Wednesday, 4 June 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.00) —We are debating this morning the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986. The purpose of establishing this museum in Sydney is to provide the basis of a collection and exhibition centre for the national maritime collection and to preserve historical maritime material. We are told that the Commonwealth Government approved a grant of $30m in October 1985 for the construction of the National Maritime Museum. The Commonwealth has accepted the offer from the New South Wales Government of a 4.5 hectare site for the Museum on the western side of the Darling Harbour redevelopment area. The legislation before the House today will establish the museum as a Commonwealth statutory authority, with staff employed under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. It is hoped that the museum will be opened to the public in early 1988, but, of course, the New South Wales Minister for Public Works and Ports, Mr Brereton, has made it quite clear publicly that is nothing more than a pipe dream. The Opposition has given very serious consideration to this legislation. There is quite a wide range of issues about which we are very concerned and in the public interest we believe it is necessary that we should move an amendment to the second reading of the Bill. I therefore move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to protect the public interest through its failure to- (1) refer the proposed construction of the Australian National Maritime Museum to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works; (2) offer a full explanation as to why alternative accommodation suggested in the Pigott report was not acceptable; (3) ensure that there are no significant cost overruns that might arise as a result of union pressure due to the Government's commitment to complete the project by 1988; (4) restrict the open-ended nature of the total cost of the project, which does not include purchase, preservation and exhibition of a collection or administrative, educational and promotional costs of the Museum; (5) disclose details of the arrangement with the N.S.W. Government to construct the Museum in the Darling Harbour redevelopment site, and the impact of the Wran Government's decision to grant the Builders Labourers' Federation a monopoly over construction jobs in Darling Harbour, and (6) utilise the existing facilities, resources and expertise of the Sydney Maritime Museum which have been offered to the Government. Those six points are the essential reasons why the Opposition is most concerned about the manner in which the Government has gone about the negotiation and final decision to construct in this manner the Australian Maritime Museum at Darling Harbour. It is no secret to any member of this House, certainly not members from New South Wales, that the whole Darling Harbour complex is seen by the Wran Government as its contribution to the Bicentennial, and it sees the development as its means of ensuring its re-election at the next State election to be held in 1988. The reality is that many Australians, not just those living in New South Wales, are genuinely concerned about projects such as Darling Harbour, and the Federal involvement in that project specifically through the Australian National Maritime Museum. At a time such as this, when the nation is facing major economic difficulties, the Government continues with the belief that somehow or other we can construct magnificent buildings for future generations to marvel at-though I doubt they will-when they will be facing the reality of having to carry the bill. Across the nation in the context of the Bicentenary, there has been far too much emphasis on the construction of memorials, and far too little emphasis on the essential ingredient of the Bicentenary which should be to make Australia a better country in which to live, to give Australians of all backgrounds, of all ages, a sense of pride in and respect for their nation and a belief in its future. In a State such as New South Wales, which has, to put it mildly, an appalling record over the last decade in areas such as hospitals, roads, education and so forth, it is extraordinary that the New South Wales State Government is prepared to fund hundreds of millions of dollars for a project such as Darling Harbour, and is able to get the co-operation and support of the Federal Government as a party to that activity. How can one explain this approach to people in a State such as New South Wales who do not have the benefit of living in the capital city of Sydney, the citizens of which will be virtually exclusively those who may gain something from the Darling Harbour project, or how can you explain to people in a place such as Gulargambone, Guyra or Byrock who have to drink their water out of a dirty old dam in time of drought because they have no water reticulation system? How can one explain what is proposed to people in the country such as those in parts of the far west whose local councils today are now so bereft of funds that serious consideration is being given to ploughing up asphalt roads and going back to dirt because they can no longer maintain the capital costs? Yet, in the face of all that, the New South Wales State Government is prepared to enter into an arrangement with the private sector on the one hand-we have no objection to that in principle-involving its commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the Darling Harbour project at a time when we seriously ask the question: Are the priorities right? Mr Hollis —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House is dealing with the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill. It is not talking about the New South Wales Government project at the Darling Harbour development. It has nothing to do with this Bill. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield is developing his argument. Mr CONNOLLY —I sympathise with your difficulty, Madam Speaker. The realities are that the national museum project is part of the Darling Harbour project, and that is the essential ingredient. Mr Hollis —It is not. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry that the honourable member says that it is not. Read the second reading speech of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). Madam SPEAKER —Order! I would point out to the honourable member for Throsby that the second reading amendment has considerably widened the debate. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was pointing out for the benefit of the honourable member, if he had bothered to read the Minister's second reading speech, he would have noted that the land on which this project is being constructed is a grant from the New South Wales Government as part of its development of the Darling Harbour project. To seriously suggest that there is no link between the two is absurd. The point I have made, and I make yet again, is that the whole question of priorities in terms of the expenditure of public funds at this time and in this manner is a matter of the gravest concern to the Opposition. The report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections, which is the basis on which this decision was made, contained a whole range of alternative propositions about which this Parliament has not heard a word. Why has it not heard a word? I will tell honourable members why. It is because this Government decided that it was an urgent project. Contrary to the principles on which all public works projects are meant to be reviewed by this Parliament, it was determined at the time that the Public Works Committee which the Government controls would not have the opportunity to ask these pertinent questions. Mr Hodgman —What are they hiding? Mr CONNOLLY —What are they hiding? I will tell the honourable member what they are hiding-the deal that they entered into with the Wran Government, a sordid deal involving a piece of land which otherwise probably would have remained empty and therefore a possible focus for complaint and concern from the Opposition in the State Parliament. For all of those reasons this Federal Government became a party to a sordid deal, a deal which will cost the Australian people overall, as well as the people of New South Wales, substantial sums in future years. The projected cost of $30m, which has been allocated by the Parliament because of the request of the Government, is obviously not going to be enough to cover the cost of constructing this building. So little has been done, and the Estimates committees of the Senate, which have conducted a review of this matter, have raised a whole range of issues which were never satisfactorily answered in terms of the preliminary planning of this particular project. For all of those reasons, the Opposition now has no alternative but to bring into this Parliament our concerns, to let the Australian people know that this Government has been prepared to bypass all the normal review mechanisms of the Parliament to get this project through. It has left this so late, less than two years before the Bicentennial, that the prospect of construction in that time is virtually zero. The New South Wales Minister for Public Works, Mr Brereton, has gone on record publicly and made that point himself. He has gone further; he has tried to dissociate himself from the whole thing. It is a bit late, having obviously entered into this deal with the Federal Government in the first place, to now argue that the project will not be finished, but to say `I am not responsible' is absurd, because the construction contract rests essentially with the New South Wales Government. In our amendment to the second reading motion I have made the point that we are most concerned about the details of these contractual arrangements because they involve, the Wran Government being prepared to enter into deals with the Builders Labourers Federation by which very generous site allowances have been made available to that union at a time when, in our own Parliament only a few weeks ago, we passed legislation to outlaw that particular union. It would be interesting to see what the Wran Government has been up to in this whole matter. Why did it enter into a deal to give selective site allowances to that particular union-in fact, to give that union a monopoly situation in the construction not only of this particular project but of the Darling Harbour project overall? We want those details. We want full disclosure of the arrangements with the New South Wales Government for the construction of this museum in the Darling Harbour redevelopment site, and we want to know what was the impact of the Wran Government's decision at that time to give the Builders Labourers Federation a monopoly interest over construction jobs in Darling Harbour. We want to understand why the existing facilities of the Sydney Maritime Museum were not better utilised. Why is it that in Sydney-not far from the very site of the Australian National Maritime Museum-there is probably Australia's most successful private museum, the Sydney Maritime Museum? This museum has an excellent record. It has a substantial base in the community. It has many volunteers who work regularly for it. We were told initially that the two museums were going to work side by side; that there were going to be projects that they would work on together, for example some of the ships, four of which are held by the private museum-including the famous James Craig, which was brought up from Tasmania some years ago and is being rebuilt, primarily with private sector funding and public donations, with little support from the respective governments. That particular museum could have been used as the basis of the Australian collection. At this time, because of our serious financial problems, surely greater thought should have been given to whether a combination of a national museum and the Sydney Maritime Museum might not have been a more cost-effective route to follow. I am reliably informed by the management of the Sydney Maritime Museum that, despite its offers of co-operation and assistance, it has been spurned. Once again we see the typical bureaucratic position of the Commonwealth-in this case an instrumentality-taking the view: `We do not have to work with you. We will go it alone'. Those who are involved in the Sydney Maritime Museum are less than impressed and certainly the Opposition is less than impressed with the way in which the administration of the National Maritime Museum has been prepared virtually to ignore the obvious contribution which the Sydney Maritime Museum ought to be allowed to make. Whatever way one looks at this matter, it is a shonky operation. It has been put together in a very short period to try to complete construction in a time frame which is virtually impossible. Yet this legislation has been forced upon the Parliament at this time. In the Senate Estimates Committee hearing not a single one of the issues raised by our colleagues in the Senate was satisfactorily answered. On top of that we have the greater embarrassment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a few months ago, going to America with a proposition that perhaps we could get the Americans to pay our Bicentennial bills. I recall that a few months ago the Japanese were told somewhat arrogantly that they would be expected to carry the cost of the National Science Centre. Of course, the Japanese had other ideas; they politely refused, although I gather negotiations are still in train. The same principle applied to the Maritime Museum. It was decided that the United States should be prepared to pay the bill, so when the Prime Minister went there he took with him a very expensive brochure. This matter was raised on and off in the Estimates Committee debate in the Senate but for the benefit of honourable members let me go through the facts once again. I am quoting from the National Times of 2 May this year; The Department has spent $22,000 on 300 four-page promotional brochures with colour covers at a cost of $70 each, and `the Museum Director has refused to answer questions about thousands of dollars paid as consultancy fees'. Mr Hodgman —It is worth noting. Mr CONNOLLY —It is worth noting. Our colleague Senator Michael Baume, who has done some excellent work on the Waste Watch Committee, obtained a quotation on this brochure. He showed it to a firm and asked how much it would cost to produce 300. The quote he received from Micro-Data Pty Ltd was: The Australian Maritime Museum two leaf, A3 folder, 10 colours- Ten colours, note, including gold. Mr Hodgman —Gold? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, including gold, would have cost $8,925. That is the price quoted by a private sector printer compared with the enormous price of some $22,000 which was paid for these particular pamphlets by the Government. It is an extraordinary situation because, as was revealed in debate in the Senate, apparently the enemy of the Maritime Museum administration was none other than the Department of Finance. Whatever truth or falsity may lie in that line of reasoning, I do not know because this House has never been given a serious explanation by any Minister, including the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is responsible, for what is going on. In addition, a range of other consultancies has been entered into. For example, one cost $100,000 and was for the services of television film maker Peter Luck, who incidentally made a very good television film on the museum. I am not in any sense denigrating Mr Luck's contribution to this project but I make the point that $100,000 for a very short television film to be shown in America is significant because we have not been told whether the efforts to get American finance have been successful. If they have I think Mr Luck's film can be justified. If the funds have not been forthcoming from the United States, this House has reason to be concerned about the basis upon which those decisions were made in the first place. In addition, there was a $20,000 consultancy to see whether this museum would be commercially viable. Is it not extraordinary that we go to the extent of forcing through the Parliament expenditure of over $30m without such an assessment? If this project is completed for less than $50m I will be very surprised. Yet there is a fundamental question as to whether the museum is commercially viable. A study was to be carried out at a cost of $20,000. We understand it has not been completed. No cost benefit analysis was done. The Government simply said: `We want this money so we can support Neville Wran and his little exercise at Darling Harbour because it is important to the Australian Labor Party, the Labor Party's Federal National President and the centre of the right wing of the Labor Party machine in Australia that they win the next State election'. Everybody knows that the circumstances pertaining in New South Wales in recent years would seriously suggest that time is running out for the Wran Government. Mr Maher —What happened in Pittwater? Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member mentions Pittwater. His Party did not even have the courage to stand a candidate in Pittwater. It is very easy to have a Premier who says that he never lost a by-election, if he does not run ALP candidates. Mr Carlton —He would not face up to a fight. Mr CONNOLLY —That is absolutely right. Madam SPEAKER —Let us not digress. Mr CONNOLLY —For all these reasons there has been very deep concern about the manner in which this project has been conceived. Dr Marinov, a specialist on Sydney Harbour and its potential, who is also a senior lecturer in architecture at the University of New South Wales, has made the point that any international project on a similar scale to Darling Harbour-he mentions, for example, Amsterdam's east harbour development area, the London dockyard redevelopment back in the 1970s and development in various other countries such as Switzerland and France-would usually have a planning and gestation period of up to 10 years towards completion. The whole Darling Harbour project, including the Maritime Museum element, is a rush job. There is no doubt about that. As a Party, we have no objection, nor do our colleagues in New South Wales, for the need to better utilise land resources. Certainly Darling Harbour has potential in that respect. But it is important that the private sector be prepared to run the risks and carry the costs wherever possible. We know that there are at least three projects for Darling Harbour, including this one funded by the Commonwealth, which are the responsibility of the governments, both State and Federal, and as a result, are a cost to the Australian taxpayer-a cost which I emphasise is not necessary because we could have gone to the private sector and said: `Build a museum-type complex. You can use elements of the building for other purposes and we will enter into a lease-back arrangement for one section which could be used as a national museum'. That is one alternative. We heard nothing of it. Nobody has made any such suggestion. I seriously put it to the Minister that such a proposition probably was not even considered. Getting back to the Pigott report, which is the very basis upon which these decisions were allegedly made, I point out that Pigott made a number of observations. He suggested, for example, that the centre of the museum could be in the old Customs House near Circular Quay, only feet-or metres-from the very site where Captain Arthur Phillip raised the flag for the first settlement. Mr Maher —That is not true. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry. Just around the corner from there the honourable member will see a sign on the street saying: `This is the site where Governor Phillip of the First Fleet put up the flag'. Mr Carlton —He knows his bus stops. Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member for Lowe should stick to his bus stops and I will stick to my historical sites. Clearly, the concept of using the old Customs House for the Maritime Museum was a very real option. Again, the Parliament heard nothing of that. That is a Commonwealth building. Costs would have been involved in internal redevelopment and so forth, but no one has suggested to the House that this proposition was even seriously considered. Sydney Harbour also has some excellent facilities dating back to the early nineteenth century from the days of the Royal Navy. Those facilities are still there. In fact, the Royal Australian Navy uses them as a museum store for maintaining collections. What association is there between those facilities and this new project? Again, we hear nothing. I emphasise once again that a range of serious questions relating to the establishment of the National Maritime Museum have not been answered. This is virtually the last chance. The Government probably does not want to answer these questions. If it does, why did it ignore the Joint Committee on Public Works in the first place? Why did it deliberately choose to have a Bill to spend over $30m of taxpayers' money through the Parliament so that it would have to answer as few questions as possible? To say that it smells would be too delicate, to put it bluntly. The fact is that there are issues of public concern and of public money that the Government has a fundamental responsibility to face. If it does not do so here or in the other place, it will be held accountable. In two years time when the Bicentennial comes, some people especially Australian Labor Party politicians will be pleased to see the projects that are completed and all of us will be left to carry the bill. In New South Wales we have a government which has an edifice complex. It reminds me very much of Rameses of ancient Egypt, who was more interested in building bigger pyramids than his predecessors than in solving the serious economic problems of the nation. New South Wales, the State which has the largest population in Australia and the largest economic base, today faces a whole range of serious issues in education, health and so forth which I mentioned earlier. How can we say to people: `You have to send your children to hospital in Victoria because we cannot look after them in New South Wales'? How can we say to somebody: `We cannot give you access to an operating theatre to have your hernia fixed because that is seen as elective surgery and we do not have the beds or the nurses and we have constant difficulties with doctors'? How can we seriously have a State with that standard of public health care and public service while at the same time having a government that trumpets from high the glories of Darling Harbour and how it will build these glorious monuments for the future without worrying about the present? Mr Hodgman —Is it a Marmaduke pyramid? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, it is a Marmaduke pyramid; there is no doubt about that. We do not mind having Chinese gardens or anything else that the Government wants to put there. That is fine. But I wonder why the taxpayers have to carry the bill. They are the same taxpayers who for months have been telling us and the Government day by day that they have had enough, and rightly so. They cannot see how one can talk about a society in which some standard of equality ought to be the basis of government services, when in my State of New South Wales the Government is prepared to spend millions, if not billions, to win seats and votes in the main cities, and it does not care a damn about anybody else. It is these issues for which the Australian people will hold the Government responsible because people are concerned about a `fair go'. They are not impressed to see circumstances in their State in which, if one does not live in Sydney, Wollongong or Newcastle, one is virtually a second class citizen. Mr Hollis —That is rubbish, and you know it. Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member for Throsby should know it because he lives on the edge of Wollongong. Newcastle and Wollongong are in the same position as Sydney on these issues. The reality, therefore, is that the Opposition looks upon this whole proposal with considerable doubt. Before I finalise my observations for the benefit of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, I will put to him a series of questions-I will give him a copy of them-which I ask him to try to answer in his summing up. The questions are these: What is the projected budget for establishing a collection for the National Maritime Museum? What is the projected cost for designing and exhibiting the National Maritime Museum collection? What is the projected annual budget for the Maritime Museum? On what basis was the proposed Darling Harbour site for the National Maritime Museum agreed? Was a detailed examination carried out of all available sites before a final decision was made? What were the findings of that examination? Has any consideration been given to the suggestion in the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections that Spectacle Island could become a valuable adjunct of the National Maritime Museum? Have there been any discussions with the Navy about historical material and sites, and what agreements have been reached? What discussions have there been with other government departments and bodies in an effort to access historical maritime material? What discussions have there been between the Sydney Maritime Museum and the National Maritime Museum in regard to an association between the two bodies? What proposals have been put by either group, and on what grounds were they accepted or rejected? What is the proposed relationship between the two bodies? I regard those as being the essential questions to which this Parliament deserves to have answers. There are many other aspects which have not been adequately covered, but at a time such as this, when money is short and when we have to look most carefully at a cost benefit analysis of every dollar that is spent by this Parliament, it is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold the Government responsible in this matter. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment circulated in my name. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —Yes, Madam Speaker; I have pleasure in seconding the amendment and reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.31) —I guess it is best to describe the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), which we have just had the misfortune to listen to, as one of the most whingeing, moaning statements we have heard in this House. I thought that we were talking about the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill, but we had a diatribe ranging from internal New South Wales politics to discussion about the need to protect the Australian dollar, and how each dollar must be spent carefully-this from an Opposition which has promised over $10 billion worth of expenditure should it ever be returned to government, a disastrous prospect. This is the Opposition which sits here daily bleating about the way the country is being run but which every day adds more expenditure to the promises it makes. Members of the Opposition are very difficult people to follow indeed. Look at the Opposition's amendment. It indicates the lack of depth and the lack of ability the Opposition has to tackle these important issues. We should not forget that the proposal to construct the National Maritime Museum was put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the 1983 election campaign. It does not involve just the National Maritime Museum; it involves also building a national aviation museum. These joint proposals recognise the fact that this country's whole history is based on transport. The first settlers arrived by ship and, once they were established, our growth was dependent upon maritime merchant trade and naval protection. In later years, of course, we established the aviation system, and our country is still largely operated and managed by our aviation and maritime sectors. The Opposition has moved this wonderful amendment. The first part suggests that the proposed construction of the Australian National Maritime Museum should have been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Quite frankly, it is up to that Committee to make that decision. The Committee has the option, it has the power and it has the ability to take that matter on as a matter of course and to examine the proposed expenditure. So the first part of the amendment is a lot of absolute nonsense. The second part of the amendment claims the Government failed to offer a full explanation of why the alternative accommodation suggested in the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections was not acceptable. The facts of the matter are that the Pigott report was examined by a series of intergovernmental committees. It was fully examined by Cabinet; the options were fully discussed-that is no secret-and a recommendation was made as a result of the Pigott recommendations. Mr Connolly —You didn't tell the Parliament. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member can sit back and bleat all he likes, but that is the fact. It is an absolute myth to suggest that the Pigott recommendations were not properly examined and that due consideration was not given to them. So the second part of the amendment is also a joke; it does not mean a darned thing. The third part of the amendment claims that the Government failed to `ensure that there are no significant cost overruns that might arise as a result of union pressure'. Here we go-a union bash in anticipation. Honourable members opposite do not even wait for an industrial dispute to arise now; they sit back here and move amendments in anticipation of industrial disputes. How bad can the Opposition get? The honourable member for Bradfield moved paragraph (3) as a serious amendment. We are talking about the establishment of a primary museum, a national maritime museum, and the Opposition comes into the chamber with an amendment which is nothing more than a joke. Paragraph (4) reads: restrict the open-ended nature of the total cost of the project. . . What does that mean? I listened to the honourable member's speech. I did not once hear him raise any suggestion that there would be a cost overrun. He had no evidence. He just puts forward mealy-mouthed proposals to knock anything this Government does. Paragraph (5) reads: disclose details of the arrangement with the New South Wales Government . . . The honourable member has had a chance for months now to put questions about this matter on notice, and he has not done so. Again it is disclosed that these amendments are just mealy-mouthed amendments simply to knock an exciting project and get political mileage from it. Paragraph (6) reads: utilise the existing facilities, resources and expertise of the Sydney Maritime Museum . . . As the honourable member went crook about the Government not adopting the recommendations of the Pigott report, paragraph (6) becomes an absolute joke. It is an absolute conundrum for the honourable member to say in paragraph (2) that the Government did not examine the Pigott report and then in paragraph (6) say that we should have utilised the existing facilities of the Sydney Maritime Museum. Opposition members should stop and think about their own amendments and how silly they obviously are. The honourable member talked about internal New South Wales politics. We had the great example of the fascist Liberal Party in New South Wales using this House and Liberal speakers in this House for the purpose of its internal New South Wales political debate. I find that tragic. This proposal is important. It recognises the prime importance of the maritime history of Australia to our overall growth and development. It recognises the fact that throughout our long history we have survived only because of our maritime forces, both merchant and naval. It is a nonsense to suggest, as the Opposition has today, that any collection of artefacts should be fragmented and put in different locations. There is already a vast collection of maritime artefacts reposed in different sites throughout Australia. We have the Polly Woodside in Melbourne. Ships are being restored in Queensland and New South Wales. It seems to me that if we are serious about putting together a history of maritime activities it has to be in one location. It has to be a whole history-not just ships but maps, the way of life of the early sailors, the types of vessels, the types of constructions, the types of engines, the type of navigation and so on. It is wrong to suggest that we have a fragmentation in different locations. It is in our national interest that all the various aspects of our maritime history be located on one site so that there is a point of reference for all the people in Australia who have individual bits and pieces. Whether they have just a map from an old sailing ship, a barometer from one of our early historical ships or other paraphernalia collected from many shipwrecks around Australia, these items should be put together on one site so that our entire maritime history is presented as a sequence of events and future generations can come along and see it. I am not at all enthralled by the suggestion of the honourable member for Bradfield that our maritime history could be split and shared and that the proposed Australian National Maritime Museum is not a proposal that deserves support. The Opposition amendments are really a means for Opposition members to get up in the House and have a slight dig at the Government when in fact they generally support the proposal. It is a pity Opposition members do not come into the chamber and say: `It is a damn good proposal. It is an exciting proposal. We should get behind it, and stop the absolute rubbish we go on with sometimes, having a little knock every time the Government does something'. More important, perhaps, than the marine history of this country is the proposed national aviation museum, which I am personally more excited about. The national aviation museum is supposed to be located in Victoria, where it should go. In my electorate is the Mangalore Airport, which is a historical airport because it is the airport through which many migrants entered this country. Even today, it has a complete history in its own right. It has the original hangars and the original airport buildings. I believe that in the long term it should be the site chosen for the future aviation museum. It can land jumbos and all large aircraft, and it is an excellent site for the proposed aviation museum. Mr Hodgman —It can still be used today, can't it? Mr CLEELAND —It is still being used today. Last Easter the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia had an annual meet weekend at Mangalore Airfield, and 40,000 people, from all over Victoria and from elsewhere, turned up. That just proves its ideal location, its closeness to metropolitan Melbourne, Shepparton and the major regional centres in Victoria. That proves it can attract a crowd and handle the 700 aircraft which actually turned up. But that is a matter for the future, and I will certainly do what I can to ensure that Mangalore becomes the site of the national aviation museum and that that becomes a reality in the near future. Mr Hodgman —It ought to be there. It is the best site in Australia. Mr CLEELAND —It is the best aviation site in Australia. I suggest that Sydney Harbour is the best site in Australia for a maritime museum. That is where the First Fleet arrived. It is a natural harbour of great beauty and capacity, and I am more than confident that the National Maritime Museum will go very well there. I am disappointed, frankly, that the Opposition has adopted the tactic it has today to try to get political mileage out of internal New South Wales politics rather than to tackle this as a national museum and as a national issue. I am sorry that the House has had to hear the mealy-mouthed approach we have heard. But I look forward to the speech of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I know he will tackle the issues more on a national basis, with a slight favour of Tasmania no doubt thrown in. Nevertheless, I look forward to his speech. I recommend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.42) —I thank the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) for his remarks. He was correct in anticipating that I will be saying something about Tasmania. I particularly note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I start by commending the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), on a most forthright, courageous and persuasive speech in which he set out a number of matters which concern not only him and this side of the House but also all Australians. I think we can start on a basic premise that there would be bipartisan support for the proposition that Australia must have a national maritime museum, but nobody in his wildest dreams could have anticipated the chain of circumstances, which were described by the shadow Minister, which involved a sordid deal and a shonky transaction-a chain of events which gives me no pleasure and I am certain gives no other Australian pleasure because, quite frankly, this is what comes about when one has political considerations determining matters which ought to have been determined in the national interest. I turn immediately to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield, which I had the honour to second, and I refer specifically to paragraph (1) of the amendment, where it states: . . . the House condemns the- Hawke socialist- Government for its failure to protect the public interest through its failure to- (1) refer the proposed construction of the Australian National Maritime Museum to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Mr Hollis —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Denison said that he was quoting the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. I have the amendment in front of me and I do not see anything about the `Hawke socialist Government'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —By the device of preventing this matter going before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the State of Tasmania was denied natural justice in that it was denied the opportunity to put the case that the National Maritime Museum should be built in Australia's maritime State, Australia's only island State-the State of Tasmania. Whilst it is unlikely that the Hawke-Wran agreement, whereby a $50m rort will take place, would have been set aside, at least before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works a very carefully prepared case for the State of Tasmania could have been put, and it would have been within the power of the Public Works Committee to look at alternative sites. Together with my colleagues the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who has shown a particular interest in this matter also because the Australian Maritime College is in his electorate, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), I protest on behalf of all Tasmanians that we were denied the opportunity of going before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. This is not a sour grapes speech. Tasmanians would not be complaining if we felt that we had been beaten fairly and squarely. Mr Goodluck —Right. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin says `Right'. He is correct. Our complaint is that we now believe, and the evidence is overwhelming, that we took part in a race which was rigged. Mr Goodluck —We could not win it. Mr HODGMAN —We took part in a race which we could not win. I draw attention to the fact that the proposal was supported in Tasmania by the Premier and by members on both sides of the House. The proposal was also supported very strongly by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Ken Wriedt, who has a strong maritime background. It had the support of the Hobart City Council. A site was available in the magnificent and historic Hobart waterfront area. The money was available, the people were there, the opportunity was there, but we were robbed and cheated. As the honourable member for Bradfield has said, and I adopt his words, this has come about as a result of a sordid deal and one that does no credit to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or Premier Wran. The second part of the amendment to which I wish to refer is that the project is open-ended. I refer specifically to paragraph 4 of the amendment, where we are condemning the Hawke socialist Government for its failure to `restrict the open-ended nature of the total cost of the project, which does not include purchase, preservation and exhibition of a collection, or administrative, educational and promotional costs of the museum'. By this legislation $30m of taxpayers' money will go towards the establishment of the National Maritime Museum. However, I have to agree with the honourable member for Bradfield that it will be an absolute miracle if the thing is completed for less than $50m. That is why Tasmania has fifty million reasons for feeling that it has been very, very badly treated-disgracefully treated-on this issue by Prime Minister Hawke and Premier Wran. Mr Goodluck —He hates Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member for Franklin correctly says, he hates Tasmania. They both hate Tasmania. Sydney already has so much going for it in this area. There is the Sydney Maritime Museum. I join with the honourable member for Bradfield in saying: `Why were not those already established facilities utilised?' Mr Connolly —The old Customs House. Mr HODGMAN —The old Customs House is a classic example. The former Royal Navy base is another example. Why were these not utilised? The plain fact is that this is a Marmaduke pyramid and the reference to Rameses is correct. This is a Marmaduke pyramid, a present from Bob to Marmaduke-from the Prime Minister to the current Premier of New South Wales-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! Mr Carlton —From `the Prime Minister to Marmaduke' is all right. Mr HODGMAN —who hopefully will be replaced. Mr Barry Jones —On the Pittwater result, he won't be. Mr HODGMAN —Do not worry about that, comrade. We won, and if the Minister does not believe that, he should read the result in the paper. The Liberal Party held the seat and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know that they pay out on the Melbourne Cup whether the winner wins by a short half head or 25 lengths. The prize money is the same and the gold cup is the same. I think the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), was correct in saying that it was not unparliamentary for me to refer to Marmaduke, but I certainly should have referred to the Prime Minister as such, as he is a member of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Mackellar will not encourage the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —I am always grateful for his help. It is a rort-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) repeatedly talks in this place about rorts-and I have to say that we in Tasmania are feeling very sore about this particular rort. The point I make, as the honourable member for Bradfield has pointed out, is that if the museum had to be in Sydney, if Tasmania had been beaten fairly and squarely, that would have been a different matter, but why is it that we were denied the opportunity of going before the Public Works Committee and putting our case? Mr Goodluck —It has already promised all these new industries. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin refers to all these promises, and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is in the chamber. He has promised all these magnificent sunrise industries. Mr Goodluck —The sun has set, I think. Mr HODGMAN —I think the sun has set. They have not come. It must be the longest sunrise in the history of the world. Why is it that the matters raised in the Senate Estimates Committee have not been responded to? Is it that the Government is determined not to answer these questions, to clam up and not provide the Parliament with the information the Parliament is seeking? I think the thing is fishy and, further, I think there is a prima facie case for a royal commission into this entire sordid affair. I love the sea. Most members of parliament have had some connection with the sea. The honourable member for Franklin comes from a seafaring family. Mr Hollis —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —A substantial portion of my family has served in the Royal Australian Navy and I am proud that I have served in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. There is a tremendous interest in the sea. A constituent of mine and the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Bernie Cuthbertson, completed earlier this year a most historic re-enactment of the circumnavigation of Tasmania by Captain James Kelly. In the whaler Eliza, beautifully built, strictly according to specifications, Captain Bernie Cuthbertson and his gallant crew circumnavigated Tasmania and re-enacted precisely the voyage of Captain James Kelly. Now Captain Cuthbertson, in pursuing his appreciation of Australian maritime history, is planning a voyage from Tasmania right up the eastern coast of Australia to Botany Bay. That will be a most magnificent historic achievement. In view of the lighthearted interjection that my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) made when I talked about the seafaring background of the honourable member for Franklin, I point out that to my knowledge he is the only member of parliament who holds a Royal Humane Society medal for saving another person from drowning. Not only has he a seafaring background but he has actually saved the life of a person and has been decorated for it, and they do not give away Royal Humane Society medals lightly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I think the honourable member might come back to the legislation. Mr HODGMAN —Yes. The failure of the Government to disclose the details of the arrangement with the New South Wales Government to construct the Museum at Darling Harbour redevelopment site and the impact of the Wran Government's decision to grant the Builders Labourers Federation monopoly over construction jobs at Darling Harbour have occurred at the time when the Wran Government has moved to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, and at a time when this Parliament has passed legislation to outlaw the Builders Labourers Federation. Yet, as part of this sordid, shonky deal the Builders Labourers Federation, pursuant to the patronage of the Wran Government, gets a total monopoly over the construction jobs at Darling Harbour. Finally, as the honourable member for Bradfield so eloquently pointed out, why has the Sydney Maritime Museum been spurned? It is because it is to the Sydney Maritime Museum that the James Craig was taken. It ran aground at Recherche Bay in southern Tasmania, in the electorate of the honourable member for Franklin. It has been taken all the way up to Sydney after work was done in Tasmania to reconstruct it, and it is one of the features at the Sydney Maritime Museum. Mr Goodluck —You helped with that, too. Mr HODGMAN —In a way I did, but honestly, one wonders. The decision to place the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney is, with respect, wrong. It was not a fair race, the State of Tasmania did not get a fair hearing from either this Prime Minister or that Premier of New South Wales. The State of Tasmania was denied natural justice. If we had had the chance to put our case and we had been beaten fairly and squarely before the Public Works Committee, there would be no complaint. But we have been robbed and we have had to sit by and watch a $50m rort arranged by a conspiracy, which will lead to the production of a Marmaduke pyramid which should have been in our State. We challenge the fact that this Government has covered up, that it will not answer questions in the Estimates Committee and will not respond to the matters raised by the honourable member for Bradfield. We believe that what has been done is a travesty of justice and we support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. I would like to have had the opportunity to add a paragraph (7) to his amendment that `in justice and equity the National Maritime Museum should have been built in Tasmania'. It is a great tragedy that political decisions, insider deals, and all these other sordid aspects to which I have referred have led to what has now happened. Tasmania will never forget and will never forgive the Hawke socialist Government for what it has done on this issue. I conclude by saying that I support the remarks of the honourable member for McEwen that the Australian Aviation Museum should be built at Mangalore in Victoria. Mr Hollis —I thought Tasmania wanted that, too. Mr HODGMAN —Keep quiet, Molotov. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Denison knows that he must refer to other members by their titles. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Throsby. I have campaigned for Mangalore because it so happens that Mangalore is the proper site. I would like to record the support of Mr Ian Bayles and others in Victoria committed to the preservation of Australian aviation history, but in fairness and propriety that is where the Australian aviation museum should be. I wish the honourable member for McEwen every success in getting it there. I hope that he gets a fairer hearing with his submissions for Mangalore than Tasmania got for its submissions for the Australian Maritime Museum. We are bitter, we are disappointed, we have been robbed, and I repeat that the Hawke socialist Government's actions in this whole sordid affair will be neither forgotten or forgiven. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.58) —I support the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill and, equally naturally, reject the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I have listened to the speeches made by the two Opposition members in this debate. I was wondering what the honourable member for Bradfield was talking about. We had a whole litany of the so-called sins of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales-everything ranging from not supplying water to some outback towns to various other sins. But in talking about this Bill and this museum, what the honourable member for Bradfield seems to overlook or cannot understand is that this basically is not a New South Wales project, it is not a Sydney project; it is something for the people of Australia. It is a national project, not a New South Wales State project, and that is why we are talking about it in the national Parliament. That is why the legislation is being dealt with here. It is not a State matter; it just so happens that it is in Sydney. We heard from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) the big whinge, `We was robbed'. Mr Hodgman —We were, too. Mr HOLLIS —Yes, you were robbed. Let us get one thing straight. The honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for Denison kept referring to the Public Works Committee. I would have thought that those honourable members, with their long standing and many years' service in this Parliament, would know the role of that Committee. I happen to be a member of that Committee, and I say in all honesty that I would have preferred-and my views are quite well known on the Public Works Committee on this matter-this project to have been referred to that Committee, to which I believe all projects should be referred. But having said that, I point out that members of the Committee have visited the site once; we have visited the offices once; we were briefed by the respective Ministers on the fact that the project was a matter of urgency. I refer honourable members to page 3958 of Hansard of 28 November, which contains the Minister's speech and also the views of the Committee put by the Acting Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). Let us face it, this is not the first project that will be dealt with as a matter of urgency before the Public Works Committee and it will not be the last. The honourable member for Denison said that the Tasmanian Government wanted an opportunity to appear before the Public Works Committee and put us into some sort of arbitral situation in deciding where the museum was to go. That is not the role of the Public Works Committee at all. References are made to us on the Committee, and I would have thought that people who have served in this Parliament for many years would be aware of this. We look at government expenditure. We do not decide and we would not have decided between Tasmania and New South Wales as to where the project was to go. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a valid point of order. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works decided-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —Sir, would you hear me until I finish? He is misrepresenting the law-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HOLLIS —I suggest that the honourable member for Denison should read the guidelines of the Public Works Committee anyway. I turn to the other point both Opposition members were making about the site. Much has been said about the Sydney Maritime Museum being spurned by the National Maritime Museum. We should get our facts straight. A couple of approaches were made by the National Maritime Museum to the Sydney Maritime Museum. One approach was an offer of $1m to buy it out, which it rejected. The second approach was an arrangement to lease its vessels on a commercial basis. Both were rejected by the Sydney Maritime Museum. They were rejected, I suppose, because it wanted to remain independent and separate. Originally it wanted the Commonwealth-people opposite who talk about the Waste Watch Committee and so on should listen to this-to give free accommodation on the museum site and $1m a year-and what would Senator Michael Baume make of that-and for the museum to retain control of its collection. This Government-this Hawke socialist Government, as the honourable member for Denison loves to say-will not spend money to maintain a private collection, nor should it. If it did, Opposition members would be jumping up and down screaming and running to their famous Waste Watch Committee about it. They should not be hypocritical and if they make speeches in this House they should make sure they get all their facts right first. We have heard about the James Craig, a good project; I am all for restoring ships and all the rest of it. That is a $7m project and it is already $5m in the red, in debt. Does the honourable member for Denison want the Government to pick up that as well? I suppose he does. There is no way it will be finished by 1988 and it probably will never be finished. Now I come to the best of them all. I am more surprised at the attitude of the honourable member for Bradfield than at the attitude of his colleague the member for Denison on this, because I thought that the honourable member for Bradfield would know Sydney. They talked of the site recommended by the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections. The site recommended by Pigott is used as a Navy ammunition dump and it is still in use. Eventually it will be moved to the electorate of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) down to Jervis Bay, but at the moment it is being used as an ammunition dump. What did the Opposition members want? Do they want the whole collection to go there among all the ammunition? That would be a great tourist attraction, would it not? The only way one can get there at the moment is by navy boat. That would be good! It would be another case for the Waste Watch Committee-the Australian Navy conveying passengers to the National Maritime Museum, where people then pick their way among the bombs and other ammunition to look at our national collection. Really! If honourable members opposite want to talk about this matter they might make a case that it could have eventually been the site, but it will be 20 years before the ammunition is moved out of there to Jervis Bay. If honourable members opposite want to wait for 20 years, they could have had the museum there, but at the moment I am afraid that the bombs and other ammunition are taking priority over the national collection. As I said before, we had the usual whinge from the honourable member for Denison that they were robbed. I do not accept that. It will be good for a few lines, I guess, in the Hobart Mercury, but it does not carry much weight in this place. As we all know, the National Maritime Museum was one of a number of projects for which individual States put in a bid. It was allocated to New South Wales, as the air museum will be allocated to Victoria. I believe that the Tasmanians were talking about an arctic museum or a national aquarium, but they could not get their act together and get their submission in and correct. If there is any criticism, if they feel they have dipped out, they have no one to blame but the present Tasmanian Government, whose members were too slack to get their act together and put in a proper submission. I must say that it is with particular pleasure that I speak on this Australian National Maritime Museum Bill. What we are talking about here is not just the siting of a museum and setting it up under the legislation; we are talking also about the museum building at Darling Harbour in Sydney. It is planned that the building will be completed and open to the public by early 1988. I have no reason to doubt that that will occur. I think honourable members should be aware that this museum is important to Australia's cultural, historic, educational and, indeed, tourist development. I stress, it will be a national museum. That is a point that the Opposition seems to be overlooking. It will be a national museum, not a State museum, and it will be a museum in which all Australians will be able to take pride. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said in his second reading speech, possibly no other country has relied more on the sea and acknowledged the debt it owes less than has Australia. The legislation now being debated, and what will flow from it, will redress that. This Bill will establish the museum as a body corporate. Its function will be to develop an Australian national maritime collection, to preserve, acquire, recover and maintain maritime historical material, and to exhibit that material which is in the national maritime collection or otherwise, both in Australia and overseas. The museum will also be able to conduct and assist in research and disseminate information relating to Australian maritime history. This is very important. I looked early this morning at a copy of a research paper, which I have here and which I got last year when in England visiting the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. The difference, I suppose, between the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich and the one that we are setting up is that the Greenwich museum is basically a naval museum. It is important to recognise that the museum that we are setting up will not be a basic naval museum; it will be a social history museum-a museum not for one part of Australia or one aspect of the armed forces but for all Australians. As I have just said, it will be a social history museum and will reflect the interaction of all Australians with the sea; it will deal with all aspects, including recreational and commercial aspects. The museum, I am pleased to say, will focus on people; it will be a people-orientated museum, not an object one. For too long museums throughout the world have had exhibits behind glass cases and things like that, but this will be a people-based museum. When one thinks of Australia's image abroad one tends to overlook the role that the sea has played in Australia. There is a poem by Dorothea Mackellar which runs: I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains . . . This is the image sometimes portrayed of Australia-the outback of Australia, the Australia of Chipps Rafferty or, indeed, of Crocodile Dundee. Yet Australia is, more than most countries, a maritime nation. We are an island continent. This is a land discovered and rediscovered, not by overland travellers but by seafarers. The Aboriginal people came here 40,000 to 50,000 years ago during the ice age. Although sea levels were well down, they still had to cross reaches of water, sometimes up to 40 or 50 miles wide. Presumably, they did this on very simple rafts. There is an Aboriginal dreamtime story which refers to an area in my electorate called Windang Island, or Canoe Island, which is named after the mythological canoe in which the dreamtime heroes arrived in this land from across the sea. We have had navigators visit the shores of Australia from South East Asia, especially from Malacca. For hundreds of years these people made seasonal visits to the north shore of Australia when winds were favourable. They came there to fish for trepang, beche-de-mer, in our shallow tropical waters. Then there were the European navigators, the ones we learnt about in school-Hartog, Van Diemen, Torres, Cook, and La Perouse-who all visited these shores in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We have had European settlement with the first fleet-all this by sea. We must not concentrate just on the sea, because there was early exploration throughout Australia, on the land-and indeed around Australia-by people such as Bass and Flinders, who also came ashore near Windang or Canoe Island in my electorate and met the local Aborigines. There were the journeys of Charles Sturt by inland waters. Popular travel, as recently as during the first part of this century, was by steamship along the coastline from Kiama. One could only go by sea from there to Woollon. One could only get from Bulli in the electorate of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) by sea before road and rail were built. It was by sea along the south coast that the mighty Illawarra was first opened up. Recently we have had refugees come here by sea. This is what the museum will deal with. It is all part of Australia's social history as it relates to the sea, or to inland exploration. I point out that, although we talk about `a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains', the vast percentage of Australia's population lives not in the outback, not in the electorate of Maranoa and places such as that, but by the seashore-they live along the coast. Mr McVeigh —They have been driven off the land. Mr HOLLIS —Many people who do not live by the sea, people such as the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), are drawn to the sea on their annual pilgrimage. I will bet the honourable member goes to Surfers Paradise every year for his holiday. People are drawn to the sea for their holidays. Australians have a very strong affinity with the sea. Much of our history and culture is intimately connected with the sea and water, yet our people pay scant attention to this keystone of our tradition. The establishment of the National Maritime Museum will, I believe, do much to redress the imbalance in our perception of our past, present and future. In conclusion, I have visited the site twice now, and I have visited the office of the museum as well. I have seen and studied a model of the proposed museum building, which architecturally is very exciting. It will be a credit to Australia. The situation on the water is an ideal one, because people will see not only the museum but also a busy harbour at work. It will be a stunning setting. I am sure that under the Director it will have a commercial element-for example, meals, films and so on. What a beautiful setting for a meal. It would be rivalled only by a meal on the forecourt of the Opera House. Mr Martin —Or Belmore Basin. Mr HOLLIS —Or Belmore Basin. It will be a stunning setting. This is an exciting project, a project for all Australians. Where is the Opposition's pride in Australia, where is its pride in our social history? Mr Martin —They haven't got any. Mr HOLLIS —As the honourable member for Macarthur says, the Opposition does not have any. The Opposition comes into this place and it whinges and whines. I thought that at least this Bill would be one on which we would have bipartisan support. The Australian National Maritime Museum is something for Australia and something of which every Australian can be proud. I say to the Opposition: For once in its life it should forget its parochialism, forget its narrowness and selfishness and for once think of Australia and get behind this project. It is a project that every Australian can take pride in. The Opposition should reject, as I do, the silly amendment and support the legislation. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.16) —I am pleased to address the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill and to add my voice to its general support by supporting the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, being a man of sensitivity and delicacy of thought, you would understand that when I listened to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), I shed a furtive tear or two. I am extremely disappointed that he mentioned the poem of the great Australian Dorothea Mackellar and the line `I love a sunburnt country'. It was disappointing to me to listen to the way he developed that magnificent poem by criticising people who live in the outback of Australia. I think it ill becomes him and the party he represents to speak about that poem, those most magnificent people of outback Australia and the wonderful Australian poet, Dorothea Mackellar. Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not criticise the outback people of Australia; I have never criticised them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -There is no point of order. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, you quite rightly dismissed the honourable member's rather senseless objection of a meaningful interpretation of what he had said. It is disappointing that he denigrated rural Australia. I suggest to him that when he has nothing else to do-judging from the type of speech he has just delivered obviously he has plenty of time because it was not very well prepared-he go to the Parliamentary Library and ask-- Mr Hollis —I spoke from the heart, though. Mr McVEIGH —He should just listen and he will see what speaking from the heart is when I develop the point. Just be patient, young fellow. I suggest that he go to the Library and ask the many excellent people who work so hard for us in the Library whether he can be given access to the recent writings of Dame Leonie Kramer, who benefited Australia enormously by compiling in her works some of the wonderful poems and pieces of literature of this great nation of ours. Unlike the honourable member I am very proud of our literature. If the honourable member goes to that trouble and makes meaningful use of his time he will find attached to the works of Dame Leonie Kramer a cassette which records a recital by Dorothea Mackellar at 73 years of age of her poem beginning `I love a sunburnt country'. Mr Hollis —What has this got to do with the Bill. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member commented on Dorothea Mackellar's words `I love a sunburnt country'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -While this is very interesting, the honourable member might come back to the point of the legislation. Mr McVEIGH —The point I was making was that Dorothea Mackellar loved a sunburnt country. As a young girl of 19 she went to the Continent, composed the poem and at 73 years of age actually recited it. Her recital is attached to the works of Dame Leonie Kramer. The sincerity of Dorothea Mackellar's love of Australia contrasts starkly with the contempt of the honourable member for rural Australia. I suggest that, if the honourable member wants to absorb a bit of the real spirit of Australia, he go to the Library, ask for those works and, in particular, get the cassette. If he has trouble understanding it, I will explain Dorothea Mackellar's words to him and I will not even charge him. I am just disappointed that I had to speak in that tone but his disparaging remarks upset me. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said in his second reading speech, the need for an institution to provide Australians with a central and comprehensive record of their past and present dependence on the sea has been needed for some time. The Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections report recognised this over a decade ago when it called for the establishment of this type of museum to reflect the significance of maritime activity in the history and cultural life of our nation. We have always been known as the country of the bronzed Aussie, which echoes our close affiliation with the sea. We are now associated with the America's Cup and the world has recognised our ability to sail the waters with precision and skill. As an island continent we will always be dependent on the oceans in transport and commercial trade. The bulk of that trade will come from the people and the areas which were so denigrated by the honourable member for Throsby. Hence, there will continue to be a focus on the maritime aspects of our culture and economic activities. The establishment of the Australian National Maritime Museum reflects this awareness and recognises the need to preserve valuable artefacts of significance to us as a seafaring nation. This Bill, when read with the protection of movable cultures and shipwrecks Bills, provides protection for our historic artefacts. Interest in Australia's maritime relics and remnants has been slow developing and has had to follow a national interest in vintage cars, steam trains and buildings of the past. However, this interest is now firmly established and is reflected in the number of maritime museums dotted across the country in our cities and small towns. It is interesting to note the establishment of this national museum in the seventy-fifth anniversary of our Royal Australian Navy. From the earliest days of European contact and settlement the Navy has played a major part in the history of Australia. During the period of colonisation four naval officers were successive governors of New South Wales-Captains Arthur Phillip, John Hunter, Philip King and William Bligh. In 1865 an act of Parliament gave all States official powers to establish State navies. However, by 1901 all State and British ships were placed under Federal control when the Australian Government was proclaimed. It is interesting to note that when discussions were held by various leaders of the State parliaments, further to the finalisation of Australia's Federation, they were usually held on a ship from the Navy of Queensland. Even in that era Queensland was obviously a leader and it has still retained leadership, particularly in protecting the democratic rights of Australians. The Royal Australian Navy was established by King George V in 1911. The Navy and all those associated with seafaring activities can be justifiably proud that in this the Navy's seventy-fifth anniversary year plans have been unveiled for a museum and memorial that will honour its contribution to protecting and preserving our national heritage. Australia, as a trading nation, has about 25 per cent of its gross domestic product in the foreign sector, more than 1,000 overseas shipping movements each month and 20,000 kilometres of coastline. Needless to say, we are dependent on the seas for our commercial and defence needs. During World War I-I am disappointed that the Opposition has not seen fit to pay tribute to the wonderful work of our Navy personnel during that era-our men and their horses were transported by steamships to their final destination. To accommodate men and beast certain methods had to be devised in order to provide safe passage at minimum risk. This historic effort was re-created in the Australian feature film Forty Thousand Horsemen. Only last week, people at the National Film and Sound Archive saw fit to get that film out of the archives and show it to some of my friends and me. The reason was that I had had a close association with the late Mrs Charles Chauvel, who, with her late husband, had created that film in the early and dim dark days of the Second World War. The Navy's contribution is faithfully recorded in that film. It was a magnificent contribution by the Navy to the successful conclusion of World War I. Concern about transport of live animals is still reflected in our sheep ships, which transport hundreds of thousands of sheep a year to far destinations. I hope that the museum will accurately record the tremendous contribution to the live sheep export trade of the ships and the people who man them. Mr Lloyd —There is nothing sheepish about that at all. Mr McVEIGH —It always worries me that the Government never seems to be concerned about jobs of Australian transport workers, increased economic activity on sheep stations or jobs on ships through the provision of supplies for the live sheep export trade. This trade has made an enormous contribution to Australian agriculture. I note as an aside that the live sheep export trade has extended to trade from New Zealand, which is under the control of a Labour government. Live sheep exports were not allowed from New Zealand under Prime Minister Muldoon, but when a Labour government came in it realised the contribution that live sheep exports can make-so exports from New Zealand are now allowed. We want reference to the live sheep export trade to be recorded in the National Maritime Museum, because the ships, though not now of historic significance, reflect our dependence on this form of transport. Our farm communities also rely on ships to carry millions of tonnes of grain which are exported each year. However, again the Government glossed over the canvas when talking about these issues. It seems very sensitive when it does not want recorded in the National Maritime Museum the fact that exports are quite often held up by stupid demarcation strikes at terminals-senseless strikes which occur primarily during harvest. The attitude is: `Don't worry about the rest of Australia; let's just featherbed ourselves'. It is promising to learn that at least the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has recognised the need for an investigation into the handling, storage and transport of grain. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I hope that the honourable member for Groom will ultimately come back to the Bill, which is the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill. Mr McVEIGH —I was laying the foundation, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the next point that I want to raise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We do not want too much mortar on it. Mr McVEIGH —I hope that in the National Maritime Museum recognition will be given to the feats of sailing ships in transporting grain. Grain trading ships made a great contribution to the development of the agricultural industry. That fact will be acknowledged in a re-creation in the Gulf in South Australia. That brings me to the point that, irrespective of what the honourable member for Throsby said, we can have transport ships only if we have something to put in them. Those products come from the areas that he denigrated. I very rarely disagree with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I understand the enormous fight he has put up to have this museum placed in Tasmania. Unfortunately, I disagree with him in this instance. My support goes to placing the Maritime Museum in Sydney. After all, that is the birthplace of our nation. I can understand the feeling of outrage of the honourable member for Denison-who is normally a very placid soul-because he is upset by what your Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, has done by cutting funding to Port Arthur. Mr Peter Fisher —Shame! Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Mallee says, it is shameful. Mr Peter Fisher —Half finished. Mr McVEIGH —It is half finished. He is a Victorian and he understands the difficulties of Tasmanians. When a person such as the honourable member for Denison is inflamed, he gets upset. I would like to say to the Tasmanian people that they can thank heaven that they have a representative such as him and all the other representatives from the Liberal Party in that State who have all put up a fight. I suspect that generally my support for the placement of the national monuments and museums would be to have them here in Canberra, but unfortunately this time it would not be suitable because of Canberra's geographic situation. It is interesting to note that Darling Harbour in 1988 will be the focal point of our Bicentennial activities. In placing the Maritime Museum there, at the gateway to Australia, millions of tourists will be able to appreciate our seafaring history. they will also be able to view a range of artefacts, from sailing ships of yesteryear-I have spoken about them-all types of ships, to Ken Warby's world water speed record boat, the Spirit of Australia. The establishment of this museum will also enable the preservation of valuable historic artefacts which no doubt would be lost or sold off if such a national collection were not instigated. Too often we hear of valuable relics of our history being auctioned off in London or New York. It is encouraging to read that the museum's director will have some latitude in purchasing such historic pieces. As a free enterprise person, I am pleased to see that the museum will be encouraged to adopt an entrepreneurial outlook in organising its activities. While such activities as a book store and souvenir shop will not be able to sustain the complete running of the museum, they will provide some revenue which will meet part of the running costs. I anticipate that the establishment of a maritime museum will also rekindle an interest in our past involvement with the sea and our aquatic areas throughout the whole of Australia. As I said earlier, Australians have always associated themselves with the coast and its environs, perhaps without fully understanding or appreciating why. Now, with the establishment of this Maritime Museum, we will be able to witness the progression in importance of the sea and its relationship with the settlement of our island continent. I see it as a very fitting gift to the nation in our Bicentennial year, for we have more to be thankful for in the waters surrounding us than many Australians are aware. I look forward to the opening of another institution immortalising the growth and development of Australia as a sovereign nation in the world community of nations. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.32) —Today we are debating the establishment of the Australian National Maritime Museum. It will be an adjunct to the National Library, the Australian National Gallery and the National Museum of Australia, which are all located in the Australian Capital Territory. This museum will be located in Sydney, as recommended in 1975 in the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections in Australia. The report quite specifically recommends that the museum be located in Sydney. It mentions that it might have as its central building the old Customs House at Circular Quay but points out that there are many problems in converting old buildings into museums. The costs are often prohibitive and the result is often unsatisfactory. Whole floors may have to be removed. The claims of Sydney for locating it there, rather than in any other city, are quite clear. Sydney has an historic claim. It was the base of all maritime activity and trade in the early days of settlement. It is also a centre of sporting history associated with the harbour and the sea. Sydney has a number of museums devoted to maritime matters. There is the Sydney Maritime Museum, the Spectacle Island collection which was mentioned earlier, and a unique collection and maritime museum on Snapper Island which commemorates the sinking of the German cruiser the Emden by HMAS Sydney during the First World War, on 9 November 1914. The late Captain Len Forsythe, who lived in my electorate in Drummoyne, spent his whole life gathering artefacts and memorabilia relating to the sinking of the Emden by the Sydney. Each year on Snapper Island, a tiny little island off Drummoyne, a service is held to commemorate all who died in the battle off the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Emden was actually beached at North Keeling Island. It would be of interest to anyone who is concerned about museums to go and see the collection on Snapper Island to see just what can be developed by diligent searching out, gathering and collecting. As I understand it, it is not on show on a regular basis; special arrangements have to be made because nobody lives on the island. Nearby is Spectacle Island and there is an enormous collection of naval historical items there. There are some of the sleds that were taken to the Antarctic for the first expedition and a great range of historical objects. I went out to Spectacle Island when the late John Blunt was the curator, and I am sorry that I could not go there for the last open day. There is an annual open day on Spectacle Island and the public is admitted, but it means travelling to the island by barge or boat. The Pigott Committee has quite firmly recommended that any maritime museum that is established should be accessible by land and sea. That would rule out Spectacle Island as anything but an annex. I commend to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) the notion of creating an annex on Spectacle Island. During World War II the island had an enormous work force but now only a small number of people are employed there. It is quite possible that there could also be an annex in Hobart or some other city that has important items or infrastructure to contribute to a maritime museum. Sydney has other claims for this great centre. The work done by the Wran Government on the preservation of historical items and the development of museums has been quite extraordinary. What has been done to the old Mint Building in Macquarie Street, Sydney, is really world class. It had been tragically neglected by the previous Askin-Willis Government. The forecourt was used as a carpark and the building was used for registries, court offices and the like. To the credit of the Wran Government, it recognised the important historical significance of the building and the educational role of museums for young people and for adult education. The New South Wales Government has developed the Hyde Park Barracks, which is the adjoining building, and restored it to its original state. It resisted the planners who wanted to put a lift in the building. It is quite an outstanding centre for tourists in Sydney. We must remember that we are attracting one million tourists a year to Australia and most of them visit the big cities. The Powerhouse Museum is another development that is of great interest to me. The State Government is developing this on the fringe of Darling Harbour. The National Maritime Museum will also be in the Darling Harbour area. I was delighted to note on my last visit to the Power House Museum that it has an Australian six tourer motor car which was the only Australian-made motor car ever produced. About 1,000 of them were built between 1919 and 1923 at the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd site on Parramatta Road, Ashfield, which is in my electorate. I hope that the Minister will see that some monument, some plaque is erected there to commemorate this Australian-made motor vehicle. There is now what I assume to be one working model of it in the Power House Museum. In 1923 the American car manufacturers dropped their prices and destroyed the market for this motor car. Now the Government is moving to assist the American and Japanese car makers in this country to compete against the imported vehicles. I thank the old residents who assisted me in tracking down the location of this site where the motor vehicles were manufactured. Today we are talking about the Maritime Museum and its importance as an educational centre. Those of us who have had the opportunity to travel have seen the development of museums in other countries, some of which may have bleak winters and wet summers. The Federal Republic of Germany has 2,000 museums that attracted 57 million visitors in 1984. I feel that in a big city like Sydney this great development at Darling Harbour, the National Maritime Museum, will attract an enormous number of visitors. The developments at Darling Harbour will be cheek by jowl. There is to be a $66m exhibition centre and a $55m convention centre. The convention centre will be seven storeys high and will seat 3,500 delegates. Sydney, the largest city in Australia, really has no convention centre that can stage an international convention. I congratulate and praise the Minister for Public Works and Ports, Mr Brereton, for his concept of this whole development at Darling Harbour. Until now it has been a derelict area of unused railway yards. The Sydney Entertainment Centre is also in this area and has been a great success. I point out to the Opposition that its counterparts in New South Wales have not opposed the redevelopment of Darling Harbour; in fact they have endorsed it. They may have criticised and said that this or that should be done. The development will be a tremendous shot in the arm for tourism in New South Wales and for the whole of Australia. There will be a spin-off to other centres besides Sydney. Tourism produces jobs for young unskilled workers. Young people who have left school and who have no skills can obtain jobs in the tourist industry by waiting on tables, making beds, cleaning and all the things that young people without any training can do and are very much in demand to do. I make these points because there has been criticism of the Darling Harbour proposal. There has been the rather hysterical talk by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) about people not being able to get into hospitals and children having to go to other States. I say to the honourable member for Bradfield that that is absolute rubbish. Recently I returned home from this House on a Friday night and I had to take my child into the children's hospital. She had severe asthma and was very sick. There was no problem at the hospital. Doctors were on duty waiting in the emergency section to treat children. This notion that children have to be sent interstate for treatment is untrue. I went as a guest to a meeting of the western suburbs medical association, being the member of parliament for the area. The president, who is a good friend of mine and whom I have known all his life, told me about the waiting list at the local hospital and said how extensive it was. When I got home the superintendent of the hospital had been ringing my home to tell me that the allegations were not true, that it was exaggerated, and that nobody had been turned away. Most of these statements and allegations are distorted. From time to time there can be a hiccup in any system. Mr Connolly —Spend 24 hours there and make your own judgment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! I am sure the honourable member will return very quickly to the Bill, which might enable the honourable member for Bradfield to contain himself. Mr MAHER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was simply answering some very silly criticisms of the Bill and of the whole Darling Harbour proposal. We are not here to debate the Darling Harbour proposal, but it is something that will grace this whole nation and be as big an attraction as the Opera House or Ayers Rock. Mr Simmons —It will be even bigger. Mr MAHER —As the honourable member says, it will be a bigger attraction. It will be added to by the development of the National Maritime Museum. There are several other points I want to make. I hope that in the National Maritime Museum there can be incorporated a national memorial to the Australian merchant marine seamen who died in the wars. Nowhere in our nation is there a memorial to the merchant marine seamen who died. In Melbourne there is a memorial to Victorians who served in the merchant marine. I was not aware of this until prior to Anzac Day, when I went to a service at Rookwood Cemetery to commemorate those who served in the merchant marine and who died. As honourable members know, those people become part of the armed forces in the event of war. Sydney would be a wonderful place for such a memorial as it is the major port from which people left by boat to go to war-to the war in South Africa, to the First World War and to the Second World War. Sydney was the major port in time of war and I hope that Sydney can be the centre for this memorial. I have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asking that a memorial be established to the merchant marine, and I will certainly suggest that it be in the Australian Maritime Museum. I hope that in the Museum there can be recognition of the role that Sydney has played in both amateur and professional sport, and even in developing our rural industries. No members of the National Party of Australia are present to hear this, but in Sydney Harbour there is a tiny island in my electorate called Rodd Island. Louis Pasteur sent his son-in-law to that island to develop a cure for anthrax in sheep. Other research was carried out on this island. In those days, over 100 years ago, research could be carried out there in safety and in isolation in order to develop and protect Australia's rural industry. It was on that island in 1891 that Sarah Bernhardt spent her weekends when she was performing in Sydney because its inhabitants were the only French speaking group she could find. The dogs she brought with her, her small puppies, were kept there in quarantine. Rodd Island is just a few kilometres up the harbour from where the National Maritime Museum is being erected. The buildings constructed for Pasteur's assistants are still on the island. They were used as recreational pavilions until recent times. Fortunately, all this information came out when there was a move by an interested developer in 1980 to develop a restaurant on the island. I was fortunate in that at the time I was in the State Parliament and someone did research and found that Rodd Island is a public recreation reserve. World championship sculling events have been held on Sydney Harbour, including the area in which the Maritime Museum is to be located and right up the Parramatta River. It is also the area in which the Sydney Rowing Club is located, it having been founded in 1870. The first President of the Club was George Thornton, who was born in Sydney in 1820 and went on to become the Mayor of Sydney and a member of the New South Wales Parliament. The Sydney Rowing Club is now located at Abbotsford, and a number of other historic rowing clubs are also located around Sydney Harbour. It was on Sydney Harbour that many of the earliest international events were held. these events must be commemorated in the Maritime Museum. Australian's first recorded sculling race was in 1818 on Sydney Harbour. John Piper rowed from Bradley's Head to Sydney Cove. The international events held on Sydney Harbour involved men such as Edward Trickett, Edward Hanlan, William Beach and, of course, H. E. Searle. There is a memorial to Searle in the Parramatta River. Having defeated a Canadian for the world championship, he died at the age of 23 upon his return to Australia. His memorial is just a few kilometres from where the National Maritime Museum is to be erected. There is also a memorial to Beach at Cabarita, marking his contribution to world rowing. These men were international scullers and they were the first Australians ever to win an international world sporting championship. It is important to try to appreciate the support these people received and the enthusiasm they created in Australia at that time. Their following was essentially for rowing on the harbour. The harbour and the Parramatta River were the centre of all recreation and the focus of all attention, and the annual Australia Day rowing regatta was a great event in Sydney in the earliest times. In 1876, when Trickett returned to Australia, there was great excitement and he was presented with a purse of #850. He bought a hotel and in some of the older photos of Sydney one can see Trickett's Hotel in Hunter Street. I have met some members of the Trickett family, who are very involved in the Uniting Church in Sydney. They told me that their great grandfather developed a problem with drink, but then was converted and became a salvationist and forswore drink. But he was a world champion, and he won that championship on the Thames. I feel that an important part of the Museum must be dedicated to those Australians who brought back the first world championships to this nation-the rowers and scullers in the earliest days. Many of them went as amateurs and came back and turned professional. this is an opportunity to recognise what they did. Some of these races in the early days were on the Yarra or up at Grafton; they were not all in Sydney. Often the rowers came from the north coast, where the broad rivers are. This is a part of our history that must be commemorated, and I am sure it will be commemorated in the National Maritime Museum. I have raised these matters today because the Museum will have a theatre and restaurants; it will be a centre that we will be delighted to visit during the Bicentennial celebrations. It will be an enormous educational centre, not only for the children coming from the government and non-government schools, but also for the adults. It is for adult education, after all, that money is spent on museums, on informing people of their country's history, particularly in a city such as Sydney, where in most electorates a quarter of the population was born overseas. These people have not had a whole lifetime of learning and familiarisation with the events and incidents of this country's past, nor do they have grandparents here to pass on information, ideas and stories. I think this a very important Bill; in fact, it is a very exciting move. The Museum will be a great adjunct to the whole Darling Harbour development and I congratulate the Government for agreeing with the Pigott recommendation that this important National Maritime Museum be built in Sydney. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.52) —Clause 2 of the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill defines what is meant by `Australian marine environment'. The definition used is perhaps as wide as anyone could imagine. It includes the seven oceans and seas which touch our shores: The Tasman Sea, the Coral Sea-apparently the Pacific Ocean does not touch us-the Indian Ocean, the Arafura Sea, the Timor Sea, Torres Strait and Bass Strait. Apparently the Southern Ocean is technically part of the Indian Ocean. It also includes lakes and rivers, the internal waters of Australia and the seabed of the continental shelf. Even the definition of `Australian marine history' is very broad. It includes geological and biological information, as well as the interaction of human beings and the history of sea travel for every purpose. This museum is to be established at Sydney-the first national museum outside the Australian Capital Territory. It would have been nice to see it established at Queanbeyan, which is officially a port. Certainly I can appreciate the argument for having the Maritime Museum there in Sydney. The Bill provides for the Museum to supply liquor. I hope that one will be able to splice the mainbrace with a hot toddy of rum when one visits the Museum. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his second reading speech, said that probably no other country has relied more on the sea and acknowledged its debt to the sea less. This has happened on the south coast of New South Wales, in the Eden-Monaro electorate. As an example, like most seaside locations, the Bega Valley region was first visited by Europeans when George Bass entered the mouth of the Bega River during his whaleboat journey to chart the coastline. He remained there for three days. For many years the major means of transportation to and from the south coast was the Illawarra Steam Navigation Company's boats. The Tathra, Merimbula, Bermagui and Eden districts all benefited from those visits. It is worth mentioning that, were it not for our early coastal shipping, the south coast dairy industry which we have today and south coast life in general would have been quite different. The region would never have progressed as far as it has. One might ask: Where are the marine relics, artefacts et cetera from this period? There are quite a few in the district. I receive regular reports from the whale museum at Eden, which has accumulated a wide range of interesting relics and artefacts. Vic Heffernan runs the Candelo museum-he actually spells it `mooseum' to indicate the area's long association with the dairy industry, although he also has a lot of marine relics and artefacts. The museum has many marine relics and artefacts. One could spend days not just hours, as many tourists do-sometimes only an hour or so-in the `Mooseum'. Great contributions have been made by people along the coast to the history of the area. I mention Veronica Searle of Milton and Susan Hopgood of Batemans Bay. The Moruya Historical Society, of which I am a member, has made quite a feature in its museum of the Japanese maps and plans for the area drawn up when we were at war with Japan. Quite a lot of interesting memorabilia is on display at the museum. The work of Daisy and Ray Bearlin at Tathra has brought about the preservation and continuation of one of the few remaining timber wharves built by the Illawarra and South Coast Steam Ship Navigation Co. Mr Carlton —A wonderful thing. Mr SNOW —It is, as the honourable member says, a wonderful thing. It is interesting to see in the House Mr Sergio Sergi, who did some wonderful work along with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) for the preservation of the Tathra wharf. Another item of great interest in recent days has been the celebrations at Eden concerning the Ly-ee-moon. On the evening of 30 May 1886, 100 years ago, the Ly-ee-moon. was wrecked in very heavy seas on reefs and shoals at Green Cape. A committee of the Parliament made an interesting visit with me to the Green Cape wreck area. Mr Hollis —Not just to see the Ly-ee-moon? Mr SNOW —Not just to see the Ly-ee-moon, but to have a look at the Green Cape lighthouse too. I am glad that the honourable member's interjection has reminded me that subsequent to the committee's visit the Government decided to retain the light station as a manually operated one. I thank the honourable member. Mr Hollis —Due to your representations. Mr SNOW —Certainly I was heavily involved in representations on that matter. I pay tribute to the committee for being willing to listen and make a report recommending the continuance of the light station, which will be a very important tourist attraction in the area. I believe that the higher cost of maintaining the light station at Green Cape as a manual station will be more than paid for by tourist interest and certainly more than paid for by the important historical events that will be commemorated and followed up as people visit the area. The Ly-ee-moon was built as a paddle steamer in 1859 in Britain especially for the China coast trade. When completed she amazed everyone by reaching 17 knots during a trial down the Thames estuary. She was described as the fastest vessel then afloat. She had a female figurehead with one arm outstretched and one behind her. She was a blockade runner during the American Civil War. On 29 May 1886 she left Melbourne with 45 passengers and 41 crew bound for Sydney. On 30 May 1886, 71 lives were lost. Five passengers and 10 crew were saved and 24 were buried at Green Cape. It is interesting to read of a number of people who were involved in those days such as George Imlay and Ben Boyd. The early south coast built boats, such as the Thetis, built in 1847, the Moruya and the Carnation, built in 1851, and the Clyde and the Shoalhaven, were all important boats, as were the shipbuilding sites of the same names until the 1880s. In fact, the Shoalhaven was named by George Bass. Coolangatta, in the Milton-Ulladulla area, was named after a small vessel which was owned by Alex Berry and which was wrecked in 1846. The Shoalhaven district was also named by George Bass. I would not like to finish without mentioning the fact that Australia has some Aboriginal marine history. After all, our National Maritime Museum is about the interaction of humans and the sea environment. I hope that we will have some Aboriginal marine history in the Museum. I am told by departmental representatives that Aboriginal marine history will be included in the Museum. No archeological evidence of Pleistocene watercraft has been found, nor is it likely to be found in Australia because perishable artefacts are most unlikely to survive. The Tasmanian Aboriginals used simple driftwood logs for crossing rivers or bundles of paperbark of stringy-bark which were lashed together. Rarely were these craft taken more than a few kilometres off the coast because the bark became waterlogged after a few hours. Early northern area migration is thought to have occurred by riding the tide. Bamboo, a water impervious timber, was plentiful at least as far south as Java. But once in Australia, there was no suitable timber for any return voyage. Stone fish traps on inland rivers and tidal creeks probably would be worth displaying in the Museum. Bark canoes were used for fishing. Ann Gash, the solo round the world sailor, talking about keeping her Stella Ilimo in Sydney with the hope that she can take it to her home for the memories she wants to have from her sailing days is something I believe we can all associate with, Australians old and new, when we visit a maritime museum. We can all associate with the words she expressed then: At the moment I keep Stella Ilimo in Sydney because there's nowhere to keep her up near the commune. This means I have to travel up and down to keep an eye on her. I'm trying to work out a way of keeping her up near me. Making all this happen, building my house, I find just as much of an adventure as sailing around the world by myself. I believe that is the real value of a museum. A maritime museum will be a reminder of something we all too often forget. For many people, it will be an adventure as good as sailing around the world. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(12.02) —It is unfortunate that a project of this nature, the Australian Maritime Museum, should have been the subject of the sort of speech we heard from the Opposition spokesman on Arts, Heritage and Environment, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Australia is a nation which in two years time will celebrate 200 years of European settlement. It owes that 200 years to its connection with the sea. It is a maritime nation. To hear a speech which, as is unfortunately the wont of the honourable member for Bradley-- Mr Connolly —Bradfield. Mr SCHOLES —My apologies to Harry Turner. The honourable member's speech was filled with snide remarks, unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and money wasting and the usual claim-if one has no argument-that the money could have been better spent somewhere else. That is always the case. There has never been a case that, when a national monument, an important social or civic project, has been put forward, one could not have found more urgent projects on which the money could have been spent. The argument was used when Lake Burley Griffin was built. It was used when Canberra was chosen as the site for the national capital. It was used against the National Gallery of Australia, and the High Court of Australia-the last of which was not exactly a monument to the efficiency of the Opposition's ability to construct and manage a public work. The Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986, quite appropriately, brings about the establishment, 200 years on, of a museum which will collect for the nation and display the important elements of Australia's maritime history-a history of which we all ought to be proud, or at least acknowledge, as some parts of it are not our proudest moments. The Opposition's amendment is full of half truths, innuendoes and simple incorrect statements, as indeed was the speech of the honourable gentleman. To give an example of the type of thing he put before this House, he mentioned a video, to which he attributed a cost of $100,000. If he looked at the public record, he would find out the cost was $28,000. That is only a slight error of 300 per cent! It is typical of the negative and not very honest approach the Opposition takes in this Parliament. I will deal with some of the matters in the amendment-briefly, because I think brevity is all they really deserve. First, the allegation that the Public Works Committee was bypassed as part of a `cover-up', to use the honourable gentleman's term, is nonsense. That Committee was bypassed with its full and unanimous agreement-including the agreement of members of his Party. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has given a clear undertaking that the Committee will be consulted and kept informed about the project. In fact, it has carried out site inspections on two occasions. It was alleged that the Commonwealth has gone back on its stance on the Builders Labourers Federation. God knows, the people opposite ought to talk about their record with the BLF. The Opposition talked about it in this Parliament and did nothing for four years while the problem developed. The Opposition is only good at telling people what to do when it knows it will not have to deal with the problem itself. Mr Connolly —Get your facts straight. We were in the process of having it deregistered. Mr SCHOLES —Opposition members were going to go on for another five years with the same process because it enabled them to escape their responsibilities and to escape taking tough action, because they have no guts when the chips are down. The Opposition never does anything hard; it only talks about it. If the honourable member were in the Army, he would have to be a gunner, because he is always `gunna' do something but never actually does it. The facts are that the parliamentary Public Works Committee was fully consulted about the museum because it was considered that this important national project should be finished in time to form part of the Bicentenary. It was necessary to take a fast track in order that the project be completed in time. The honourable gentleman said we bypassed our activities on the BLF. The Government took a hard line, actually deregistering the BLF, rather than talking about it like the Opposition, and it reached agreement with the New South Wales Government. Entrenched in that agreement was a code of conduct which is being rigidly enforced by this Government. The honourable gentleman knows that. The honourable member said that we should have used Spectacle Island. That is a bomb dump-a great place for a museum and a tourist attraction! He said that some time in the next 20 years-this is not a fait accompli-the museum there will be moved out of Sydney Harbour. This is not practical. Access is not available by land and it is not a suitable site for the construction of this museum. It is an important part of our maritime and naval history. The honourable gentleman talked about cost overruns. If he took the trouble to look at the information available, he would have found that the Commonwealth has undertaken to provide $30m at end of project prices-1988 prices- for the construction of the Maritime Museum and that the New South Wales Government is responsible for any overruns on that contract. The honourable gentleman raised a number of other matters. He said that no commercial study was undertaken. That is not true. A commercial study was undertaken. The only study which is outstanding is a study on the type and commercial viability of a restaurant project in the Maritime Museum. He said we did not examine the Sydney Maritime Museum. Extensive negotiations took place, but agreement was not reached because the Sydney Maritime Museum, which is a private collection, wishes to stay that way. It does not wish to be engulfed by the National Maritime Museum. The James Craig is a private project for which some $2m has been provided by the New South Wales Government. It also is a project which will continue as a private project. The honourable member mentioned a number of alternative sites in addition to Spectacle Island, such as the old Customs House. The cost of alterations and the unsuitable nature of that site for the type of maritime museum envisaged make it impractical and probably more costly than the project which is before us now. I could go on through every one of the matters raised by the honourable gentleman in his efforts to undermine and downgrade what ought to be a matter of national pride in our achievements and in our past. This Parliament is not well served by an Opposition which sees its only role as whining, accusing and misleading. I commend the Bill to the House and I reject the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllenDubois, S. G. 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. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Hurford, C. J. Uren, T. Jacobi, R. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Cohen, B. Peacock, A. S. Humphreys, B. C. Nehl, G. B. Dawkins, J. S. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Cowan, D. B. Grace, E. L. Cadman, A. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Mr Hodgman-I ask for my dissent to the third reading to be recorded. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Holding; That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-For the information of the House I indicate that amendments to this legislation have been circulated. I should be gracious enough to indicate that they pick up one of the recommendations that came from members of Her Majesty's Opposition in a briefing session when they legitimately made a point about parliamentary review over further land grants. The Government is happy to take up that suggestion. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.23) —The Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill, which we are debating this afternoon, is of some significance. It represents the decision of the Government to grant a freehold title to probably the last remaining Aboriginal community on the mainland of Australia which to date has not received any form of title or which is not in a State where negotiations are currently being conducted to that end. However, it is a matter of some concern to the Opposition that we are unable to support the Bill in its present form because the proposal is to give a freehold title in the Australian Capital Territory where, to the best of my knowledge, no freehold title has ever been granted since the passage of the appropriate legislation in 1915. For this reason I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I therefore move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the land described in the Schedule to be granted as a lease in perpetuity to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council'. I am well aware of the fact that the Minister has entered into negotiations which obviously have reached fruition from his point of view and he is probably unwilling to make this necessary change. That is the reason why we are not supporting the Bill. As the Minister is well aware, negotiations leading to the settlement which has now been reached had a gestation period of at least the last decade. In fact, the Aboriginal community which has been established at Wreck Bay is the remnants of tribes from as far afield as the Monaro and the central south coast of New South Wales. They were brought to a range of small settlements along the coast at various times during the late nineteenth century. One of those communities was established at Wreck Bay well before World War I. The Commonwealth acquired the area as part of a 72-kilometre acquisition under the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1908, which was an arrangement entered into with the New South Wales Government, when it was planned at that stage to provide the national capital, Canberra, with a port of its own. The New South Wales Board for the Protection of Aborigines assumed responsibility for the Aborigines in the Jervis Bay territory and provided housing, schooling and various welfare services. Wreck Bay was treated informally as an Aboriginal reserve or station and its boundaries were not delimited at that time. In 1954 a small area was gazetted, omitting much of the customary land within the boundaries of the reserve. Considerable controversy arose throughout the 1970s over the status and the size of the land claim. The situation was further exacerbated when the old reserve, except for the immediate residential land, was included in the Jervis Bay nature reserve which was proclaimed in 1971. The Wreck Bay Aboriginal housing company was formed in 1973-74, and in the next year a residential lease was offered by the Government to the community. The housing company assumed that this would cover the entire reserve area. It was, however, an area equivalent only to the gazetted reserve. The boundary of the lease offer was extended to include the Summer Cloud Beach area, which had been developed as a picnic area, boat ramp and public access for people living in the Jervis Bay area and for tourists. In 1980, the then Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Ellicott, proposed to grant a perpetual lease over the whole area claimed; that included the nature reserve, and also Summer Cloud Bay and Mary Bay, and all sacred traditional sites in the Jervis Bay district. The community rejected the offer and called for a freehold title and fishing rights. Such title, however, did not exist under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, nor was it the basis for negotiations with the New South Wales Government in 1910. The Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986 which we are currently debating proposes a series of amendments in order to grant a freehold title at Wreck Bay. It has changed the basis of the existing Seat of Government (Administration) Act to make that possible. The Aboriginal community of Jervis Bay comprises 160 people and controls some 21 buildings and, as I have said, has within the area subject to transfer a boat ramp, car park and road access. The provisions in the legislation seek to grant an inalienable freehold title to 403 hectares of the Jervis Bay territory to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. Under the Bill there is a provision to establish a community council, to be known as the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Council, which will hold title to the land granted under the Bill. It also provides for an initial grant of land to the community council and allows for future grants of land adjoining the initial grant. I am pleased that the Minister in his opening remarks has accepted the proposed amendment which I discussed with his officers earlier this week. As the Act currently stands, all that was required was for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory to agree to the extension of the original grant-that is, an extension beyond the 403 hectares-and that would automatically come into effect. For obvious reasons since this is an Act of Parliament, which specifies the land which is to be allocated to the Aboriginal community through the Parliament, it is obviously necessary that the Parliament be the means by which any changes to that title should be conducted. The Minister has proposed in his amendment, which we accept, that the normal 15-day provision will be in place for the disallowance of regulations under the Act. In addition, the Bill also provides for buildings and amenities on the land granted to become the property of the community council, unless the Commonwealth continues its use of those buildings or amenities. It furthermore establishes an office or registrar of the community council who will be responsible for preparing the original register of members and attempt to resolve disputes between the community council and its members. There will be power for the community council to lease land for a number of purposes, some of which require the consent of the Minister, such as, for example, the development of tourist facilities in the area. There is also a provision that mining on land granted will take place only with the agreement of the Commonwealth, the community council and the intending miner. In the lead-up to the debate, I learnt, that apparently in the ACT there is now a virtual moratorium on all mining. It is significant to point out that part of the extended area which has been provided to the Wreck Bay community under this legislation contains some old clay pits, which may well in the future be the source of income for the community. I think that the Government should seriously consider the implications of the existing no-mining ordinance in the ACT to see whether perhaps an exception could be made in relation to the Wreck Bay community. It is essential, and is, as I understand it, the basis of current government policy which in this respect is supported by the Opposition, that Aboriginal communities should be given whatever opportunities are available to reach economic self-sufficiency. Opportunities such as this, therefore, should not be ignored. The final element in the legislation which is worth noting is that it protects significant sites to which the public already has access. This has been the subject of some worry to the Opposition and to various fishermen and people who live in the region who are concerned that, despite the provisions contained in the Act, their access to the road, to the boat ramp and to the beaches may be blocked by some capricious decision of the Aboriginal community council in the future. I ask the Minister in his response at the end of the debate to give a categorical assurance that this issue will be thoroughly settled with the Aboriginal council prior to the transfer of title, so that those other people, who are not members of the community but who nevertheless have retained over many years a community interest in access to the beaches and so on for fishing and for general recreational activities, can be assured that their rights will be fully protected. It is also worth noting that, unlike similar legislation relating to other parts of Australia, there is no provision here for sacred sites. While there are known to be two bora grounds within the area, the reason for this is possibly to be found in the fact that the community that lives there may not contain members who retain any long term traditional association with that particular piece of land. Therefore, the context of sacred sites as distinct from sites of significance under earlier legislation passed by the Government is possibly the reason why this is not contained in the Bill. Again, the Minister may care to comment. The Minister has also observed in the legislation that the transfer of assets, will not involve large financial costs to the Commonwealth, and the administration of the land grant and so forth will again be subject to normal negotiations between the Department of Territories, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and, of course, the Wreck Bay community. The negotiations for the granting of freehold title to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community have taken over a decade. While on the one hand we are pleased to see that negotiations have reached some finality, we are particularly concerned about the actual substance of the title that is being proposed. The subject of land grants, as the Minister is well aware, is sensitive. It is an issue that goes far beyond the question of whether this Parliament, which obviously has a responsibility to look after the interests of the 160 people concerned at Wreck Bay, would want to go down a path once again of creating in the minds of the wider Australian community the belief that a precedent has been set in the ACT which is not available to any other resident of this Territory. I strongly urge the Minister even at this late hour to consider seriously the impact that this can have on the non-Aboriginal communities, not just in the ACT but elsewhere. It is also worth pointing out that while, on the one hand, he has given up his earlier policy of national land rights legislation which did contain provision for the granting of a freehold title to Aboriginal communities, on the other hand, he has accepted a package in his negotiations with the Western Australian Government which is largely based on the experience of the Queensland Government in relation to the form of title it has given, which is a leasehold in perpetuity, that is now accepted as the basis for land tenure for Aboriginal communities on tribal or community land, much of which was previously Aboriginal reservations around Australia. The Minister may well respond that, when the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights legislation was passed through this place by the Fraser Government, the form of title given was different from the title currently held by most people in the NT, particularly graziers and so forth. That is an historical fact; I do not dispute it. However, I would have to say that community attitudes have obviously changed since 1976. The Minister knows only too well, as the public opinion surveys conducted by the National Opinion Polls and other organisations at the behest of his Department show, that a significant proportion of Australians, in some cases as high as 80 per cent, do not believe that Aboriginal communities should have access to land on a basis different from that available to the wider Australian community. This is a fact of public perception. I do not wish, in this context, to make a major issue of why that happens to be the public perception, but I have said in this House on previous occasions that the Government and the Minister have a joint responsibility. I fear that to this day there has been no evidence of a desire by the Government to try to explain to the Australian community the substance of its land rights policy, even the arrangements it has now entered into with the various States. I am concerned, as is the Opposition, that while there remains in Australia a significant proportion of people who believe, for one reason or another, that Aborigines are not Australia's most deprived citizens, as generally speaking they have been, but are to be seen as a community that has more rights, more access to public funds, and more advantages than the rest of the Australian community, God knows, we are facing a major problem of how best to encourage the ultimate linkage which must take place between the Australian Aboriginal community and the mainstream of Australian people. I do not believe that anyone in this Parliament would seriously propose that we should endorse indefinitely-either officially or unofficially-a policy directed at making Aboriginals seem to be apart. A conflict has been created in recent years; there is an element of the Aboriginal community which believes that self-determination means to be apart. However, the reality of living in the last decade of the twentieth century surely means that unless we are able to create a truly united Australian community, which is based on the belief that it has a profound responsibility to help those in need and to give every Australian citizen, including every Aboriginal Australian citizen, the right of equality of opportunity-and unless we can get a wide-based community acceptance that equality of opportunity must be the clear objective of all our policies to encourage Aboriginal advancement, I feel that we have collectively failed. The people who will suffer most from the Government's failure will be the 160,000-odd Aboriginal Australians whom it has encouraged as being a community set apart. For that reason, every step that a government takes along the road of giving Aboriginals that final objective of equality of opportunity must always be predicated by the clearest understanding that whatever one does runs a risk of being misunderstood and misinterpreted. What the Government has done in this particular Bill stands out like a beacon on a hill-to everybody in the Australian Capital Territory at least, if not to many hundreds of thousands of Australians elsewhere-as yet another example of how the Government has set apart a small community and is offering them a unique freehold title to their land which is, in every respect, different from what is available to the remaining population, both in Jervis Bay and in the Australian Capital Territory as a whole. I warn the Minister that it is his responsibility to get out there and explain to the rest of the people in Canberra, and elsewhere, how he can justify a situation in which there are two types of titles, one for 160 people, and a different leasehold title, on a 99-year lease basis, for everyone else. It may be that the Government ought to give away the 99-year lease altogether and give everybody in the Australian Capital Territory a free- hold title; that is an option-the Government must make these decisions. If it went down that road and were then able to say to the Aboriginal community in Wreck Bay `We are giving you a title that is just as solid and just as legally sound as the rest of the titles in the Australian Capital Territory', I would not have to stand here and move this amendment. Unfortunately, that is not the situation. The Government has chosen, of its own volition, to go on a different road. As I understand it, when Mr Ellicott conducted his negotiations there was concern in the Aboriginal community about a title which was based on the word `lease' or had a concept such as 99 years. Anything less than the term `freehold' was seen by them to be, somehow, a limitation on their right to hold that land in perpetuity. I understand that. I understand the psychological reasons why they would feel that way. I also believe that it is the Government's responsibility to try to reach an understanding by which those people would have a better appreciation of the land tenure system as it is in the Australian Capital Territory, and for better or worse Wreck Bay is part of the Australian Capital Territory, and also to explain to the community that the title which could have been offered-namely, a title that gave them rights in perpetuity and was based on a similar Australian Capital Territory title-was in fact the most viable basis for negotiation and agreement. However, that is not the case and, unfortunately, we may well have to live with the impact of that. The Aboriginal population of the Australian Capital Territory is, by Australian standards, very small. It largely comprises people who have settled in Canberra because of their employment. I understand that there are now about 4,000 people resident in Canberra who fit that description. The Jervis Bay territory was acquired to ensure that the seat of government had access to the sea. Consequently we have the Wreck Bay community as residents of the Australian Capital Territory. The Liberal Party's current platform recognises that Aborigines should have the same opportunity as other Australians have to determine their own lifestyles, to retain and develop their own traditions, language and culture if desired; that they should be encouraged to live as independent and self-sustaining citizens; that, as do other citizens, they should have access to community-wide programs, welfare services and all the benefits of being Australians; and that the preservation of the integrity of Aboriginal culture, religion and history should be assured, as well as the encouragement of appreciation of Aboriginal heritage among other Australians. To that effect, we introduced a number of principles. They were: To seek to protect Aboriginal sites of significance in the Australian Capital Territory; to ensure maintenance in the Jervis Bay territory of secure title to land presently occupied by the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community; to recognise the aspirations of the Aboriginal community to have additional areas of the Jervis Bay Nature Reserve, being part of a former Aboriginal reserve, placed under Aboriginal control; and to seek to meet that desire only after consultation with the Aboriginal community as well as with the wider Australian community, utilising the nature reserve in such a way as to provide for continued public access to beaches and recreational areas. That was the policy that we put to the Australian Capital Territory people at the last election. It is for that reason that I believe the gulf between the Government and the Opposition in terms of the substance of this Bill is essentially limited to the form of the title of transfer, and that is all. We do not disagree with the rights of the Wreck Bay community to have a title to their land; nor do we disagree in any sense that they should have a secure title to their land. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have permission to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What additional surveillance or controls over prices will the Treasurer be recommending in his discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions tomorrow? Mr KEATING —The honourable member will be asking me next what I had for lunch. The honourable member will find out tomorrow. Mr KEOGH —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: What is the attitude of the housing industry to the first home owners scheme and tied grants for public housing? What has been the effect of the first home owners assistance scheme at a regional level? Mr WEST —I believe it is true to say that the industry organisations, including those representing employers, unions and small business, are all in support of the first home owners scheme and the tied grants to the States which, of course, are made under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This morning I had some discussions with the National Executive of the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. It did not surprise me that it offered me and the Government its full support for the first home owners scheme and for the continuance of tied grants under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I must point out-I am even duty bound to point out; it is incumbent upon me to point out-that the Opposition policy makes it perfectly clear that the Opposition would abolish both the first home owners scheme and tied grants to States for public housing. For instance, its policy says that it will incorporate the funds from the first home owners scheme into general housing grants to the States. The Opposition then says `Therefore this does not mean that the scheme will be abolished'; but it goes on to say that it will abolish tied grants. Thus the Opposition would give away any control that it would have, if it retained tied grants to the States, to tell the States to direct the money into such a scheme as the first home owners scheme. Let us be very clear about it. The Opposition policy is to abolish both the first home owners scheme and the tied grants to the States. Madam Speaker, let me tell you what the Opposition would abolish. The first home owners scheme directs up to $3,000 as a lump sum towards those who cannot meet the deposit from their own resources for their own home. It also directs an interest subsidy of up to $167 per month to low income borrowers to help them meet their repayments. We are still approving up to 1,000 applications per month under this scheme. I want to let honourable members know the extent of the damage that the Opposition would do. We have already approved over $900m and paid out $650m under this scheme. I have just circulated to all members of this House the aggregate of the pay-outs and approvals under this scheme. Some electorates of members in this House have already received an aggregate of $16m. On a State by State basis, first home buyers in New South Wales have received $106m; in Victoria, $168m; and in Queensland, $124m. I would like to table a list of the aggregate pay-outs and approvals for every electorate represented in this House. I believe that the Opposition plan to abolish the first home owners scheme is a perfect example of the contradiction and division which exists amongst the ranks of the Opposition front bench. On the one hand, the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin, is saying that he will abolish the first home owners scheme. This will be highly damaging to small business and to the housing industry. On the other hand, the honourable member for O'Connor, who I believe is supposed to be responsible for small business matters, is saying in his policy that the Opposition will assist small business by removing measures which may discriminate against small business opportunity. Of all the things I could think of in the housing industry at a regional level there would be nothing more damaging to small business in the housing industry than the abolition of the first home owners scheme. It would have a very damaging effect on building contractors, building sub-contractors, material suppliers, timber yards, brick yards, tile suppliers and the fit-out and furnishing trade across the nation at a regional level. We have the situation in which one shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin, sets out to do as much damage as one could possibly think of to small business in the housing industry and another shadow Minister, the honourable member for O'Connor, says that the Opposition will set out to assist small business in the housing industry. Under the record $1.8 billion that this Federal Labor Government and the States will direct to public housing, $137m will go in tied grants to construct houses for Aboriginals and pensioners and to assist the pay-out under the mortgage and rental relief scheme that the Liberal- National Party Government set up. A Liberal- National Party Government would abolish that scheme. Tied grants have assisted, under the CSHA, along with the general grants, in lifting the number of new housing constructions due to Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funding from 10,000-odd in 1982-83 under a Liberal-National Party government to 17,500 under us. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I again refer to the points of order raised successfully by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services in an earlier government. The honourable gentleman who is now answering this question has gone way beyond the bounds of matters normally responded to in questions without notice. I suggest that if he wishes to make a statement every opportunity will be given to him by the Opposition to facilitate it. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the Leader of the National Party, as I have before, that the Chair has no authority to limit the length of time a Minister takes to answer a question. The House has recourse to the Procedure Committee if it so desires. Mr WEST —I was saying that under our record funding levels in public housing-this includes tied grants-the number of new housing commencements due to Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funding has gone up from 10,000 to 17,500 in three years. So it is perfectly obvious that the Australian Labor Party's first home owners scheme and tied grants have had a very positive effect on the industry. It is beyond doubt that industry organisations have given their absolute support to these measures. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Treasurer's failure to answer my question earlier and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has taken over control of economic policy from the Treasurer, I seriously ask: What additional surveillance or controls over prices will he be raising in his discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions tomorrow? Mr HAWKE —Equally as seriously as my friend and colleague the Treasurer, let me say that what we say to the business community today and to the ACTU tomorrow we will, as a matter of courtesy and propriety, be first conveying to them rather than wasting our time on an Opposition which has branded itself as the worst in living memory. Mr CHARLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. It relates to the tabling yesterday of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. Has the Minister seen the numerous favourable reports about the Dibb Review in this morning's national Press? Is it true to suggest that the proposed strategy of the report will turn our friends into our enemies? How does the Minister see the so-called Soviet threat that is being pushed by the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Kooyong? Is this threat real or is it as fanciful as the good and very funny film entitled The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. No, I have not seen all the favourable reports in the Press concerning the tabling yesterday of the report. What was particularly gratifying about those reports was the seriousness with which the Press treated the detail of the Dibb Review. It will always be the misfortune of any consultant to any government, whether of those on this side of the House or, in the very long distant future, if ever, those on the other side of the House, that that professional person will naturally and automatically-and there is no way to complain-be dragged into the argy-bargy of daily debate. What was also gratifying was the consistency and affordability of the recommendations. As to other comments from the Opposition during the debate, I am aware of them, but naturally I am disappointed by them. To pick up the first comment, `turning friends into enemies', that is entirely gratuitous. It ought to have been made quite clear both by the remarks I made in this House and by the content of the Dibb Review that we value very highly the fact that we have good relationships in our area and that we see that as an important strategic asset. The contingencies that we operate under are related to what might be called the common-sense approach to the types of situations that we might find. They are not related to what we see as specific developments in the policies of countries in our area. To start to characterise a common-sense approach to our defence and build up our capabilities in the north as being in some way a threat to somebody else debauches the debate. It is demeaning in that it suggests that we do not have an absolute sovereign right to dispose of our forces around our territories as we see fit. That is a right which all our neighbours take and about which we do not complain. That is a right which we would assume for ourselves. I do not think that any of our neighbours would expect less of us than that we should do so. Regarding the Soviet Union and what is alleged to be a substantial building military threat which we ought to address, all I can say in military as opposed to political terms is that, if what Peter Young has to say about forthcoming Opposition strategy is correct, we would have forward defence on a self-reliant basis. In other words, we would not be forward with allies but by ourselves so that we would refight the Vietnam war not in association with allies but by ourselves next time. The expense of implementing such a suggestion is quite unbelievable. We regard the Soviet position in Cam Ranh Bay as a matter of concern. With the United States of America we have developed policies for the south-west Pacific area and South East Asia. It is a political problem which some countries in the region find unnerving and a problem which we take seriously. We take it seriously enough to have Orions deployed through Malaysia and elsewhere which conduct surveillance including, among other things, surveillance of Soviet activity in the area. We regard it seriously enough, as witnessed recently, to deploy our FFG and DDG warships to the area to conduct surveillance. Honourable gentlemen and ladies will recollect that we did that during the deployment recently of a Soviet cruiser through the area. What is really disappointing about the Opposition's position in this whole debate is its walking away from the essentially common-sense position that it adopted when in government but unfortunately failed to match with force structure proposals. I conclude by pointing out several aspects of a speech which I could take as my own text from the Leader of the National Party when he was Defence Minister. He pointed out something which I pointed out yesterday. He said: Three threat situations are identifiable- I should say that these were the only threat situations which he found to be identifiable: Operations by small raiding parties against important national installations, challenges to the sovereignty of our offshore maritime resources, and harassment of our coastal shipping. He went on: Our first priority is to ensure that we possess the capability to respond effectively to these types of threats. I agree with the right honourable member entirely in that regard. That is what I was saying. When we go to addressing other priorities such as out of area deployments, we draw down from the activities we undertake, the force structure we develop, to deal with our first priorities. Hence the statements that I have been making about how the FFGs would be used. In terms of our co-operation, he also said-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr BEAZLEY —I know that those opposite do not like this but I think that their defence spokesman and former Defence Minister deserves a decent run in this House. He said: Rational thinking dictates there would need to be a serious deterioration in our security outlook before we could justify the maintenance of all operational capabilities necessary to defend Australia against major attack. He went on about the global role: The Australian Defence Force could have a role in a global conflict but this would be concentrated in the waters and air space of our immediate region, acting both in our national defence and supplementing the efforts of our allies. It is a tragedy for rational defence planning that the Opposition walks away from the guidance which it accepted for a long time and the positions which it was beginning to adopt when in government. It moves away from that instead of supporting us in at last producing an affordable self-reliant defence strategy that is not in conflict with out allies but is consistent with the absolute obligation on this country and this Government to provide for its own defence. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Defence: What are the strategic and military assessments behind the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities that were strongly questioned by the Chief of the Defence Force, Sir Phillip Bennett? Mr BEAZLEY —No strategic and military assessments are strongly questioned. Mr Sinclair —Then the Age is wrong? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, the Age has miscued substantially regarding the comments it made in picking up the statements of the Chief of the Defence Force. The Chief of the Defence Force said that he supports the broad thrust of the Dibb report. Naturally, each of the chiefs retains, as we would expect, the right to disagree with elements at the margin. That came out in the breakfast interview yesterday. For example, Paul Dibb suggested-in a public session, so I am cheerful to deal with it here-that there ought to be a battalion of infantry sent to the Darwin-Tindal area. The Chief of the General Staff disagreed. He said no, not a battalion of infantry; he regarded it as more significant to send a reconnaissance regiment to that area. Paul Dibb suggested that two squadrons of tanks ought to go to the reserves. The CGS disagreed. He said that one squadron of tanks ought to go to the reserve. Mr Sinclair —Sir Phillip Bennett? Mr BEAZLEY —General Sir Phillip Bennett said on repeated occasions that he agreed with the broad thrust of the report. When somebody said to Sir Phillip Bennett: `Is this not a report that diminishes our defence capability?', he said: `On the contrary, this report, if implemented, would significantly upgrade readiness'. Naturally, there will be points of disagreement with elements of the Dibb report. One would have to be particularly dumb if one assumed that a man and his team, in the area of defence debate, which happens to be the last repository of old fashioned theology in this society, could come up with a report that secured 100 per cent commitment by absolutely every participant. I reckon it is a pretty considerable tribute to Dibb that he has been able to get the Secretary to the Department, the Chief of the Defence Force and the three Service chiefs to say that they agree with the broad thrust but their disagreement is at the margins. Mr Sinclair interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —When it comes down to the issue of strategic assessments on which it is based, the report that has been brought forward by Paul Dibb, in accordance with his instructions, is based on the strategic guidance and strategic basis in 1983. Mr Sinclair —Sir Phillip Bennett disagrees. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr BEAZLEY —As the right honourable member will be aware from his own experience, the strategic basis document is a document that ultimately is agreed upon by all sections of the Department of Defence and therefore is the guidance on which any such force structure study has to be based. That strategic guidance, which is not dissimilar from the strategic guidance that was being received by successive Liberal-National Party governments, is common ground. There is no disagreement between the Chief of the Defence Force and anyone else on the validity of that strategic guidance. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is he aware of Opposition claims that bring into question the Government's determination to fight organised crime? In view of the enormity of organised crime in Australia, due largely to the inactivity of the former Government and resulting in an enormous drain on the nation's resources, does he agree that the problem will not be reduced unless and until we have a national frontal attack on the crime syndicates, their money and the launderers of the money, coupled with legislation that requires financial institutions, tax authorities and the accounting and legal professions to join in the attack? When will the Government put in place a multifaceted approach, including the long overdue reform and update of legislation, a restructure of the judiciary, a constructive approach to penalties and, above all, as a matter of priority, a national criminal code? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is true that the Opposition has been critical of the Government, stating that we have not taken sufficient action to combat organised crime. Let me say at the outset that, if we look at the record of the previous Government, we find basically that that was when major crime syndicates commenced to flourish. Mr Howard —Nonsense. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is interjecting, but perhaps he does that out of some nervous reaction to the bottom-of-the-harbour criminal activities which not only affected Australia but also had international links through other agencies. Let us make it clear that there was massive white collar crime in relation to collecting taxation revenue that was due. Whereas in the past in this country there was brutal and physical assault in person to person criminal activity, we now have sophisticated intelligent criminals who cannot readily be detected. They use arrangements, not only inside but also outside Australia, to amass large sums of money as well as to destroy the fabric of our society. When we came to office we found deficiencies in a number of areas, not least of which was that of extradition treaties. The honourable member has raised the need for a national effort. There has always been that need. I am pleased to say that at the recent meeting with State Attorneys-General there was consensus that there needs to be uniform activity to attack organised crime. Accordingly, we have prepared uniform legislation in respect of both the drug area and the issue of forfeiture of assets. The States are now adopting legislation that will be to the advantage of the whole nation. Legislation for the forfeiture of assets has already been introduced in New South Wales and Victoria. At the same time we are talking about introducing legislation in similar terms that would deal not only with the forfeiture of assets on conviction but also the forfeiture of assets that might be deemed to have been acquired by illegal means. Those are some of the problems we are facing in dealing with this matter. The honourable member referred to the need for a national criminal code. Of course, there is such a need, but the best way to achieve it is by the States and the Commonwealth working together to achieve uniformity in this area, not least in the discussions encouraged by our Solicitor-General about a cross-vesting of jurisdiction. That matter is very well advanced. To return to the issue of extradition, last year we established a task force to deal with extradition treaties. That preceded a conference in Milan which dealt with the need to consider an updated concept throughout the world of the best way to pursue organised crime on an international basis. At that conference Australian sponsored a motion to update the extradition treaties and to talk about mutual assistance treaties. That conference of 125 countries adopted unanimously the Australian resolution. It is not good enough just to look at the resolution. One has to look at what Australia has done since that time. Since the task force was established, we have signed and updated at least eight treaties. At present we are negotiating treaties with the United States of America, Spain, Monaco, the Federal Republic of Germany, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Bolivia, Israel and Paraguay. We also have a good chance of obtaining the extradition of some criminals. It is very interesting to look at the money trail involved in criminal activity. It is well known that in one case alone there could have been at least $26m transmitted out of this country through organised crime. It runs into massive amounts of money. There has to be a sanction not only in pursuing the individual but also in pursuing the assets. It is also recognised that, regrettably, one bank manager in Australia opened seven different accounts for one person using different names. It is no help when the banking authorities do not co-operate. It is also well recognised in the United States that there is movement of money from bank accounts around the world. It is important to follow the money trail. We will have those matters very much in mind in considering what we will be able to introduce by way of legislative reform. I thank the honourable gentleman for the question because there is no more serious matter bedevilling Australian society at present than sophisticated organised crime, which is running into billions of dollars. It requires the close co-operation of the State authorities and of the law enforcement agencies. Mr SHARP —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Are Australian law enforcement agencies still unable to apprehend and hold transiting passengers carrying illegal drugs? Did the Minister last November call for a report on the Taillon case, which highlighted this serious anomaly, with the aim of closing this gap in our drug defences? Why has nothing been done and how does this gross negligence square with the drug offensive and the claims made as recently as yesterday by the Special Minister of State that the Government is doing all it can to fight the drug menace? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government is doing all it can to fight the drug menace. We were all very much surprised that, as the honourable member has said, when a passenger was in transit in Sydney and his baggage was searched, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that he could not be deemed to have in his possession that prohibited narcotic. There is a lot of doubt about the interpretation of the words `deemed to be in possession of'-- Mr Spender interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I understand the concern of the interjector, but in fact nothing was done to remedy this by the previous Government. I accept the view that perhaps the previous Government did not think there was a weakness in the law either. Many people in Australia would not have thought that it was a weakness in the law when one who had narcotics in his own baggage was not deemed to be in possession of them. One must ask in whose possession they might have been deemed to be. I want to be fair to the honourable gentleman who asked the question, as I think it has a lot of merit. The Canadians certainly were mystified when told by the Australian authorities that perhaps they would like to charge this gentleman when he got to Canada. They came back with the answer that they did not think they would have enough evidence to convict him, because it had already been established that it involved Australia. I have sent the matter back to the Department to see whether it would like to get a second opinion on this position. Mr Porter —Six months later. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It did not go back just last week, I might add. To make the situation very clear, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is correct in his analysis of the law, the law will be amended. If he is not correct, in future anybody coming through this country with narcotics in his possession-that includes in his baggage-will be prosecuted forthwith. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of widespread criticism in rural communities, as reflected in the recent report of the Prime Minister's country task force, about the lending policies and practices of banks as they affect farmers? Has the Minister taken any action to investigate these criticisms? Can he inform the House of the results of his investigations? Mr KERIN —It will be obvious to honourable members that depressed international commodity prices and relatively high interest rates are causing financial difficulties for many primary producers. This has heightened the normal level of farmer criticism of the banks. In addition, it is fair to say that many people, including primary producers, are still in the process of coming to terms with the environment created by financial sector deregulation. I have not sought to blame the banks for all the ills of the rural sector, despite the popularity that that might bring. I have, however, been concerned for some time about the problems of the rural debt situation, and in January I met with representatives of the banks and a number of farm consultants to discuss rural debt problems. The current difficulties of the rural sector were very much in the Government's mind when we prepared our rural and economic policy statement of 15 April. That statement included a major expansion of finance for the rural adjustment scheme, which directly addresses some of the problems of rural debt. Following the report of the Prime Minister's country task force, to which the honourable gentleman referred-I might add here that the task force has been extremely useful in improving two-way communication between government and rural communities-I undertook a series of meetings with bank officials specifically to discuss bank policies and practices as they relate to primary producers. The issues discussed included the banks' overall lending margins, allegations of penalty interest rates on rural borrowers, administration and other bank charges, the criteria used in assessing applications for loans, and the banks' treatment of farmers in financial difficulty. As a result of the Prime Minister's commitment in Canowindra last Saturday, I have forwarded to him a report on these discussions. The discussions were comprehensive-- Mr Braithwaite —What about his commitment on the fringe benefits tax? Mr KERIN —The honourable member is a bit like a whale; he is likely to get harpooned as he comes up to spout. It is my observation that the banks themselves need to improve their communications with the rural sector and possibly the degree to which local managers appreciate and apply their stated policies. For example, the banks denied any allegations of discrimination against the rural sector, particularly in relation to penalty interest rate charges. Mr Sharp —You did a good job up there, Bob. Mr KERIN —I would have thought members of the National Party of Australia would be interested in this. The banks indicated that penalty rates applied only to borrowers who had failed to meet previous commitments and that such penalties applied regardless of the industry in which the borrower was engaged. They expressed the view that their lending policies were well geared to meeting the needs of the rural sector. I believe the assurances that I obtained could go a long way towards dissipating rural concerns in this area. The financial sector deregulation undertaken by the Government is resulting in improved services being provided by the banks, and is ensuring that competitive pressures minimise the scope for excessive margins between lending and borrowing rates. Nevertheless, I must say that there are remaining areas of concern. One is the ability of rural borrowers, when compared with other borrowers, to bargain for the best available finance package. Another is the extent to which the banks' announced policies are communicated to and applied by local managers. It is very important that the banks provide a full and adequate service to rural clients at minimum cost. The Government will be continuing to gather information on the areas in which the banks' practices could be improved and it will discuss these with the bankers. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his claim that the relationship between Australia and China should be a model of successful co-operation between countries of different social and political systems. In view of the assessment in the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities that any substantial threat to Australia would have to come from or through the northern archipelago, can the Prime Minister assure the House that from now on repairing and strengthening Australia's relationship with Indonesia will become a major foreign policy goal of his Government, and is he prepared to invest as much personal energy and zeal in repairing that relationship as he has invested, properly, in Australia's relationship with China? Mr HAWKE —At the outset I draw to the attention of the House and the people of Australia the monumental hypocrisy of the Opposition when it comes to the question of Australia's relations with Indonesia. It will not have escaped the attention of many people in this country that the same group of people in 1963 shamelessly tried to create and manipulate the concept of a threat from Indonesia for the baseless purpose of trying to win an election in that year. People will recall that they sent a dying Minister for Defence to Washington to negotiate the F111 deal and, because at that time they held government in this place by a margin of one seat, they then had B52 aircraft flying over this country, trying to persuade the people of Australia that we were about to be invaded by Indonesia and to come into conflict with it. If there is one group of people in this country that has no mandate to speak about defence and our relations with Indonesia, it is this group of people opposite. In the whole sorry pageant of the way in which the conservatives in this country have used foreign affairs, not in terms of trying to understand what Australia's constructive relationship with the region should be but for miserable domestic political purposes, it is the question of Indonesia more than any other which stands as a condemnation of them. They used relations with Indonesia to try to win an election. They did nothing constructive about the relationship. They are no different in 1986 from what they were in 1963. They were hypocrites then; they are hypocrites now. Having established the total lack of bona fides of the conservatives in this country in relation to this matter, let me make it quite clear, as does the Dibb report and as does my Minister for Defence, that a proper relationship with a stable Indonesia is of fundamental importance to this country. As distinct from its predecessors, who continually played their relations with the region for miserable domestic political purposes, from day one this Government, particularly through the activities of its Foreign Minister, has sought constructively to engage Australia with each of these countries to try to improve the relationship, to try to put it on a basis whereby these countries would understand that the concern of Australia is to have a peaceable, productive relationship in all manner of affairs-not merely commercial but cultural, scientific, sporting and all people to people relationships. The Government, as I say, particularly through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has consistently and, I would suggest, very successfully pursued that policy. As far as Indonesia is concerned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs went first to Indonesia within a matter of weeks of this Government being formed. Apart from my visit to New Guinea in June, which was part of the same visit, the first overseas country which I visited was Indonesia. I believe that I established good and warm personal relations with President Suharto. From that beginning in 1983 we have continued, as far as we are concerned, to try to make the Government and the people of Indonesia understand that this Government and, I believe, the people of Australia have warm, positive feelings towards that country. We recognise that there have been difficulties in the past but no government, I believe, could have done more than this Government has done to say: `As far as possible the things of the past should be put behind us and we should look to the future'. That is what we have done. We cannot help it if there are reactions in certain quarters in Indonesia to something that happens in this country beyond the control of this Government. Although some recent articles in one particular Indonesian newspaper have sought to continue the ruction between our two countries, I do not believe that those articles reflect the opinion of the Government of Indonesia. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I remind you that Ambassador Marpaung has been quoted as saying very recently that he considers his assignment to be to build as many bridges as possible between Indonesia and Australia. The recent articles in the AB newspaper in Indonesia reflect the fact that there is still some misunderstanding in that country about the attitudes of Australia, its people and its Government. It shows that much work has to be done. I take the point from the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that it is incumbent upon all of us-me, the Prime Minister, all Ministers of this Government, the Leader of the Opposition and all people in positions of responsibility-to take every opportunity to increase the level of understanding between the peoples of Indonesia and Australia. This is not a matter for attempts at cheap political point scoring. We have at this time a very significant responsibility. Recognising that Indonesia is a country of 160 million people, our most populous and nearest neighbour, the Government and all of us in positions of public life have a responsibility to try to foster good relations between our two countries. I give the people of Australia the solemn undertaking that I and all Ministers of this Government will accept the responsibility we have for continuing to work at building the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. In that respect, I welcome very much the fact that my Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has recently been in Indonesia. I take it as a clear indication that at official Government levels in Indonesia there is a willingness and a preparedness to work in the way that I am talking about, the fact that the Minister had constructive, positive discussions and relations when he was there. That sort of relationship must be continued. I and all members of this Government will continue to do our best. As we do so, the people of this country will draw the very clear and obvious distinction between the positive, constructive approach of this Government and the miserable irrelevancies that are coming from the other side of this House. Mr BILNEY —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a segment broadcast last week on radio station 5AA in Adelaide, a once respectable station-- Mr Downer —It is owned by the Labor Party. Mr BILNEY —That was when it was respectable. The segment dealt with petrol sniffing. Did the segment include a skit in which people purporting to be Aboriginals were portrayed as discussing the various merits of sniffing different grades of petrol? Does material of this kind trivialise serious and tragic instances of drug abuse which is prevalent within the Aboriginal community, particularly amongst young people, but not restricted to it? What action can be taken to persuade the station not to broadcast this kind of racist material in future? Mr HOLDING —It is true to say that the whole question of drug abuse is a matter of concern to all members of this House, as it is certainly a matter of concern to all Ministers in both State and Federal governments. It is not an issue to be trivialised. I think all honourable members would agree that, if one young Australian is found dead as a result of drug abuse or overuse, it is a matter of concern to all of us. That has been demonstrated by the range of debates that have taken place in the Parliament on the whole question of drug abuse. The particular segment that was broadcast has been accurately described by the honourable member who asked the question. I do not propose to repeat the offensive terms which were used. I will table a copy of the transcript of the broadcast so that any honourable member interested in the matter can acquaint himself with those terms. I say quite objectively that I think Mr Paul Makin, the broadcaster concerned, would not, under any circumstances, have tried to trivialise drug abuse by members of the broader community. I do not think he would have trivialised the issue or used the terms he did if he had been dealing with the damage, death and tragedy that can be caused in the broader community. Therefore, when he addresses himself to the question of petrol sniffing, which continues in Aboriginal communities and which unfortunately causes not only brain damage but also death, I believe that it is racist, stupid and insensitive, as it is for any broadcaster, to use the air waves to trivialise such an important matter. It is a matter of concern not merely to me but also-I am certain-to the relevant Ministers in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia and all Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs who work in close co-operation in jointly funded projects which are designed to reduce petrol sniffing wherever it occurs in Aboriginal communities. I condemn without reservation both Mr Makin and the radio station 5AA for allowing this broadcast to take place. On behalf of Aboriginal people I call for an unqualified withdrawal and apology. Nothing less could be regarded as satisfactory. If that does not take place, the proper course is for me to refer the matter to the Attorney-General of South Australia as well as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to see what action it should properly take with the terms of its Act to ensure that this sort of thing does not occur again in the future. Madam SPEAKER —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, I present the report of the Committee on the inquiry into the televising and radio broadcasting of both Houses and their committees, together with a copy of the transcript of evidence and a copy of the Committee's minutes of proceedings relating to the inquiry. Ordered that the report be printed. Madam SPEAKER —The report of the Committee on the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings inquiry reflects deliberations of the Committee extending over 3 1/2 years and three parliaments. During that time the Committee received evidence and consulted with members of parliament, parliamentary officers, broadcasting officials and organisations, specific interest groups and citizens of Australia. There were changes in the Committee's membership during that time and I thank members of the Committee, past and present, for the effort they devoted to the task of forming recommendations to both Houses on the vital question of the electronic delivery of proceedings. I would like to pay particular tribute in this regard to my predecessor as Speaker and Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Dr. H. A. Jenkins. Among the principal recommendations of the Committee are that continuous radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses should continue, with the allocation of the broadcast still being determined by the Committee. The Committee also recommends that the broadcast of proceedings be extended to cover adjournment debates-which are available during the trial period for the recording of excerpts. The second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure also included in its recommendations the broadcast of adjournment debates. The Broadcasting Committee's report also recommends that a parliamentary radio network should be established, and that the proceedings of parliamentary committees meeting when neither House is sitting should be available for radio broadcasting. The report recommends that broadcasting of excerpts be authorised on a permanent basis if the trial period is satisfactory. When the re-broadcast of excerpts was presented to the Houses, an undertaking was given to inform the Houses of the results of monitoring of television and radio station usage. This is contained in Appendix 3 to the report. In relation to televising of proceedings, the Committee has recommended that, with specific exceptions, this not be undertaken from the provisional Parliament House but that proceedings of the Houses and their committees be available for televising in the new Parliament House, subject to guidelines adopted for televising the Budget speeches. However, there should be no compulsion to televise proceedings. The Committee has also recommended the establishment of a parliamentary audio-visual unit. The report contains a number of recommendations relating to protection provided to broadcasters, the impact of access of the electronic media on parliamentary practices or conventions-for example, the sub judice rule-control of access to the sound and vision signals and revision of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act. I commend the report to the House. The conditions for granting access to proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts as contained in Appendix 2 to the report I have just presented were those in effect when the Committee agreed to the report. On 2 June 1986 the Committee agreed that guidelines 5a and 7 be amended as follows: Guideline 5a-Excerpts of proceedings which are subsequently withdrawn shall be available for re-broadcast provided the withdrawal is also reported; Guideline 7-Events in the galleries are not part of the proceedings and excerpts in relation to such events, as far as is practicable, should not be used. The revised conditions for access are to take effect as from tomorrow and copies are being circulated for the information of members and the media. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed. That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Madam SPEAKER —I present a draft Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986 and an explanatory memorandum to that Bill, copies of which were tabled by Mr President in the Senate earlier today. Honourable members may be aware that on 9 April 1986 Mr President made a statement to the Senate concerning the judgment given in the Supreme Court of New South Wales relating to article 9 of the Bill of Rights in its application to the Houses of the Australian Parliament. In the debate that followed, it was suggested that it would be necessary for the Parliament to legislate to avoid the consequences of that judgment and to restore the established interpretation of article 9. It was further suggested that Mr President should take some action to initiate the necessary legislation. It was proposed that any legislation should deal with the changes in the law recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in its report in 1984, so that the Senate could consider those recommendations in conjunction with any proposed provisions dealing with the interpretation of article 9. These suggestions were reinforced by requests made to Mr President by senators in discussion. The Senate has been primarily concerned in this matter because the decision of the court related to the use in proceedings of statements made to Senate committees. Nevertheless, because the matter is of equal concern to members of the House of Representatives, I have been following developments closely. I should also say that many members of the House have voiced to me their concern at the Supreme Court judgment. In response to the requests, Mr President has had a Bill prepared by one of the Department of the Senate's consultant draftsmen to carry out these two purposes. I was kept informed in the matter and earlier drafts of the Bill were made available for my consideration. The Bill has been tabled in draft form so as to allow senators and members time to make comments on the proposed provisions. Such comments will be considered and it is Mr President's intention to introduce the Bill in the next period of sittings. It is an unprecedented step for a Presiding Officer to initiate legislation, but Mr President has taken this step because of the fundamental importance to both Houses of the matters involved. On all the advice given to Mr President and to me, the judgments given in the court represent a serious threat to the freedom of speech in Parliament and the capacity of members to speak for their constituents, and an equally serious threat to the protection of witnesses who give evidence to parliamentary committees. Clause 16 of the draft Bill deals with the interpretation of article 9, and the remaining clauses deal with the recommendations of the Joint Committee. The Bill departs from these recommendations in a number of respects, and these departures and the reasons for them are explained in the explanatory memorandum. I strongly recommend to honourable members that they become acquainted with the issues involved in this matter and read the draft Bill and explanatory memorandum which I have presented, so that early consideration may be given to the proposed legislation. Mr President and I look forward to receiving any comments from senators or members on the draft Bill. Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, may I inquire when it is envisaged that the Bill will be brought into the House of Representatives for debate? Madam SPEAKER —The Bill, having been initiated in the Senate, will first be debated in the Senate and it will then come across to this House. Mr President hopes that will take place reasonably early in the Budget session. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 27A (1) of the Australian Capital Territory Parole Ordinance 1976, I present the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the 1985 UNESCO General Conference. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the information of honourable members I present the text of an agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Swiss Confederation concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, together with the text of a statement relating to the agreement. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Plague Locust Commission for 1984-85. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the first annual report of the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present a document relating to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia for the Harding River Dam and the country towns water supply improvement program. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following 10 discussion papers relating to the energy 2000 policy overview, and suggest that they will make a good read for the winter recess. They are as follows: An overview, petroleum, electricity, coal, natural gas, renewable energy, synfuels, research and development, energy conservation, and energy demand scenarios: 1985-2000. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report for 1985. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the Hawke Government should: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Fife,Mr Hawker and Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag be changed only with the approval of the nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawke and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian Flag as provided in section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the majority of people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax private use of company cars will cause a serious reduction in employment in the automotive industry. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we request that the Government of Australia consider the possibility of giving aid to the Karen civilian refugees at present fleeing from Burma into Thailand as a result of military action in the border areas. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. In view of the fact that Australian Governments, since the Pearson Report of 1968, have committed themselves to meeting the 0.7% GNP target for overseas aid, which at present is 0.49%, and because it is an important expression of the humanitarian concerns of the Australian community that at this critical time of shortage, food aid to Africa be continued, and considering that development programmes in developing countries are difficult to carry out where basic education levels are low, and mindful of the fact that voluntary aid agencies have an aptitude for grass roots level development, an area which the Government has difficulty in reaching, concluding therefore that official aid could thus be complemented and supported by an increase in the level of funding to these agencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government (1) move to a 0.7% GNP target level for overseas aid funding, and announce a plan to reach this by the year 1991, (2) continue aid to Africa at an increased level, (3) make more funds available for development education, (4) implement the recommendation to the Government that assistance to voluntary overseas aid agencies be doubled. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 OECD member countries, are causing severe hardship and damage to this nation's 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 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 deregulation objectives. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and Reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Halverson. 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 suggest 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 Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygenic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned 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 petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth that we, the undersigned women, urge the Government to change social and economic policy which is destroying family farming and small business, and breaking down the fabric of society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour it's commitments. We want to ensure a future for our families, our communities and our country. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. 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 in Parliament assembled. This petition of Australian citizens respectfully points out: That deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the `First International Earth Repair Year' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for Worldpeace. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. 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. We the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the Public has no legal right to influence the setting of Standards for Television Programming, that we deplore the new Standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining Television standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: Because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, Because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, Because the new Standards are ambiguous, and without definition, Because the new Standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, Because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, Because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, Because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to `the storyline' of a film screened, Because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the EFFECTS of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, Because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. 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. 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 members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weightlifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater Workers' Compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weight lifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights. Overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, Is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, Establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and Provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the film `Hail Mary' is pornographic and blasphemous and gravely offends our religious beliefs and those of the vast majority of Australian Christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Parliament will respect the will of the undersigned and have the pornographic and blasphemous film ``Hail Mary'' banned in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the 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 petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the House the proposal being considered by the A.C.T. Health Authority to establish a Women's Health Centre in the A.C.T. There is grave concern that the proposed centre would: duplicate existing services; further reduce such services at hospitals/clinics to provide funding for the new centre; add to the difficulties faced by the aged/migrant women/mothers of young children, who are now adequately served by decentralised community based health centres; inevitably lead to increased costs to the taxpayer; present an opportunity for the establishment of an abortion clinic in the A.C.T. Your petitioners therefore pray that no further action be taken to establish or set up a discrete health centre for women in the Australian Capital Territory. by Mrs Kelly. 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 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 of 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 the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the 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 Sutherland Shire New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of the Coptic community resident in New South Wales respectfully showeth: Whereas the Coptic Orthodox Church, Diocese of Australia, Parish of New South Wales has enjoyed funding under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme since 1980, and has used the funds granted to employ a full-time social worker to assist members of the Coptic community in Sydney in dealing with problems encountered particularly by ethnic minorities in our society. Whereas the problems of the Coptic community in Sydney are, if anything, greater today than they were in 1980. Whereas the Church's application for continued funding under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme for 1985-86 has been rejected by the Honourable the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Whereas the resultant loss of the services of a full-time social worker will cause immense hardship and distress within the Coptic community in Sydney. Your petitioners therefore pray that the funding of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Diocese of Australia and Parish of New South Wales under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme be restored for 1985-86, and for so long thereafter as may be necessary in order to meet the needs of the Coptic community in Sydney. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Uren. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to remove the excessive burden of Government regulation and taxation from small business, so as to encourage investment and job growth. 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 TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.08) —There is no doubt that the Government has at last woken up to the need for private sector investment and has suddenly realised that something must be done about the matter, although I doubt that the Government will achieve very much by the threats it might use. There is no doubt that, in seeking that private sector investment, the Government will have to turn to the 650,000 Australian employers who employ fewer than five people. Let us consider the reasons why these people are not investing, why they are not helping Australia out of its present economic problems. While I was thinking this matter through, I remembered a circumstance some years ago when early in my business career I visited my bank to discuss finance for a new project to invest money in Australia. I prepared an elaborate cash flow, which indicated that the profits could repay the loan in three years. During our discussions my bank manager indicated that in my calculations I had not included the cost of income tax, and he sent me home to rework my cash flow. The subsequent reworking of that cash flow extended my repayment period for the loan from three years to six years-double the amount of time. That was not only because of the tax burden but also because the extended time added to my interest burden. Of course, if we had had a capital gains tax at that time I would not have bothered to make the investment at all. I would have been like all the smart investors today; I would have lent my money to the Government and taken the high interest rates that the Government offers in competition with the small business sector. All this proves is that tax is a cost of production, and business must take account of that in calculating its cash flow. Let us note something else when the Treasurer stands in this place and tells us time and time again that the business profit share is up. In the statistical sense, profit share is calculated before interest, before tax and before depreciation. This is just another example of the philosophy of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of saying that two plus two equals any number up to 10-any number that suits his argument at the time when he is trying to sell his ability to Australians. The reality of small business is that those businessmen look at their balance sheets; they do not listen to the Treasurer's rhetoric. They make investments on what they see as the bottom line. When they see brackets down there, they are not too keen for further investment. We saw reported in the Australian on 2 May that Australian Guarantee Corporation, the biggest finance company in Australia, reported a 9.6 per cent fall in profit completely attributable to bankruptcies in the small business sector. The report stated: The directors blamed the result on the growing number of bankruptcies in the small business sector, caused by high interest rates- a Government problem- high levels of unemployment- a Government problem- the impact of tax changes- and who can we blame for that but the Government- and the low level of economic activity- which this Government tells us that that does not even exist. Let us look at how this Government came to office and the promises it made to small business. Mr Dawkins, the then shadow Minister, told Australian small business on 13 February 1983: A Labor government will make a new commitment to revitalise small business and will back that commitment with action- that is probably affirmative action- resources and legislation. It certainly kept the promise about the legislation-625 pages of additional tax legislation. Businessmen got that legislation, and it is now rumoured that they may get price fixing legislation, and they will be grateful for that! Small businessmen were also told that a Labor government: . . . will ease the tax burden by legislating to allow small firms full retention of profits where these funds are to be used for genuine business purposes. What was the Government's reaction to that? It took out the investment allowance-it removed it, it does not exist. It also sought to allow the option of provisional tax to be paid in quarterly instalments. Yes, that has been done, but a fiddle was worked. It actually moved the figure forward three months instead of back three months. It also advocated amending the Sales Tax Act to allow a full month for remittance of tax owing. That has never been done, irrespective of the fact that the tax package gave the Government a tax windfall of $110m per annum, which could have been used for that purpose. It is a matter to which I have drawn the attention of the House on other occasions. Mr Dawkins also advocated exempting industrial research and development grants from tax. Well, the Government did not do that. It has brought in 150 per cent tax deductibility, but has specially excluded the small business sector. There has to be a threshold of $20,000, and there is encouragement for other investors to send their money off to institutions such as universities and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation instead of investing it in the backyard innovator, who may also wish to invest his own money and claim the deduction. He is pushed out, and there is good reason for all that. Small business is no longer even a phrase in this Government's criteria. It does not want to know about small business. Since small business defied the Australian Council of Trade Unions ban on Queensland, it has been invisible to this Government. This Government does not even have a Minister representing small business officially. Those are the sorts of things the Government promised and small business did not get them. But the one thing they were told they would not have was a capital gains tax. Small businessmen were told that there would be no such a tax. They trusted this Government and they got a capital gains tax. Let us look at the record of the Hawke Government on taxation. The last Fraser Budget taxed Australians $44 billion. The present Budget estimate is $64 billion, and we are expecting it to be higher. That figure has risen by $20 billion in three years. It took the previous governments of Australia 83 years to achieve an annual rate of $44 billion of taxation a year and this Government has managed to add 50 per cent to that in three years. Even if we go into more esoteric figures, we find that as a percentage of gross domestic product this Government's tax collections have gone from 23.8 per cent to 25.3 per cent. While the Government has done all that, it has borrowed $20 billion and has been out there scratching and fighting with the small business sector which is trying to borrow money at a reasonable rate to invest in the progress of Australia. The Government has been pushing small business out of the way. Consequently, small business in Australian is paying 18 per cent for its money when 5 per cent is the going rate overseas. One knows how that works, particularly if one has borrowed money at the 10 to 12 per cent rate available when this Government entered office and is locked into a loan. One cannot send it back-it has been spent. And so it goes on. We see government taking a bigger role every day and pushing away small business people. The tax package is built on the politics of envy of the ACTU. This Government seems to think that it took the initiative on this tax package, but it got its instructions on 3 February 1985 when Bill Kelty made his address to the Socialist Forum. Everything that has happened in the meantime has been a nothing. Let us remember that we were promised no capital gains tax, and now we have just about got one. We are told: `Don't worry about it, it does not mean very much to you. We are only going to collect a little bit of money'. Let us work out how selective it will be. I must agree that probably the burden on a property owner-a large property with a large capital value-with inflationary discounting will be insignificant in most cases. But a lot of other people are in business. I refer to people who run small businesses in rented property, such as delicatessens, take-away food stores and a myriad of others. There are people who operate trucks on the road, and they will be hit extremely hard by this particular tax. It will tax goodwill, and more particularly the only discount available from that goodwill is a 20 per cent discount in the case of a start-up business. A business with no goodwill, or very little goodwill because it has run down, may be bought by a person who works hard and joins the 21 Club. The 21 Club comprises people who work from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week, three times seven. Those people join the 21 Club, they take such a business and build it up. One of them could say: `I have outgrown this business, I have done all I can do with it. I want to sell it and I want to buy a small supermarket'. Let me give an example of the corner deli proprietor who wants to buy a small supermarket and finds one. Let us say that the price is $100,000; the person concerned still has his own business and organises a sale on sale-a common thing to do. Eventually, he sells the business to someone and is able to arrange the settlement of the new supermarket. So he sells his business for $50,000, plant and stock is written down in that business to $20,000. He has $20,000 worth of savings and wants to buy the supermarket for $100,000. He has already paid tax on the $20,000 of savings, but is still $30,000 short. So he goes to the bank to borrow that sum, and that is the maximum he can service. There he is, he makes his purchase in December and gets on with the work of building up that business, as he did with the previous one. What happens then? He goes round six months later to his tax accountant and dumps all the receipts and everything on him, and says: `Please work out my tax return'. When he gets the return back, he finds an extra $15,000 on his tax bill. He says: `What's this for?' He is told: `That is your capital gains tax on the previous sale'. He says: `But I haven't got the money'. Well, one never tells the tax commissioner `I haven't got the money', because the commissioner will say `Tough luck, I want the money and I want it now'. What does the businessman do? He is broke, he is finished. He cannot service the additional 50 per cent of borrowing and he has had it; that is, if he did not know-and that will not be so in every case, I know. His second alternative is that he does know about this horrible account because he has gone to his accountant. What does he do then? He does not sell and he does not buy, because suddenly he cannot be viable if he leaves his present business. He is locked in and the growth that Australia needs is denied us. The person in question has a third alternative-and this will happen and it will not be much help. He will add the $15,000 to the sale price of his deli. It is possible that some early retiring bureaucrat will invest his superannuation lump sum in that overpriced business and go broke. That will be a great help to the economy also, because that retirement money will be lost and that person will be back on the pension. I could give exactly the same example of a small business truckie who has his truck on lease and finds himself up for huge amounts, probably $20,000 or $30,000 worth of capital gains tax, purely because, having paid his truck out at 20 per cent of its value, he is able to trade it in at 80 per cent. Remember that all these people write down their plant. Let us also remember the tax rate. It will be the maximum marginal rate at which the capital gains tax will be calculated. Then we have the wonderful fringe benefits tax, and we know what that means. Everybody is now worried about keeping receipts because substantiation goes with the tax. There will be paper work running out of everywhere. We will have a printers-led recovery. But the reality is that there are two sides to that question for small business. There is the person who has to get the receipt and the person who has to write it. Numerous small businesses which generally deal in cash will have to have somebody on the staff hereinafter writing out receipts. We hear that the Government is resolving that. One will not have to sign them. There will be a business in receipts if they do not need to be signed, because everyone will go and buy a cash register that prints receipts; out they will go, and they will put on a spike the ones that people do not take away with them and they will give them to those who want them. People will be back to signing them, because they will find that that is just another form of avoidance. They are the sorts of things that we will have. Every person who wants to make a proper claim for a car, whether the car is the property of the employer or of someone working for him, will have to have a log book and, in fact, if a person incurs small expenses as he travels around in his employment or business he will have to have a diary. Everything one does will have to be done in that particular fashion. Honourable members should listen to this: If one happens to be giving rent to someone, this is the sort of calculation that one will have to make. One must know that the average mining wage for the November preceding the year of tax was $650, that the dwelling rent factor was 0.20 and that the employee paid $1,000 in rent. This is how one calculates it: 650 by 52 by 0.20 by 0.6 by 182 over 365 minus 1,000. If honourable members think that that is easy they should try to get two of those figures. The average mining wage and the dwelling rent factor are not available from the Australian Statistician; we cannot get them. Although that is an option, it cannot be compared with the others. This just goes on and on. The butcher who lets his worker take home a little bit of meat has now got to report that and have it taxed. Honourable members opposite would know, if any of them had been in small business, why historically the butcher gave the meat to his employee-it was a better alternative to his stealing it. That used to happen in the hotel industry, too. People will go back to stealing as small business is obliged to withdraw these sorts of privileges. It was bad enough when we had just all the complicated awards provided by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to contend with. Now, when we put on new staff members, we will have to read not only the award but also the 56 pages of the fringe benefits tax booklet to see where they fit in and just what we might be giving them. Imagine people battling and struggling, trying to earn their living, having to contend with that travel diary, log books and employment agreements. With fringe benefits, substantiation rests with the employer. Field auditing and self-assessment are on. One of my constituents said to me the other day: `I've got it fixed. I'm going to have a new car for business and an old bomb for private purposes'. I said: `That's all right, but don't park that new car, the business car, outside the hotel one night because the field auditor might be staying there and when he goes downstairs he will write down the registration number. He will write down all the numbers because he can check on you later on'. That is the sort of society that this Government is bringing us to. That is what we are confronted with. It goes on: Representatives' cars will be taxed, remote area housing will be taxed and the cost of that will be passed on to consumers, while the really rich fat cats whom the Treasurer complains about will have their tax benefits increased. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.23) —This is an important debate here today because it sets the scene of the climate confronting small business in Australia. We ought to go to the heart of the matter right at the outset. When the Opposition talks about small business what it has to do is talk about the framework within which small business operates. The framework is that determined by the level of investment, the level of demand, the level of industrial disputes, the wages and prices pressures that are on and the level of competitiveness in the economy. I think that it is significant that the Opposition has not addressed itself to this matter. It has made a brave attempt, but it is not good enough. The important thing that we have to understand in relation to small business as well as large business is that we must have the economic setting right and we must be sure that the economy is operating healthily and effectively. When we begin to draw comparisons, as I propose doing in a moment, we very quickly begin to see that the sort of framework within which small business operates now is a lot healthier than it was some three or four years ago. I will address myself to those matters, but before doing so, I make one further point. The Opposition talks about the burden of taxation and the difficulties of taxation. I remind honourable members opposite that when we came to office the former Government had left us with a tax system that did not work. It had also left us with a tax system that had the Australian community very angry indeed, because it was in- equitable and it was not being used properly. Despite the appeals of the Commissioner of Taxation, the former Government did not seek to do anything about removing those inequities or about ensuring that the tax system worked better. We ought to get that clear from the outset. Therefore, when we are talking about taxation, let us get the setting right. That setting is that the former Government did not work the tax system properly, and the electorate understood that very well, so well that it threw the former Government out of office. What we have set about doing is remedying some problems with that tax system, and I will talk about that in a moment. I will talk now about investment. After that I will talk about the other important setting of the economy. We have to consider not only investment from the point of view of small business but also the level of economic growth and activity. I will talk also about industrial relations and disputations, because they are areas of considerable concern to small business. When one talks about investment it is important to consider the performance of investment in terms of Australia's economy in the recent period and to compare that with the performance of investment in the more recent past. In terms of business fixed investment-I am quoting figures in real terms-in 1982-83, under the previous Government, there was a 13.9 per cent reduction; that is, a reduction of 13.9 per cent in the level of activity coming through from the investment side. It continued on into 1983-84 because, clearly, the expectations of business at the time were such that they were going to continue to reduce their investment activity. Therefore, in 1982-83 we had a 13.9 per cent reduction in small business and in 1983-84 we had a further 10.4 per cent decline in business fixed investment. That is a poor record. When one talks about the settings of business activity and when one has a negative growth in investment activity, I really think one has to look at the performance of government, and at that time it was not good. By 1984-85 it had begun to recover; there was a 4.7 per cent increase in the level of real business fixed investment. What we have here is decisions by investors, not rhetoric. This is not talk in a general sense but talk about the specifics-what we had in this period, when the Opposition was in government, was investors deciding that it was not worth investing. Why not? Because the Government had made a mess of the economy. It was well known that the previous Government had made a mess of the economy, and I will talk about that further in a moment. Honourable members opposite have to face the facts: When they were in government they made a mess of the economy; investors believed that the former Government had made a mess of the economy, so investment declined. It has recovered during the period that we have been in office. Some of that recovery is due to the levels of expectation of investors and some is due to improved economic conditions, and I propose to talk about those in a moment. Let me be very clear: When one talks about levels of economic growth and investment one must remember to get the settings right. The first setting, the investment level, was poor-in fact not only was it poor, it was negative-when we came to office. We saw the effect of that running through our first financial year. However, recovery has resumed, and everyone knows that. Everyone also understands that the level of economic growth has improved. That is the next setting I wish to talk about. My colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) knows that in our electorates in Western Australia there has been a substantial increase in the level of economic activity. I could talk specifically about housing, which is of great importance to us in our electorates, but, to talk generally, the level of economic growth has been satisfying because we have seen increases in the level of jobs and business turnover. That is what getting the settings right is about; it is not some vague rhetoric, it is about getting it right so that business feels able to perform in an improved economy. I mentioned the subject of taxation. I think it is important that we devote just a moment to talking about that subject. The taxation system fell into disrepair under the previous Government; it clearly did. What we are about doing now is repairing that taxation system. Let us look at it from the viewpoint of small business. One of the things that small business will be getting is imputation, which is very important. It is something that needed to be put in place for a long time; it was neglected by the previous Government. In fact, it could not bring in effective tax reforms. One can speculate on why it could not bring them in, but I do not propose to do that. What I do propose to say to members opposite is that they should not come into this place and talk about taxation without remembering, as the Australian community remembers, that their performance on taxation was less than adequate. In fact, the judgment was made by the Australian people. The previous Government did not deliver on taxation reform-it never did-and the Australian people know that. There has been comment in this debate about the fringe benefits tax. The reality is that the fringe benefits tax in the community is supported. Why is it supported? It is because it is seen as being a move towards a more equitable taxation system. I think that that has to be established. We cannot retreat from the fact, so I will keep before the people in this place a recognition that what we are putting in place is a far more effective taxation system. Opposition members can come into this place and talk about tax, but what we notice is that when it gets down to serious taxation reform members opposite argue about it in this place and then try to knock off that serious taxation reform in the other place. The Opposition has had a record of doing that since the Australian Labor Party came into government, and the Australian community will judge it accordingly. I say to the Opposition: `Do not try to play this game on tax reform continually because the electorate will judge you harshly. It will see you as still being in the same camp as those who are not interested in producing taxation reform'. The Opposition's colours have not changed. Because it cannot win the numbers in this place it king hits decent legislation in the other place. It is to the Opposition's discredit and to the Australian Democrats' discredit that they cannot face up to the reality of tax reform in this country. We on this side have faced up to that reality; it is a difficult business but we have faced up to it. I say very seriously to honourable members in this place: Tax reform is important in the view of the Australian people because ordinary taxpayers have had enough of the previous tax system that was administered by the previous Government. We are setting about reforming it. The Opposition may well want to king hit things in the other place. I understand it is suggesting this with identification cards. If the Opposition keeps doing that it will be judged accordingly, that is, as being a negative, carping Opposition, and that will not help it at all. One does not have to talk about the opinion polls to make a judgment on that; one simply has to talk to people in the community. The Opposition is judged as being negative and carping and that will not get it anywhere; it will stay where it is. That does not worry the Government very much but it means that there is not a decent debate about these important issues in the Australian community. There is the same old, tired material. Let me talk about another issue-industrial relations and industrial disputes. We now have a 20-year low in industrial disputes, a substantial turnaround in the level of industrial disputation, and that is very important. Mr O'Keefe —The best for 20 years. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My colleague the honourable member for Burke is right. I look forward to his joining the debate shortly. The important point I have to make is that, in terms of the level of industrial disputes, small business now knows that it has an industrial relations climate that is being properly managed. That is the first thing. The second point is that the Opposition wanders around with its opting out provision in industrial awards. It really ought to look at the situation because it is already possible to have variations in State industrial awards if small business cannot afford the pressure of award wages being put on it. That provision is already there but the Opposition makes so much out of the opting out arrangements. If the Opposition were to get in place, some day in the future, the sort of industrial relations system that it proposes, we would end up with a two-tiered industrial relations system. We can remember what that was like-the honourable member for Moore remembers what that was like-because that was one of the factors that got us both elected in 1973. The industrial relations climate was appalling. The Liberal and National parties could not manage industrial relations. Industrial disputes got out of hand and people learned to live with industrial stoppages. Under this Government they have learned to expect reasonable, sensible industrial relations. The record is there and it speaks louder than a lot of the noise in this place. Mr Blanchard —And a very good Minister is in charge. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Moore says, a very good Minister is in charge. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has delivered by setting the scenes. We have to keep saying that we are responsible for getting the economic settings right. One of the other economic settings is the level of inflation. One cannot talk about inflation in this place without comparing what happened under the previous Government with what has happened under us. I look at the wage-price pressure. Small business is under substantially less wage-price pressure now than it was some three or four years ago. Again the record speaks for itself and it is very telling. If the Opposition thinks back to what it did not do, if it thinks back to the maladministration it achieved when it was in government, what it should understand is that the climate within which small business operated was not a healthy climate. It was well understood by small business; it was well understood by the community generally. We have been able to set in place a climate for economic activity which is substantially better. I now turn to a matter which is of great concern to honourable members on this side and that is workers compensation. We are very keen to see established-the legal profession is preventing this-a proper system of no fault workers compensation. One of the great burdens on small business in this country is the workers compensation system. Clearly, many-some are honourable members opposite-have a vested interest in preserving the current common law fault arrangements. This has resulted in high premiums for small business and a rip-off for the legal profession and the medical profession. It does not deliver in terms of the injured worker or improved industrial safety. We on this side will be working towards a comprehensive system of no fault workers compensation. It is very important and it needs to be got in place. We need to say to honourable members opposite: `Do not be conned by the legal profession because it is making a lot of money out of it'. The only people who are being ripped off are the injured worker and the small business community. We on this side of the House are very clear about that and we believe it to be important. I now turn to housing. The honourable member for Moore, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) and I, coming from Western Australia, have all had the benefit of a substantial improvement in housing. When we talk about small business-I believe that members in this place should legitimately talk about small business-we should remember that the very important small business in this country has been the housing sector. We have a very large array of small businesses operating within metropolitan Perth, for example, which have seen a substantial increase in the level of activity due to the first home owners scheme and due to improved expenditure on public housing. We have in place a housing policy that has worked. It has succeeded on the job side in terms of employment growth. That is very effective and we ought to recognise it. When we talk about the figure of 670,000 we are talking about people who are getting back into jobs. That is a vast turnaround from the negative performance the Opposition had when in government. In the housing sector we have improved levels of employment. Fortunately-this is an important social goal-we also have people actually getting into homes. That ought to be a goal and I believe that it is a goal that is shared by honourable members opposite but they have not got a housing policy to deliver it. We have a housing policy but I say, without being too partisan, that that is a goal which is jointly shared in this place. We have delivered but the Opposition, when in government, did not and there can be no doubt about that. I should also point out that the profitability side of small business in housing has been very satisfactory. We have been pleased with the level of profitability. I think honourable members from Western Australia in particular would recognise that the level of profitability in the housing sector has been substantial. We are pleased because that is an important small business activity as far as we are concerned. It is time to sum up and I conclude by saying that when we are talking about this kind of debate let us get the targets and the setting right. Let us be sure that we know what we are saying. It is all right to carp about some of the issues in relation to small business. However, what we have seen in recent times has been improved levels of economic growth, reduced levels of industrial disputation, an industrial relations system that works, wage-price pressure being substantially reduced on small business and a much improved demand position as far as small business is concerned. The problem the Opposition faced when it was in government was that demand was falling. We have been trying to ensure steady levels of demand. One of the issues we have had to address in the last six months has been higher levels of economic growth and manoeuvring towards easing that back a bit. Clearly the level of demand has been satisfactory. The Government stands on its record and it has been a very satisfactory record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(3.37) —This matter of public importance goes right to the heart of small business. It is no wonder that the growing strength of the rural protest movement has now spread nationally to include small business organisations. This revolt is indicative of the concern small business has for its future, hamstrung as it is by government regulation, excessive union power, interest rates and ever-increasing burdens of taxation. During the past week the full ramifications and complexities of the Australian Labor Party's fringe benefits and capital gains taxes have sunk in. Business today is positively panicking. Common sense and understanding have been deserted by this Government. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) talked about the need for a satisfactory economic framework. The balance of payments debacle, inflation and interest rates out of kilter with those in the rest of the world and a massive collapse in investment are all frightening signs. I guess that this is the economic framework the honourable member talked about. The honourable member for Stirling also talked about recovery. Mr Bruce McKenzie of the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education recently pointed out that one in four families in the Mallee and Sunraysia regions of Victoria lives in poverty. At the same time the Wimmera community care organisation-the welfare arm of the Uniting Church-based in my electorate advised that 2.8 million Australians, 800,000 children, are in poverty and deprived of adequate food, shelter and clothing. I ask: Is this recovery? I submit to this House that such circumstances are a direct result of government stickybeaks poking their noses into every aspect of business operations, excessive welfare corrupting our society and now the ultimate result-the flight and collapse of sales and investment. Many small businesses are finding it difficult to survive and in rural areas this is exacerbated by falls in farm spending, the inability of small business to recover outstanding debts and a massive drift in population away from small towns. These problems have not been helped by government services being withdrawn and the out- rageous increase in punitive taxes and regulations. We on this side of the House have taken a strong stand and will knock out these measures I have mentioned. After months of concern and confusion in the community the Government has now all but got its fringe benefits and capital gains taxes in place, with the collusion and opportunism of the Australian Democrats-shame on them. The people will give them their just deserts at the next poll-and good riddance. The capital gains tax is a time bomb. Let there be no misunderstanding. All assets in time that are owned by Australians, except for the family home, will be subject to capital gains tax. It will hit farms and small businesses-particularly those that make major capital improvements-new buildings and goodwill. It will be a direct penalty on the capital gain which is seen as the only superannuation that small business operators can put together over a lifetime of work and endeavour. The capital gain will now be taxed at marginal rates. This is the most potent capital gains tax in the world. This is Labor's first foot in the door towards the reintroduction of a fully-fledged Federal death and gift duty. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in the House on 19 September: `Liability for tax in the case of death will be rolled over to successors'. In other words, people who inherit property will also now inherit a capital gains tax. The fringe benefits tax is equally painful. This tax, which is payable by employers, is levied on every imaginable benefit when goods and services at free or concessional rates are made available to employees. Employers are to be taxed at 46c in the dollar but this will rise to 49c after 31 March 1987. Motor dealerships and machinery firms are laying off long term and highly skilled people in their scores. Many have already shed over half their work force. A machinery firm in my electorate, Ackland and Sons in Rupanyup, has closed. This business, which started 104 years ago, has won Australia-wide recognition for its high quality machinery. The impact of this closure has meant the loss of 15 skilled tradesmen in a town of just 450 people. This trend is being repeated throughout Australia. Yet this Government takes no heed as it argues amongst its various factions on social engineering policies, human rights and affirmative action Bills-more regulation, bureaucracy and control. Mr McGauran —Exactly. Mr PETER FISHER —The honourable member for Gippsland agrees. The National Party simply will not let this socialist Government get away with these taxes. We led the fight to successfully get rid of death duties. The National and Liberal parties as a coalition in government guarantee that these two taxes also will get the bullet. Over the last three years the Australian trade union movement has been given an unprecedented position of power and influence in our economy. The Australian Council of Trade Unions determined the result of the 1983 National Economic Summit Conference through the accord. We remember that only one man objected-and I need not say who. The ACTU also undermined the Treasurer's tax package and decided the direction of the National Taxation Summit, resulting in the greatest attack on capital, productivity and thrift ever conceived. Now the ACTU has negotiated a productivity superannuation deal with enormous long term consequences for union power and the direction of Australian society. For the small business sector of 700,000 people, for primary producers supplying 45 per cent of our export income, this is economic madness and must be resisted. In 1981 the unions signalled their attack and revealed the motives underlying this superannuation scheme-control funds, and leverage to advance the cause of socialism. We know what this deal is all about. It is about a redistribution of wealth and power-sharing in our community. It is about a different approach to economic management and direction and about a disguised pay increase tantamount to a Federal government payroll tax applying to all irrespective of capacity to pay. This is a recipe for disaster. The real question is whether we are prepared to accept that the union movement is able to run everything and control the last cent we have, to control our superannuation funds and nationalise our earnings and savings. Despite the fact that business, small and large, primary producers and self-employed Australians have to foot the bill, no representatives of those groups were asked for their opinion. The views of individual employees were not considered. This was negotiated solely between the ACTU and the Hawke Government. The Government sees the arbitration system as a rubber stamp. It treats that system and employers with contempt. The profile of the issue can be raised within this Parliament, but the battle on superannuation will be won or lost outside. The public outcry therefore must be strong, credible and continuous. We have to stop the rot and this headlong rush towards a corporate state. This whole issue is clearly an attack on the various values of freedom and concern of so many involved in small business and primary industry. Mr Cadman —Hear, hear! They are socialists. Mr PETER FISHER —I am pleased that the honourable member for Mitchell agrees with me. There is an attack on the depleted capital base, and with the economy falling to bits, interest rates sky high, building groups going broke and home buyers berserk with worry, such a challenge must be defeated. A slogan I saw recently said: `Even crime wouldn't pay if it was run by the present Federal Government'. How true that is. The inefficiencies of government, the burdens of regulation and the ever-growing bureaucracy are killing us. If the assistance that small business operators indicate that they require is not forthcoming in the near future, I fear for the long term viability of many of my small rural towns and some of the larger cities. Mr Braithwaite —We would have lost them. Mr PETER FISHER —That is true. Traditionally, small business has been a major provider of employment opportunities for our rural youth. If these businesses do not survive, more and more opportunities will be lost, more and more youth will drift away leaving us with an aging population devoid of many basic services. To many people, the loss of two or three families from a town seems of little consequence. However, to a small business person and to our schools and hospitals these are major losses. People in these communities do not wish to see them die. Not only have rural communities in the past contributed a spirit that is of immeasureable value to the nation as a whole, and a valuable part of our Australian culture, but also rural communities are needed for the sake of the nation's economic health. There are many other problems facing small business in rural areas, including the high cost of telephone calls, freight charges, licence fees, penalty wage rates, annual leave loadings, and so on. The Government must as a first priority immediately change programs that damage employment opportunities, boost inflation and erode our savings and capital base. It must stop shifting an individual's responsibilities on to the taxpayers, who are almost an endangered species. A mere 4.3 million taxpayers are today supporting 5.7 million tax consumers. It is no wonder that the economy is cracking. I ask the Government to take heed of this matter of public importance and remove the excessive burden of regulation and taxation from small business and so encourage job growth and investment. Seven hundred thousand small business people out there are ready to go. I ask the Government to get off their backs and give them a chance. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(3.47) —I am delighted to enter this debate today. I just have to say that those opposite cannot be serious. They, who were shown the door by the Business Council of Australia and who were responsible for the leaked industrial relations policy which has been totally neutralised, attempt to purport to represent the interests of business and talk in terms of encouraging investment and job growth. During the debate we have heard nothing so far from those opposite about the levels of non-productive business investment by their mates, the takeover stuff that has millions of dollars floating around in unproductive investment. There is nothing about the fact that in their period of office, from 1975 to 1982, Australia went through a time of record small business failure and bankruptcy. Those opposite do not seem to understand that the heart and soul of small business revolves around growth and successful economic management. Because of the growth and successful economic management that this Government has been able to bring about, best portrayed by the 675,000 new jobs that have been created, small business is profiting. Small business is taking its slice of the record $8.5 billion operating surplus that has been restored to the domestic economy since 1983. No wonder honourable members opposite talk rhetoric and jargon but no substance. I was recalling during the debate that one of the business whizz kids, one of the new members on the other side, in one of his early speeches in this House said: . . . attention should be drawn to the hyper-regulation of the Australian economy and businesses of various governments and their labyrinthine bureaucracies. He went on to talk about all these problems and he pointed to the 50,000 new Acts and regulations put into effect by Australian governments over the last 20 years. Well, he was totally correct. During those 20 years of Liberal government regime in Australia, business was subjected to a record labyrinth of regulation and bureaucracy. Why was that so? Every time a business bleated about some sort of need for protection, some sort of need for assistance, what did the government of the day do? It rushed in with some form of protective legislation. Now, over a period of three years this Government has set about a program of deregulation, of opening up our economy to true market forces. How can Opposition members come in here with motions such as this one and expect to be taken seriously? I remember once hearing the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who moved the motion today, make a constructive suggestion-I think it was about tractor bounties-and it was picked up as an amendment. Since then there has been nothing. As I said to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in response to his first speech-he who came in here and preached the need for deregulation-if this Government were to bring further legislation into the House to deregulate the economy, he would oppose it. He is supposed to be the whizz-kid but he would oppose any move to deregulate. That is what we see constantly-opposition for the sake of opposition, based on rhetoric and without substance. As my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said when he spoke so eloquently on this matter earlier, the Opposition's approach is one of total obstructionism. Let us look at the reality of taxes and the tax base. Opposition members should not need to be reminded that not just the majority but in fact the overwhelming majority of the Government's tax base is paid by ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. In the Budget estimate figures outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last year for this current financial year, $33 billion was to come from personal income tax, with a further $8 billion from excise duties. That represents $41 billion from the ordinary PAYE taxpayer. How much was the anticipated revenue from the company tax that Opposition members are talking about? It was a total of $6 billion out of an estimated $60-odd billion. Not even 10 per cent of the revenue earned by the Government comes from the business sector. So Opposition members should not come in here and bleat about the unfair burden of taxation on business. They should remember that during their period in office they ran down the tax system. They caused it to be unfair. Their Government moved to increase PAYE taxes, petrol taxes, and so on, in order to make up what was not being paid by the corporate sector. They should not forget that. The honourable member for O'Connor raved on about the fringe benefits tax, and I will say a little more about that in a moment. He is supposed to be the Opposition spokesman for small business. Let us see just how out of touch he is with the group he purports to represent. On the very day the Treasurer introduced the fringe benefits tax legislation into this House, the Australian Financial Review, the newspaper of business, carried the largest number of job advertisements I have ever seen it carry. I went to the trouble of researching them. There were 90 advertisements for senior executive packages. Of those 90, 81 set out a fringe benefits package, including a company car. So on the day the legislation was introduced business was not discouraged. Business was moving on with supplying fringe benefits, despite its rhetoric and raving. Rhetoric and raving is all we ever hear; we never hear anything of substance on these matters. I want to pick up a comment made by my colleague the honourable member for Stirling on the political strategy. What we have seen unfold in the last two or three weeks is yet another orchestrated campaign of what I describe as emotional junk aimed at talking down the economy and reducing business confidence. In an economy that is delicately placed, particularly in relation to the rest of the world, I regard that emotional junk as obscene and irresponsible. Let me talk a little about the politics of it. The honourable member for Stirling mentioned the timing of these calls. During the lead-up to the last Federal election, Opposition members raced out with a whole lot of emotional junk, scaring the wits out of pensioners. Yes, I concede that it picked up votes. I have no doubt that many elderly people were scared away from this Government. They were not aware that 97 per cent of pensioners would not have their pensions affected. The point now is that all the research shows that they are coming back to support us. Mr Halverson —They are more frightened now. Mr O'KEEFE —What my colleague the honourable member for Casey, who is interjecting, fails to realise is that pensioners have now had an opportunity to see that that emotional junk has not been substantiated. If I were to give the Opposition some political advice, it would be that its timing is wrong. The reason it is wrong is that it will not scare us into an early election. We will go our full term. In 18 months time, when the fringe benefits tax is in place and has operated for a year, when the capital gains tax is in place and has operated for a year, when the PAYE tax cuts are through and the ordinary workers see the result, they will also see that the farmers do not pay all the money the Opposition has been bleating about for the last three weeks and that business executives have not lost their company cars; the companies will provide them. In other words, the Opposition's timing is wrong. If Opposition members expect that in the other place the Australian Democrats will hang in there and produce the goods for them, I am afraid that they are wrong. Opposition members will be on their own in limbo-land as pedlars of emotional junk. They are prepared to talk down the economy and to try to reduce business confidence simply for short term political advantage. Opposition members have painted themselves into a very poor corner. That will be reflected in the polls. The Business Council of Australia will again show them the door, as it has done before. It will be reflected in a continuing series of leaked documents because, even from within their own group, there are people who know that it is junk; they want it leaked and discredited before it becomes official policy. I find this motion, this attempt to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the discussion has concluded. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by providing income tax deductions of up to 150 per cent of expenditure, other than expenditure on buildings, incurred by eligible companies on research and development performed in Australia. The proposal was announced on 29 May 1985. Complementary legislation, in the form of the Industry Research and Development Bill 1986, provides for grants for research and development to be directed to companies which cannot derive benefits from this proposed income tax concession. Thus, the two schemes represent a package of support measures for research and development in Australian industry. The specific objectives of the proposed tax concession are: To provide an incentive for greater levels of research and development in Australia; to concentrate new research and development efforts in industry by greater business investment in, and responsibility for, research and development; to provide positive support for research and development activities in industry, on the basis that significant benefits accrue both to industry and to the wider community through enhanced competitiveness of industry; to provide mechanisms for encouraging effective use of Australia's existing research and development expertise; and to encourage a capacity in industry to be aware of, and exploit, technological developments occurring in other countries. These objectives are part of a broader set of objectives which seek to encourage, through the Government's industry and technology policies, the development in Australia of internationally competitive, export oriented, innovative industries. To be eligible for the income tax concession, a company must be registered with the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board or its replacement, the proposed Industry Research and Development Board. Research and development activities are defined as activities of a systematic, investigative or experimental nature, involving innovation or technical risk undertaken for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge or for creating new or improved materials, products, processes or services. Comprehensive detail of the kinds of activities which fall within the definition of research and development activities, and of those which are specifically excluded, is provided in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members. Under the provisions of the Bill, where the Commissioner of Taxation requires advice as to whether activities are within the concept of research and development as defined, he may request determination of the matter by the Industry Research and Development Board. The opinion of the Board on the matter is to be binding on the Commissioner. Except for contributions to the Coal Research Trust Account and expenditure on research and development activities contracted out to an approved research institute, as already defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act, the 150 per cent rate of deduction will be available only where total annual research and development expenditure in the year of income is $50,000 or more. Where annual expenditure is less than $50,000 but more than $20,000, a deduction will be available at a phased-in rate of between 100 per cent and 150 per cent, determined on a formula basis provided in the Bill. Expenditure on research and development carried out by an approved research institute on behalf of an eligible company will attract the 150 per cent deduction irrespective of the level of that expenditure, as will contributions to the Coal Research Trust Account for the funding of research and development activities on behalf of an eligible company. Research and development expenditure of a current nature is to be allowable as a deduction at a rate of up to 150 per cent in the year incurred. Expenditure on plant and equipment used exclusively for research and development, including up to $10m of expenditure on a unit of pilot plant, is to be deductible at a rate of up to 150 per cent over three years in three equal amounts. Expenditure on buildings or building extensions, alterations or improvements used exclusively for research and development activities is to be deductible at the rate of 100 per cent over three years in three equal amounts. The Government is concerned that maximum benefits should accrue to Australia from commercialisation of the research and development work subsidised by the proposed concession. Therefore, no concession will be allowed where the Industry Research and Development Board certifies that any commercialisation of the results of research and development activities is otherwise than on normal commercial terms or otherwise than in a manner for the benefit of the Australian economy. The Bill also contains safeguarding provisions to prevent abuse of the taxation concession. The Bill provides for this taxation concession to operate in respect of expenditure incurred during the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1991. It is the Government's intention that there will be a rigorous cost-effectiveness study of the concession, on broadly based criteria, before decisions are made about its continuation beyond 30 June 1991. In addition to the cost-effectiveness review, there will be a technical review of the concession by mid-1987 to allow consideration of any desirable administrative changes. The cost of the concession depends primarily on the level of research and development investment by companies. For 1986-87, the cost is estimated at approximately $100m. Costs in later years are less certain but may be of the order of $140m in 1987-88, with annual costs, when the scheme is fully effective, of the order of $160m. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a step in the process of completing the Government's package to promote technology in industry and the Government's industry policy objectives. These objectives are to encourage the development of internationally competitive, export oriented and innovative industries in Australia. Australia needs to build on its innovative skills and research strengths by lifting the level of research and development undertaken by industry, by improving awareness of technology in industry and by forging strong links between industry and researches. It is imperative that industry should develop a technology culture so that it becomes aware of opportunities resulting from research in Australia and overseas. Research and development spending by Australian industry is low-0.29 per cent of gross domestic product compared with a median of 0.98 per cent for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development medium research and development performers. The Australian Science and Technology Council in its recent report on public investment in research and development in Australia said that a substantial increase in innovation and performance of industry research and development is necessary. Despite some improvement over recent years, the present level of research and development is just not good enough if Australian industry is to be internationally competitive. The Government is prepared to give generous assistance to Australian industry to become more competitive. It is now up to industry to take up the opportunities the Government has provided. Research and development leads to the generation of new and improved products which assists industry in opening up new markets, expanding existing markets and becoming more competitive. It also assists development of new or improved production processes which increase productivity and helps make industry more competitive. Most importantly, performance by industry of research and development raises its awareness of technological development and facilitates better choices in the purchase and introduction of technology. Research and development is only one, albeit significant, input to successful innovation and improved industry performance. Other elements of the innovation process, including production, management, finance and marketing expertise, are also fundamental to success. Policies to promote increased research and development in Australia should therefore be seen as an integral part of our broader industry and technology policies. The key element in the Government's effort to encourage research and development is the market forces based 150 per cent tax concession. The concession has operated since 1 July 1985 and is estimated to cost around $100m in 1986-87. To date the signs are encouraging. Already some 900 companies have indicated that they intend to make use of the tax concession scheme in 1985-86 and 1986-87. Based on data provided by these companies the anticipated increase in real research and development expenditure in 1985-86 will be in excess of 30 per cent. Further increases are expected in 1986-87. When announcing the tax concession scheme on 29 May last year, Senator Button indicated the Government's awareness that not all firms could benefit from it. For example, the 150 per cent tax concession would not support worthwhile research and development by start-up firms which are important sources of innovation and wealth creation. Such firms need up front cash to support essential research and development projects and, because in their initial years of operation they do not make profits, they are unable to benefit from the tax concession. No profit, no tax. To this end the Government has decided to introduce measures aimed at filling important gaps in research and development assistance. A new scheme, the grants for industry research and development scheme, with the following major elements will be introduced: Discretionary grants providing a similar level of effective support as the tax concession does for taxable companies, that is, a taxable grant of 50 per cent of eligible expenditure. These grants will have broadly similar form to the project grants of the present Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme. Generic technology grants to support new or emerging technologies of fundamental significance for industry competitiveness in the 1990s but unlikely to develop if left to the market alone; these grants would fund development of research in collaboration with industry to a stage where industry would take up further development; and National interest agreements awarded for projects with significant national benefits which would not be undertaken by industry on a commercial basis. It might be argued that, as the tax concession is available to all companies which have tax liability, all companies without tax liability should be eligible for discretionary grants. However, in the context of limited funding the Government has opted for a selective approach. Only those enterprises which meet certain criteria will be eligible for discretionary grants. Highest priority for grants will be given to newly established firms needing up front cash to carry out their innovation projects. They would be those adjudged competent to perform or have performed the required research and development and to exploit the results commercially. On commercial viability grounds regular loss makers who cannot demonstrate a plan to become profitable should not generally warrant support. In their case research and development support may not be the main problem. However, there will be instances, for example, where a long-established but consistent loss making firm is involved in industry restructuring for which the discretionary grant may be a very effective form of adjustment assistance. Grants would be payable for a maximum period of three years in respect of any one project. The definition of research and development which qualifies will be similar to that for the 150 per cent tax concession. Grants will be limited to certain areas initially, including manufacturing, mining, construction and computer software and the development of systems and processes in relation to these activities. New or emerging technologies with the potential to influence significantly industrial development in the 1990s are unlikely to be fully developed if left to the market alone. The market orientated tax concession would therefore not assist research and development in these areas. Risk is high, the development time frame is often very long and sufficient appropriation of the benefits by the researcher is often not possible. Even with the 150 per cent tax concession, it is doubtful whether firms will be able to diversify adequately the risk involved for optimal investment from a community viewpoint. An element of `technology push' is needed to provide the fundamental support. Yet these technologies have application over a range of industries and can strengthen or extend existing comparative advantages. They can be directed at the creation of new markets through development of new products; and they can revitalise existing industry, increasing its productivity through new and improved process technology. For the purposes of the proposed new research and development incentives these areas of technology have been labelled `generic technologies'. Some examples of such broad-ranging technology areas are biotechnology, microelectronics and advanced materials. Within such areas there could be numerous technologies. For example, priority application areas for the existing national biotechnology program research grants scheme range from plant agriculture, through veterinary, animal husbandry and pharmaceutical-medical products and processes, biotechnology equipment and instrumentation, and food processing to the chemicals industry. From time to time there will also be research and development projects with significant national benefits for which the researcher is unable to capture sufficient benefits to interest entrepreneurs. Australia's very good record of scientific research is not reflected in the application of science and technology in industry. Support for these generic and national interest areas of technology could be a mechanism for bridging the gap between researchers and commercial interests, for promoting a research and development culture in which both industry and research institutions participate. The benefit of such interaction is two way. Industry becomes aware of the opportunities research and development presents to provide new products or new and improved processes. Research institutions become aware of opportunities to extend their fields of study and to orient their work toward industry. Biotechnology has already been identified as having potential benefits for a wide range of industries and will be the first generic technology for the purposes of the scheme. The research grants scheme of the national biotechnology program will be incorporated in the generic technology grants element of the new scheme, which will be modelled on the biotechnology scheme. Other generic technologies, such as advanced materials, may be declared eligible for assistance under the scheme in future. The GIRD scheme will be administered by the Industry Research and Development Board with responsibility to select projects for support according to guidelines determined by the Minister. The Board will be assisted by committees with expertise in specific areas and supported by a secretariat. Firms wishing to take advantage of the 150 per cent tax concession will register with the Board. The GIRD scheme will operate for five years from 1 July 1986 until the tax concession scheme expires. GIRD and the tax concession scheme will be reviewed at the same time. Sunset provisions in the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 mean that no further commencement grants funded under that Act will be made after 30 June 1986. A report by the consultants, Price Waterhouse, has indicated that this element of the previous Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme-AIRDIS-had not been very effective. Mr Beale —Nor will GIRD be. Mr BARRY JONES —We will wait and see. Mr Beale —All you are doing is replacing one thing that is not working with another. That is silly. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member is not listening to what we are saying. We have taken into account the Price Waterhouse recommendation and also the report of the AIRDIS Board itself. Mr Beale —Does Price Waterhouse recommend the establishment of GIRD? Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member will have an opportunity to put his point of view if he is on the speakers list when the debate comes on. Mr Beale —And if it is not guillotined. Mr BARRY JONES —That is very unlikely. After 30 June, the project grants funded under that scheme would be replaced by the discretionary grants under the new scheme and public interest projects would be replaced by national interest agreements. Commencement grants for eligible research and development expenditure incurred before 1 July 1986 will continue to be paid in accordance with the provisions in the present Act. Project grant agreements entered into prior to 1 July 1986 will be honoured. This will also be the case with public interest projects. With the grants for industry research and development scheme and the 150 per cent taxation concession I believe the Government has got its price subsidy support for industry research and development about right. Some smaller changes may still be required and, of course, we will monitor and, as need be, adjust our policy strategies. Together, the two schemes will help significantly improve the overall climate for research and development in industry, contributing to the development of more innovative and internationally competitive and export oriented industries in Australia. With other initiatives such as the National Industry Extension Service and revised offsets arrangements they are an integral part of the Government's strategy to make technology work for Australia. There are encouraging signs that the 150 per cent taxation concession has already had a positive impact on industry attitudes to research and development. I am confident that the two schemes will lead to a significant increase in the private sector's commitment to research and development and to the development of a technology culture in Australian industry. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the new scheme contained in this Bill in 1986-87 would be $12.5m. In addition, existing forward obligation for AIRDIS would have to be met-$45.2m in 1986-87. The present cost of AIRDIS and the biotechnology grants scheme is about $70m annually. Savings will, therefore, be around $12m in 1986-87. Mr Beale —You are cutting the grants down-$70m versus $12.5m. What will it be in 1987-88? Mr BARRY JONES —Broken Hill Pro- prietary Co. Ltd, which is notoriously a profit maker, was able to apply for AIRDIS grants, but under this Bill it would get its research and development money directly from the tax concession. The GIRD scheme is aimed at companies still in a developmental phase. Because they are not into profit there is no point in giving them a tax concession because the tax concession will give them nothing in the circumstances. Mr Beale —Okay; what will the two figures be in 1987-88? Mr BARRY JONES —The debate will be longer than just this exchange, scintillating though it is. The main form of assistance for research and development in industry will be the 150 per cent tax concession. On the basis of registrations received, this is estimated to cost around $100m in regard to income tax returns for 1985-86. It is not possible to estimate the 1986-87 cost of that measure until registrations are received, and a more precise cost will not be known for 1986-87 until tax claims for that year are made in 1987-88. Applicants will be already entitled to the tax concession for what they have done since 1 July last year, but, of course, it is not reflected in the 1985-86 Budget. It will not be until the 1986-87 Budget that we will see any revenue impact. I commend the Bill to the House and I formally present the revised explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.22) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Improvement of International terminal facilities, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The proposal reported on by the Public Works Committee involves improvements to various functional areas of the departures, arrivals and basement levels of the international terminal building at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This will facilitate the movement of passengers and overcome present bottlenecks and other deficiencies. The work will extend and upgrade the arrivals and departure levels, including changes to passenger processing, baggage reclaim, concession and public areas. A new transit lounge will be built and new and increased capacity baggage conveyors provided along with two additional aerobridges. Honourable members will be aware that the existing terminal was designed and built in the days of narrow-bodied jets and it is now unable to cope satisfactorily with the larger passenger loads from today's wide-bodied jets. Since the building was opened in 1970, no major development work has been undertaken to the building to increase its original handling capacity of 1,000 passengers departing and 1,000 arriving per hour. The Public Works Committee agreed in its report to Parliament that improvements are required to the terminal to cater for increased passenger numbers during daily peak periods. But it did not endorse the solution put forward by the Government. Instead, the Committee recommended that planning for the provision of a new or substantially expanded terminal building should commence immediately. Preliminary studies by my Department indicate that a new terminal building would cost about $75m. Mr Beale —You need another department. Mr WEST —You will get your chance in a moment, Julian. Support facilities such as an apron for aircraft parking, taxiway and carparks would increase this to about $110m, with a lead time of five to seven years. Given this time lag, the Government cannot agree to the Committee's recommendation that improvements to the existing terminal not proceed. To go along with the recommendation would place intolerable demands on the existing facilities and staff for a further five years, and it would greatly inconvenience future passengers using the airport. The improvement measures proposed will increase terminal capacity by about 80 per cent and enable it to handle per hour approximately 1,800 terminating passengers, 1,600 originating passengers and 600 passengers in transit. The Department of Aviation's projections of future traffic growth indicate this should enable the facility to be operated efficiently without undue congestion until about 1991. Conditions in the terminal will be progressively improved as the proposed works proceed and as key functional areas are expanded and upgraded. This will be done in close consultation with users to minimise inconvenience to passengers and staff. The Government does not believe that action to alleviate intolerable conditions in the terminal can be deferred until a new facility is designed and constructed. I therefore recommend that it is expedient to proceed with the works as proposed by the Government. My colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will speak to the motion and will provide additional detail to the House in due course this afternoon. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed and work on the improvement program can commence without delay early in the new financial year. Construction is expected to take a maximum of three years. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.28) —It is with some regret that the Parliamentary Public Works Committee learns of the Government's decision to put aside the recommendations that the Committee, in pursuit of its function and charter from the House, put before the House. I hasten to say that the Committee has never considered itself other than totally subordinate to the will of the Parliament or, in more practical terms, to the Government, but it does take quite seriously its responsibility to address references from the House, as it did in the case of the Sydney International Airport terminal building alterations. Indeed, there is some 300 pages of transcript of evidence and submissions which invited the Committee's serious address. It is rather significant that Committee members, on considering all the matters appertaining to this referral, were unanimous in the Committee's conclusion, and, indeed, in proceeding towards that conclusion there was not a point on which there was any significant demur, if any demur at all. It may be fairly inquired as to whether or not the Committee has a function to present to the Parliament recommendations that are in accord with the ambitions of the government of the day, of whichever party it may be. If that, in fact, is not to be the case, the Committee would be fully entitled to readdress itself to the functions with which it has been charged. I must admit, also, some slight irony in the fact that, within my recollection, two recommendations from the Committee to the House which were rejected both had to do with airport terminal buildings-this one in Sydney and one in Townsville. That seems to suggest that somehow or other there is a death wish on airport terminal buildings. As I say, the Committee has no axe to grind in these matters. As it customarily acts, it approached this matter with a thoroughly open mind and judged it on the facts. It is rather significant that the Committee was influenced, naturally enough, in the main by the submissions of the Department of Aviation, which was virtually carrying the proposal. I remind the House that the Committee recommended to Parliament that steps be taken immediately to plan for a new, substantially expanded terminal building. The Department of Aviation submission stated: One alternative which did receive active consideration was the provision of a new building adjacent to the existing terminal in which the processing of all terminating passengers would be conducted. This concept offered many advantages and met with the support of a number of the terminal user organisations, but in view of its high estimated cost, $15m to $19.8m, it was withdrawn from further consideration. It should be noted that works in the order of $14m to cater for departing and transiting passengers would still have been necessary as part of this option. So, on the evidence presented to the Committee there was a case, on Department of Aviation evidence, that a substantially expanded terminal could be completed for $29m to $32m. The same evidence indicated clearly to the Committee that the Department of Aviation was not planning alterations to the terminal in a manner consistent with what it saw as necessary or desirable. The Department started off from the wrong end, with a strict financial restriction. It had $20m to spend, so it had to tailor this project to be accommodated by that amount. As a consequence we had a number of the aberrations which dissuaded the Committee from supporting the proposal. We are looking at $20m now to produce a result which, on evidence submitted to the Committee, at the end of three years would still be as inefficient as the existing terminal building. Perhaps I should re-phrase that: The congestion three years hence, at the completion of these intrusive alterations on the existing terminal, would be as bad as, if not worse than, it presently is. That seemed an extraordinary exercise in in-built redundancy when, on evidence produced by the Department, a new terminal could be built for some $10m or $12m extra. As the Sydney Airport, again on evidence, is going to be functional for at least another 20 years it seemed to be a sound investment to get on immediately with a project that Sydney not only requires but is entitled to, as Australia's major international airport. The problem simply was that we had a far from attractive, inadequate option constrained by a sum of money which had been allocated for the purpose. I guess that, in analogous terms, the Department of Aviation was confronted with a situation where it had to build a structure and had the option of having two rooms with a roof or four rooms without a roof, and it decided to take the roof for the lesser amount. To the Committee that seemed to be an extraordinary way of going about spending money. It must be realised, as well you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, being a member of the Committee yourself, that the Committee is charged to consider and report on a public work, having regard to, first, the stated purpose of the work and its suitability for the purpose; secondly, the necessity for or the advisability of carrying out the work; and thirdly, the most effective use that can be made in carrying out the work of the money to be expended on the work. The Committee's recommendation was not intended to frustrate the ambitions of the Department of Aviation, or of the Government for that matter. It was to give the Department an endorsement to proceed immediately with a project that would meet the requirements not only at the end of three years but also continuing into the future. It is significant that, in the main, the witnesses were substantially lukewarm in their response to the proposal. They accepted that something had to be done, but saw the proposal as being less than what was desired. The Federated Clerks Union was quite insistent that if its members fully manned the service desks for inward passengers the problem could be substantially relieved, even to the point of removing the problem altogether. The Committee further suggested that a relaxation of the curfew by one hour could help in removing that significant peak period of aircraft arrivals from 7 a.m. through to 8.30 a.m. It is significant that on the example given to the Committee of a typically busy day at that airport, the first aircraft arrived at 5.50 a.m.-I do not quite know how it sneaked in before the curfew but we will allow that there was some circumstance to warrant that-and the next aircraft did not arrive until 7.20 a.m. Then they were bunched, with two 747s actually arriving on the same minute. That raises an interesting question as to runway congestion, but the table showed that the two arrived simultaneously. So a relaxation of the curfew would allow international flights to factor their arrivals. There is some difficulty attaching to scheduling arrival at 6.01 a.m. because of the imponderables in flight-head winds, tail winds, and all the other imponderables that could require aircraft to orbit in the vicinity waiting for the clock to tick over. The suggestion that the curfew be relaxed does not necessarily mean aircraft would be arriving at 5 a.m.; it could mean aircraft arriving at 6.30 a.m. or 7 a.m. They were two positive suggestions from the Committee as to how the stress situation presently prevailing might be relieved to give time to the Department to get ahead with this proposal to build a substantially expanded terminal. By and large, the Committee was thoroughly satisfied that this was not an effective use of public money. It did not meet the identifiable requirement, and it left the Sydney Airport terminal building in a continuing state of redundancy and, indeed, was even building redundancy into it. It was put that the Federal Airports Corporation on the horizon brought in another factor, that decisions might be deferred to allow the Corporation, which will have responsibility for terminals, to make a decision more consistent with its own thoughts, planning and ambitions. I am not unattracted to that proposition; but to spend $20m in the meantime just to bridge a gap before the Corporation gets to a position of making these substantial decisions seemed to be an injudicious expenditure of public money. The Committee was not discouraged by the differential in costs between the present project and an expanded project, having in mind the size of the Budget and the sums of money we can find for any number of other government activities or public activities. It firmly adhered to the view that Sydney and Australia would be best served by adopting the Committee's recommendations and proceeding immediately to planning a greatly expanded terminal building, a new project. All I can say, with due respect to the Minister's comments about the time lag in getting these facilities into operation, is that if that time is essential for planning and construction, God help Australia. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(4.38) —I begin my comments about this terminal project by endorsing emphatically all the remarks made by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I am appalled at the arrogant and authoritarian manner displayed by the now thoroughly discredited Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) as he attempts to bulldoze through Parliament his plan for a $20m extension to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. By unanimous decision the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, in a report tabled in the Parliament recently, recommended that the proposed work should not proceed-I repeat, not proceed. The proposal referred to the Committee was inadequate in many respects, and I will touch on some of those areas today. The work proposed was within the existing terminal building complex and included extensions to and upgrading of the arrival and departure levels, including check-in, passenger processing, concession and baggage reclaim areas, provision of a new transit lounge, upgrading of baggage conveyor facilities, and provision of two additional aerobridges. Submissions, evidence and plans were received from the Department of Aviation and the Department of Housing and Construction. Additional submissions were received from Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Customs Service, the Airline Operators Committee, the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, Trans Australia Airlines and Inboard Tour Operators of Australia. Communications were also received from the municipalities of Rockdale, Botany and the Sydney City Council. All in all, the Committee deliberations were extensive, thoroughly professional and in considerable depth. We tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to alert aviation bodies and the Parliament to a growing problem of significance and concern. We tried to sound the alarm to an unresponsive and unreceptive Government. The situation at Australia's leading airport was in jeopardy, and it was apparent that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) was either ignoring or refusing to accept the fiasco that existed. As a Committee, we decided unanimously that increasing congestion would worsen after completion of the proposed renovations and a completely untenable situation would prevail during the 36 months' construction period. An urgent requirement exists for a completely new terminal building and a new and parallel extension to the airstrip. This, combined with some modifications to existing curfew times, would eliminate the problem for the foreseeable future. As a great majority of aircraft using Mascot terminal these days are late model, high technology aeroplanes with extremely quiet engines, the emotional problem of aircraft noise pollution is considerably smaller, in factual terms, than it was several years ago. Unless urgent action is taken quickly to overcome deficiencies outlined in the Committee's report, the entire tourist potential of the nation will be threatened. Mascot is, and will continue to be, Australia's busiest airport. International travellers, who are increasingly sophisticated in their expectations and tastes, demand adequate and excellent facilities provided with the minimum of personal disruption. I assure the Minister that the Committee has not been negligent and has met its responsibilities totally in preparation of its report. We met time commitments, expended our and the Secretariat's valuable resources to prepare a detailed and comprehensive series of recommendations, only to have this advice ignored and now, in the light of these recommendations, the Minister intends to oversight the waste of at least $20m of taxpayers' money. It is a pity that this Minister and this Government are so good at ignoring the wishes of the Parliament and its own members. The report looks as though it will now go the same way as the report on the Australia Card, with democracy the principal sufferer. For the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to press-gang an unwanted and totally inadequate proposal through this place today, in the light of the persuasive and thoroughly well-documented report tabled previously, is a disgrace. The Minister stands condemned by this member of the Committee, whose report, as I mentioned previously, was unanimous. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.43) —I support the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) in their remarks on the tabling of the report of the Public Works Committee hearing that is now before the House. The Public Works Committee in its deliberations on the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport extensions has acted precisely as the Parliament intended it to act. It has acted in the role of watchdog. It has acted in an effort to be good stewards of what are public resources. It is something of an offence to the Committee to hear the Minister so abruptly and arrogantly overturn the Committee's unanimous-I repeat unanimous-recommendation. I stress that I do not stand here, nor I believe do the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Casey, making comments in any partisan sense. Our remarks were endorsed unanimously by the Committee. Furthermore, it is somewhat unfortunate that the remarks come solely from this side of the House, but that has eventuated from something that was entirely beyond our control in that the hearing was heard by a large majority of Opposition members. That is no reflection on the Government members who were simply unable to be present, though a quorum had been formed. We have an exercise before the House where, if the Opposition parties were choosing to be partisan, they would be allowing the proposal to go ahead without debate. If it were our intention to embarrass the Government, we would be allowing the Government unwisely to spend $20m. It is in fact in an effort not to embarrass the Government that we are putting what has been the unanimous view of a bipartisan Committee to the House this afternoon. I stress that we recognise that we are called upon to be wise stewards of what is a finite resource and we are concerned at the expenditure unwisely of this $20m. What is proposed by the Minister will be in itself disruptive of the tourist traffic that currently goes through Kingsford-Smith Airport. Far from solving the present congestion, the very action of construction will in itself create congestion. Worse than that, the tourist flow will be throttled in some way and congestion will be created with an end result that will be no better, or little better, than the existing facility. It is a matter of real concern to all members of the Public Works Committee that this work should be proposed to go ahead when the end result will not allow traffic flow, tourist flow or passenger flow that will be a great deal better than the flow that currently exists. The Minister has said: `It is expedient to go ahead with this work'. I challenge that statement. The only thing expedient about going ahead with the work now before the House is political expediency. In fact, what he is proposing neither extends nor upgrades substantially the existing facility. Because the extension is not as extensive as we would like it to be, and because the upgrading will not effectively allow a better traffic flow, we believe that work should not proceed. The Minister said that the Committee failed to endorse a solution. I put it to the Minister: What sort of solution is the solution before the House which does not allow better traffic flow or better passenger flow through the already congested Kingsford-Smith Airport? I state to this Government, so proud of its tourist record, that what it proposes to do at Kingsford-Smith will only further tarnish the impression that new arrivals will have of Australia as the work going ahead will in itself provide congestion to people who will try to move through the reception halls. Mr Millar —Up to three hours. Mr ANDREW —As my colleague interjects, up to three hours. We believe, as the honourable member for Wide Bay has documented, that a great deal could be achieved by looking realistically in the short term at the present curfew provisions and allowing aircraft to arrive a little earlier and so relieve some of this congestion. Of course such a move is not popular, but it would be good stewardship of the taxpayers' resources, and that is the motivation behind the Committee. That is the sole motivation behind those of us who stand here on the Opposition benches asking the Government to look again at this ministerial recommendation. It is the sole motivation not of those of us on the Opposition benches alone, but of the other members of the Committee who were unanimous in their support for the Committee's recommendation that this work not go ahead. I return to an analogy that I have used in this House before. Since 1913, the Committee has been asked to be a watchdog of the resources spent on public works in Australia. It cannot be, if honourable members will pardon me for saying so, a chihuahua. It is both too substantial and too prestigious for that role. The Committee, in making its recommendation, chooses to be a loyal but an aggressive dobermann pinscher. If the recommendation is to be overthrown as the Minister suggests, and if the Minister's approval is to be placed on this project after the Committee has said it cannot go ahead, the Committee's role of watchdog will be lost and the Committee will become nothing more than a faithful but ineffectual spayed labrador. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.50) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me and my colleagues, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), details of the motion that he has just moved. The motion moved by the Minister says in its fourth paragraph that the existing terminal was designed and built in the days of narrow-bodied jets. I do not know who has written this speech for him, because paragraph 17 of the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works states, in part: Changes were made in a late stage of development to accommodate wide-body aircraft . . . He also said that his Department had estimated that a new building at the terminal would cost $110m and that the lead time would be five to seven years. Paragraph 97 of the report states, in part: Department of Housing and Construction advised that a new terminal could be constructed in three to four years. I do not know what is going on in the Department of Housing and Construction, but something funny is. It is very interesting that in the observations that the Minister has made on the draft discussion paper of the Opposition's policy on housing and construction he has never once referred to the fact that we think there is an extraordinary duplication of activities going on between that Department and other departments. The Opposition is deeply concerned that the Minister for Housing and Construction proposes to ignore the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works contained in the report relating to the improvement of the international terminal facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I remind the House that there are five government members on that Committee out of a total of nine members; therefore, the Government has the numbers, so to speak, on the Committee. It seems incredible to the Opposition that the Government can, in effect, ignore or overrule the findings of five of its own members in relation to this matter. Presumably, those Government members on the Committee are unhappy with what the Minister for Housing and Construction has decided to do. The Opposition intends to vote against this motion and I call on the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), all of whom are Government members on the Committee, to join the Opposition in voting against this motion. I would particularly like to see the honourable member for Aston, who was my predecessor as member for Deakin, join the Opposition in this vote and demonstrate the proud standards of those who have represented the seat of Deakin, named for Australia's second Prime Minister. The Opposition recognises that there is an overwhelming need for something to be done about the international airline facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Committee recognised this quite clearly in its report and in paragraphs 56 and 57 drew attention to the current situation, which it describes as `lamentable' and `only bearable for the shorter term'. On the question of need, the Committee's conclusion was: Improvements are required to passenger processing and baggage facilities and public areas in the international terminal at Sydney's (Kingsford-Smith) airport to cater for increased passenger numbers during daily peak periods. Anybody who has come home to Australia after being abroad, or anyone who has spoken to another person who has come home to Australia after being abroad, is acutely aware of the need for something to be done about Sydney's international Airport. Arriving there after long periods on an aeroplane, frequently having had little sleep, is very aggravating, to say the least. One has to stand in queues for hours and wait at the baggage carousel as it goes round and round and round without disgorging one's luggage. The Opposition congratulates the Committee for giving such prompt attention to this matter. Our quarrel with the Government is not that we do not acknowledge that there is a need for something to be done at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; rather, it is that the Government's proposals will not resolve the problem. It is almost as if the Minister for Housing and Construction has not even discussed this matter with his colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). There was hardly an informed person who came before the Committee-the Committee interviewed 19 witnesses-who did not confirm the Committee's view as expressed in paragraph 70, as follows: . . . the proposed work will not alleviate congestion to a significant extent. The Committee pointed out that the proposed work would simply cause disruption in other areas; that it was doubtful that the completion date could be achieved; and that the lack of capacity to process passengers and baggage would cause disruption to terminal operations and would compound capacity problems even further. In addition, the Committee found that the proposed removal of the interline conveyor to the arrival hall from the Customs hall would cause further inconvenience to passengers and add to congestion problems in the arrival hall. Not only is it apparent that the Minister for Housing and Construction has not talked to the Minister for Aviation; it is clear that he has not even talked to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Why did he not ask that Minister about the possibility of tourist traffic in Australia increasing sharply over the next few years? He has not listened to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who, in response to a number of dorothy dixers in Question Time over the past year or more, has repeatedly blown his own trumpet and talked up the possibility of sharply increased tourist trade in this country. It is hardly necessary to add that, with terrorism causing a tourist decrease in Europe and with the sharp reduction in the value of the Australian dollar, there is very likely to be an increase in tourism in Australia. It is a shame that this will occur because of the fall in our dollar; the change in our exchange rate is directly attributable to the Government's poor economic policies, which have relied far too heavily on monetary policy to the exclusion of fiscal and wages policies. Its monetary policy has already caused a depression in this country, as the national accounts figures released last week have shown. Thus confidence in the value of our currency has declined and with it the value of the dollar. It is ironic that the difficulty at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would not be as it is if this Government had not mismanaged our economy. Eventually, this mismanagement will hurt people from all walks of life, but it will particularly hurt the disadvantaged in our community who can only prosper in a well-managed economy. Why did the Minister for Housing and Construction not discuss this whole question of tourism with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism? Did he find out from that Minister that the number of tourists in Australia is expected to rise from 1.2 million in 1985 to around 2 million in 1988, an average annual increase of close to 20 per cent? Did he establish with that Minister that 99 per cent of tourists coming to Australia arrive by air? Did he confirm with that Minister that 57 per cent of those tourists come through Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport? Did he ask that Minister to reconcile his figures showing an increase of about 20 per cent with the figures from the Australian Tourist Commission showing that annual passenger numbers will increase by 7 to 9 per cent up to 1988? Did he ask the Minister for Aviation why that Minister's Department forecast an increase of only 1.5 to 3.4 per cent? It is almost as if the Minister for Housing and Construction, who sits mute at the table, is operating in a complete vacuum in relation to this whole matter. He does not seem to have questioned any of the numbers coming from various sources, or to have instructed his Department to attempt to reconcile these figures. This is a case of gross mismanagement by the Minister. One need only turn to paragraph 84 of the Committee's report to confirm this. It states, in part: . . . it is clear that the terminal will remain severely congested in 1989 when the proposed works are completed. We are entitled to a further explanation from the Minister for Housing and Construction about that matter. In paragraph 93 of its report the Committee says, in part: Despite the assurances given by Department of Housing and Construction about steps to be taken to minimise disruptions to terminal operations while the works are carried out, the Committee believes that the magnitude of work involved which will take three years to complete, will cause severe disruptions. What is going on here? Surely the Minister, when he read that paragraph, would have said to his Department: `Why were the assurances that you gave the Committee not satisfactory? How could it be that you could not satisfy the Committee that the necessary engineering and construction activities could be carried out in such a way as to minimise congestion?' I suggest to the Minister that if his Department is unable to satisfy a committee of the Parliament on a matter such as this he should have a close look at why not. The Minister has a great deal to answer for in the whole question of the improvement of the international terminal facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Not only will the proposed work not resolve the difficulties at the airport but there will clearly be a waste of money. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are running around, clucking like chooks, about the proposed $1.4 billion of expenditure reductions that are needed for the Budget this year. Fancy the Government allowing the $20m proposed to be spent on this project to be thrown away. It is clear that the Minister for Housing and Construction has not spoken to those colleagues either. It looks as though the Minister does not speak to anybody in the Cabinet, presumably because he is too busy trying to keep his own faction together. Mr White —How is his preselection going? Mr BEALE —There was a deal. This project is a waste of taxpayers' money. In paragraph 92 of the report the Committee said that it did not believe that the proposed work would be the most effective use of taxpayers' money. Paragraph 95 of the report stated: Even if the proposed work were to proceed, the lengthy construction period and increased demands will largely negate the value of the proposed investment. This whole project is shown to be a shocking waste of taxpayers' money and the Minister should be roundly condemned for associating himself with this motion. Furthermore, the Committee, in a most constructive fashion, has drawn attention to a number of things that could be done to alleviate the difficulties experienced at Sydney Airport now. It draws attention to the possibility that additional staffing could be of help and suggests that certain proposals on staffing should be implemented. The Committee also propose changes in the curfew to assist the flow of passengers. In its balanced report the Committee concludes that resolution of the difficulties at Sydney Airport could be achieved only by the construction of a substantially expanded terminal which could, ironically, be constructed, according to the Department of Housing and Construction, in the same time period as the Minister's current proposals would take. The action of the Minister in seeking to overrule the unanimous conclusions of a parliamentary committee is an arrogant way of by-passing parliamentary procedures. What is the point of having the Committee review these projects if the Government overrules the Committee when its conclusions do not agree with those of the Government? The Opposition may or may not have views about the Committee's activities but the fact of the matter is that the Government is ignoring the Committee's recommendation. Furthermore, in announcing that the Government planned to go ahead with the proposed improvements, as the Minister did last week, before this matter came before the Parliament, the Minister for Aviation is treating the Committee and the Parliament with absolute contempt. The Opposition is appalled at the way in which the Minister for Housing and Construction is ignoring the recommendations of the Committee on the improvement of the terminal facilities at Sydney's international airport. Although we recognise there is a definite need for changes to be made, what is being proposed by the Minister will not resolve the problems at the airport and will be an absolute waste of taxpayers' money. The Opposition is shocked with this motion and calls on the Minister to withdraw it forthwith. If he does not do so we will vote against it. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(5.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to participate in this debate for a few moments. I take one point on which I disagree with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Public Works, namely, its recommendation in paragraph 98 (5) (b) that the curfew at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport should be reduced by one hour in the mornings. I see smiles from certain honourable members in the House. Let us get the smiles right off their faces. When the report was released I made the comment, and I make it again, that the recommendation that the curfew should be lifted was made by nine members none of whom had an airport problem or lived near the Sydney Airport. The solution to complications and crowding at Sydney Airport will not be met by reducing the curfew hour from 6 a.m. to 5 a.m. I am appalled to think that no one has raised this matter in this debate or at another time in this House. I have raised it in public and in the local press in Sydney and had support along these lines. The answer to this problem is that the airlines-I know that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is sympathetic to this position-should be asked to change their timetables of flights into Australia and into Sydney. The glib answer by the Committee that we merely say that planes can arrive at 5 a.m. is a total nonsense and bears no relationship to the problems facing those people who live in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-Kingsford-Smith-or the electorates of St George, Barton or Cook. In case some people who live a little further away from Botany Bay become a little smug about this matter let me remind them that the people who live in Drummoyne and on the North Shore will not be amused when wide-bodied jets to which my friend the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) referred change gear when they come in to land. If aeroplanes arrive at 5 a.m. that means that they will be circling Sydney at 4.30 a.m. This is an absolute and total nonsense. It happens now before 6 a.m. I am delighted to see that my neighbour across the water, the Deputy Prime Minister, is in the chamber and is nodding his approval of the need for the curfew to remain at 6 a.m. I take issue with this point. Mr Reith —The local boy talking. Mr DOBIE —One of my colleagues has said that this is the local boy talking and how right he is. I have been representing people for 20 years and I am concerned about the curfew irrespective of which party occupies the government benches. I am appalled to think that consideration has not been given to talking to local members with regard to the lifting of the curfew. I share my colleagues' distress that a report of such strength should be ignored by the Government. I find that a distressing situation and I would like to put this on record: Under no circumstances while I remain a member of this House-I have been a member more or less since 1966-will I ever vote for any suggestion or accept any suggestion, no matter which party is in Government, that the airport curfew should be moved from 6 a.m. to 5 a.m. I see that the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), is in the chamber. What tourists want to arrive in a city at 5 a.m.? What do they think they will see? Arriving in Melbourne now at 5 a.m. and 5.15 a.m. on an international jet does nothing to improve tourism or to improve people's thoughts about Australia. I ask honourable members-as I look around the chamber I see most honourable members have done a fair bit of international travelling-how often they have arrived at an airport before 6 a.m. on a regular flight. Practically never. The point I am making is that this is a nonsense recommendation by the Committee and I want it stated clearly not only for my own sake but also for the sake of everybody who lives in the Botany Bay area of Sydney. To those who live further afield I point out that they too will have problems if the curfew is lifted. A suggestion has been made by one member who lives in the Botany Bay area that the curfew should be moved from 6 a.m. to 5.30 a.m. That was sneaky: It was even more sneaky when one realises that the planes would fly only over the electorate of Cook. This is hardly the mood of bipartisanship we would want on this issue in our part of Sydney. With some distress I stand to say-I feel it should go into the parliamentary record-that people should be talking about the concern of the people who live near these airports. As I have another one or two minutes, I will just say that when we talk of breaking the curfew at airports-and all honourable members should be aware of this-we are talking not of passengers but of freight. If honourable members think that lumbering jets thundering into airports at two, three, four or five o'clock in the morning will be bringing passengers they are mistaken; those planes are bringing in freight. Let us not hear nonsense about tourism being improved by freight arriving at 5 a.m. instead of 6 a.m. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to say these few gentle words, which do not totally support the recommendations by this multi-party parliamentary committee. I heard the honourable member for Deakin say that perhaps the Minister had not spoken to other people in his Government. I recommend to members of the Public Works Committee that next time they come to the Botany Bay area they consider-just consider-talking to local members of all parties who are affected by such statements in a parliamentary document. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.11) —I intervene in this debate now because I understand that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will intervene at the conclusion of my few words, and if I waited until he had spoken I would not have the opportunity because the gag will then be moved. That is not my idea of cricket, but if that is the Government's idea one has to get in when one can. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say because unless he can come up with some good information and something far better than what the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) is recommending by proceeding with this very-ill conceived-and now proven to be ill-conceived-proposal for a $20m upgrading, which actually increases congestion both during the construction period and at the conclusion rather than alleviating the problem, the Minister for Aviation will have to go back to his colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction, and they will have to go back to square one and start again. Otherwise the tourist image of Australia and the users of the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will be the losers. The Minister should come up with something new and positive. I was about to say that unless he does so, the Government has its head in the sand, but perhaps it might be more appropriate to say that if he cannot do so it is flying blind. It has not even acknowledged that there is a problem. Everybody else in the industry and every member of the Joint Committee on Public Works who investigated this proposal stated that not only is there a problem but that problem is becoming a crisis. The Government does not even acknowledge the first point, that there is a problem, and therefore is doing nothing to overcome a crisis that is developing. It is a crisis of congestion with aircraft movements at certain times of the day and the associated movement of people through the terminal. The problem is quite complex and multiple, but there are answers which have been recommended for some time by people in industry, people in departments and by the Committee, as we have discovered today. What has happened with the Government's response to all this very carefully considered advice on how to overcome this growing problem? First is the problem of increasing congestion. The Government's first action was to say that as from the end of September departure tax booths at Kingsford-Smith Airport-and for that matter at the other terminals, but we are just talking of Kingsford-Smith-will be closed. That will increase congestion. Everyone in the airline industry has advised the Minister of that for months and has pleaded with him for those booths to remain open permanently. Secondly, the Government has rejected the advice of the Parliamentary Public Works Committee. Rejection by that Committee, which the Government has rejected, is a reasonably rare occurrence in this place. Therefore, it should have been treated far more seriously than it has. As others have said, that Committee made the point not only that at the conclusion of spending $20m congestion will be worse but also that congestion will be worse during the three-year renovation period and will be worse again because of the new departure tax requirements. The third point concerning the overcoming of these problems and the Government's reaction is that it has rejected the proposals made by the industry and the Department over the years to develop a parallel runway, to get in ahead and beat the growing congestion problem of airways movements. The next point is that the Government has done nothing to accept the advice of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council or the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise which reported in September 1985, some 10 months ago, on ways of alleviating some of that congestion of aircraft movements not, as the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) said, by completely altering curfew arrangements, but by sensibly looking at types of aircraft, runways and so on to alleviate the problem. The Government probably will say that a Federal Airports Corporation is about to come into existence and so we should not interfere with any longer term planning and solutions for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Minister should tell us the latest timing for the establishment and, more importantly, the effective working of the Federal Airports Corporation. It appears to me that it will be some years before that Corporation is really effective. If one waits for the Corporation to be effective and then makes plans, there will be an even longer delay period, far longer than the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) talked about when discussing a sensible alternative of a separate terminal. It is not only Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport that is apparently suffering from the paralysis of the Department. How long have the people of Darwin been waiting for the revised airport terminal? They have been waiting for over 18 months-some six months after the time that was given by the Minister originally by which they would have a revised proposal. They are still waiting and will be waiting several more months. What is needed? The points have been well made by the Committee and by people in industry. There should be either a far more substantially upgrading, or preferably, a separate terminal which will not create any more congestion in the existing terminal during its construction and will be there not only in the short term but as a long term remedy to this growing problem. I have been advised that offers have been made by the private sector to pay for that terminal. I know by the number of phone calls I have received that other private investors are interested in putting up the money for a new separate terminal. If that were the decision of the Government, one would applaud it. There would be no disruption during the construction period. It would serve both the short and long term interests, and if the Government wanted to accept a private company proposal there would be no cost to the taxpayer. The answers on runways and varying arrangements, whether by altering the curfew by one hour in the morning, as the Committee suggested or the more flexible arrangement that the Aviation Industry Advisory Council and the House of Representatives Committee have recommended, are there for the Government to act on, if it has the sense to do so. If it does not, as the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the shadow Minister for Tourism and the members of the Committee who have spoken today have already indicated, the loser will be the image of Australia. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is our major international gateway. Tourists come through it and depart from it. The image of Australia internationally rests very much with that first impression of Australia through that international gateway. Unless the two Ministers present, and behind them the Government, alter the very negative and, I think, stupid intention to proceed-I am quite happy to apologise for the word `stupid' if the Minister for Aviation has some other proposal-it will very much be to the detriment of the future of this nation. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.20) —I do not want to delay the House and I will take only a couple of minutes. I thank the Minister for Aviation (Mr Morris) for making time available. I just want to add my voice, as the shadow Minister for tourism, to the discussion on the importance of improving the facilities at the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in Sydney. I visited it a few weeks ago. Those of us involved in air travel, tourism or aviation know of the real problems at Kingsford-Smith Airport international terminal. It is becoming notorious throughout the tourist industry for its congestion, particularly at peak periods. The Government quite rightly takes some credit for the increase in tourism in this country. It is our only growth industry, and it is our biggest employer. With the current economic problems in this banana republic, as it was described by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), it is inconceivable that we are not doing everything we possibly can to increase the flow of tourists into this country. Yet our main international airport at Sydney is full to the brim. People have to queue for hours at peak periods-sometimes three to four hours-to get through the Customs, health and immigration checks. That is a great reception for tourists on their arrival in this country. It is imperative that improvements be made. I am told by those who understand these things better than I do that the improvements proposed will be of very marginal significance in improving the traffic flow through Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport international terminal. I wish just to touch on a major point. I ask the Minister for Aviation whether he will ask his colleagues in this area to look at the introduction of permanent part time work, which has been introduced into the Public Service. As a means of alleviating the congestion at peak periods at this airport, will the Minister and his colleagues look at introducing permanent part time work into the Customs, health and immigration areas? Unfortunately, the great bulk of passengers arrive first thing in the morning and they are queued up for hours. Will those departments look at putting on extra staff at those peak periods and then standing them down at times when they are not required? Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)(5.22) —The proposed improvement work has the wide support of the people of Sydney, the aviation industry and the travelling public at large. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has reminded honourable members that the terminal was built in the 1960s to service passengers travelling on narrow-bodied aircraft. The demands now placed on the terminal's facilities are far in excess of the terminal's capacity to handle comfortably passengers travelling on aircraft such as the Boeing 747. The report of the Joint Committee on Public Works fully endorses the perceived shortcomings of the existing terminal and the need for improvements. The Committee has sought to come to grips with understanding the complexities of the needs and operations of an international terminal. However, I believe that the solution proposed by the Committee, namely, to commence planning immediately for a new or substantially expanded international terminal, is not appropriate. It would be significantly more costly than the proposal referred to the Committee and it would delay any relief from the present intolerable conditions for at least five years. I make these comments about the Committee's specific conclusions and recommendations. The Committee's first conclusion states: Improvements are required to passenger processing and baggage facilities in public areas in the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to cater for increased passenger numbers during daily peak periods. This terminal was designed to handle approximately 1,000 arriving and 1,000 departing passengers at peak hours. However, due to market pressures, curfews at other airports and crew utilisation considerations, there exists a peak demand between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. that frequently results in 1,800 passengers arriving in an hour, some 80 per cent more than the terminal is designed to handle. Likewise, the peak hour traffic of departures is frequently about 1,600 passengers-far above the design capacity. I fully agree with the Committee's conclusion that improvements are required to cater for daily peak traffic. The Committee's second conclusion states: The Committee believes the proposed work will not alleviate congestion to a significant extent and at the end of the three year construction period the problems now experienced will be even more acute. The proposed works are planned to cater for an approximate 80 per cent increase in capacity. Expansion of the check-in area, consolidation of the two existing outwards immigration processing areas into one area, the provision of a transit lounge, expansion of the waiting space at the inwards primary line, enlargements of the baggage hall, with larger baggage claim units and the provision of a bus dock with associated lounge, will all serve to reduce congestion and increase capacity. The forecast of traffic growth shows that traffic in the modified terminal could be accommodated at reasonable levels until about 1991. Speakers from the other side of the House in this debate engaged in a purely political exercise, and in many cases their speeches were devoid of any consideration of the Committee's recommendations. None of them took into account management procedures or how better use could be made of that terminal. Nobody adverted to that. It is symptomatic of the spendthrift approach of those in opposition; that is why they will stay in opposition for years to come. They know only one thing. They want to spend more money and build more buildings. They do not want to know how to manage things better or how to get better service and better efficiency. Those things are totally alien to those in the Opposition to whom my comments pertain. One or two Opposition members did not pursue that line. In the main, all the speakers from the other side engaged in a political exercise and ignored studiously that approach to the use of existing facilities. The proposed work will provide progressive improvements throughout the three-year construction period as various elements of the project are completed and put into service. If no improvement works were carried out to the existing terminal it would be at least 1991 before a new terminal could be commissioned. By then the existing problems would be even more acute. They are already totally inadequate. Those on the other side of the House have said: `Leave that as it is. Let it get worse. Let the whole thing become absolutely unmanageable. We will wait for five years and then try to build.' Those are the comments that have come from the other side of the chamber this afternoon. As I have said, if no improvement works were carried out on the existing terminal, it would be at least 1991 before a new terminal could be commissioned. Just to make sure that the message penetrates, I repeat that by that time the terminal and existing facilities would be unworkable. Indeed, some stricter control of aircraft schedules could be necessary which would have an adverse effect on Sydney's tourist trade. I therefore disagree with the Committee's conclusion that congestion will not be alleviated to a significant extent. The Committee's third and fourth conclusions state: The Committee does not believe the proposed work at an estimated cost of $20m will be the most effective use of the money to be expended. The Committee concludes it is not expedient for the proposed work to proceed. I put it to the House that it is not clear from the Committee's report how it has reached those conclusions. I have read all of the report. In many ways the conclusions do not line up with the considerations in the body of the report. I want to say to honourable members that there have been discussions with Qantas Airways Ltd on the most appropriate ways of utilising the $20m proposed for improvements. Qantas has considered adequately a number of alternative schemes and it has agreed that the work as originally proposed is the best solution. I want to put paid to some of the nonsense said about that consultation and the utterly unfounded attacks upon the Minister for Housing and Construction. He has the carriage of this motion. He is not responsible for considerations of the aviation advice provided to him or for the evidence given to the Committee by the Department of Aviation; I accept that responsibility. It was a pretty puerile kind of exercise to chiack from the other side of the chamber and to indulge in personal abuse of the Minister for Housing and Construction when it is not he who will respond to this matter. It was a quite personal and quite political exercise; let me make that quite clear. Year after year I have sat through similar reports coming forward from committees. I heard and saw what the Fraser Government did with them, and I will come to that a little later in my contribution. As my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction has pointed out, the cost of possible new terminal developments could involve expenditure considerably in excess of $20m. The Government must therefore reject the Committee's conclusion that the expenditure of $20m is not the most effective use of the money to be expended. The Committee's fifth conclusion states: Planning for the provision of a new or substantially expanded international terminal building should commence immediately. In view of the forecast growth and the likely timing of the need to increase terminal capacity in about 1991, the Government proposes to commence planning for a new terminal. The Department of Aviation will be asked to collate all current information on the need for planning and development of a new international terminal for handing over to the Federal Airports Corporation. The Federal Airports Corporation will be requested to consider urgently the planning and development of a new terminal. But none of that will deal with the existing problem or the problem that will develop, and be exacerbated, in the intervening years. The Committee's sixth recommendation stated: Improvements recommended to relieve present congestion at the international terminal are: (a) Commonwealth Authorities should provide staff to process passengers at maximum attainable levels. (b) The length of the curfew should be reduced by one hour in the morning. I have already initiated action on the first of these recommendations with my colleagues the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). In regard to recommendation (b), all members of the chamber are fully aware that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, after inquiring into aircraft noise, made recommendations concerning the curfew. They are aware also that this report is still under consideration by the Government. For reasons which are apparent from my comments, the Government does not accept that the proposed works should not proceed. Not proceeding would result in intolerable demands being placed on the terminal facility and staff and the industry for a further five years. The Government believes that the work will provide both short and long term benefits. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning, design and construction can proceed in accordance with the proposal presented to the Public Works Committee. I want briefly to run through the matters raised by individual speakers on the other side. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) said that the Committee had no point of significant demur with the case put forward for the development. That is why it is hard, when one reads through the body of the report, to establish how the Committee reached the conclusions it did. He said that the Department of Aviation submission was a plan for a new or substantially expanded terminal, and that the provision of a new building adjacent to the existing terminal at a cost of $15m to $19.5m had been discarded because of cost. He would be aware from the comment of the Minister for Housing and Construction that the proposal for a terminal beside the existing terminal, on further costing and elaboration and on an understanding of what was really involved in the proposal from the Department of Aviation, runs to a figure of at least $75m, maybe up to $110m. So there is a significant difference there. Mr Beale —You have to fight for your funds. Mr PETER MORRIS —Everybody sat through the honourable member's speech quietly. I ask him to accord me the same courtesy. He said that the Department of Aviation had started from the wrong end, from the financial restriction end. I have to say to him that those are the rules of today. The old days-such as the time of the Brisbane Airport exercise, when the then Government spent money like people without arms-are gone. The public of this country will not cop that approach any longer. It is a case of making the best possible use of the investment, getting the best return from it. I find it utterly hypocritical of Opposition members-not the honourable member for Wide Bay; I have the greatest respect for him-to come in and to make these comments, to chiack and carry on about spending more money. Earlier in the day members of the Opposition were lecturing the Government on how it should be reducing expenditure-in fact, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said there should be a reduction in expenditure of several billion dollars-while, at the same time, they say that this project, the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, high speed trains, you name it, should go ahead. The more it costs, the more they are likely to support it. Those days of airport madness are over. There will be a scrupulous, responsible approach to the expenditure of public moneys by this Government. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) wanted a new terminal, he wanted a second runway. That is symptomatic of the Opposition. It cannot get its hands out of taxpayers' pockets. Money, money, money; spend, spend, spend; more, more, more-that is the philosophy they follow, without regard to the return on investment or the value of such expenditure to taxpayers. I was rather disappointed by the contribution of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). He was more inclined to heap abuse on the Minister for Housing and Construction than he was to make an overall contribution to the debate. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who came into this chamber priding himself on his responsible approach to financial investment and a responsible career in commerce-- Mr Spender —And successful. Mr PETER MORRIS —Unsuccessful, the honourable member for North Sydney says. Mr Spender —I said `successful', which is more than can be said for your side. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thought the honourable member said `unsuccessful'. The honourable member for Deakin complained that nothing had been done to improve Sydney Airport. He should talk to the people sitting beside him. They will tell him why nothing has been done to improve Sydney Airport. Sydney's problems did not develop when this Government came to office; its problems had been evident for years, throughout the term of the Fraser Government. One thing it could not do was make up its mind about what to do with Sydney Airport. It wanted changed curfews, second Sydney airport sites, other runways and all sorts of things, but the one crystal clear fact is this: It could not make up its mind. Mr Spender —It was blocked by the New South Wales Government. Mr PETER MORRIS —It was a Labor government in that State, and there was no way that the Fraser Government was going to spend a dollar on improving that airport. That was the idea. It was able to find $400m for Brisbane Airport, but all the industry said that it did not want that airport dealt with in that way. The Fraser Government could find the money for Brisbane Airport, but it did not want to spend a dollar on the major airport of this country. That is who is responsible-the honourable member's colleagues in the former Fraser Government. (Quorum formed) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister's time has now expired. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.37) —in reply-I wish briefly to wind up this debate, which has gone on for longer than I expected. In the timewasting exercise inflicted upon the House by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), and his misled comrades and colleagues on the other side, I was simply appalled by some of the arguments put. Let me deal first with their arguments as far as they apply to fiscal and macroeconomic policy. We have heard a lot from this shadow Minister in the past about the need to trim our sails, to reduce the deficit, to be frugal in regard to fiscal policy in order to get the deficit down, to take pressure off interest rates and give the private sector room to move, and so on. He is fully aware of the need to take pressure off the public sector borrowing requirement and he is fully aware of the pressure on Commonwealth and State public works as a result of the current economic situation, yet he comes into this place and seriously puts up a proposal to spend $110m when we are assuring the House that, following investigatory work undertaken by the Department of Aviation and the Department of Housing and Construction, we can obtain better value for our money by spending $20m instead of $110m to improve and increase the existing capacity of the international terminal building at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Another point on which I take issue with the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction is simply this: Again and again in this House we have heard the honourable member for Deakin urge the Government to give more work to the private sector. Mr Beale —You could give the whole job to the private sector. You could construct a new airport through the private sector. Have you thought of that? Mr WEST —By the honourable member's very interjection he declares to the House his abysmal ignorance of the way the Department of Housing and Construction carries on its construction business. Of course the contracts for construction will go to the private sector. They always do. There is no in-house construction capacity in the Department. There is for major projects a repairs and maintenance and a design and documentation capacity. Approximately 50 per cent of the design and documentation work is farmed out to contractors and in-house temporary consultants who are hired from the private sector by the Department. So in the area of both fiscal and macroeconomic management-in the sense that it wants to spend $110m in instead of $20m-and in its understanding of the operations of the Department of Housing and Construction, the Opposition is remiss. Let us restate the nature of the works proposed. The improvement works as proposed to the Joint Committee on Public Works and to the House cover the expansion and rearrangement of the departures hall, including the rationalisation of check-in counters to provide more space and decrease congestion, the construction of a new lounge for transiting passengers, the provision of two additional aerobridges and links to the passenger concourses, the expansion of the arrivals area to provide more space and additional queueing positions at the Immigration-Health-Customs primary line, the provision of new and increased capacity baggage conveyors and expansion of the baggage reclaim area to alleviate congestion and reduce waiting time in the baggage reclaim area, the provision of additional taxi queueing space and a covered bus station and the modifications and upgrading of existing building services to complement modifications to the terminal building and the concourses. The Public Works Committee report has attempted to address cost effectiveness by noting that in these proposed works the floor area of the international terminal building will be increased by only 13 per cent. However, the Public Works Committee report missed the point. The figure of 13 per cent is not a useful measure as the terminal building includes large areas allocated for use as airline offices, Department of Aviation administrative areas, public restaurants, bars and passenger concourses which already serve aircraft parking positions adequately. It may not have been apparent to the Opposition or to the Committee that the improvement works would increase space in all important functional areas, including the arrivals, departures, Customs and baggage handling sections of the building. They would increase the area of the departures hall by 45 per cent, the area of the Customs hall by approximately 12 per cent, the area of the arrivals hall by approximately 26 per cent, and the area of the inwards Immigration-Health-Customs primary line by approximately 127 per cent. The new transit lounge will have an area of approximately 1,000 square metres and there will be a 97 per cent increase in total concession areas, including 1,120 square metres of new duty free concession space. The Opposition and the Public Works Committee have completely missed the point, believing that the 13 per cent increase to cover the whole area is insufficient. In fact, the areas where a shortage of space exists at present are to be very greatly expanded. I understand that there have been discussions with Qantas Airways Ltd. I understand also that Qantas has expressed support for the proposals that were put to the Committee. Since then there have been discussions between Qantas and the two departments involved regarding whether a temporary building ought to be constructed during the period the work proposed is carried out. After lengthy discussions and consultations between the Secretary to the Department of Aviation and the Chief Executive of Qantas, joint Qantas-Aviation-DHC discussions took place on 26 and 27 May. These discussions clarified Qantas's understanding of the proposed terminal building improvement program and alleviated concern about the extent of inconvenience that could occur while the works are being undertaken. At the conclusion of the discussions Qantas agreed that its proposal for a temporary building was costly and unsatisfactory in several important respects and would not be pursued further. It also agreed that the international terminal improvement works as presented to the Public Works Committee should proceed. Qantas agreed that on completion of the improvement works there will be a capacity to process 1,800 terminating and 1,800 originating passengers per hour. This represents an 80 per cent increase over the original nominal design capacity of the terminal building when it was opened in 1970, having been constructed by the previous Government. No significant change has been made to the building since that time. We are getting all this improved capacity for $20m as against the $110m urged by the Opposition. We are not saying that there will not be a need for new work in the future. Obviously, that is for the Federal Airports Corporation to assess. It will be asked to give high priority to looking at planning for new expanded international operations. But the Opposition should take it from us that such work will complement what has already been proposed. There is no way in the world that the $20m which is needed now to produce an improved terminal in three years time-not in seven years time-will be wasted. Question put: That the motion (Mr West's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. N. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, 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. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. 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. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Tim Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Jull, D. F. Cohen, B. Peacock, A. S. Humphreys, B. C. Nehl, G. B. Duffy, M. J. Cowan, D. B. Grace, E. L. Connolly, D. M. Dawkins, J. S. Burr, M. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 is designed: To extend existing telecommunications interception powers of the Australian Federal Police in respect of certain Commonwealth narcotics offences to cover a wider category of serious drug trafficking offences; to make interception powers available to the National Crime Authority in respect of serious drug trafficking offences; and to enable interception powers to be made available to the police force-and in the case of New South Wales the State Drug Crime Commission-of any State or the Northern Territory. The Bill gives effect to decisions made by the Government in connection with the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs, which was held in Canberra last year. Following the conference, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory indicated their interest in seeking interception powers for their police forces in relation to drug trafficking offences. The Bill also takes into account some of the recommendations relating to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 contained in volume one of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions-known as the Stewart Royal Commission-which I tabled in this House on 1 May 1986. The new provisions will provide Australian law enforcement authorities with an important additional tool in the investigation and prosecution of serious drug trafficking offences, while at the same time providing effective safeguards for the protection of personal privacy. The whole question of telecommunications interception for law enforcement purposes gives rise to difficult and serious questions and to a need for careful weighing of competing interests. The Stewart Royal Commission has recommended that interception powers should not be limited to drug cases. Earlier, the Australian Law Reform Commission, in its report on privacy, recommended that interception should be available, subject to strict controls, in relation to serious offences, which is defined as offences punishable by at least seven years' imprisonment. The Government, in considering these recommendations, sought the views of the States on the question of extending the Act to cover serious offences. I have received verbal advice from the South Australian Attorney-General that the South Australian Government is still considering the matter. A telex has been received from the Premier of Western Australia indicating that the Western Australian Government does not support the expansion of the category of offences to cover serious offences. The Queensland Attorney-General has sent a telex indicating that the Queensland Government does not presently favour an extension of telephone interception powers to serious offences. The Northern Territory has indicated by telex that it supports an extension of interception powers to cover indictable offences. The Attorney-General of New South Wales has advised verbally that the New South Wales Government has not yet made a decision on the question of extending the Act to cover serious offences and has said that the New South Wales Government requests interception powers in relation to drug trafficking offences for the State Drug Crime Commission of New South Wales. I indicated in the House yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), that I had received verbal advice from the Tasmanian Attorney-General that whilst he had not had an opportunity to consider the Bill, in answer to my request as to whether the Tasmanian Government supported the Bill, I was of the impression that he said that he did not think the Government would in respect of serious offences; and that Tasmania would want only telephone interception powers in respect of drug offences. However, he sent me a telex this afternoon in which he said that I did not understand what he had said over the phone. I am prepared to say that that certainly might be the case if he thinks that is the position. I think I should read into Hansard parts of the telex message sent as a media release. It states: `Mr Bowen was advised by me on 22 May that the matter would only be considered by Cabinet after the Federal Government had passed its own legislation empowering the various States to adopt all or any part of it. I make the point that I had sent the Attorney-General a copy of the legislation and I asked him whether the Government of Tasmania agreed with telephone interception powers being extended. I accept the view expressed by the Tasmanian Attorney-General, Mr Bennett, when he says: `We are not going to make any decision until such time as the Commonwealth passes the legislation'. I interpolate that I think that will mean that the Committee the Government proposes to set up will need to take some evidence from the Tasmanian Government as to whether it wants this legislation or not. The telex goes on further to say this: `I further advised Mr Bowen that once Federal legislation was passed, it would be considered by Cabinet and a policy decision made insofar as Tasmania was concerned. As the legislation has not been passed by the Federal Government, the Tasmanian Government has not adopted a stance at this time'. Mr Bennett said phone tapping was a complex, and in some quarters, a very emotional issue which requires widespread consultation in Tasmania and careful consideration. `I would hope that Mr Bowen would take the opportunity to properly represent the situation as far as Tasmania is concerned'. Aboriginal Land Grant Bill 1986 I think I have done that. I have left it in the position that Tasmania has been unable to give an answer as to whether or not it favours the legislation. However, the Government would like to know Tasmania's position before the Committee completes its deliberations. Having said that, let me return to the matters before the House. The Government now believes that the questions arising from an extension of telecommunications interception powers for law enforcement purposes, including whether such powers should be extended beyond drug offences, call for thorough parliamentary consideration. For that reason, I shall be moving a resolution to establish a joint select committee to examine and report on the Bill, with particular emphasis on the question of extending the interception powers to cover serious offences, on the appropriateness of the proposed legislative safeguards and controls and on the feasibility of having a central Commonwealth agency to carry out interceptions for other authorities. The Australian Federal Police already has interception powers under Part IV of the Act for the investigation of certain Commonwealth narcotics offences, as defined in the Act. These powers have proved a valuable investigative tool. The Bill extends the existing interception powers of the Australian Federal Police. In addition to those narcotics offences in respect of which it already has powers, its powers will be extended to cover serious drug trafficking offences, which are defined as a narcotics offence and any other Commonwealth or Australian Capital Territory offence involving narcotic drugs that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of not less than seven years. The Bill also amends the provisions at present applying to the Australian Federal Police by including new provisions enabling interception warrants to be obtained on applications made by telephone, instead of in writing, in urgent circumstances. The Australian Law Reform Commission in its privacy report recommended provisions of this kind. The provisions should go some way towards ensuring a speedier system in urgent cases. There are three further changes. First, judges will be required, in considering whether to issue a warrant, to be satisfied that the information sought is not readily available from another source. Secondly, the maximum period of effect of a warrant issued to a member of the Australian Federal Police is to be reduced from the present period of six months to 90 days. Thirdly, the Attorney-General will be required to report annually to the Parliament on the number of warrants issued to Australian Federal Police members during the preceding year and, in terms that do not enable the identification of any person, on the use and communication of information obtained pursuant to those warrants. These changes are based on recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its privacy report. The Government also considers that the important role of the National Crime Authority in the investigation of serious trafficking offences requires that it be given telecommunications interception powers in relation to any such offences that are under the subject of an investigation by the Authority under its Act. The Bill therefore inserts a new Part VI into the Act conferring on the National Crime Authority telecommunications interception powers similar to those that apply to the Australian Federal Police. The provisions require judicial warrants, which will be available only where a serious trafficking offence that is the subject of an investigation by the NCA is involved. Applications will normally be required to be in writing, supported by information on oath. In cases of urgency, however, a warrant can be issued on an application made by telephone. A warrant may be granted in respect of a telecommunications system situated anywhere in Australia and will remain in force for a maximum period of 90 days. It will authorise approved persons to intercept, that is, listen to or record, communications passing over the service specified in the warrant. The Bill provides that a warrant will not authorise any entry upon premises and will authorise interceptions to be carried out only through Telecom. Where the Chairman of the NCA is satisfied that the grounds upon which a warrant was issued have ceased to exist, the Chairman will be required to revoke the warrant and take immediate steps to ensure that interceptions pursuant to the warrant are discontinued. The Chairman will also be required to ensure the destruction of all records or copies of intercepted communications in the possession, custody or control of the NCA if the records are not needed for the purposes of lawful use or communication by the NCA. The National Crime Authority will be required to inform the Managing Director of Telecom of the issue and revocation of each warrant and to provide the Managing Director with a certified copy of each warrant and instrument of revocation. It must retain in its own records copies of all warrants and instruments of revocation. The Chairman will be required to furnish reports to the Attorney-General on the issue and revocation of each warrant and on the use and communication of information obtained pursuant to warrants. The Attorney-General will be required to report annually to the Parliament on the number of warrants issued during the preceding year and, in terms that do not enable the identity of any person to be disclosed, the use made of information obtained pursuant to those warrants. The Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interception has recommended that interception powers should be extended to State and Territory police forces. The Government had already announced its agreement, following the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs, to extend telecommunications interception powers to the police forces of those States and Territories that requested such powers, subject to stringent legislative safeguards. A significant number of investigations of drug trafficking offences are solely within the jurisdiction of the States. As State police have major law enforcement responsibilities in this area, they should have the benefit of properly controlled interception powers to assist them in discharging those responsibilities. At the same time, the Government is conscious of the need to balance the legitimate requirements of law enforcement agencies with the proper protection of privacy. In the case of State and Territory police forces, a combination of Commonwealth and State legislative safeguards will ensure the necessary control and protection. The aim is to impose direct responsibility on State and Territory authorities and Ministers for the proper conduct and oversight of intercept activities while at the same time ensuring that the Commonwealth Government is able to discharge its overall responsibilities in this area. The State and Territory police forces are covered by the new Part VII which the Bill will insert into the Act. Interception powers in relation to serious trafficking offences against State and Territory laws will be made available only to those police forces declared by the Attorney-General, by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, to be declared authorities. A declaration will be made only at the request of the relevant Premier or Chief Minister and if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the State or Territory in question has legislation that provides satisfactory safeguards. The States and the Northern Territory have been informed of the proposed safeguards and I have been given an opportunity to comment on them, and I have already referred to those comments. The safeguards will include provisions for reporting on the issue and revocation of warrants to the relevant State or Territory Minister; for the proper maintenance of records by the State or Territory police force; for the regular inspection of those records by an independent authority and for the reporting by that authority on the extent of compliance with statutory requirements; for the destruction of irrelevant records; and for regular reports by the relevant State or Territory Minister to the Commonwealth Minister. The legislative safeguards will be at least as stringent as those that apply in relation to interceptions by members of the Australian Federal Police under Part IV of the Act. In addition, the State or Territory concerned will be required to enter into an agreement to pay all expenses incurred in relation to the issuing of warrants and the carrying out of interceptions by its police force. The Attorney-General will be empowered to revoke a declaration if requested to do so by the relevant State or Territory, if the necessary legislative safeguards are not maintained or if compliance with those safeguards or with the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is unsatisfactory. By means of these provisions, the Commonwealth will be able to ensure, as far as possible, that there is a continuous monitoring and control at the State or Territory level of day to day activities by State or Territory officers. The issue and revocation of warrants, the scope of the authority conferred by warrants, and the communication of information will be controlled directly by the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Under proposed Part VII, warrants will be issued by State and Northern Territory Supreme Court judges in relation to serious trafficking offences against the laws of the relevant State or Territory. Telephone applications may be made by specially approved members of the State or Territory police force in circumstances of urgency; otherwise a written application supported by information on oath will be necessary. A warrant will be available only in respect of a telecommunications system that is situated within the State or Territory concerned and will remain in force for a maximum period of 90 days. It will authorise interceptions by persons approved pursuant to a law of the relevant State or Territory. As with the National Crime Authority, warrants will not authorise entry on to premises or any interception other than through Telecom. In addition, the equipment used in interceptions will be required to be approved pursuant to a law of that State or Territory. The Commonwealth Attorney-General will be required to report annually to the Parliament on the numbers of warrants issued under the proposed Part VII and on the use made of information obtained by virtue of those warrants. The annual reports will be based on information received from State and Territory Ministers and from Telecom. At the request of the New South Wales Government mentioned earlier, the Commonwealth Government has also given consideration to the extension of telecommunications interception powers to the State Drug Crime Commission of New South Wales. The Commission was established by the State Drug Crime Commission Act 1985 of New South Wales. Its principal functions are to investigate matters relating to a drug activity referred by its Management Committee; to assemble evidence for the prosecution of drug offences; to report on illegal drug trafficking and recommend changes to the law; and to disseminate investigatory, technological and analytical expertise. The Commission has liaison and co-operative functions with the National Crime Authority and a member of the National Crime Authority is represented on its Management Committee. In view of the functions of the Commission and its links with the NCA, the Government considers that telecommunications interception powers should be given to the Commission, at the request of the State Government, in relation to serious trafficking offences that are being investigated by the Commission pursuant to its Act. The new Part VII which the Bill inserts in the Act deals with the Commission's powers in the same way, and makes them subject to the same conditions and legislative safeguards, as are applicable to State police forces. The important matter of regulating the use and communication of intercepted information is at present dealt with in section 7 of the Act. Extensive amendments of the present provisions are necessary as a result of the extension of interception powers to the National Crime Authority, State and Territory police forces and the State Drug Crime Commission. Amendments are also necessary as a result of the decision of the High Court in Hilton v. Wells, at page 58 of Australian Law Reports 245, that the present provisions relating to the use and communication of intercepted information do not cover illegally obtained information and do not make such information inadmissible in any court proceedings. The Stewart Royal Commission has recommended that the Act should be amended to make it an offence to possess, communicate, divulge or record unlawfully intercepted information. The Government accepts this recommendation. The Royal Commission goes on, however, to recommend that the provision should not prohibit the possession, use or copying of such information by police or certain other authorities. The Government does not accept that such information should be able to be used except for the purpose of establishing a contra- vention of the Act. The Royal Commission also recommends that the admissibility of unlawfully intercepted information should be determined by the common law. The Government does not accept that recommendation. The Bill amends the present section 7 and includes new provisions dealing separately with the prohibition of unauthorised interceptions, the regulation of the use and communication of intercepted information and the admissibility of such information in evidence in proceedings. The most important effects of the new provisions are as follows: (1) it will continue to be an offence to intercept communications passing over a telecommunications system except pursuant to a warrant or as otherwise authorised by the Act; (2) it will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material obtained in contravention of the Act, except for the purpose of establishing that contravention; (3) it will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material that has been lawfully obtained, except in accordance with the Act; (4) communication of lawfully obtained material will be permitted between the Australian Federal Police, State and Territory police forces, the National Crime Authority and the State Drug Crime Commission and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, where the material is relevant to their functions; (5) it will be possible to give lawfully obtained information in evidence only in the proceedings specified in draft section 7AB. Information obtained in contravention of the Act will be inadmissible in all proceedings except to establish the contravention. This exclusionary rule is, however, subject to a discretion in the court to admit information where the contravention is due to an insubstantial defect or error in cases where a warrant has been obtained. It is not intended to prejudice proceedings that have been commenced before the legislation comes into operation. Accordingly, the Bill will be amended as necessary to ensure that it will not prevent intercepted material from being admitted in evidence in proceedings commenced before that date. I shall deal briefly with the remaining recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission relating to the Act. The Commission recommended that the power to issue warrants should be restricted to judges of the Federal Court and of the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories. The recommendation is consistent with the present law as far as the AFP is concerned. The Bill will require warrants to be issued by Supreme Court judges in the case of State and Territory police forces and the State Drug Crime Commission and by Federal Court judges or Supreme Court judges in the case of the National Crime Authority. The Commission also recommended that a judge issuing a warrant should be able, in appropriate cases, to authorise a direct interception without recourse to Telecom. The Government has not accepted that recommendation. As indicated already, the Government has taken the view that the powers to be conferred on State authorities and the National Crime Authority should be exercisable only through Telecom. The Stewart Royal Commission also recommended that judges should be required to take into account the gravity of the matters being investigated, the extent of likely interference with the privacy of any person and the extent to which the prevention or detection of the offence in question is likely to be assisted. As the Bill defines `serious trafficking offence', there is no need to involve judges in the assessment of the gravity of particular offences. The legislation itself, by limiting the availability of warrants to those offences and by building in a range of safeguards, achieves a proper balance between privacy interests and the requirements of law enforcement. It would not be desirable to involve judges in a case-by-case assessment of this matter. The legislation will require a judge to be satisfied that an interception is likely to assist an investigation in each case. To require, in addition, a judge to attempt to assess the extent of such assistance would be undesirable and, indeed, in many cases impracticable. Financial Impact Statement The provisions relating to interception powers for State and Territory authorities include a requirement that the States and Territories concerned agree to pay all expenses incurred in carrying out interceptions pursuant to warrants issued to those authorities. As far as the extension of interception powers for the Australian Federal Police and to the National Crime Authority is concerned, there will be financial implications. It is impossible to predict with accuracy the amounts likely to be involved. The amount payable in any year will depend upon the number of interceptions carried out. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986, prior to its second reading, being referred to a joint select committee appointed for the purpose of examining and reporting on the Bill. Appointment Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed: (a) to examine and report upon the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 and, in particular, the appropriateness of the mechanism for conducting interceptions and the safeguards for their authorisation, recording, transcribing, dissemination and retention, and (b) to examine and report upon the recommendation contained in Mr Justice Stewart's report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions to the effect that the power of interception be extended to cover all serious offences. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (9) That the committee present its final report as soon as possible. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (11) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.19) —It is a matter of regret that today we have before us in this House a motion which effectively amounts to a cop-out of decision making by this Government. We were told by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on 1 May 1986: The Government will give urgent consideration to the recommendations. He was there referring to the Stewart recommendations in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. We are now told that what will happen is that the main part of the Stewart recommendations is to be referred to this Joint Select Committee. Apparently the Government finds it impossible to understand the issues that Mr Justice Stewart has raised or to inform itself on the matters which are concerned in those issues. It is inconceivable that the Government could find itself in that position. It must understand very clearly what the issues are and it is not as though we are coming to this question for the first time. I remind the House how long this matter has been before it and go back three years, and indeed to what I said in this House on 2 May 1986. Telecommunication interceptions and the use of telecommunication interceptions for serious organised crime are a known feature of detection of organised crime. I remind the House of what was said by Mr Justice Stewart in February 1983 in his report on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into drug trafficking where he criticised the narrowness of the interception powers and recommended; A judge should be empowered to issue warrants for the interception of telephone conversations where the activities of persons are such as point to the likely existence of a criminal scheme or conspiracy involving organised criminals. It should not be restricted to the commission of certain narcotics offences as presently provided. . . What happened is that Special Prosecutor Redlich recommended amendments to enlarge interception powers in his report of 7 September 1983. What has happened to those recommendations? Nothing. They are under what this Government calls `active consideration'. So, at the very least, during the time that this Government has been in office it has had three years to consider recommendations that telephone interception powers should be enlarged and it has done nothing. Now, reportedly because of a Caucus revolt-not doubt from the Left-we find the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) coming into this House to present a Bill that is to be examined by a committee set up by this House. This kind of approach to the fight against organised crime is reminiscent of an answer given by the Attorney-General to this question asked by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp): Are Australian law enforcement agencies still unable to apprehend and hold transiting passengers carrying illegal drugs? Did the Minister last November call for a report on the Taillon case, which highlighted this serious anomaly with the aim of closing this gap in our drug defences? Why has nothing been done and how does this gross negligence square with the drug offensive and the claims made as recently as yesterday by the Special Minister of State that the Government is doing all it can to fight the drug menace? We heard, immediately before the Minister answered that question, his answer to a friendly question put to him from his side of the House, when he referred to the great work that the Government was doing: It had supported a resolution at an international conference; it had many things under consideration-active consideration, passive consideration; it was thinking about these issues; and, it was not blind to these issues. What has it done? Nothing. What do we get? We get an enlargement of intercept powers in relation to drug trafficking offences and the balance of the recommendations are to be examined by this Committee. Can anyone tell me-can the Attorney-General tell me-the logical reason for saying, on the one hand, that it is right that there should be power to intercept conversations relating to serious drug trafficking offences but, on the other hand, that without an inquiry it is not possible to say that it is right to extend the intercept powers to, for example, contract murder? We have a Bill which is now to be referred to this Committee. I do not anticipate debate upon this Bill but, according to the second reading speech, the result of the Government's approach will be that, if at the one time one hears over the telephone evidence about organised drug trafficking and one has obtained a warrant for that purpose, that evidence is admissible; but if during the same conversation between the same people one finds that a contract murder is set up, that evidence is not to be as admissable; nor is any other kind of illegal activity that one can think of, no matter how dangerous, how vile, or how many people are affected-including, I suppose, terrorist activities such as a plan to put a bomb in Parliament House. It was said that Guy Fawkes was the only person who approached Parliament with the right intentions. If one came across that kind of evidence in the course of a telephone call, that apparently is not the sort of thing that should be considered without the sanction, at the very least, of this Committee looking at it. There is no need to refer such matters to a committee. What can members of this House, or of the Senate, tell the Government that it does not already know? What wisdom are they going to give to the Government that it does not have? Does the Government really tell us that it cannot inform itself on these matters? Does the Attorney-General really say that he is unable to make a decision upon the subject? I suspect that the Attorney-General would favour the broad implementation of the Stewart proposals. He cannot say that, because he is Attorney-General in a government and must represent that government's point of view. But where is the justification for this exercise? What is the consequence? The consequence is that this Bill will not go through this session. What is the further consequence? The further consequence is that the whole question of enlargement of the powers to intercept is to go to a committee which, whilst it is required to report as soon as possible, will report one knows not when. What is the future consequence? That report itself will be under active consideration. We have no commitment by this Government to implementing the Stewart recommendations. We have no voice by this Government as to what it thinks about those recommendations. We have had no attempt by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, to analyse the recommendations that say that the powers should be extended and to put the case, if there is a case, against those recommendations. If the Government does not want to do it it should say so, but it should not adopt this delaying device and this cowardly compromise of setting up a committee to defer the day when it has to come back here with a recommendation. Let me put to the House very clearly what the Opposition's position is. It is, as I said earlier, to support the Stewart recommendations. There are safeguards that can be built into the use of those recommendations and into their implementation. Safeguards should be built in, but the time has come to stop approaching organised crime with the kind of sense of direction and speed displayed by a mating tortoise. When are we really going to come to the conclusion that the legislation should be implemented? When are we going to have legislation to confiscate assets; to confiscate not just the assets of organised crime but the assets of people who act as criminals on a business basis? To pick up a question asked by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), when are we going to have a national criminal code? It is no use going back to what took place more than three years ago. It is no use the Government saying: `You were in government then, what did you do'? Members opposite are in Government now. The public perceptions of the dimensions of organised crime have increased very greatly. Our general concern about the dimensions of organised crime must have increased and our knowledge has increased very greatly as a result of the final Costigan reports and the kind of work that Mr Justice Stewart has done; so we will no doubt participate in this Committee, but we participate in it with a very clear commitment to implement the broad thrust of the Stewart recommendations in pretty much the terms that Mr Justice Stewart has put them up. It passes my understanding why this Government says again and again that it has got to have a committee, it has got to have further consideration, it has got to have active consideration. One does not have consensus when it comes to dealing with organised crime. One takes hard decisions, implements those hard decisions and approaches the criminals in the only way that they can be approached; that is, by using the toughest measures available in a democracy. Otherwise, make no mistake about this, not only are we losing the war; we will in fact lose the war and have to start again. Those who think that organised crime is merely a minor manifestation of life in our society should look to the facts and should understand that it is a major manifestation, that the profits are extraordinarily high and the risk of apprehension and detention is extremely low. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.30) — in reply-I wish to reply briefly to what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said. Let me rebut the suggestion that there is any cowardly compromise here, or that the Government has gone soft. I make the point that Mr Justice Stewart recommended that there should be an extension of the powers and, of course, it would relate to the States as well; so a draft proposal was sent to the States indicating that the powers could be extended. It is a matter of record in this Parliament that at this stage Western Australia and Queensland-they may change their mind-do not wish an extension of power. The question of how we would deal with this matter has been raised because crime covers not only Federal matters but also State matters and to some extent can be intertwined. The first offer of this power to the States was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the narcotics conference last year; it was not requested by the States. The Government took the initiative on that issue. When the offer was made, the Premiers, I suppose understandably, felt that they had to give it further consideration. The distinguished Attorney-General for Tasmania is even worried that I may have misrepresented him-perhaps I did. He thought that the States had to make a decision about the matter before the Government passed the legislation. I want the honourable member for North Sydney to agree with me that here is an opportunity for all the States to come before the proposed committee and clearly indicate what they will do, assuming we pass the legislation. That brings me to the second point, which is that I cannot find out the position of the States, because they do not want to make decisions at this stage. Clearly, they are not prepared to make a decision until we pass the legislation. Honourable members should bear in mind that we are talking about this matter on the basis of what we can agree on following from the narcotics conference, at which all States and all Premiers were present. The Prime Minister made the offer to them; it is his offer with which we are now dealing. I would have thought that the States would have been able to make up their minds by now. I am not criticising them. I think a committee has value in that it would ascertain from them what they really want. Another matter which is causing concern-I have a point of view about it but many others have different points of view-is what control mechanism Telecom Australia will have if it intercepts communications and what use will be made of the material. What control will there be over the material that is collected? It is a Federal authority but the material would have to go to the States. Will we allow the States to do this? The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 proposes this. The alternative now being put up-I can see that there would be some legitimate argument about it which the committee might unravel-is whether we would want a Commonwealth agency to do this for the States. I can see that that is an argument. I do not know whether we will reach any clear finality unless we have some further discussions with the States on the detail of how this is to be done. The States all admit that they will have to pay the cost of it. Some States certainly take the view that they want the Commonwealth to do this for them. That is the present position. I do not think that gives uniformity of approach. The view I put forward in the Bill is that the States can do this subject to adequate legislation being passed in their own parliaments. They have to grapple with this situation. That is where the role of the Committee would be. At least we would find out from the State authorities what they would do about the proposals which are clear in black and white. On that basis the committee would be able to take evidence from the States on whether they want to extend the powers, the best mechanism of control over the information that is gathered, the way in which it will be extinguished if it is of no value, the way in which it will be extinguished after it has been used, the reporting mechanisms to the appropriate Attorneys-General or Ministers who are appointed, and the appropriate mechanisms for reporting us? They are the issues which are being debated at the moment. That is preferable to having argument all around the continent on whether the States will use it and, if so, on what basis. If they do get it do they want a national authority-which some want-or will they do it themselves? Those matters have still to be brought to finality. That is my view. A committee would do that because it would take evidence and come up with the recommendations. I am pleased to note that the Opposition will participate in the committee. This is an important matter. Let me also rebut some of the allegations which the honourable member for North Sydney is prone to make about where the Government is going in relation to crime. It is no good saying that I cannot talk about events that occurred before 1983. Let me make the point that all the illegal intercepts that took place took place when the Opposition was in government. Not only that, but a most outrageous thing happened. The Australian Federal Police, under the control of the Liberal and National parties, went to the State police who were doing the illegal intercepts and got copies of the tapes from them and paid money for them. Honestly, as a distinguished member of the legal profession, why did the honourable member for North Sydney not take some action about that matter? Was he that blinkered, hoodwinked and mute that he did not know the Federal Police had this information? Did he not know that they had paid for it? Did he not know that they had copies of the tapes? Did he not know that the police spoke to Commissioner Woods about it? What sort of Ministers were they in those days? I exempt the honourable member for North Sydney. I know that he would have made a marvellous Minister and he would have cut right through that dreadful swath of inefficiency and incompetence. But it is no good his coming in here and saying that it is no use my referring to illegal events that occurred prior to 1983. They all happened under the previous administration. One hundred and forty police-a whole organisation-were cavorting around in New South Wales, tick-tacking to the Federal Police and they were getting paid 200 bucks for the information. Where is the Opposition's honesty, where is its integrity in this respect? On that basis I am telling the Opposition that it knew of these matters. The Liberal-National Party Ministers must have known of them. Can the Opposition not go back to its previous Attorney-General? Mr Spender —What about Neville? Do you say that Premier Wran knew about these things? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the honourable member is trying to shout me down in desperation. He is frightened that he will be noticed by his former Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), or his former Attorney-General, Senator Durack. The honourable member must protect them and do his best, but really they are as guilty as can be. They were administering the law of this country; the inviolate integrity of the communications system was torn to shreds by the former Government's Federal police and it knew nothing about it. In future if anybody wants to come forward with information it will have to be information obtained legitimately by a judicial warrant. If people want to come forward with information they got illegally, they will be up for the penalty which the honourable member for North Sydney wants increased-and I agree with him. We will do something about that. In the time I have at my disposal I wish to rebut what the honourable gentleman has been most anxious to put forward-that under this Government is the only time that something should have been done. I am saying: What happened beforehand? The Opposition need not worry about all the crooks who have got away. We are still trying to get them back but we still have to get many more extradition treaties because the former Government did not have any. Mr Spender —Have you extradited anybody since you have had your extradition treaties? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Await developments. The honourable member will be pleasantly surprised. It will be because of our initiative and our extradition treaties that the honourable member will see the action flowing. It did not happen when the Opposition was in government. The honourable member for North Sydney makes out that crime has burst on us all of a sudden since 1983. He should look at the Nugan Hand operations, the bottom of the harbour operations and the crook passports of the fellows whom we are still trying to catch and who left this country when the Liberal and National parties were in government. We are still trying to get them back. How did they get out of the country? One must ask oneself what sort of law administration we had at that time. Mr Porter —How did they get out? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —How did they get out of the country? It is recognised that they left with passports which were not even in their own names. They left when they knew that they might be asked to face up to some of the problems. The Opposition has the audacity to say that the Government has gone soft, that we have not done enough or that we have come up with a cowardly compromise. I know that the honourable member for North Sydney personally is innocent. Mr Hurford —You have lost me again. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the honourable member appears to be innocent. I do not want to lose my colleague; he is a valuable man. The Opposition should not come up with the statements that all the crime has happened in the last couple of years. The Taillon case, to which the honourable member referred, was a really bad legal interpretation. I have asked that we have a good look at why we should withdraw the prosecution should the situation happen again. I would be very keen to see that we go ahead with the next prosecution. Mr Spender —Since November last year. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We do not find too many people coming to Australia with that stuff in their luggage. Mr Spender —Change the law then. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have recommended that the law be changed if there is a defect in the law. I have recommended that. Mr Spender —And you are still waiting to be told. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, it does take a little while to get matters through the bureaucracy. The honourable member knows that. That would be no surprise to anybody. But I do not want people to think that we did not face up to the issue. In fact we were amazed to think that somebody would not be prosecuted. I made the point here in Question Time today. But, quite seriously, it is a matter in which we require the support of the State authorities and the law enforcement agencies right across Australia and also internationally. We will not be limited to the issue of intercepts. That will be only a small part. We must follow the movement of money across the world and we will require the co-operation of other governments. We are entering into mutual assistance treaties. We are entering into extradition treaties. The States will have to co-operate with us because the information that may be required under mutual assistance treaties will need to be available from the States. I am sure that they will co-operate. So we have a fair amount of momentum at last in this area. I know that the honourable gentleman will be pleasantly surprised at the amount of legislation that will be introduced in the Budget session dealing with the forfeiture of assets and also some new ideas. People who appear to have assets may be asked to explain whether they obtained them on a legal basis or otherwise. In other words, the onus of proof may shift. We will be leading the world in that field. On that basis, I thank the honourable gentleman for his doubtful support, in some respects, but I welcome the fact that the Opposition will participate in the Committee. I am sure that the Committee will do a very worthwhile job in determining what is the national responsibility in a telecommunications interception system and how we might best draft a piece of legislation that will satisfy not only us but also the State governments and the Government of the Northern Territory. Question resolved in the affirmative. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments-- No. 1-Page 7, paragraph 9 (2) (c), lines 15 to 31, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(c) the statutory fraction is- (i) in the case of the transitional year of tax- (A) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was more than 30,000- 0045; (B) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was not less than 18,750 and not more than 30,000-0.075; (C) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was not less than 11,250 and not more than 18,749-0.135; or (D) in any other case-0.18; and (ii) in relation to a standard year of tax- (A) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was more than 40,000-0.06; (B) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was not less than 25,000 and not more than 40,000-0.1; (C) where the annualised number of whole kilometres travelled by the car during the year of tax was not less than 15,000 and not more than 24,999-0.18; or (D) in any other case-0.24;''. No. 2-Page 46 after clause 57, insert the following new clause: Provision of benefits to employees of public benevolent institutions to be exempt ``57a. Where a public benevolent institution provides a benefit to an employee of the institution, the benefit is an exempt benefit.''. No. 3-Page 130, paragraph 143 (k), lines 4 and 5, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(k) either of the following conditions is satisfied: (i) the benefit is provided pursuant to the provisions of an industrial instrument relating to the employment of the employee; (ii) it is customary for employers in the industry in which the employee is employed to provide benefits of the same kind as the benefit provided to the recipient and to provide such benefits in similar circumstances to those that applied in relation to the provision of the benefit to the recipient.''. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.43) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. There are three amendments. One reduces the rate of tax on motor vehicles. The second one exempts public benevolent institutions from the tax. The third one is a minor technical amendment to ensure that the remote travel concessions go to all of those who qualify. All of these have been well canvassed in the community. They are well known. They are the result of negotiations with honourable senators. The changes are just marginal changes. I suppose we must expect about 15 minutes of rhetoric from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) on this subject. Of course, we must be patient while he goes on with his rhetoric. Mr Porter —Rhetoric? He just happens to represent Australia. Mr HURFORD —To suggest that he is representing Australia, as I have just heard in an interjection, is just incredible when one thinks of the general support in the community for getting rid of these tax rorts that exist. This fringe benefits tax is the final stage of a tax reform that is vital. For too long payments have been made in kind which, if they had been paid in cash, would have been taxed. The employer who was giving those benefits in kink would have also paid the tax equivalent because the employee would have expected the net amount in his hands, that is, the amount that otherwise would be taxable. It has been a rort that has not been corrected until this time. We have now said: `All right. If employers are paying these things in kind, they will have to find the tax anyway'. So be it. Of course, the way of the reformer is difficult when we have people such as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) who tries to stop all reform in this place. But I repeat that there is broad community support for what we are doing and I commend these amendments to the House. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(6.45) —Since we are talking to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986, I must say that the little turn put on just now by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) reminded me of a review on the London stage in the 1960s which was called Beyond the Fringe. In that Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Alan Bennett and, as I recall, Jonathan Miller, had a number of hilarious sketches portraying people carrying on in the manner in which the Minister just carried on, and with just as much sense. I will not recall those to the House because we have a very serious matter before us. What has happened is that from the Senate, basically because the Australian Democrats have totally failed to support the Opposition in its attempt to defeat this iniquitous measure, we have a couple of the tiddlers thrust back to us by way of amendment. One of the amendments, relating to charities, was moved by the Opposition, supported by the Democrats and not voted against by the Government-but after some grudging remarks from the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, which I shall mention shortly. The first of the amendments concerns the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles. I just say that absent from any of the amendments is any provision relating to fringe benefits on farms. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visited Canowindra last weekend, when he promised to look into this matter and claimed that he did not realise how badly the fringe benefits tax impacted on farmers. He said that he would come back and talk it over-- Mrs Sullivan —What have his rural members been telling him? What did the honourable member for Rankin tell him? Mr CARLTON —Indeed, no doubt the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) had been telling him that there were squeals in the bush about the fringe benefits tax, and quite correctly. But the Prime Minister went to Canowindra and in a tear-jerking performance agreed that these measures are very serious and will have a severe impact that he said he had not realised would be the case. Heaven forbid! He heads the Cabinet which examined and passed the legislation and pushed it through both Houses. But he said that he did not understand that it was so bad and that he would come back here and see what he could do about it. We know what happened. This week we asked him questions as to what progress he was making with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in changing the Bill while it was still in the Senate in order to remove these iniquitous and burdensome provisions on farmers. He indicated in an abject fashion that no changes would be made to the Bill. So these amendments do not cover any changes for farmers. The Prime Minister's Canowindra meeting was, as usual, an empty public relations exercise. With regard to the fringe benefits tax on cars, the motor industry, supported by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, by the South Australian Premier Mr Bannon, by the Vehicle Builders Union, by a Melbourne research institute commissioned by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, argued very strongly that the imposition of the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles would bring about a loss of some 10,000 to 20,000 jobs in the motor industry. This industry was already very sorely affected by two other Government policies: firstly, the policy of high interest rates which had hit this industry particularly badly; and, secondly, the combination of policies which led to the serious devaluation of the dollar, particular against the yen, where devaluation was by some 50 per cent. This industry was hit by those two policies, and also by the introduction of lead-free engines and by a one per cent increase in sales tax on motor vehicles. According to analysis, the industry could have weathered that storm. The resulting drop in sales could have been borne by it without loss of employment; but, on top of that, the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles, hitting as it does so severely fleet purchases, has put this industry into severe recession with cuts in sales of some 20-odd per cent and a projected loss of 10,000 to 20,000 jobs. The Government claimed that the total fringe benefits tax would yield a net revenue of $540m. It claimed that $370m of that would come from the tax on cars. The industry has estimated-again I emphasise that these estimates have been supported by Senator Button and by the Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon-that the tax would probably net $570m. It said that the Treasury had made a gross underestimation of the effect of the tax. Apparently that has been argued out between Senator Button and the Treasurer and also between the Australian Democrats and the Treasurer, neither side conceding the argument. Under a deal done between the Treasurer and the Democrats, the Democrats have moved an amendment which scales back to a degree the fringe benefits tax on cars. It has altered the rates at which the tax is levied for certain numbers of kilometres travelled per year, and it is estimated that this will reduce the take by about $200m-from $570m back to the original $370m estimated by the Treasurer. If this rather grubby deal done between the Democrats and the Treasurer works, all it will do is scale back the tax revenue take from the industry to what the Treasury said it was going to be in the first place. Therefore, all the Democrats have done on this fringe benefits tax-the people of Australia had better understand this-is to allow the Treasurer to collect all the revenue he expected he would in the first place. It will still have a substantial impact on the motor vehicle industry. Jobs will be lost, and the Democrats will share the responsibility for that with the Government. Incidentally, they will also share the responsibility for the whole of the fringe benefits tax. We will not oppose this amendment. It does ameliorate the effects of the tax, but let me say this: It is a pathetic little deal done by the Democrats. It has been a pathetic operation on their part. I also inform the House that last weekend when there were by-elections in New South Wales the Democrats candidates were approached by individual voters and attacked severely because of their supine attitude in the face of this dreadful measure. The Opposition wants to make it clear that not only what is left of the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles, which is still the most substantial part of the measure, but the whole of the fringe benefits tax legislation, will be removed from the statute books immediately we get back into office. I emphasise that for everyone all around the country. The second matter I want to deal with is the proposal to tax charitable and non-profit bodies. Honourable members will recall that in the statement of 19 September the Treasurer made some kind of promise to exempt these bodies, or at least to ameliorate the effects of the tax on them. A number of religious, charitable and non-profit bodies wrote to the Treasurer and to other members over a number of months seeking advice on how these exemptions would be implemented. They received correspondence back from the Treasurer which made it clear that he had no intention whatsoever of exempting these bodies. The pressure has been kept up. The Opposition has been pressing the Treasurer very strongly on this matter, and when the Bill finally got to the Senate we moved an amendment to exclude from the effects of the fringe benefits tax public benevolent institutions. I refer to the definition of such an organisation quoted to the Senate by Senator Peter Baume. An organisation is legally defined as a public benevolent institution if it satisfies the following tests: Its object is the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune, destitution or helplessness; it is carried on without purpose of private gain for particular persons; it is established for the benefit of a section or class of the public; and relief is available without discrimination to every member of that section of the public which the organisation claims to benefit. (Extension of time granted) The amendment moved by the Opposition and supported by the Democrats, and therefore passing through the Senate, will cover the major charitable bodies. I am told that the term `charity' could not be used in the amendment because it had a much wider definition, so the definition of public benevolent institution is the one followed. Senator Grimes, representing the Government, was scathing in his remarks about the amendment. He said: This amendment will make things clearer for St Vincent de Paul and all the great organisations in this country. As sure as eggs the money that is contributed by donors to organisations in this community will be used to provide, say, a car for private use for the manager of a sheltered workshop in this community. It will be done over and over again. We do not oppose the amendment because, firstly, we can count-- in other words, Senator Grimes saw that the Democrats were supporting the Opposition on this amendment, and although the Government would have liked to vote against it, it knew it would not win on the numbers-- and secondly, we have some concern for simplicity. In this case simplicity runs across equity and in a year or two we will be back amending the legislation again. So Senator Grimes has made it quite clear to the Australian public and to these charitable bodies that in a year of two-if he is still in office; if it is one year, maybe, but certainly not two years-the Government will be back amending the legislation again. So that is the threat from the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, who had the carriage of this Bill through the Senate. Dr Watson —Another hit list? Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honour- able member for Forde points out, another hit list is being prepared by Ministers to be put back into this measure. The Opposition tried also to introduce an additional clause providing for the exemption of employees of scientific, charitable or public educational institutions, where those institutions provide a benefit. That would have included such bodies as schools, which are not exempt under the legislation as proposed. That proposal was defeated by the combined votes of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. I make it quite clear to the Committee and to members of the Australian public that the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats voted against an amendment proposed by the Opposition to exempt schools from the fringe benefits tax. This means that schools providing residential accommodation for teachers or other employees looking after students in boarding schools will not be exempt from the fringe benefits tax. That was raised in the House by you, Mr Deputy Chairman, in your Party capacity. You asked a question of the Treasurer on this matter, and it was a matter of notoriety that the Treasurer was not able to assure you, acting on behalf of your constituents, that these bodies would be exempt. They are not exempt. We moved an amendment to try to have them exempted and that amendment was defeated by the combined vote of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. That is disgraceful. That is the miserable story of this measure. There is another relatively minor amendment-the third amendment put up by the Government relating to holidays for people living in remote places when they are not under awards. We are not against that amendment. However, I make it quite clear and put beyond any shadow of doubt that although the Opposition is supporting these amendments, the whole of the fringe benefits tax legislation will be repealed when we get back into office. It is an extraordinary tax. People are finding out day by day exactly what its ramifications are. The 56-page booklet has gone out to every employer in the country-there are hundreds of thousands of them-and Opposition members are being flooded with requests, firstly for information as to whether or not this is real-they can hardly believe it-and secondly for assistance in trying to interpret the document, which is very obscure. People wonder how it could possibly be that tax reform could actually result in legislation of this kind. We accept these amendments, tiddlers though they are, from the Senate-they make some reduction in the burdens of this dreadful tax-but we make it clear that we have in mind removing the whole of the tax from the statute books on our return to office. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.00) —in reply-I said in my opening remarks that we would have to be patient while the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) had his 15 minutes of fun. He kept to his 15-minute agreement. We have been patient. This reform will now become law. It will be very worthwhile being able to say that, in future, taxation on benefits of kind will be at the same rate as taxation on cash benefits, cash remuneration. That is a worthwhile reform. The Government is pleased to see these minor amendments go through in order for that reform to be complete. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(7.02) —Before the luncheon break today I was emphasising the fact that the Opposition does not oppose the granting of a title to the 403 hectares proposed by the Government to be given to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. However, we cannot support the granting of a title on a freehold basis which will do no more to assist the Wreck Bay community to have a sense of ownership than would a perpetual lease, the form of title available to all residents of the Australian Capital Territory. By offering the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community freehold title, we are most concerned that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has only added to the already serious rift which is developing between Aboriginal Australians and the wider community. As I said previously, for various reasons, most of which are closely related to the hype generated as a result of the Government's policies on Aboriginal welfare, there is a concern that the gulf between Aboriginal Australians and the rest of the community is getting wider. This will make the achievement of equality of opportunity that much more difficult. The system of land title in the Australian Capital Territory and the Jervis Bay territory, as is well known, is leasehold. By offering the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community freehold title, the Minister is giving them a title which no other person in the Australian Capital Territory or Jervis Bay can enjoy. Negotiations were conducted under the Fraser Government with the Wreck Bay community on the basis of a perpetual lease. This would have ensured the community a secure title to the land which they currently occupy with the extensions that are proposed by the Government and which we support. With the exception of the Northern Territory, all mainland States have given, or are in the process of negotiating, perpetual leasehold titles with Aboriginal communities which traditionally have lived on what were previously missions or reservations. Having failed to achieve the Government's policy of national land rights, and it is fortunate for the well being of the two communities that that is so-a land rights policy, incidentally, which included the concept of freehold title to Aboriginal land across Australia-the Minister should now face the fact that a policy of equality of opportunity, which I believe must be the basis of any sensible approach to Aboriginal welfare, cannot be achieved by further damaging inter-racial relations, which may well be the result of giving the Wreck Bay community freehold title which is denied everyone else. The Minister should be well aware that on the south coast in recent months, as a result of the New South Wales Government's establishment of Aboriginal land councils, considerable friction and ill will has been developing. Unfortunately, the action of this Government, in bringing the legislation before the House in this form, will do nothing to reduce that ill will and, I fear, will only exacerbate it further. The whole issue of land rights has bedevilled the Parliament and the Government for some time. We have seen its rise until the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976. That was a landmark piece of legislation which, in the fullness of time, we believe will need to be changed. I have no doubt that my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who will be speaking in this debate, will elucidate that issue much further. Many of the issues which were raised at that time and which have bedevilled the development of the Northern Territory and significantly affected in a negative sense the relationship between Northern Territory Aboriginal Australians and the rest of the population resulted finally in this Government being prepared to consider a range of amendments to the legislation. It is a matter, therefore, of profound concern to me and to the Opposition that, while the basis of the reforms which the Minister proposed to bring into the Parliament were not all that were wanted, at least they were a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Minister failed to get the support of the Caucus or of his backbench committee. Because of his concern about the reaction it could have at the forthcoming July National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, he decided not to proceed with land rights reform in terms of the Northern Territory legislation. The Minister failed to bring his draft amendments to the Parliament after they had received the general endorsement-that is all I can say of them-of the Northern Territory Government, the mining community and the Cattlemen's Council of Australia. Unfortunately, perhaps, the Northern Territory land councils did not support these proposals. However, at least he had the basis for establishing an improvement in inter-racial relations in the Northern Territory while at the same time ensuring that a methodology was put in place which would give Aboriginal communities greater flexibility and greater opportunities to develop whatever economic resources may exist on the land which has been assigned to them-their traditional land. The Government promised to introduce amending legislation during the Autumn session. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that commitment to the Northern Territory, as did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That commitment has now been broken. The current legislation, which is long overdue for review, is having a serious impact on Northern Territory development. The legislation effectively has frozen mining development as well as severely limiting the ability of Aboriginal communities to use their land. Access to land for the provision of services to Aboriginal communities and the excessive powers awarded to land councils under the original Act clearly need urgent reform. Commitments have been made by the Minister that he will bring back those reforms to the Parliament in the Budget session. I wait to see that. There is a very real risk that at the July ALP Conference the existing policy on Aboriginal land rights will be reaffirmed. In that event, I do not see how the Minister will be able to keep his commitments, commitments which he freely entered into and which to date have been broken. The whole issue of land rights, therefore, is of profound importance. This legislation-although it relates only to some 160 Aboriginals-is important because those Aboriginals are the last remaining community in Australia who have not been given access to a secure title. We support the concept of giving them that right, but with great regret we cannot support this legislation because of the fact that it is giving them a freehold title which is not available to any other resident in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Everingham —I second the amendment. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(7.10) —It is a delight to be able to wholeheartedly welcome the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986. The Bill grants 403 hectares in the Jervis Bay Territory to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. That community is to be given inalienable freehold title. The Bill also establishes the framework for government in the community by establishing a community council to be known as the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council. It is to the Council that the title to the land will be granted. The Community Council will have the power to lease the land to the residents for housing or for other purposes. Passage of this Bill will complete a prolonged stage in the development of the Wreck Bay community. The community includes mainly descendants of tribes in the Jervis Bay and Shoalhaven areas and other parts of the south coast and of the Monaro. Negotiations about this transfer have been under way for about 13 years, commencing in 1973 with the proposal for a perpetual lease. The Fraser Government made an offer of a leasehold block but those discussions also stalled. The present Government recommended negotiations in 1983 with a larger offer for the area included in this Bill and made it an offer of freehold rather than leasehold title. The Opposition is proposing that the grant be on a leasehold rather than on a freehold basis. There are many reasons why this is inappropriate, and I will mention just six. First, an offer of leasehold by the previous Government was unacceptable to the community. This is a negotiated settlement so it is important to take account of its opinion. The rest of my constituents, I am quite sure, would be strongly supportive of this Bill. Secondly, the members of that community, as distinct from the Opposition, have a commitment to justice. Thirdly, the previous Government legislated for freehold title for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, against prevailing leasehold tenure systems, so arguments that we cannot depart from prevailing leasehold systems in the Australian Capital Territory are spurious. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) accepted that. Fourthly, freehold grants are consistent with Government policy in respect of granting land rights to Australia's indigenous population. Fifthly, it is entirely reasonable for Aboriginals, given past injustice of dispossession and dispersal to be afforded a more secure title than the rest of the population. Sixthly, in any case, there is other freehold in the Australian Capital Territory. I think the honourable member for Bradfield is mistaken about that. There are a number of blocks in the Australian Capital Territory which were freehold from the very earliest days. Mr Connolly —Pre-1915 titles. Mr LANGMORE —Indeed, pre-1915. Of course, the Aboriginals were here long before 1915, so it seems to me to be absolutely logical that they should have freehold title also. It seems that the Opposition is opposed to justice for Aborigines. It is proposing what is simply a symbolic weakening because, in fact, there is very little practical difference between leasehold and freehold. The delays since 1983 in the negotiations for this transfer have been caused by division within the community. Some community members in Wreck Bay consider that a larger grant would be appropriate, based on traditional and historic usage. Last year the Government made a determined effort to achieve agreement on this proposal through extensive consultation between officials and community members, and through a visit by the Minister to the community. After these discussions and the presentation of detailed proposals and their implications, a ballot was held. Out of about 80 people eligible to vote about 35 did, and 33 supported the proposals. This is not a satisfactory mandate for going ahead with the proposal if the abstention of the others could be clearly perceived as an expression of opposition. However, it seems as though many factors were involved in the abstentions, including simply an unwillingness amongst some of the community members to express an opinion. In view of the length of the time the discussions have been going on and of the importance of taking this step, it is important to go ahead with this Bill now. There are many reasons why the Bill is important. I will mention three. The first reason is that the Government should have legislation for Aboriginal land rights in its own Territory. Land rights for Aborigines is the principal requirement for correcting the injustices of the past and establishing a sound basis for freedom and development in the future. The Opposition does not seem to accept that. The second reason for the Bill is that there is a passionate pressure for a land grant from some members of the community, though others do not seem to be particularly fussed about the issue. The third reason for the Bill is that it is essential to clarify the ownership of the land so that uncertainty about titles to housing on the land-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr WATSON(Forde)(7.15) —I would like to draw the House's attention to a most unfortunate situation within my electorate of Forde. The situation I am about to describe highlights the bureaucratic indecision which has become the trademark of this Government. It also represents just one more attack in a long line of attacks on the aged by this Government. I refer to the case of Mr and Mrs Alex Harding, who are residents of the Sinnamon Retirement Village at Seventeen Mile Rocks. For more than 50 years, Mr and Mrs Harding had enjoyed a happy marriage and a fulfilling life. Mr Harding had worked as an administrator with the Postmaster General's Department and Mrs Harding had made her career as a school teacher. Between them, I am sure they could teach this Government a thing or two about the need for forward planning to cater for future needs. Like so many people in our aged community, they deserve to be known as great Australians. They are just two of the many people who worked hard to make Australia a great nation. Mr and Mrs Harding, at the ages of 87 and 86 respectively, did not expect to be deserted by the Australian Government. But this is virtually what happened, thanks to a severe case of bungling ineptitude. Age catches up with everyone and the Hardings are no exception. After living together in the hostel section of Sinnamon Village, Mrs Harding's health reached a point where nursing home care was required. However, there was no room at the Village. There are 305 hostel residents and a further 42 residents in self-contained units at Sinnamon Village. A large proportion of them will require nursing home care in future years. But many will be disappointed, as there are only 30 nursing home beds available. Sinnamon Retirement Village is operated by the Wesley Central Mission of the Uniting Church in Australia and I am sure that all honourable members would agree that it is a caring organisation. The church is not to blame for the chronic shortage of nursing home beds at Seventeen Mile Rocks; the fault lies entirely with this Government. If the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) approved the church's long-standing application to add an extra 30 nursing home beds to the complex today, work on the project would probably start tomorrow. It is this scandalous delay in approving the application which has caused Mr and Mrs Harding so much heartache and which continues to threaten the future happiness of many of their fellow residents at Sinnamon Village. Because of the shortage of nursing home beds, the Hardings were separated for a period of six months. The administrative staff at Sinnamon Village found a bed for Mrs Harding at another Uniting Church institution within my electorate-the Bethesda Hospital at Corinda. After more than 50 years of happy marriage, Mr and Mrs Harding were separated by the incompetence of this Government. Thanks to the ever willing kindness of the staff at both Sinnamon Village and Bethesda, they were able to see each other for a couple of hours every second day. When their plight was brought to the attention of the Minister for Community Services by the Brisbane Sunday Mail, a spokesman for the Minister was quoted as saying: `There's really not much we can say; it's just a sadness'. What a way to thank two people who have given their all for Australia. And to think that this was the work of a supposedly caring Government! Everyone knows that it is a caring Government because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), his Ministers and his back benchers keep telling us it is. The Government kindly reminds us how caring it is by publishing plenty of glossy booklets and by hiring expensive billboards on highways. I doubt whether all this nonsense from the Government would impress the residents and staff at the Sinnamon Retirement Village. I am certain that it would not impress Mr and Mrs Harding. Happily, Mr and Mrs Harding are back together again as a result of a vacancy which came up in the nursing home section. This allows Mr and Mrs Harding to spend most of their time together. I am sure everyone who was aware of the Hardings's separation would be delighted for them. However, to get them back together again, the administrators had to make a tough decision of bypassing 19 of their hostel residents and 16 of their patients in other nursing homes who were waiting to get into the nursing home beds at Sinnamon Village. Anyone who has visited the complex will understand why there is a waiting list of people to enter the home. It is a first class facility, staffed by first class people and it is on a first class site adjacent to the Brisbane River. But its capacity to handle current and future needs is certainly not a first class priority of this Government. The existing 30-bed nursing home was completed in 1981 on the understanding that consideration would be given for a further 30 beds at a later time. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister visited the complex during the 1984 election. I understand he was sympathetic towards the situation. But election sympathy by the Prime Minister is simply one more thing to disregard. The Hardings's situation should never have arisen and we should not be faced with an inevitable repeat of it due to Government bungling. Let us look after the people who built Australia with genuine initiatives rather than shallow advertising campaigns. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.20) —The adjournment speech made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) on 29 May should be seen for what it is-namely, an attack on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Honourable members should be aware that that attack will intensify this year as forces of the Right try to obtain Australia's withdrawal from the world body. The speech was also an attack on Australia's Ambassador to UNESCO, the Hon. Gough Whitlam-not only an exceptional Australian but a person who has raised Australia's standing in the world body and in the developing world. I am embarrassed that I, an ordinary back bencher, should seek to speak to defend the Ambassador, but that embarrassment is tempered when I think of the right wing political lightweight who has dared to question the actions of the Ambassador and who has pathetically attempted to discredit him. It is interesting that the honourable member should have based his information on an article in News Weekly, a publication that has long since ceased to be on the reading list of most objective thinking people in Australia or other countries. The article was written by Peter Samuel, a hack of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the activities of which I have raised in this chamber before. I have a copy of the article here and a reading of it illustrates the bias of the author. The issue to which the honourable member referred is related to an initiative of the Geneva Group, comprising members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which each contribute more than one per cent of the budget of the United Nations specialised agencies. A meeting of the Geneva Group on 20-21 March 1986 agreed on the principle of an Australian proposal that there should be a limit of two terms on the tenure in office of the heads of specialised agencies and other United Nations bodies. The Government's interest in this matter is spelt out clearly in an answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to a question asked by the honourable member-No. 2388, in Hansard of 29 November 1985, at page 4268. In view of the answer provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 28 May, I am amazed that the honourable member for Wentworth should make the speech that he did on 29 May. After the meeting of 20-21 March, a further meeting of the Geneva Group on 11 April agreed that the proposal should be taken up formally by the Co-Chairman of the Group with the agency head. The question of when this would be done was deferred pending further Group consultations on 30 April. Reflecting Australia's concern that the Geneva Group's proposal should be discussed with the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr M'Bow, before the UNESCO Executive Board and special committee meetings beginning on 28 April, Mr Whitlam convoked meetings of Western UNESCO delegates on 16 and 22 April and indicated at the latter meeting that it was his intention to pass on to Mr M'Bow a copy of the Geneva Group proposal and to circulate copies to all Executive Board members. On 23 April he called on Mr M'Bow and gave him a summary of the decisions of the Geneva Group meeting. He also wrote to all Executive Board members on 24 April. Madam Speaker, there is no secrecy about this letter. I have a copy of it and I am happy to table it. Indeed, I can supply a copy of the letter to anyone who wants it, or, as the Ambassador will be in Australia this week, I suggest that those who are so interested should ask him for a copy of his letter of 24 April. The claims made by the honourable member for Wentworth have no foundation at all. This was spelt out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 28 May. I am sure that the honourable member for Wentworth was too thick to understand the position, but, given his bias and his right wing associations, I suppose we should not be too surprised. I have said before that the forces of the Right will do everything in their power to discredit UNESCO and, indeed, our Ambassador. I totally reject the claims made by the honourable member for Went- worth, as indeed, would all thinking Australians. Mr Whitlam's action was not a breach of confidentiality, since it had always been intended that the tenure of Directors-General and other Geneva Group concerns would be discussed with all the heads of agencies, including Mr M'Bow. The action was not contrary to instructions from Canberra given the concern that had been expressed that Mr M'Bow should be briefed on the proposal before the Executive Board meeting. I suppose the honourable member for Went- worth wants to reassure the Right, not only in Australia but throughout the world, of his credentials before he leaves this Parliament. I find it unbelievable that the honourable member for Wentworth should persist with this fiction that the Ambassador to UNESCO somehow leaked information, and, as offensive and unpalatable as it might be to the honourable member for Wentworth, the Sydney Morning Herald headline of 29 May is true-`Whitlam did not leak UN documents'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the honourable member for Throsby seeking leave to table a paper? Mr HOLLIS —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Connolly —I have to see the document before I can give leave. Madam SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable member for Throsby could show the document to the honourable member for Bradfield while I call the honourable member for Wentworth. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(7.25) —I hope that the document is tabled; anything coming from the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is worth a good laugh, so I hope it gets tabled. I am disappointed in the honourable member's speech. It was a pitiful effort. The honourable member had the courtesy to advise me that he was going to give that speech-and I thank him for that-and I hoped that he would have been well briefed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) or possibly by Ambassador Whitlam and that he would have something interesting to say. The honourable member established only that he was incapable of reading the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to my question, in which the Minister plainly confirmed that Ambassador Whitlam has made an unauthorised disclosure, unauthorised by the Geneva Group, to Mr M'Bow. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that; that is the only possible reading of his answer. I will refer further to that matter in a moment. The poor old honourable member for Throsby was incapable of reading and interpreting correctly the answer provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Before making further comments, perhaps I may say, Madam Speaker, that I consider the honourable member's attacks on personalities in the course of his speech, and on publications, contemptible as well as pitiful. To refer to a very widely and justly respected journalist such as Peter Samuel as a hack is disgusting. To refer to him as somehow or other a hack of the `right wing'-to quote the honourable member-Heritage Foundation is stupid, because he is an employee of News Limited. He is the Washington-based correspondent for the Australian newspaper. While the honourable member may despise the Australian as a newspaper, nevertheless, the person who is the Washington-based correspondent of that newspaper is a person to be taken seriously and respected for what he says, and, indeed, he is respected for what he says-unlike the honourable member for Throsby, who is the laughing stock of his own electorate as well as this Parliament. The honourable member for Throsby also saw fit to bucket the respected weekly magazine News Weekly, which is published by the National Civic Council and edited by Peter Westmore and, of course, associated with that great Australian Mr Bob Santamaria, whose contribution to the history of this country is great and will be seen to be even greater as the years pass and the history of this period gets written. I come to the follies of the honourable member. I assume, by the way, that Peter Samuel submitted his article to the Australian, and the Australian saw fit to use something else, and he therefore submitted it, as an alternative, to News Weekly. News Weekly published his article, which referred to an incoming telegram message received at the State Department addressed to the Unites States Secretary of State, George Shultz, from the United States Mission in Geneva, which said that the United States Mission has been told by the United Kingdom Co-Chairman of the Geneva Group of Western Ambassadors that the Australian Ambassador to the Unites Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation had made unauthorised disclosures of decisions of the Geneva Group to Mr M'Bow. I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to confirm that. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) preferred to delay and to leave it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs came back and gave the answer on 27 May. The answer referred to the following order of events. The Geneva Group had met on 20 and 21 March and agreed on an Australian proposal to limit to two years the terms of Mr M'Bow and other heads of agencies. They had another meeting on 11 April at which they decided that this proposal should be taken up with Mr M'Bow. I correct an error, arising as a result of speed reading: They also decided that the question of when this would be taken up with Mr M'Bow would be deferred pending further group consultations on 30 April. One week before the important meeting on 30 April, and this is what the Foreign Minister said, Mr Whitlam, the ambassador called on Mr M'Bow and spilt the lot. There is no suggestion of secrecy; he did not make any secret of it. If by `leak' one insists on something furtive and secret, which is a reasonable way of using the word `leak', it was not a leak in that sense because it was not secret. Mr Whitlam made no secret of the fact that he intended to make an unauthorised disclosure-unauthorised by the Geneva Group-and that is what he proceeded to do. On 23 April, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, he called on Mr M'Bow and gave him a summary of the decisions of the Geneva Group meeting, when the Geneva Group, according to the Foreign Minister, had decided that there would be no meeting with Mr M'Bow until the date had been settled one week after Mr Whitlam spilt the facts to Mr M'Bow. So, for whatever reason, he decided to make an unauthorised exposure to Mr M'Bow. The point in my raising the matter is that as Mr Samuel reports the matter: At least one United States Department officer is outraged that Australia through Ambassador Whitlam has been leaking information about confidential Western decisions and breaching understood Western arrangements-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(7.30) —I would like to continue reading into Hansard a passage from the New England Journal of Medicine Nobel Peace Prize lecture `Prescription for Hope' and I trust that honourable members will all listen carefully: Perhaps the signal accomplishment of the Inter- national Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has been the broadbase, free-flowing dialogue between physicians in two contending power blocs. We heed Einstein's words: ``Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.'' In a world riven with confrontation and strife, the IPPNW has become a model for cooperation among physicians from East and West, from North and South. Paranoid fantasies of a dehumanized adversary cannot withstand the common pursuit of healing and preventing illness. Our success in forging such cooperation derives largely from an insistent avoidance of linkage with problems that have embittered relations between the great powers. We have resisted being sidetracked to other issues, no matter how morally lofty. Combating the nuclear threat has been our exclusive preoccupation, since we are dedicated to the proposition that to ensure the conditions of life, we must prevent the conditions of death. Ultimately, we believe people must come to terms with the fact that the struggle is not between different national destinies-between opposing ideologies-but between catastrophe and survival. All nations share a linked destiny; nuclear weapons are their shared enemy. We must hold fast to the dream that reason will prevail. The world today is full of anguish and dread. As great as the danger is, still greater is the opportunity. If science and technology have catapulted us to the brink of extinction, the same ingenuity has brought humankind to the boundary of an age of abundance. Never before was it possible to feed all the hungry. Never before was it possible to shelter all the homeless. Never before was it possible to teach all the illiterate. Never before were we able to heal so many afflictions. For the first time, science and medicine can diminish drudgery and pain. Only those who see the invisible can do the impossible. But in order to do the impossible, we must ask, in the words of Jonathan Schell, `not only for our personal survival, we ask only that we be survived. We ask for assurance that when we die as individuals, as we know we must, mankind will live on.' When questioned about his approach to sculpture, Michelangelo replied that he simply cut away the stone surrounding his vision. We in the physicians' movement will not grow discouraged as we chip away at the granite massif that obstructs our vision of a world freed from the spectre of nuclear war. If we are to succeed, this vision must possess millions of people. We must convince each generation that they are but transient passengers on this planet earth. It does not belong to them. They are not free to doom generations yet unborn. They are not at liberty to erase humanity's past or dim its future. Only life itself can lay claim to sacred continuity. The magnitude of the danger and its imminence must bring the human family together in a common pursuit of the peace that has been denied throughout this century. On the threshold of a new millenium, the achievement of world peace is no longer remote, for it is beckoned by the unleashing of the deepest spiritual forces embedded in humankind, when threatened with extinction. The reason, the creativity, and the courage that human beings possess foster an abiding faith that what humanity creates, humanity can and will control. Mr COBB(Parkes)(7.35) —I have just returned from attending an international world peace conference held in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. About 200 delegates attended from 85 countries around the world, and I was honoured to be asked by the Bulgarian Agrarian Party, which sponsored the conference, to represent the National Party as Australia's representative. The Bulgarian Agrarian Party, which is guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in the Bulgarian Parliament, works almost as one with its majority colleague, the Bulgarian Communist Party. However, the Bulgarian Agrarian Party is partly concerned with the activities and welfare of people from the rural areas. It may seem odd to some that a political party would go to the expense to host such a peace conference. However, the genuine concern of the Bulgarian people for peace was evident throughout the country. In fact, one of the things that struck me was the magnitude of the concern that European people in general have for peace, and in particular their fear of the consequences of a nuclear war. Of all the communist countries in the world, Bulgaria would be the closest to Russia. The historical connections between Bulgaria and Russia have much to do with this. All Bulgarians are taught that in 1878 Russia laid down 200,000 lives in helping Bulgaria free itself from 500 years of Turkish rule. That happened of course under the rule of the tsars. In 1944, Russia was again instrumental in helping release Bulgaria from the grip of the unpopular fascist influence. It is of interest, too, that two Bulgarian brothers, Cyril and Methodius, invented the cyrillic alphabet in 1853. This is always used in Bulgaria in preference to our alphabet and has of course been adopted by Russia. I believe Serbia in Yugoslavia is the only other part of the world where the cyrillic alphabet is in use. Add to that the fact that Bulgaria does 70 per cent of its trade with Russia and one can see the close ties between the two countries. Russian flags fly from buildings in every direction one turns in Bulgaria. In one parade I witnessed hundreds upon hundreds of Russian flags flying beside the white, green and red Bulgarian flag. One would have to go to Canada, to see United States flags flying there, to witness anything remotely comparable with that in the West. Bulgaria is an unknown country to many Australians. At 110,000 thousand square kilometres in area, it is over 10 per cent less than the size of my own electorate, Parkes. Its population is over nine million. Today it has a standard of living probably the highest of any communist country, though still much lower than ours. The average wage is equivalent to about $60 a week. However, some of the basic things are ridiculously cheap. For example, public transport costs only about 6 cents a ride and State-sponsored holiday housing is but a few dollars a day. Like most communist countries, there is little on sale to buy apart from the basics. Though the country is developing a degree of light industry, Bulgaria is still basically an agricultural country. Due to the presence of large areas of fertile soils, it produces ample food and most people eat well. However, mechanisation in many areas is poor and it is a common sight to see rows of peasant women with their backs bent weeding the fields. Of course all adults, including all women, have to work in Bulgaria. Much of the grass is cut with scythes and pitchforked onto little carts pulled by donkeys to storage areas for winter fodder. Unfortunately, the Chernobyl radiation disaster meant that high proportions of this year's crop grown outside hothouses had to be destroyed. Bulgaria has much beauty, verdant forests, snow-capped mountains, ancient monasteries and fertile fields. Unfortunately, a photochemical smog seems to hang over much of the country, reducing visibility of such breathtaking wonders. Most of the several hundred delegates and observers at the international peace conference were from hard left or left-wing organisations. A few were from the centre parties, such as the West German and Luxembourg delegates, and I guess I was the only genuine right-winger present. Naturally, at such a gathering many anti-American words were spoken and many pro-Russian ones, too. My own thoughts, for example, on the horrors that Russia is perpetrating in Afghanistan did not win much acceptance. However, the conference brought home to me the need to work for peace wherever practically possible, and the genuine desire for peace of most people in the world. Mr Hollis —Hear, hear! Mr COBB —I am glad to hear support from the Labor benches. The President of the World Peace Council, Romesh Chandra, spoke twice to the delegates present. Not only is he a committed member of the Indian Communist Party, but his loathing of the United States shone through his every word. I found his bitter, one-sided rhetoric completely unacceptable for a person in his position. The man talked of hate, not of love. He left the conference a day early to fly to Moscow. I can only suggest that, if the World Peace Council wishes to be taken seriously about peace and is not just a left-wing mouthpiece for Russian propaganda, it rid itself of this biased person in place of a more even-handed leader. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Earlier in the adjournment debate, the honourable member for Throsby asked leave to have a paper tabled. Leave has been refused. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(7.40) —Madam Speaker, I want to speak tonight on a topic on which I have not spoken for a long time; that is, the death of political philosophy, especially in the Liberal Party in this country. When I wrote my book five years ago I talked about the Liberal Party as a coalition of conservative and liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, since then, especially in recent times, one can say quite clearly and categorically that, except for about half a dozen people here, liberalism is dead within the so-called Liberal Party. There is no more a liberal philosophy arising in Australia. As I said, there are about half a dozen isolated individuals left on the Opposition side who have some belief in the traditional principles of liberalism as espoused by John Stuart Mill and others, but the vast majority now, I think, can be classified only as big `C' Conservatives-ultra-right wing conservatives in their philosophy, a conservatism not of the traditional kind, but a conservatism defined in more recent terms by American writers such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and others who have adopted extraordinary ideas in the resolution of problems. Let me just go through some of these ideas and how different they are from traditional liberal concepts of the past. People such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman have openly stated such principles as the promotion of inequality being itself a good thing. To sum it up more crudely, if the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, then everyone is better off. That sort of principle is, unfortunately, now penetrating the highest echelons of the present leadership of the Liberal Party. In my view it is a very serious development in Australian politics because it is a promotion of what is clearly an immoral philosophical perspective. A philosophical perspective which entrenches inequality, which entrenches these sorts of principles, can lead only to a dangerous division in society and the very kind of class hatred that the Opposition, when in government, used to be very fond of accusing the Labor Party of promoting. There is no doubt whatsoever that the non-liberal philosophy, the big `C' Conservative philosophy that now dominates the misnamed Liberal Party, is a philosophy that is promoting a morality that must be unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians who believe in the principles of egalitarianism, who believe in principles of fairness. These developments in the Liberal Party are not only a serious worry for the members of the Liberal Party, but indeed a serious worry for all those who are concerned with the historical development of Australian democracy. What we have seen in recent times is a situation in which the Opposition has moved so far to the right that it has become a dangerous instrument, a dangerous opposition. The policies we have heard leaked from the Opposition in the last few days, notwithstanding the fact that they have been discredited by all the Ministers here, are nevertheless dangerous policies because they are extremely divisive and are based, as I have said, on the abandonment of the traditional liberal principles on which the Liberal Party was founded. The Leader of the Opposition had the gall to appeal to the spirit of Robert Menzies, would you believe, in his remarks. If one looks at the foundation principles of the Liberal Party when Robert Menzies formed it and looks at what he rejected and at what he accepted, one sees very clearly that what Robert Menzies rejected were the very points and principles John Howard is now promoting. He made it perfectly clear that the new Liberal Party would be different from the previous conservative party. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(7.45) —I rise to speak tonight about the Government's decision not to proceed with the international terminal at Brisbane Airport. Whilst this airport does not lie within my electorate now, it did when I was in the Senate. The matter of entry of international tourists into Brisbane is one that is very important to my electorate, which looks forward to a large number of international tourists in the future. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has made many statements on this subject. Most latterly, on 24 April, he is quoted in the Courier-Mail as saying that the present international terminal is adequate. He continued: The Brisbane international terminal is quite able to meet the needs of the community for some years to come. It is statements such as those that make me wonder who is advising the Minister and, indeed, whether he has ever set foot in the terminal certainly whether he has set foot in it lately. Earlier this year he wrote a letter to the Queensland Tourist Industry Association in which he made the following statement: Extensions and modifications . . . have proved to be adequate to meet the needs of international air travellers . . . The present terminal is capable of handling 890 arriving and 890 departing passengers in each hour. That letter contained many assertions and statements, but the one about 890 people coming in and 890 people going out really is breathtaking. The statement that the extensions and modifications have proved to be adequate to meet the needs of international travellers flies in the face of all the statements and complaints received about the international terminal in Brisbane. Very recently, a representative of Japanese tourists complained about the inadequacies of the terminal, and yet the Minister says that there are very few complaints. Let me return to the arrival system and the number of people this terminal can handle. On 15 April 1986 the Courier-Mail printed an article which detailed the actual time taken to go through the procedures on arrival at Brisbane international airport until leaving the terminal. It detailed the story of one tourist who took nearly an hour and a half from the time his flight landed at Brisbane until he actually stepped outside the Customs area. As someone who has had occasion to arrive and depart from Brisbane when travelling overseas, I assure the House that that is an average sort of experience, taking into account that it takes about 15 minutes from when one's flight lands until one is allowed off the plane, because of quarantine regulations. So the story is no exaggeration. However, the Minister's statement that the terminal is capable of holding 890 arriving and 890 departing passengers each hour is a wild exaggeration. The Minister should take to task the people who put these sorts of words into his mouth or into letters he has to sign. Anybody who is familiar with that terminal, which is simply a converted machinery shed, would boggle at how it could possibly hold that number of passengers, let along their relatives and friends. My information is that the concourse has a total of 509 seats; so for those people who are going to be arriving at the rate of 890 an hour and who are leaving at the same rate a really hopeless situation would arise. I put this to honourable members: That number of arriving and departing passengers amounts to approximately three nearly full Jumbos arriving and departing per hour; that is one either arriving or leaving every 20 minutes. There is not room for that number of people to stand shoulder to shoulder in the Brisbane international terminal, let alone go through all the formalities they have to go through. In the article to which I have referred the Senior Assistant Collector of Customs in Brisbane, a Mr Mark Kerwick, said: We have an ideal processing time for jumbos . . . one minute per passenger at each primary officer in the arrival hall is what we aim for . . . My calculations tell me that means that, at the rate of one minute per passenger, 60 passengers will be processed per officer per hour under optimum circumstances. Mr Kerwick went on to explain why that always goes awry. Eight hundred and ninety passengers would need 15 Customs officers working at full speed under optimum circumstances and there are five Customs desks in the entire terminal. It is not physically possible for the officers to handle that number of people, even at maximum speed. Anyone arriving can expect friends and family to wait at least an hour before one comes through the doors. As I have said, the sort of crowding that that would lead to is mind-boggling for anyone who is familiar with this terminal. It is absolutely absurd for the Minister to be given silly information such as that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(7.50) —I wish to respond to some statements made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). In his pathetic defence of the extreme right wing of Australian politics he had the gall to describe Bob Santamaria as a good Australian. I would like to quote a really good Australian who would have had a better knowledge of the Bob Santamarias of this country. I refer to an adjournment speech of the late Arthur Calwell on 23 February 1972. He was more fortunate than I am; he had 10 minutes in which to speak. He stated: I have made a lot of mistakes in my life and I have gone on record as saying that half the problems that I have encountered in life I have created for myself. I do not think I have to make any more concessions to my political enemies than that. But I made a great mistake on this occasion and I want to put the record straight because apparently the Department of Defence cannot find any of the records nor can the Department of Labour and National Service. In 1942 I was approached by the late Archbishop Mannix of Melbourne through his Vicar-General asking me to obtain exemptions from military service for Messrs Santamaria, Mitchell and Maher on the grounds that they were members of the secretariat of Catholic Action and that their work was equivalent to that of a minister of religion. I agreed to do this. Had I known what was to happen in the future I would not have done it, but I accept the responsibility for what I did. I had a fondness for the late Archbishop Mannix and I say unashamedly that I actually wept when I knew he had died. I saw him arrive in Australia and I saw him die. In the same adjournment speech Arthur Calwell went on to say: I want the country to know that 3 men who have been pestering, opposing and demonstrating against the Australian Labor Party for the last 30 years dodged military service-even though I was responsible for it-and others had to take their place. I hate the fact that these people who benefited from an act of generosity on the part of the Curtin Labor Government lived to become vicious opponents of the Labor Party in the Vietnam war and supported the conscription of Australians to fight in that filthy, immoral, indefensible, genocidal civil war. I regret too that the people who benefited from our generosity did not beget any children who went out to fight in the war in Vietnam which we described as immoral. Their sons were exempted, all of them, because they were employed in reserved institutions as were their fathers. At this point the then honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Clyde Cameron, interjected: Were they of military age at the time? Arthur Calwell responded: Of course they were. None of these breeds served in any war to defend Australia yet they are standing over this Government and saying: `Do not let the Russians come into the Indian Ocean because they can menace the security of Australia. We have no right to tell the Russians, the Americans, the Japanese or anybody else where they shall deploy their fleets. I do not like the idea of a Japanese fleet again in the Indian Ocean but I am not going to associate myself with any attempt by anybody to tell the Russians that they must not deploy their fleet or any of their ships in the Indian Ocean. I would welcome the Russians to the Indian Ocean because in the world of today I would rather see in the Indian Ocean powerful people who might be friendly to us than make enemies of them so that they will be opposed to us in the future. I do not want war. I do not want violence. I always want peace and I think it behoves me, in conscience, to tell the truth about these particular creatures whom I have mentioned tonight. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(7.55) —I thought we had heard the last of the sort of sectarian rubbish that we have just heard from the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), but it is obviously still alive and galloping well in the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. I wish to bring to the attention of this House a couple of incidents which graphically illustrate that since 7 March 1984 all Australians are no longer equal before the law, at least those laws administered by this Federal Labor Government. Of course, 7 March 1983 was the day when Mr Hawke took over as Prime Minister of this country and solemnly promised us a government for all Australians. It appears that he meant to say: `A government for all Australians who voted Labor and preferably who also held high office in a militant union'. The rest of us could make our own arrangements. The incidents to which I refer involve infringements of Federal laws and regulations governing access to Kakadu National Park, the Canberra controlled park which so far covers 14,000 square kilometres of the top of my electorate. One incident involved four university students and a single overnight camping episode. The other is an episode rather than an incident as it involved a score or more of people and systematic breaches of the law continued, despite the full glare of publicity, for more than 100 days. On 16 May last year a student from Armidale University and three companions camped in Kakadu without appropriate authority and in a place reserved, in the parlance of the park's Commonwealth administrators, `for authorised persons only'. Next morning a ranger came upon them, read the riot act, noted that there was no damage to the camp site and said that they could probably expect a letter of warning over the incident. One of the students, Colin Campbell, did not receive his letter of warning. He must have been picked out as a good man to make an example of. Late last year a policeman from Lightning Ridge drove to his parents' property near Collarenabri and hit young Colin Campbell with a summons to be answered in Darwin's Magistrates Court on 8 February this year. Colin Campbell wrote to the court asking for leniency. He explained that it was his first brush with the law and the financial impracticability of a university student returning all the way to Darwin to plead his case. This was all to no avail. For trespassing in the Commonwealth's National Park for just one night Colin Campbell was fined $500. Colin Campbell and his three mates were not the only people camped illegally in Kakadu National Park on 16 May last year. Just up the road, outside the Mudginberri abattoir lease, were between 20 to 30 illegal campers. By 16 May they had been there a couple of weeks and they stayed for another three months or so. Everyone knew they were there-the park rangers, the Australian Federal Police, the nominal owner of Kakadu, Professor Derrick Ovington, and also his boss who is, of course, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). I can guarantee that Minister Cohen knew because I and Ministers of the Northern Territory Government told him in a series of telexes and letters, just in case he somehow missed the story in the national media. These illegal campers did not just trespass in Kakadu overnight during a sightseeing tour; they set up a semi-permanent camp and lit fires for cooking. I am not too sure what they did about rubbish and toilet facilities, but I do know-so does everybody, including the Minister-that they broke just about every rule in the book during their occupation of this environmentally sensitive park. The difference is that these campers carried union tickets issued by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and were carrying out union orders to close down the Mudginberri abattoir, even though that abattoir was working under an industrial court approved award. This illegal picket line was operating outside the laws of this country and for more than 100 days it flagrantly breached the environmental laws in Kakadu which Professor Ovington and Minister Cohen are charged to uphold. The illegal campers were not charged during their long occupation of the park. They were not even warned off the area or told to put out their fires. No $500-a-day prosecutions were launched against them by this Government. The situation stinks. I am embarrassed, as member for the Northern Territory, that on vast tracts of land in my electorate, controlled by the grubby fingers of this Government, there is one law for the political friends of the Minister even when they are bent on industrial sabotage-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 4 June 1986: Defence Act-Determination-1986-No. 29-Airconditioning Allowance and Recreation Leave. Fisheries Act- Notice, No. 161. Plan of Management-No. 7-Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plant (Amendment). Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986-No. 3-Marine, Part 50. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor- General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Trade Practices Revision Act 1986-Provisions other than sections 1, 2, 31 and 35, sub- sections 49 (1), 51 (1) and 64 (1) and Part III-1 June 1986. Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Act 1986-1 June 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1505) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 August, 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1) Prime (9570, 2550 and 2250 minicomputers) and Perkin Elmer (3230). The Prime 9570 is linked to Sytek networking equipment and Remington/NBI word processors. (2) (a) The Prime 9570 will provide the basis for the Department's management support systems. The Prime 2550 processes information for purposes of marine search and rescue, coastal surveillance, ship and fishing reports and advice on navigational hazards. The Prime 2250 facilitates processing of Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme claims. The Perkin Elmer provides ADP support for the research studies and other activities undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics. (b) The Prime systems were installed in January 1986, December 1984 and November 1985 respectively, and the Perkin Elmer in mid-1983. (c) Prime 9570-$448,439; Prime 2550-$328,211; Prime 2250-$58,334; Perkin Elmer-$120,000. (d) All systems listed in (1) above have an anticipated life of 7 years. (e) There are presently no plans to replace the Prime systems. The Perkin Elmer is to be upgraded in 3 years' time. (3) The Prime 9570 and 2250 systems and the Perkin Elmer 3230 are used exclusively by the Department of Transport. Relevant information compiled in the operation of the Prime 2550 is made available to other federal authorities with an interest in coastal surveillance matters. AUTHORITIES As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities, the Australian National Railways Commission (AN) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. Both AN and ANL are required by legislation to operate as commercial business undertakings and both are in substantial competition with private sector operators. I am advised that AN and ANL consider that certain information sought by the honourable member is of a commercial confidential nature and should not be disclosed to their competitors. I am therefore not prepared to authorise its disclosure. Australian National Railways Commission (AN) (1) FACOM and PRIME systems. (2) (a) General office automation; (b) 1982 and 1984 respectively; (c) Commercial confidential. (3) Commercial confidential. Australian Shipping Commission (ANL) (1) FACOM 180 and 360 systems. (2) (a) General financial, accounting and commercial operations; (b) 1981 and 1984 respectively; (c) to (e) Commercial confidential. (3) Commercial confidential. Inter-State Commission (ISC) (1) Wang and IBM computer systems. (2) (a) Both systems form part of the Commission's general office automation; (b) November 1984 and June 1985 respectively; (c) Combined cost for both systems of $112,884; (d) Both systems have an anticipated life of 5 years; (e) Planning is underway for replacements during the next 5 years. (3) The Inter-State Commission is the exclusive user. (Question No. 3181) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) What are the operations of Cabarlah Army Base Queensland. (2) Have its operations changed in recent times. (3) Are there any proposals to shift the base to another site. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 7 Signal Regiment and 72 Electronic Warfare Squadron are located at Borneo barracks Cabarlah. 7 Signal Regiment is an army communications unit conducting a variety of communications related tasks including operating a radio receiving station. The role of 72 Electronic Warfare Squadron is to provide electronic warfare support to a division. (2) No. However a review of the long term operations of 7 Signal Regiment has been conducted in part because of the question of continued operation in an environment of increasing radio interference. It concluded that provided the rate of growth of man-made interference in the adjacent area is not significantly accelerated the Regiment's activities can be adjusted without major detriment to Australian Defence Force operations. Also 7 Signal Regiment has been tasked to provide some communications related training to RAN, and possibly later, RAAF trainees. 7 Signal Regiment already conducts this training for Army students. RAN instructors and students are being phased in at the 7 Signal Regiment. They are making use of existing facilities at Cabarlah. There is no change to the role of 72 Electronic Warfare Squadron. (3) No. (Question No. 3313) Mr Slipper asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: Is there any office of a Government department or instrumentality that does not have a portrait of the Queen placed prominently on the wall; if so, will the Government ensure that portraits of the Queen are placed on the walls of offices of Government departments and instrumentalities in prominent places so that they are clearly visible to members of the public. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Material displayed on walls of offices of Government buildings and establishments is a matter for determination by senior officers of the departments and agencies concerned. Prints of photographs of the Queen are readily available to Government departments and agencies and members of the community from my Department under the Government's national symbols free issue program. (Question No. 3990) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: Does the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Have any responsibility to assist the Australian people in emergencies such as major fires, floods, or cyclones or damage to Australian towns and cities by enemy action: if so, does the ADF have (a) contingency plans, (b) forces and (c) material to carry out that responsibility. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The provision of assistance to the Australian people in emergencies such as major fires, floods or cyclones or damage to Australian towns or cities by enemy action is the responsibility of the authorities of the States or Territories concerned. This assistance is provided in the first instance by the professional service of the appropriate State or Territory, backed up by local volunteer organisations. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) may be requested to assist by the provision of personnel, equipment, facilities or equipment to perform tasks which are the responsibility of these civil authorities or organisations, and for which they lack the necessary equipment or personnel. The ADF has a contingency plan and instructions which outline the procedures to be followed to assist the civil community in the event of a disaster. Specific plans relating to damage caused by enemy action have not been prepared. The ADF does not have specific forces or material earmarked for this assistance. In the event of assistance being required by the civil community, ADF personnel and material are diverted from their normal function.