Mr COBB —Probably. I shall compare the statistics for Comsteel, taking the same period, with those for the Unanderra plant. It invested four times as much-$22.2m. I will admit that most of this was invested in the early 1970s. Comsteel clearly needs to substantially improve its manufacturing facilities if it is to compete more effectively with overseas suppliers. It is only relatively recently that BHP has closed down its open hearth furnaces there. These were outdated in overseas countries back in the Second World War. I am pleased to see that some BOS furnaces are now being used which not only cut capital costs markedly but also reduce production time by five to 10 hours to times like 35 to 50 minutes. I am pleased to see that the company is looking at other developments, such as electric arc furnaces. Comsteel told the inquiry that was held into the steel industry that it would make the investment in this area only contingent upon the Government assistance being granted. There are other reasons why Comsteel has gone down. The prices charged for its products are interesting. In the 11 months to May 1985 there were three increases in the prices charged for its products of 6 per cent, 6 per cent and 5 per cent. That adds up to a total of 17 per cent in 11 months. The inquiry thought that that was a significant factor in the company's declining market share for bar steel products. Unanderra, which produces the flat high alloy steel, had increases in prices of only 2.3 per cent in the same period and that put it in a better position to compete with imports. It appears that the difficulties in which Comsteel finds itself are at least in part due to a number of factors, most of which are of its own making. These are a decline in demand for high alloy bar steel, outdated technology and high prices. Added to this is a quality problem with bar and, to some extent, flat steel. We have heard numerous stories about local manufacturers having to reject the local product at twice the level of the imported product. No doubt over the course of time this has led to a declining market share. I do not believe that the taxpayers should have to pick up the tab for these mistakes. In fact the Minister's financial impact statement claims that the taxpayers will be up for an increase in the bounty payments of $800,000. This is an increase of 23 per cent. However, the Steel Industry Authority report of 30 October 1985 states on page 9: For high alloy bar products the proposed schedule would have meant bounty payments of around $2.67m in 1984 in comparison with estimated actual payments of $0.61m. That is an increase of around 340 per cent for Comsteel, somewhat above the Minister's overall figure of 23 per cent. Finally, on bounties for high alloy steel, I wish to comment on the sliding scale method of paying a bounty whereby the more steel one produces the less bounty percentage one receives and the less steel one produces the more bounty percentage one receives. That proposal may be logical to some, but to me it borders on the socialist philosophy of rewarding failure and penalising success. Mr Slipper —Dreamtime economics. Mr COBB —It is dreamtime economics. I would like to have seen more consideration given to a flat rate of bounty payment based on average payments. This would give a powerful incentive for companies to get out into the market-place and sell. As the matter stands at present, resources could be attracted into small inefficient plants which may remain content to stay that way. That is not what the taxpayers want; I am sure it is not what the steel industry wants; and I am equally sure it is not what this country wants, if it is to work its way out of its present considerable economic difficulties. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.36) —I am pleased to speak in this cognate debate on the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. My comments will be brief and I will restrict them to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill and particularly to Part V of that Bill. It is not every day that a member gets two bites of the cherry. I was fascinated, when glancing through a copy of Hansard of 30 April, to read on page 2713 the first two pages of the speech that the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has just made. I think he must have been at the 2,4,5-T again, but, as he obviously has an interest in steel production and as he was talking about the Port Kembla works as well as the Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd works, I invite him to come at any time with me to have a look at the John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd works at Port Kembla. I visit that plant quite frequently. If he is interested in innovation, research and development and other areas he should look at the Lysaght works at Westernport, which I have also visited. I was very impressed with what has been achieved there. When the Hawke Government came to power in March 1983 the mighty Illawarra region, which it is my privilege to represent, was devastated. Today this great industrial area-an area based on steel and coal-is slowly recovering. This recovery is in no small measure due to this Government's steel industry plan. I was interested in the comment of the honourable member for Parkes about how these various industries should not be protected with bounties or subsidies. Two weeks ago he was screaming about getting more and more protection for the rural sector of this country. One can rest assured that the rural community and the cockies of this country are not just asking for $800,000. If one added a couple more noughts to that amount one would be somewhere near the amount of money that they are asking for. The honourable member for Parkes has a cheek to talk about inefficient industry when he is representing in this House the cockies of this country, who would be the most inefficient producers anywhere in the world. He talks about industries getting their act together and becoming more efficient, but I suggest that he go out into some of the backblocks in his own electorate and get those people to adopt a little modern technology. The proposed amendments to the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act of 1983, as embodied in Part V of the Bill, follow recommendations made to this Government by the Steel Industry Authority. The two major companies to be affected by the amendments are Comsteel-Vickers Ltd of Newcastle, which manufactures high alloy steel bar products, and John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd of Port Kembla, which manufactures stainless steel flat products. Both companies were heavily involved in discussions with the Steel Industry Authority and the Authority's recommendations to this Government concerning split bounty provisions for the two distinct sectors of the Australian high alloy and stainless steel industry are substantially those put to the Authority by the two companies. Therefore, both companies are quite happy with the proposed amendments to the Act. As explained to me by a representative of Lysaght earlier this week, the proposed amendment will make possible a more equitable distribution of the present bounty. That bounty was agreed on by manufacturers and the Steel Industry Authority in 1983 and was enacted in the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act that same year. The present market situation for stainless steel flat products needs, however, to be seen in its overall context. Following good market conditions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 1982-83 was a disastrous year for steel products generally, including stainless steel. This was not least because of the appalling policies of those honourable members who now sit opposite. (Quorum formed) I had, by agreement, decided to limit my contribution to 10 minutes. However, because of the games that the Opposition is playing and because I have such a good audience, I will now take my full time. I was saying that the downturn in 1983 caused by the policies of those who now sit opposite led to the formulation of the steel industry plan when this Government came to power. The years 1984-85 and 1985-86 have seen a substantial upturn in the market for stainless steel, which is now in a generally healthier situation. Indications are, however, that the demand for stainless steel flat products has now levelled off. The level of demand for locally produced stainless steel flat products is, of course, dictated in part by the amount of similar material imported from overseas and by the selling price of imported products on the Australian market. Imported products have continually undersold Lysaght's production, and Lysaght has been compelled to discount its prices by 12 to 14 per cent in order to hold its share of the market. Present production figures would indicate that since 1982-83, domestic stainless steel production has been able to maintain its position of holding on to slightly less than two-thirds of the total local market. At the same time, the overall demand for stainless steel flat products in Australia has increased since 1982-83 by 65 per cent, rising from 23,000 tonnes in 1982-83 to 38,000 tonnes in 1984-85. On present indications, the demand this financial year will be of the same order, or maybe slightly less, than for 1984-85. Another indication of the health of the stainless steel market is the industry's forward load-that is, the present tonnage on its orders book. In mid-1984, this stood at 8,000 tonnes; in September 1985 it bottomed out at 4,500 tonnes; and by February-March it had improved to 6,500 tonnes. This, it must be emphasised, gives only an approximate indication of present market trends. Stainless steel flat products are used extensively in the Australian manufacturing industry. The manufacture of stainless steel kitchen sinks, to which the National Party of Australia wants to keep women tied, remains as one of its most significant uses. It is also being increasingly used in the whitegoods manufacturing industry, especially for the bowls of dishwashers and clothes dryers where consumers, it would seem, desire stainless steel in preference to coated carbon steel because of its more attractive appearance. Other significant uses include railway carriages, motor car parts and a wide variety of commercial and industrial vats and containers. Finally, mention should be made of one particular growth area-namely, the catalytic converters on cars using lead-free petrol, where stainless steel is preferred because of the high working temperatures and its resistance to corrosion and abrasion. The future of the domestic stainless steel production and manufacturing industries may brighten substantially soon. As I have already indicated, in 1984-85 some 37 per cent of the Australian market for stainless steel flat products was supplied from overseas imports, and the situation is still much the same. At the moment, the Australian Customs Service is investigating complaints from the local industry that a number of overseas countries are dumping stainless steel products on the Australian market. The countries against which the complaints are being made include Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, West Germany and Korea, which between them are responsible for some 70 per cent of our total stainless steel flat product imports. The local industry has also asked that the export prices of industries operating in France, Italy and Japan be reviewed. Should the complaint of dumping be substantiated, the local industry would become increasingly competitive and gain a larger share of the domestic market. On present indications, Lysaght's production of stainless steel flat products should be maintained at about 21,000 to 22,000 tonnes per annum. Under the present amending legislation, the bounty paid to the local industry will be based on a sliding scale, with a cut-off figure set at 25,000 tonnes. Under present market conditions, this would be of some advantage to Lysaght in terms of immediate government assistance. Of far greater importance to the company, however, is the guarantee provided by the legislation that, should there be a temporary downturn in the demand for locally produced stainless steel flat products, Lysaght would be able to maintain a reasonable cash flow and weather the storm. Lysaght has, I believe, worked hard over the years and done its best to deserve such consideration. During the difficult days of 1982-83, when there were a great number of retrenchments in the Illawarra, when other sectors of the steel industry ruthlessly retrenched many workers, Lysaght refrained from taking similar action at its Port Kembla works. The company has continued in its commitment to research and development as it has sought to re-establish itself on the domestic market, with no small measure of success. Lysaght has, at the same time, sought to maintain high standards of quality control and to continue its program of plant modernisation. Several years ago, the company made a commitment to the Steel Industry Authority and the Government that it would practise price restraint on all its products and would not allow any price increases to exceed consumer price index increases. In fact, it has been able to keep its price increases at about 50 per cent of CPI increases. I commend the Bills to the House. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.46) —I thought the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) was going to continue his diatribe. He suggested that he was going to take his full time. Perhaps he ran out of something to say. Mr Hollis —I took pity on you. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, and other members of the House who have to listen. The two Bills before the House-the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1986-are both important measures. Mr Slipper —You are a real credit to Berowra. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the honourable member. We will see how I go with this speech. The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill provides the enabling legislation for three decisions in respect of the payment of bounties to industry-firstly, in the area of certain communications equipment used with computers, namely, modems and multiplexers under the Bounty (Computers) Act; secondly, in respect of certain high alloy steel products in the context of the steel industry plan; and, thirdly, in respect of assisting the production of hovercraft-type vessels in the context of the Bounty (Ships) Act. The legislation brings the production of modems and multiplexers under the scope of the Bounty (Computers) Act so that from 1 July this year a bounty of 25 per cent of the value added will be available for the local production of these products. Modems and multiplexers are communications equipment used as the link between computers to enable them to communicate with one another. To that extent they are products which in a wide sense are used in the computer industry. This well illustrates the increasing convergence of telecommunications and computer technologies. As I said, the Bill makes these products eligible for bounty under the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984. It was always the intention under that measure that the classes of equipment eligible for bounty should be readily varied and added to in order to cater for the rapidity of technological change in this industry and to keep the assistance package relevant to the needs of the industry. The Opposition is fully supportive of this approach. The computer industry is perhaps the world's largest and most pervasive industry. It is important that Australia get into this area and that it make full use, as I am sure the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would agree, of modern, high, new-call it what you will-technology. At the same time I believe that it is also important that Australia have some production facilities in the industry on the ground affording a measure of independence in the control of information technology and providing jobs in manufacture in Australia. Mr Webster —Which are long overdue. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague said, they are long overdue. To make full use of it it is essential that Australia have access to modern technology, at or near world prices, while, as I have said, we encourage actual production facilities in appropriate areas in Australia. The effect of the original Bounty (Computers) Act was to abolish tariffs in that area and substitute bounties and similarly the effect of this measure will be to abolish tariffs and substitute bounties for modems and multiplexers. In this way users have access to world wide high technology products at world prices, thus encouraging the most sophisticated use of modern technology while at the same time domestic Australian producers and manufacturers competing against the lower priced end products will themselves be assisted, firstly, by being able to import components at tariff free prices and, secondly, by receiving the bounty assistance at the level of 25 per cent of value added in Australia. So, the abolition of the tariff on these products in this area of the computer industry and the substitution of the bounty represents a substantial and felicitous freeing up of this market. It has been a highly desirable development. I have enlarged somewhat on these matters as they lead me to a comment I wish to make, as colleagues have done before me, in respect of the second Bill in this debate, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill and Schedule 4 dealing with the communications industry. The main thrust of the measure and of the Government's decision in that area, which has been operative from 11 October last year, was, in accordance with the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission, to reduce the tariff rate of 30 per cent applicable to most of these products, to 20 per cent. This change is to be phased in over four years. Mr Cobb —They ignored it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Well, the Government ignored it in one respect. That reduction from a rate of 30 per cent to the 20 per cent rate is to be welcomed, but the 20 per cent rate also is to be applied to optical fibre and optical fibre cable. Previously those products were dutiable only at the 2 per cent revenue rate. Mr Cobb —Cut the impost. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is a very significant impost compared with the 2 per cent revenue rate that previously prevailed. What this raises in a readily understandable way is the whole issue of whether a long term tariff structure of the order of 20 per cent is desirable over the whole range of communications equipment at all or whether-bearing in mind the computer industry situation to which I have referred-access to modern-technology communications hardware products should not be available as in the case of computer equipment at or near world prices. As in the case of computers that would mean that, if assistance were to be given at all, it should be by way of bounty. I say here that it is the computer-telecommunications industry which is the vast industry of the future. I refer, in particular, to optical fibre because the new wave of terrestial communications in this continent-north to south and east to west, as well as in other contexts-will involve a very large usage. In this context the cost raising effect of the 20 per cent tariff is highly undesirable. It would be fair to say that the Industries Assistance Commission in its report rehearses the arguments for tariffs versus bounties and for a combination of tariffs and bounties and, indeed in some cases, for no assistance at all. That is contained in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of that report. There are complex issues, of neutrality in the approach to assistance of the different circumstances of the consumer electronics, automatic data processing and the communications equipment sectors, of the role of the major purchaser of communications equipment, Telecom Australia, and, in particular of course, the proportion of actual or likely Australian supply in relation to the whole market. Certainly in the automatic data processing case domestic production is a very small proportion of the market. The computer bounty is only of the order of $15m all told. Of course, that does not apply in relation to the telecommunications industry where to provide, by way of bounty, the level of assistance given by way of the proposed 20 per cent tariff would cost in the order of $80m. At least in the case of optical fibre if there is to be assistance the Opposition believes that the lower costs in telecommunications development outweigh considerations of neutrality, so that if there were to be assistance a bounty certainly would be preferred to a tariff. If there is a case for some sort of assistance, then that rests on the usual disabilities of manufacturing in Australia such as the small scale of the Australian market and other factors, in particular, the rigid and inflexible wages system we have in this country, not to mention present difficulties such as the very high interest rates that prevail. Mr Cobb —Outrageously high. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —They are outrageously high and set to go back up-- Mr Slipper —Deliberately set by the Government. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —They are deliberately engineered by the Government as a means of attempting to cope with the massive and yawning gap in our balance of payments. In conclusion there is only one other aspect of these Bills to which I refer briefly and that is the change in the developing countries preference regime. This, indeed, is a very significant change. What the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill provides is that the developing country rate will be five percentage points below the general tariff rate where that general tariff rate is 5 per cent or greater. I make reference to this because in fact Australia was the first country in the world to introduce such preferences. I think that was in 1966. I was in a small way involved in that matter. Such preferences are now accorded by most developed countries. Of course, in the initial stages the developing country preferences had a very limited scope relating to the more simplified products of the developing world. Nevertheless, it is an honourable episode in Australia's international aid programs. I might say that the aid program has fallen off under the present Government, despite the great concern it professes to have for aid to developing countries. However, we now have this new scheme which in fact represents a significant improvement because since that initial introduction the developing countries scheme has quite distorted Australian industry policy. It has increased disparities in tariff assistance between like goods and created uncertainty about assistance levels for local manufacturers, thereby hampering restructuring and business planning. It has only led to increasing friction with Australia's developing country trading partners. Therefore, in this area this quite significant development is to be welcomed. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.00) —We are discussing the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1986. I refer in particular to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have already said, it deals with the reduction of the rate for modems and multiplexers. I want to refer to a couple of the contributions made by Opposition members. We had, firstly, the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-I would be pleased if he would correct me if I misunderstood him-who said in relation to optical fibre that the real problem in Australia was insufficient capacity to cater for the demand and that for that reason we should, in effect, not adopt the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission report to give the industry some protection and an opportunity to expand and grow; that, in fact, we should leave the rate as it is, at one to 2 per cent. On the other hand, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) said that it was a burgeoning industry and doing extremely well, and therefore was not in any need of assistance. Mr Hollis —That is typical of the Opposition. Mr PRICE —That is quite true, as the honourable member for Throsby, who has already made an excellent contribution to the debate, said. Let me refer to my recollection of reading the report. Mr Moore —Just try the facts; get the facts straight for a start. Mr PRICE —That is what I understood the honourable member for Ryan to say. If I misunderstood him, I am quite happy to apologise. But that was my understanding. Let me help the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan, who perhaps did not read the IAC report, by saying that Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd has been producing optical fibres for some time. In fact, there are three other firms in Australia wanting to move into the same industry. I am unable to say tonight whether those intentions to take up that were expressed in the report have become a reality. I think it is extremely important that Australia have a presence in a high technology area such as optical fibres. It is obviously the way to go. One of the problems that the honourable member faces in regard to the amendments he foreshadowed is that he will potentially wipe out any increases in size, any increases that come from the larger scale operation that the honourable member for Mayo mentioned. These are what the honourable member is putting at risk, as well as existing and future jobs. I want to make a couple of other remarks about the report. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would appreciate, some of the recommendations in the IAC Report on Telecommunications and Related Equipment and Parts have already been implemented by the Government. Let us look at the size of the purchases made by Telecom Australia, the predominant influence in the industry. The report indicates that Telecom places about $1,000m per annum with local industry. Approximately 65 per cent of that amount is high technology expenditure. This is a huge amount of money. The report goes on to state that Telecom purchases up to 70 per cent of all local manufacturing sales. Mr Lee —It is a lot of jobs. Mr PRICE —It is a hell of a lot of jobs. The pity of it, and the theme that I want to take up in a bipartisan way, is that we could be doing a lot more. Let us look at what AWA said about offsets, because it is very revealing. It stated: . . . very little design and development work has been placed in Australia as a consequences of these policies. As a result the work that is done here is thinly based and often described as of a `colonial' nature . . . [In] many projects where high technology production or considerable research and development is involved, Australian industry is offered offset participation in the labour intensive, low skilled areas of local assembly and test. This results in short term job creation that does little to assist with the long term development of the local telecommunication industry. That was generally said in relation to offsets. I make the observation that the effect of the presence of the six major multinational companies and the one Australian company, AWA, which has been so victimised tonight by the Opposition, is that, generally speaking, we are involved in the lowest level of technology-that is, labour intensive assembly. We must change that. I believe that Telecom policies have been an abysmal failure. Telecom suggested to the IAC that the multiplier effect is something like three to seven. This has been shown in overseas studies which involve Telecom services, I point out, and not investment. But, even if the multiplier is only half of that, it is an important industry that we need to foster. We should not depend on imports all the time. I would like to highlight a number of Telecom's corporate policies that I think are in drastic need of change. One is the naive relationship it seems to have with the multinational companies. The other is that I do not believe we can honestly describe Telecom either as a marketing oriented organisation, or even, with great respect to the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), an engineering dominated organisation. It is very much a supply constrained organisation. It has a corporate policy of not entering into liquidated damages contracts with its suppliers. It has a very poor record of effectiveness in that regard. Telecom corporate management from time to time likes to throw around the theory that, because of our small size it terms of the world market, we cannot possibly be expected to develop and innovate products in the Australian market that are capable of servicing Australia and overseas companies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the report concerning market penetration by telephone handsets in selected industrialised countries. Mr Moore —I have not seen it. Mr Connolly —I have seen it. Leave is granted. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 2.7 MARKET PENETRATION BY TELEPHONE HANDSETS IN SELECTED INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES:(a) JANUARY 1980 (per cent) Market size (millions of telephones) Percentage of world's telephones Telephone density (per 100 population) United States of America... 175.5 37.2 79.1 Japan... 55.4 11.7 47.6 United Kingdom... 26.7 5.7 47.7 West Germany... 26.6 5.6 43.4 France... 22.5 4.7 41.4 Canada... 15.6 3.3 65.6 Australia... 7.4 1.6 52.0 Netherlands... 6.9 1.5 48.6 Sweden... 6.4 1.4 77.1 Switzerland... 4.4 0.9 70.4 Total... 347.4 73.6 57.3 (a) Countries with more than 4 million telephones (about 1 per cent of the world's telephones) and with telephone densities exceeding 40 per 100 population. Source: Based on information compiled by Telecom from `The World's Telephones' by AT&T. Telecom Australia, Submission, op. cit., p. B8. Mr PRICE —I thank the House. I object to what the honourable member for Ryan suggested. I did show the document to the shadow Minister who was then at the table. I would not be discourteous to the Opposition. A feature of the table is that Sweden has 1.4 per cent of the world market, while Australia has 1.6 per cent of the world market. In fact, Australia has a higher level than Sweden. But, as honourable members would know, L. M. Ericsson is a world-wide communications industry, capable of supporting not only a strong domestic industry but also a very vigorous export industry. While I am on that subject, let me say that Telecom has a very elaborate research laboratory. Indeed, under the previous Government it developed a public exchange system in those laboratories. Unfortunately, that was killed off and we made the decision to purchase Ericsson AXE equipment, more is the pity. I refer to a question on notice that I asked the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) about the relationship between the research laboratories and the product managers at Telecom headquarters and whether they have any input. In response to that question Telecom supplied an appalling answer, the sum of total of which is that in 1984-85 $32.4m, which was the cost of running the research laboratories, produced not one innovation, not one product. That is the other aspect to which I point in talking about the general computer communications industry. What has Telecom done to involve itself with Australian manufacturers in terms of joint ventures? Certainly, I notice from a recent Press release that it has set up an office within Telecom to help local manufacturers, from what I can perceive, to win some networking products. But what about the terminal products? Why cannot Telecom take a much more entrepreneurial role in developing products in Australia that will fill world niches in the communications area? I turn to a couple of points about the IAC. Having read the report, I take umbrage at the classic model of unctuous umpiring in which the IAC indulges. It does not seem to be accountable for the fact that manufacturing industry in Australia is not increasing, but is in decline. I place on record my belief that our current figure of 18 per cent for manufacturing industry is too low. I believe that it can be, and should be, higher and that we need to start targeting for growth. It is fair enough to say that the Government and the IAC have been very effective in dealing with some of the basket case industries. But it is important that the Government, the IAC and all people involved in economic policy start to pay attention to growth areas in the economy, such as the communications and computer area in Australia. If we do not start off promoting our potential for growth our diminishing manufacturing sector will decline further. I was going to refer to some of the National Party members, but regrettably they are not here. This is an issue that is not just a city or a town issue; it affects every Australian. Either we are going to return to a semblance of full employment or, alternatively, both the Opposition and the Government will have to look at policies designed to cater for an acceptably high level of unemployment. I believe that the communications area is a fertile area for growth and an area where Telecom has not beneficially exercised its market dominance. It is an area where I hope we will be seeing changes. I hope that we will be seeing the development of products, joint ventures and a dynamic and growing industry. I would like to conclude on that note. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.11) —in reply-I thank the honourable members for Ryan (Mr Moore), Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), Mayo (Mr Downer), Calwell (Dr Theophanous), Parkes (Mr Cobb), Throsby (Mr Hollis), Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) and Chifley (Mr Price) for their contributions. I will just take up some of the points made, particularly by the lead speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Ryan, who foreshadowed an amendment at the Committee stage. It is based on a fallacy. He said that the rates on fibre optics should be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent over two years. What the amendment proposes is different-it maintains minimum rates for the goods. Prior to the Industries Assistance Commission report on telecommunications and related parts, fibre optics received no assistance. The tariff was at minimum rates and there was no bounty. The IAC recommended tariff assistance of 20 per cent for optical fibre and optical fibre cable. The Government accepted this and the duty came into effect when the IAC report was implemented in October 1985. Optical fibre preforms were not included under reference to the IAC and the telecommunications report, and the Government decided to also grant these goods assistance as from 1 July 1986. If the Opposition were to succeed, a growth industry would be left in a situation where it received no assistance. It is for that reason that I believe that later on the amendment should not be accepted. It should be stressed that local manufacturers told the IAC that optical fibre and optical fibre cable are considered as infant or sunrise industries which could be classed as high technology. This is an issue that was raised several times by speakers from the Opposition, in particular the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Berowra. I do not wish to simply keep repeating the point over and over again. Honourable members need to be reminded that local industry did request assistance from the IAC. There is a contrast to what is being done with the bounty for modems and multiplexers. These goods are more related to computer technology and the Government's decision, which was also in line with the IAC recommendations, aligns this assistance with that grant and with the computer industry. The other subject that was raised was essentially the question of bounty provided in the high alloy steel products. It should be pointed out that the previous bounty ceiling of $9m has been retained. What is different is the proportionality about how the expenditure will be placed; $3.28m will be apportioned for bar products and $5.2m for flat products. The honourable member for Chifley gave us a bit of insight into the operation of the telecommunications industry based on his own extensive experience in that area, and I was grateful for his words of support for the Government and what it is trying to do to develop high technology industries. We recognise the important role of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd, I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Barry Jones-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.17) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 4, page 4, proposed new item 70.18.1, omit- ``70.18.1 - Goods, as follows: (a) optical fibre; (b) optical fibre cable 20% FI: Free DC: 10%'', substitute- ``70.18.1 - Goods, as follows: (a) optical fibre; (b) optical fibre cable 2% FI: Free DC: Free''. (2) Schedule 4, page 5, proposed new item 90.13.3, omit- `` `90.13.3 - Optical fibre cable 20% FI: Free DC: 10%'.'', substitute- `` `90.13.3 - Optical fibre cable Free FI: Free DC: Free'.''. (3) Schedule 9, page 93, proposed new item 70.21.1, omit- ``70.21.1 - Optical fibre preforms, being goods of a kind used in the manufacture of optical fibres 20% FI: Free DC: 15%'', substitute- ``70.21.1 - Optical fibre preforms, being goods of a kind used in the manufacture of optical fibres 2% FI: Free DC: Free''. In so doing I do no more than recommend the excellent speech made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) on this subject. Despite the assurances given by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in relation to the fibre optics, it is the view of the Opposition that this is a potentially significant area of growth in the future. We recognise that Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd has been the pioneer in this area in Australia. The reason approaches were made to the Industries Assistance Commission was presumably that it was seen that the cost of production by AWA was not really at the levels or at a level that was too high to promote local consumption. It is the view of the Opposition that in such an important area not only should AWA be encouraged to produce to meet the Australian market but the Australian market must have a product at a price that will be used by the Australian consumer. It is a very valuable market and we must ensure that the cost to the consumer-which is to everybody-is at the lowest possible level. The Opposition has moved this amendment because it believes that it is the right course of action. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce)(10.19) —The Government rejects the amendment. The point that needs to be stressed is this: We are all eager to promote optical fibre and related technologies. We have a degree of expertise in it. It needs to be recognised that, compared to the production of conventional cable with silver, copper and other metals involved, the actual unit cost is extraordinarily low with identical carrying capacity. There are tremendous cost benefits to industries involved in it. In many ways the sufferer will be the traditional metals industry which thought it would be able to corner and hold the market for a long time. That obviously will not happen. There will be a fibre optics revolution, which is now beginning and which will sweep around. As honourable members know, the Government has been far more liberal in its attitude to tariffs than some preceding governments. We are not inflexible on these matters. We hope we will see, if they are not already in operation, three significant producers of optical fibre and optical fibre cable. They recommended to the Industries Assistance Commission that there ought to be a 30 per cent duty. In fact, 20 per cent is the rate recommended for imposition. This is a reasonable step for an infant industry of such significance. That is not to say that in five or ten years' time that situation will remain. It is something we will have to continue reviewing. We are not rigid or insensitive on these matters. Rather than prolong the agony, we propose to reject the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.23) —Last night my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) brought to the attention of this House one of the problems now facing this country; that is, that people on unemployment benefits in many cases are as well off, in some cases probably even better off, than those who are actually out working earning a living and making a productive contribution to this country. I thought that tonight I might just bring to light another example that has been brought to my attention by a constituent of mine. This constituent runs a small business. He had an employee who, he worked out very carefully, with overtime was getting $498.50 a week. The employee of this constituent had the misfortune to find one day that his wife had left him with three children. He went along to the local social security office and asked whether any assistance was available to help him look after his three children. I regret to say that the social security office said to him: `The best thing you can do is give up your job'. Naturally the employer was horrified. He suggested to this man that he ought to look around to see whether there was some way in which he might be able to get somebody to help look after the children so that he could continue in his work. This fellow spoke to a single parent, a mother with one child, and asked her whether she would be prepared to look after the children in return for some small remuneration. This supporting parent said that unfortunately she already had two part-time jobs, that both of them paid cash and that, although she was on the full benefits and all the various things one can get from social security, her time was fully occupied and she was not interested. The employee then went back to the employer and said: `Even though I was earning $498.50 a week, it would appear that, with the various benefits available to me under social security, I would be better off if I gave up the job'. Unfortunately that is just what he did. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to this matter because I think it is extremely serious. Here we have a person who was a good employee. His employer was very happy with him, and is rather disturbed that he is finding it very hard to replace him. Yet because of the way the social security system is now structured it was to the benefit of this person, financially anyway, to give up his job. From being a contributor to society and a contributor to the tax system, he is now nothing more than a financial drain. This highlights one of the basic problems that this country is facing. It highlights the problem that many people are now finding it more attractive to live off the taxpayer than to contribute to society. The honourable member for Corangamite made this point very well last night when he highlighted in some detail the figures on some of these problems. This example that has been drawn to my attention again highlights the problem. It highlights the fact that someone earning what would have to be considered quite a good salary-$498.50 a week-can still find it more attractive not to work than to take a job and, because of the supporting parent's benefit, the various medical benefits and the benefits available with housing rental, could be financially better off. I find this rather alarming. I think it is extremely serious. It highlights a problem that this country really has to face up to. I know that there is no easy answer and I certainly would not want any one to believe that assistance should be denied to those who are in genuine need, but it is quite obvious that our system is failing when people who are prepared to work find that it is financially advantageous to give up their jobs. I hope all honourable members in this chamber will take this matter on board and look at it. I know that there is no easy answer, but if we are to make this nation a great nation I believe we have to take away this disincentive for people to get out there and work. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.27) —Firstly, I would like to respond to the comments made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I cannot carry around all the figures on the charts supplied by the Department of Social Security, but I would be very surprised if any single father with three children would be financially better off receiving social security than if he had a job for which he was receiving $498.50 a week. I would be very surprised if that is the case. I believe that the honourable member for Wannon may have come across a case of someone in the Department of Social Security giving poor advice to that gentleman. I am surprised that the honourable member for Wannon has not checked this out and corrected the Social Security office concerned. Mr Hawker —I have checked the facts. Mr LEE —The interjection perhaps suggests that the facts have not been checked. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the honourable member later to check whether a mistake has not been made. Tonight I also wish to discuss the question of social security and the related question of telephone rental concessions. As the member for the electorate within New South Wales that has the largest number of pensioners, many constituents are coming to me with complaints that it is taking more than 12 months for the Department of Social Security and Telecom Australia to arrange for telephone rental concessions to be paid to my constituents. When inquiries are made it is usually claimed that forms have been lost and that there are delays and backlogs in processing either at the Department of Social Security or at Telecom. After doing some investigation I think that a lot of needless bureaucratic procedures are gumming up the works. I can cite examples of a veteran's wife receiving a telephone concession. If the veteran dies, the wife becomes eligible for assistance from the Department of Social Security, whereas she used to receive assistance from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It then takes a full 12 months, if forms are lost, before the lady is entitled to receive her telephone rental concession again. That is just not good enough. Compare that with local councils. Wyong Shire Council covers most of my electorate. A pensioner can receive a 50 per cent discount on his rates in Wyong shire. If he receives a pensioner health benefit card the day before the rates are issued, he can turn up at the council chambers the day afterwards and claim a full 50 per cent discount on his rates. That is not the case with Telecom. As I have explained, sometimes it takes up to 12 months for the telephone rental concession to be passed on. What happens at the moment is that a pensioner is required to fill out a form at the social security office at Wyong, and it is lodged at Wyong. It is then sent by the Department of Social Security to a central social security processing office in Sydney, which keys that information into a computer in Sydney where the pensioner health benefit entitlement and the dates of eligibility are confirmed. Some clerk then puts a stamp on that form, which is then resorted into Telecom district order and sent to the Telecom business district at Wyong. Of course, each time a person handles the application there is another candidate for the loss of the form. Once the form gets to Gosford, Telecom keys that information into its computers and the concession should be received by the pensioner when the next account is due. I really do believe that that procedure belongs in the age of the early post-war years and not in a modern age where we have access to computer technology. I think a pensioner should be able to obtain immediately the telephone rental concession by presenting his pensioner health benefit card to a Telecom business office. I think it is about time that the Department of Social Security was able to pass the information directly to Telecom by magnetic tape and not have to pass on reams and reams of forms. I am confident that both the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will investigate this matter and ensure that action is taken as quickly as possible. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.33) —Tonight I would like to refer again to a piece of legislation which has been through this House, that is, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Mr McArthur —A terrible Bill. Mr MILES —Yes, terrible legislation which honourable members on this side of the House have certainly given a commitment to repeal. Right around Australia there are literally thousands and thousands of people who find this type of legislation totally abhorrent, and it is no wonder. It is very interesting to look at some of the information which continues to come out of the Human Rights Commission. I would just like to read out a little bit of its appraisal of its trialling of its educational kit in 155 schools around Australia. It says this: And from what has been gleaned to date teachers are not only finding that this kind of social education is worth while and works but that the human rights framework provides a natural home for what could be called value courses. I wonder what sorts of courses these value courses are. I think that what we have to do is go back to Occasional Paper No. 9 and see what the Human Rights Commission believes the role of schools is. The Human Rights Commission says that the main role for teachers is to be social activists and it says this about the curriculum: Its ultimate intent, the actual important aspect of what we teach children in the schools, is to be emancipatory and reconstructionist. I would ask: What is the Human Rights Commission on about when it talks about value courses, emancipating children and reconstructing them? What do parents send their kids to school for? To be emancipated from what? It is certainly not spelling, and it is certainly not mathematics, and it is not social science or any of those sorts of things. They are to be emancipated from the values that their parents have given them. That is what the Human Rights Commission is saying to the people of Australia. Mr Cobb —Tearing down the fabric of society. Mr MILES —It certainly is, as the honourable member says, tearing down the very basic fabric of our society which has been developed over 200 years in this country. The basic fabric of our society has been developed over a period of time when people have thought carefully about the rights and freedoms that ought to be in this society and, therefore, they have inculcated those values into their children. However, we now have a group of people who believe that our children ought to be emancipated and that they should be reconstructed to become something quite different. It is very interesting to look at some of the issues which the Human Rights Commission would like addressed, such as racism, sexism, peace, development, law awareness, and multiculturalism. That is fine; they are quite laudable areas to look at; but I would like to add a few others. Why does not the Human Rights Commission talk about the importance and the value of every individual being able to balance the books? Why does not it talk about that sort of value? Why does not the Human Rights Commission talk about the value of the work ethic in our society? It does not believe in it. Not only that; it is ignoring it to the detriment of this nation. What about the value of being honest in our society? The Human Rights Commission never mentions that sort of thing, and does not mention as a value how important it is for each of us to be accountable for what we do. It never mentions that sort of accountability. However, the Human Rights Commission goes into all these other fringe areas. I am talking about very basic tenets of any free society. What we must do as a nation is reject totally this type of approach whereby we can have a bureaucracy introducing into our schools value subjects. Parents in government schools believe that our government schools should be independent of political interference. Yet this is exactly what the human rights people want to do. They have a political agenda and they want to remodel our children. I do not believe that any Australian family wants that, and we ought not to have a bar of it. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.36) —The matter that I wish to raise tonight relates to the public reaction to the attack of the United States on Libya in the middle of last month and, in particular, the reaction of young Australians to the military actions. It is not my intention to debate the rights or wrongs of the incident but to highlight the concerns expressed by certain students from my electorate. Certainly, this is appropriate following the remarks of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who tried to indicate that students were influenced by teachers. I will deal with that as I go along. On the day of the action my electorate office was contacted by a teacher at Geoghegan College in Broadmeadows who, on behalf of and at the request of students in his politics class, communicated their anger and disillusionment at the events of the day. In particular, the students were deeply concerned about whether there had been any involvement of American bases on Australian soil in the execution of the attack, and they were anxious that information be sought on this matter. As the House will recall, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) asked exactly this question of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the day following the attack. The Minister for Defence pointed out that these installations are joint facilities and that he was not in a position to confirm or deny their involvement. I have forwarded a copy of this answer to the students and, whilst I cannot vouch for their satisfaction with the answer, at least they have the knowledge that the question that they wanted to be asked has been posed. The second reaction that I wish to highlight was reported in the Melbourne Sun of 19 April. Students at Thomastown High School were also deeply shocked and concerned about the American action-so much so that they decided to voice their response in a letter to President Reagan. I have subsequently obtained a copy of their letter, which I believe is worthy of quotation at length, as follows: Dear Ronald Reagan, We are a number of students that have just started high school. We have been listening to several broadcasts on the radio and TV. We are deeply concerned about it. Many of the students at out school have relatives in the continent where the war might begin. We hope that World War III won't begin and get out of hand. In World Wars I and II many innocent people were killed, we don't want that to happen again. We would like the world to live in peace. This is International Year of Peace. We even have a coin to try and convince people to live in peace. Everyone is scared and worried in this world. We are scared about war and its effects. If anyone drops a nuclear bomb, it could kill all people. Our food would be poisoned, everything we have would be demolished, and all our dreams and wonderful wishes will be shattered. We're sure that you had a fantasy and dreams about the future, when you were young. You probably had the chance to achieve them. We would like that chance too. We are not blaming you, we think America is a great country but it is getting to a stage where we have blame you and Gadaffi, and ask you to please come to your senses and stop the fighting. In addition, the teacher of these year 7 students sent an accompanying letter. She has indicated to me that the response to their sending the letter has been mixed. Her letter states: Unfortunately, some of the criticism is based on the assumption that I- that is, the teacher- have been teaching my students about the American-Libyan crisis and giving a biased perspective. Another criticism has been that we should have written to both Reagan and Gadaffi. The students didn't seem to want to write to Gadaffi. Another example of the reaction of students was the publication in the Access Age of 23 April of two separate letters from students of St Monica's College in Epping. The first letter read: Ronald Reagan must have forgotten it is the International Year of Peace. But the Russians on the other hand, the so-called bad guys, have managed not to participate in the Libyan crisis. Reagan, the man obsessed with stopping terrorism, will not find the answer by bombing innocent families asleep in their beds. The second letter read: Colonel Gadaffi, a man of terror, has an exact counterpart in the form of Ronald Reagan. Each man has enough power to terminate the lives of thousands of innocent people. Both these men should harness their power for united world peace not world-wide terror. It is not my intention to discuss the correctness of these responses, but it is clear that amongst these students there is a clear recognition of the International Year of Peace and the desire that it not be simply empty rhetoric but supported by concrete actions. I commend those young Australians in my electorate who have shown the courage and community-mindedness to express their views in public forums. This Government has done more than previous governments in providing a voice for young Australians, and it is an ongoing responsibility of the Government to ensure that their articulate hopes and aspirations for the future do not fall on deaf ears. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.42) —This year is the centenary of the shire of Gooburrum, a local authority in the electorate of Hinkler. The Gooburrum shire of today owes much to those pioneers who, with great vision, began to develop their own community with great determination. They were men and women of hardy stock, accepting that they alone were responsible for their destiny. With but basic tools they cleared the scrub and tilled the land, working from first light until after dark. Husband, wife and children worked side by side to fulfil their aspirations. These early settlers displayed great fortitude and dedication with a capacity to undertake any task, no matter how daunting. Unfortunately, those attributes by which our nation prospered are sadly lacking in today's society. The vision of those early pioneers is now somewhat blurred. It is a great pity that we as a nation seem oblivious to the absolute need to rekindle the spirit of our predecessors. Unfortunately far too many in our midst lack the will and determination so evident in yesteryears. It is clear that we have become too dependent on governments at all levels. We demand more and more for the unproductive sectors from an economy which has no more to give, unless-I repeat, unless-we are prepared to bear the dire consequences of a bankrupt nation. We have overdrawn our national account to support us in a style of affluence which we have not earned. Like someone jumping off the Empire State Building, everything is okay as we pass the twenty-fourth floor, but I can assure the House that no matter how buoyant we feel, the crunch is coming at the end. The portent for this nation is indeed grim if we, the people of Australia, do not face up to the folly of our attitude. All of us must recognise with some urgency that we are not the rich nation our pioneers once bestowed upon us. We have frittered away our inheritance without any regard for the future. Yet, the answer to all of our problems is simple. It is hard work in an environment which has no place for shirkers; where reward is commensurate with the investment of determination to achieve national goals for the common good. Mr Cobb —The work ethic. Mr CONQUEST —The worker, of course. The honest sweat which first fell upon the virgin soil, not only in the Gooburrum shire, but throughout Australia, should not now be seen to have been shed in vain. The seeds of progress planted by our pioneers will flourish, and bear the fruit of prosperity, if we are prepared to weed out the parasitic scourges which we have allowed to multiply in plague proportions on our economy. Sir Arvi Parbo explained the reason for our malaise in his 1984 E. S. Owens Memorial Oration as follows: There is insufficient awareness of the need to be internationally competitive among sections of the population involved in producing goods and services for domestic consumption; There is a desire to consume more than is being created because the expectations of the population have been raised too high; There has been an overwhelming propensity by governments to raise taxes on the wealth producing sectors; governments have tended to move to borrowing for public consumption at too fast a rate, threatening to overwhelm our ability to service the debt; governments, trade unions, and many so-called opinion makers have made the error of concentrating on the redistribution of wealth; and there has been a tendency for governments to intervene in more and more facets of community activities and to increase administrative cost burdens. In sum, what Sir Arvi Parbo perceived in 1984, has added up to a cumulative erosion of our will to correct the obvious problems facing the nation. We must revive and inspire the individual enterprise attitude into the wider populace instead of killing initiative. Many people in our society are unaware that, in accepting big government and the intrusion of bureaucracy at all levels into their lives, they are contributing to unacceptable costs which increase the cost burdens to every taxpayer. Those pioneers who first settled into the Gooburrum shire area were people of great will and determination. They were people who had aspirations and were determined to fulfil those aspirations, and they set about it knowing, or at least hoping, that the vision they had would be one for the whole of Australia. In the beginning it was felt that that might be so. Australia did become a very prosperous nation, but in the end we have slipped very far down the line of prosperous nations. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.47) —I rise to address a few remarks to the comments made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). I notice that the honour- able member for Wannon is sitting on the Government side of the House at the moment, so we may be able to give him some information. I have been getting around Australia a lot in the last six months as chairman of the Prime Minister's task force. I have heard many of the comments made in some of the country areas we have gone to and it is clear that very similar views to those of the honourable members for Wannon and Braddon are coming through in some of the National Party electorates. I think that is the sort of information that they are feeding to their public. Let me take some of the figures that were addressed tonight by the honourable member for Wannon. He talked about a gentleman who had family problems, who was in receipt of $498.50 a week and who was attempting to look after three children without the assistance of a spouse. Allowing that his tax would be about $160, that leaves him with his take home pay of $338-odd a week. Allowing that he has to pay somebody $100 a week in the circumstances about which the honourable member for Wannon was talking, to assist him with the three children, he would be left with about $230 a week for his house, expenses and food. The honourable member said that his constituent would be better off going on to the supporting parent's benefit. From his words we would be led to believe that people on the supporting parent's benefit have a very high standard of living. I am afraid that that is a perception that seems to come out of a lot of National Party electorates. The allowance for a supporting parent is $102.10 a week-not a great amount of money. The recipient is then allowed another $16 per child, which in this case amounts to another $48, bringing the amount up to $150.10. If the person were renting a house he would then be entitled to another $15 rent allowance and, in addition to that meagre amount, he is allowed, if he can find a little work, to earn another $30 a week plus $6 per child. So if he achieved everything that the Department of Social Security could give him he would finish up with $203.10 a week. Nobody could advise a person in receipt of $498.50 a week that he would be better off on $203.10 in any circumstances. This perception about supporting parents seems to be coming out of National Party people non-stop. Mr Martin —And the Libs. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The Libs and members of the National Party; the same old story comes out all the time. Another point I take up relates to honourable members opposite who talk about the work ethic. There are about 50 per cent males and 50 per cent females in this community. They say that someone staying home to look after three children is not working. It always amuses me that they seem to think there is something marvellous about going out to work. The choice here is quite clear. As the honourable member for Wannon said, the person concerned could give up his job and decide to do the work that would normally be done by a female at home. The honourable member cannot say that it would be more important for this person to go out to work; staying at home looking after three children is just as much a full time job. I cannot accept the view that honourable members opposite have that going out to work is something special compared with staying at home and doing another job. The person had a choice to make. Quite clearly, under this Government, he has that choice. Even though he would be worse off on the $203.10 a week, if he gives up his job to do the other work, his job would become available to somebody else. So the equation works itself out, anyway. Whichever way one works out the economics, it is quite sensible to say that the $203 will not be a marvellous amount of money for him to live on compared with the $498.50 he received previously when in employment, but at least he has that choice, and society gives him the choice of looking after his children. It is time that honourable members on the other side of the House who talk about the work ethic got their priorities right. There is just as much a work ethic involved in staying at home and looking after children as there is in going out to work. That is something that members on the Opposition side do not seem to take into consideration in all of the remarks they make. They have a blinkered view. The honourable member for Braddon said that the Human Rights Commission was pointing to ideas that could be used in the future as a better way of doing things, and perhaps education could improve the situation. If we could take honourable members opposite back and put them through their education again they might come out at the end with a slightly less blinkered view of what society is all about, and perhaps their work ethic principle might also relate to the home. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.52) —I want to refer to the persecution and harassment of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, and in particular, by way of illustration, to the Shapiro family of Leningrad who have relations in Sydney who are constituents of mine and who brought the case to my attention. In general terms, there are some 2.5 million Jews still in the USSR, which is, along with Israel and the United States of America, one of the world's great centres of Jewish population, followed, next in the list, by Argentina and France. But in the USSR above all, those Jews who want to practise their faith must run terrible risks in their daily lives. Religious services, or Hebrew classes, or classes on Jewish history are subject to regular raids by the KGB. Jews attending these services or classes are detained for days on end without being able to contact relatives and are sometimes charged with peddling drugs, possessing arms, being Central Intelligence Agency spies or on that catch-all charge for which millions of soviet citizens have paid with their lives-`Anti-Soviet behaviour.' If a Jew applies for permission to emigrate, and certainly if he wants to emigrate to America's ally, Israel, he will be sacked from his job, expelled from educational institutions and later arrested for being an unemployed parasite. In any case, he is unlikely to be allowed to emigrate. Last year little more than 900 Jews were allowed out of the USSR, from among the hundreds of thousands who want to get out. This is all part of the continuing anti-Semitic program of the USSR, which is also reflected in outrageous media attacks on the Press, radio or television, on individual Jews, Judaism, the Jewish people and, of course, on Israel, that obstacle to Soviet expansion in the Middle East. Let us look at this from the perspective of the Shapiro family in Leningrad. Mr Lev Shapiro is a 46-year-old electronics engineer specialising in computers. His wife Elizaveta is also an engineer. Some 10 years ago they committed the grave `offence' of applying for exit visas for themselves and their two children so that they could go to Israel to join Mr Shapiro's elderly and sick parents who had never seen their grand-daughter. The application was refused on security grounds, or because he had some 15 years ago been involved in security work-a reason which cannot be taken seriously since no security knowledge, no sensitive expertise, in his field remains sensitive or secret for so long. But the absurdity of the reason and the cruelty of the refusal to let the Shapiro family emigrate is only one aspect of the situation. Let us consider the consequences. A vicious media campaign against the family began. Mr Shapiro was attacked as a criminal in an anti-Semitic article in the Leningrad magazine Smena and a television film called Mercenaries and accomplices was screened on Leningrad television, which presented the whole Shapiro family as paid agents of the enemies of the USSR-that is they were friends of Israel and America. This was frightening enough but the campaign against them and what they believed in and how they wanted to live had its effect on the children and on Soviet officials' treatment of the children. Given the vicious anti-Semitic publicity about them, the Shapiros decided that it would be safer for their seven-year-old daughter, Naomi, to go to the same school as her older brother Israel. That would be perfectly ordinary in Leningrad and would have the advantage of giving the little girl some sort of protection or surveillance. But the headmaster refused to take the girl. He said: `One child from a family of traitors is enough. We don't want to teach the children of traitors'. He also said `We will fill the vacancy with a Vasya Ivanov and not a Naomi Shapiro'-a plainly anti-Semitic innuendo. Mr Shapiro appealed to higher authorities and Mrs Shapiro also wrote an appeal to Mrs Gorbachev in the hope that the new Gorbachev regime might involve some gestures of liberalisation, but to no avail. So we have a family defamed and publicly insulted with the insults extended to the children, a family attacked on television and living in fear, all because they wanted the freedom to leave Leningrad for Israel-a freedom which the USSR denies with a vengeance, despite all the talk in the world of the Helsinki accords. Now this is not a Scharansky case, famous throughout the world. The Shapiros have not been put in the gulag. It is a simple example of less horrific persecution, but a story that must nevertheless arouse resentment and disgust with any member of the public outside the USSR who hears about it. It is most important that people like the Shapiro family realise that they are not forgotten and that around the world people are concerned about their fate. Even in the deepest gulag, let alone in Leningrad, it helps morale to know that the world is watching. May I end this brief speech with a suggestion that anyone reading this Hansard, who feels like writing a letter of support to Mr and Mrs Shapiro, do so? Their address is: USSR, RSFSR/Leningrad 190068/Canal Griboyedova 80/Apt 13/Shapiro Lev Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.58) —I begin with the following quotation: We are persuaded that this greatest new rose of our time should be named for the world's greatest desire: PEACE. We believe that this rose is destined to live on as a classic in our grandchildren's gardens and for generations to come. We would use the word `PEACE' to preserve the knowledge that we have gained the hard way, that PEACE is increasingly essential to all mankind, to be treasured with greater wisdom, watchfulness, and foresight than the human race has so far been able to maintain for any length of time. Towards that end, with our hopes for the future, we dedicate this lovely new rose to `PEACE'. So wrote Robert Pyle, eminent professional American rose-grower to Francis Meilland, the creator of the Peace Rose. I wish to speak tonight about a record that has been produced by Ken Taylor, a well known Australian artist, and sung by Tammy Worth. They are both constituents of mine. Mr Lee —Why don't you sing it for us. Mr PRICE —I have the words of the song here, if the honourable member for Dobell would like to join with me in singing it. The record entitled Peace is a Rose has been produced especially for the International Year of Peace. Mr Cadman —Go on, sing a verse. Mr PRICE —I should also say, as the honourable member for Mitchell would know, that the record was produced by Bunyip Records, which is based in the electorate of my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free). Mr Cadman —Whereabouts can you buy the record? Mr PRICE —I can help the honourable member out in this case. It is available from all Tempo Agencies, and it is being distributed to all the radio stations throughout New South Wales. Contributions to something like the International Year of Peace are often not too sophisticated or are perhaps a little below standard. I have heard this record. It has an Australian and a French version, because the Peace rose was developed in the Meilland nursery in France during the war, and it was secreted out of the country to the United States of America. Not that I am an expert, but I can say that it is a high quality production. I would be very pleased to present one on behalf of Tammy Worth to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) especially for Mrs Hawke. Mr Cadman —And to the Speaker? Mr PRICE —I have been remiss. I am glad that the honourable member has reminded me of that. I will undertake to correct that immediately; in fact, tonight I will ensure that Madam Speaker will also join with me in wishing Tammy Worth and Ken Taylor well. He is an international composer and is also the manager of radio station 2GB. He has had a long career. He wrote the lyrics and the tune. So I hope the record is a success. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to make provision consequent upon the enactment of the Dairy Produce Act 1986 and other related legislation, and for related purposes. Mr Young to move- That- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for the remaining sittings this week, and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1986; Taxation (Interest on Underpayments) Bill 1986; Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986; Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits (Application to the Commonwealth) Bill 1986, and Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986.