Tuesday, 12 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —In order to permit the live radio broadcast of both the May economic statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the reply by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has decided to transfer the parliamentary broadcast from the Senate to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 13 May 1987. To maintain the balance of allocation between the Houses, this will be offset by a transfer from the House of Representatives to the Senate for today. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister to assure the Parliament and the people of Tasmania that his Government is not considering withholding $50m in funds from the Tasmanian Government because it would hurt the ordinary people of Tasmania whom he is supposed to represent. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker-- Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I have not finished the question. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry. Mr HOWARD —Perhaps I ought to start again. Will the Prime Minister assure the Parliament and the people of Tasmania that he is not considering withholding $50m in funds from the Tasmanian Government in the context of the current attitude of the Tasmanian Parliament regarding the replacement of Senator Grimes in the Senate? Mr HAWKE —The strong, vigorous and even violent concern of the Leader of the Opposition for the interests of the people of Tasmania is touching. It is in stark contrast to the absence of his concern for the interests of the people of Tasmania which is involved in the refusal of the Premier of Tasmania, his Liberal Party colleague, to abide by the constitutional conventions and practices which, if adhered to, would ensure that they would have their interests properly represented in this Parliament. The strength and vehemence of his words in this respect contrast markedly with the feebleness of the way in which he has attempted to give support to the constitutional convention. As I had cause to say yesterday, the feebleness of this embattled Leader of the Opposition stands in stark contrast to the strong, vigorous and principled statement by the Leader of the National Party. At least on this issue the National Party and its leadership have shown strength and have shown principle. The answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition is quite simple: I, as distinct from the Premier of Tasmania, will not play with the interests of the people of Tasmania and there is no substance or basis in the question addressed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PRICE —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the Government's strategy behind the May statement? Mr HAWKE —The May statement will represent a continuation of the unprecedented fiscal discipline which this Government has displayed over the past four years. As we on this side of the House have said, the Government and the Treasurer will sit for their test on Wednesday night when the Treasurer, on behalf of the Government, delivers the May statement; and the Leader of the Opposition will sit for his test when he replies on the following night. I might say that on this occasion the electorate will not be satisfied with the scissors and paste job which passed for a reply to the Budget last year. As I have said before, the Government has established a track record of sustained fiscal discipline. The Leader of the Opposition set his own standards, by which his reply will be judged, when he said on 17 February this year: `I am not prepared to put my name to any tax policy that does not add up. I am not prepared, nor will my Party be prepared, to suspend the laws of arithmetic in tax policy or in any other area'. That statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition in February. We know that the national priorities project showed us last week-- Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, can we turn the volume down? He is dominating the whole chamber. Mr Madam SPEAKER-Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The national priorities project showed us last week one horrendous way of cutting $12 billion, which is needed to help bridge the $16 billion credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity on Thursday to embrace that set of cuts of the national priorities project, to come up with some other list or to repudiate his extravagant tax and spending promises. This Government has pursued a policy of consensus as it has gone about its task of the formulation of policy. I must say that a consensus is now starting to emerge in the community on the need for the Leader of the Opposition to present his fully funded tax policy. That consensus which is emerging in the community involves these people: Members of the Government believe that he should do it; Mr Elliott, the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, believes that he should produce it; Mr Andrew Hay believes that he should do it; and the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, who does not think that the present Leader of the Opposition is a camel's backside as a leader, said on Sunday that he should produce it. May I say in conclusion that I would think that in particular the Leader of the Opposition should have very much in his mind, as I have no doubt the honourable member for Kooyong has in his mind, the stricture which the present Leader of the Opposition, who was the then shadow Treasurer, addressed to the Leader of the Opposition in 1984. I think that the honourable member for Kooyong has probably sent the note back to the current Leader of the Opposition. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he had the temerity to say to the honourable member for Kooyong when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1984. His note of 24 October is, I believe, very relevant for the Leader of the Opposition to have in mind when he prepares his address for Thursday night. This is what the then shadow Treasurer addressed to the then Leader of the Opposition on 24 October 1984: As you are aware, I have been-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The question that was addressed to the Prime Minister concerned the strategies of this Government for the mini-Budget. By no stretch of any meaning of the word `relevance' could his present rambling answer be called an answer-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has already announced that he is in conclusion. Mr HAWKE —Poor old Clarence. This is what the then shadow Treasurer addressed to the honourable member for Kooyong when he was Leader of the Opposition: As you are aware, I have been concerned for some time at the cost of many of our commitments. In particular you will recall my reservations about the consequences of many of our policy commitments as they were being made over recent months. I remain very concerned that in the election campaign in which we are alleging that the deficit is too high, that spending has run away underneath Labor, and in which there is a general perception of reasonable, competent economic management under the Hawke Government- that is still true- we will be extremely vulnerable if Labor can successfully put the tag of `where's the money coming from' on our election offerings. He had the temerity to put that to the then Leader of the Opposition. Those words will come back to haunt the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday night when he will fail the test he so gratuitously put to his predecessor. Mr SINCLAIR —Is the Treasurer aware of the serious downturn in new housing commencements in regional Australia, in particular as illustrated by a recent survey of country New South Wales commissioned for the Building Reform Action Group, which shows that in some regions new housing commencements in the period ending December 1986, compared to December 1985, fell by up to 52 per cent? When will the Government ease interest rates to a level which the ordinary home purchaser can afford? Mr KEATING —The Prime Minister a day or two ago, comprehensively answered a question about the housing market and indicated that the Housing Industry Association, which is the organisation which builds the houses which the right honourable member is referring to, referred in glowing terms to the Government's efforts. I can only repeat the fact that the Government lifted-- Honourable members interjecting-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for O'Connor will not shout to each other across the chamber, particularly while someone else is speaking. Mr KEATING —I can only record that the Government lifted housing starts from the disastrous level of 105,000 in the last year of office of the former Government to a peak of around 140,000 starts, and even with our diminished external circumstances and the pressure on interest rates we are still looking at 125,000 to 130,000 in the coming year. In the recent statement which I issued with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction about housing I indicated that the savings banks regulations were to be amended to reduce the reserve asset ratio from 15 per cent to 13 per cent for deposits. This will allow the banks to clear some substantial additional funds to go to the housing market. We indicated also that public housing, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, was maintained at $700m, also indicating that the nominating range was there for the States. In the circumstances in which Australia has found itself-that is, with the terms of trade collapse and with our current account deficit growing and the attendant interest rate with it-125,000 to 130,000 starts are by all definitions reasonable. I am not aware of the distribution of those starts. The right honourable gentleman says that there is not an adequate number of starts in the countryside as against those in the cities. That I am not aware of. I can say only that, in the aggregate, I think they are reasonable and, in the circumstances, adequate. I noticed last week that, because the Government courageously took the decision to deregulate the housing interest rate from April 1986, nearly 30 per cent of the banks' housing portfolios are now deregulated; hence those loans are much more profitable than in the past. That is subsidising continuing lending, and I notice Mr Fowler from the Westpac Banking Corporation said last week that Westpac lending is running at an all time record for housing, and there was an echo of such sentiments from other institutions. I can say only that we on this side of the House regard that as a highly desirable trend. It is there only because of the shift in government policy undertaken by this Government. I just record the fact that already, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, two housing finance institutions have reduced their lending rate on housing in the last week. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn recently to reported claims that a policy which allowed the opting out of Medicare and removed a $3 billion to $6 billion from the health budget would result in a fairer and more efficient health system? Will the Minister inform the House what the effects would be of introducing such a health system? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the auction that is going on between the forces around the Opposition. The Opposition, in health policy, as in most other policies at the moment, has a complete policy vacuum. The result is a hairy-chested auction between the figures on the New Right as to who can produce the least compassionate, most unfair and the most disruptive health care system for Australian families. The Opposition says: `We will cut $3 billion from health care'. The National Farmers Federation says: `You wimps! We will cut $5.8 billion from health care'. The Monash people top that with a proposal to cut $6 billion to $7 billion. The one thing that all these policies have in common is that they would produce a less fair health system in this country. What they all would mean at their simplest is that health care costs would be transferred from government to the private individual. The Opposition policy would mean a basic health insurance rate for families of $27 a week. But the Monash people go further. They say: `We will remove all subsidies for pharmaceuticals. We will remove all subsidies for nursing homes. We will make people pay the full price for public hospitals'. That would virtually double the private insurance rate to something like $40 to $50 per week per family. We have to ask ourselves: What is the object of this attack on the Medicare system? Primarily what the Medicare system does is to redistribute money from the well-off to the less well-off in this society. I suggest that all members of this House read the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper on aspects of the social wage which shows that the chief beneficiaries of Medicare are the less well-off, who are subsidised by the better-off. We can make it even more precise than that. The real beneficiaries of Medicare are the elderly poor and families with a large number of children, particularly poor families. We can see what the New Right thinks of this subsidisation. I will read what Professor Porter-everyone should listen to this-had to say about Medicare: . . . high income earners . . . lose and low income earners . . . gain. This redistribution has become a part of the tyranny of the status quo. That the rich should subsidise the poor is a tyranny for Professor Porter. For us it is a virtue which we will defend. Mr DOWNER —Madam Speaker-- Government members-Oh! Mr DOWNER —Is something the matter with them today, Madam Speaker? I refer the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to Senator Evans's admission yesterday that the Federal Government has repeated its folly of four years ago and conducted spy flights last weekend over the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area of Tasmania. How many planes and/or helicopters were chartered for the purpose of spying on Australian territory? What was the cost of chartering the spy aircraft? Will the Minister give an explicit assurance that no defence aircraft were used for this outrageous exercise in domestic espionage? Mr COHEN —The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987 was proclaimed and came into operation on 8 May and three commissioners were appointed that day. Prior to the commencement of the Act, the Prime Minister wrote to the Tasmanian Premier informing him of the commencement date and seeking the Tasmanian Government's co-operation. The Prime Minister advised the Premier that it might be necessary to ensure compliance with the Act for Commonwealth officers to visit the protected areas and that such visits could involve aerial or surface transport activities. The response of the Tasmanian Government has been that it would not co-operate in any way. Not only that, but the Premier has threatened to arrest Commonwealth officers. It ill becomes the honourable member for Mayo to talk about law and order after the behaviour of the Tasmanian Government. The Commonwealth has a clear commitment to protect these sensitive environmental areas in Tasmania. However, in taking any action the Commonwealth will abide by the law. As Tasmanian law prohibits persons entering the areas under review without a permit, the only option which the Commonwealth has is aerial surveillance. There is no question of so-called spy flights. Opposition members-Ha, ha, ha! Mr COHEN —Contain yourselves. There has been no subterfuge, no clandestine activities, and the Tasmanian Premier was advised in writing of the Commonwealth's intention. No Royal Australian Air Force planes have been involved. A properly equipped civilian aircraft was chartered from Melbourne last weekend to take photographs of the area in question. I will be happy to give the precise figures to the honourable member later. There is no secret about them, but I do not have them with me at the moment. This followed general familiarisation operations by helicopter late last week. Further flights will be taking place over the next week or two to monitor developments in the forest. I want to stress that this action by the Commonwealth is forced upon us by the total non-co-operation of the Tasmanian Government. The Government is seeking to stop illegal actions which may be irreparably harming areas of world heritage value. Aerial surveillance is the only course open to enable Australia to give effect to its international obligations. Mr BEDDALL —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of allegations made on the Four Corners program last night of organised criminal activity and corruption of officials, including police officers in Queensland? If so, will the Commonwealth stand ready to assist the National Crime Authority should it decide to seek a reference in relation to these matters? Mr YOUNG —I preface my answer by saying that if there is another area of which this Government can be rightly proud it is the development of law enforcement agencies in this country since we were elected in March 1983. The Australian Federal Police not only has developed the new resources which have been given to it by this Government, which have been quite substantial, but also has built a new professionalism under the Commissioner, Major-General Grey, which previously did not exist in this country. Combined with that, we have seen established the National Crime Authority. In spite of all the criticism, innuendo, allegations and books and newspaper articles by some journalists who now find the heat being turned on them by the same sort of ritual, we sustain our view that the National Crime Authority with the co-operation of all the other law enforcement agencies in this country could do an effective job of combating organised crime. There was a great demand in this country from the community that something be done. There have been too many royal commissions leaving too many recommendations and too many questions unanswered by previous administrations in this country. One of the major criticisms of our legislation on the establishment of the National Crime Authority from the Opposition was that it could be politically manipulated because representatives of each of the governments had the right of veto over a reference being sought by the National Crime Authority. We held the view that that would not occur. But to make sure that there could be no misunderstanding of it, at the first meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, with the approval of the Prime Minister, I put forward to the Committee representatives of all governments that should any government in this country refuse to give the reference sought by the National Crime Authority it would be immediately made public and the reasons for that refusal would be made public so that it would have to defend the decisions it was taking. The National Crime Authority does not make public references being sought from the IGC. To date, no reference sought from any jurisdiction, Commonwealth or State, has been refused by any government. Every government has sought to facilitate any inquiry being undertaken by the National Crime Authority. The Authority does not need a reference to use all its powers to hold any investigation. It has general investigative powers it can undertake for any purpose without going to the IGC, and so it has done. If the Authority was so disturbed by what appeared in the allegations on the ABC last night as to seek a reference, that would be the business of the National Crime Authority. Neither the Commonwealth nor any State has previously stood in the way of facilitating a reference that the National Crime Authority may have felt it required to use all the powers vested in it under the legislation passed by this House. As we have done in the past four years we will do in future years while still in government to see that we effectively combat organised crime in this country. Mr McVEIGH —Is the Minister for Territories aware of a recent advertisement appearing in Perth newspapers under the name of the Clunies-Ross family and promoting a private island paradise holiday on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and of the issue by the Clunies-Ross family of plans and specifications-I have a copy here-for a Cocos resort village? Does the Clunies-Ross family have the right to declare Cocos Island as a privately owned island, and to conduct tourist holidays without the permission of the local island council? Will the Minister advise the House of any action taken to expose what appears to be a fraudulent advertisement and illegal use of Commonwealth territory? Mr SCHOLES —The Clunies-Ross family, by the arrangements of settlement in 1978, owns five hectares of land on Home Island and Oceania House, which is the traditional residence of the Clunies-Ross family. That title is currently subject to being vested in a receiver. I am aware of the advertisements to which the honourable gentleman has referred. Under the terms of settlement entered into in 1978, the Clunies-Ross family is entitled to conduct such activities as fall within that agreement, and having guests on the island would not, at this stage, appear to be outside the terms of that agreement. As other proposals for tourist development on the island are being considered by the Cocos (Keeling) council, I am concerned that at this stage proper environmental studies have not taken place and certainly no environmental impact statements have been prepared in respect of the islands, especially as to the capacity of the islands to support that type of activity. They are very delicate and I believe that, before any major commercial developments take place on the islands, proper safeguards and assessments should be undertaken. At this stage, the family is seeking, as I understand it, to enter into arrangements with Perth entrepreneurs for tourist activities. I certainly have the matter under consideration, and I will be seeking as soon as possible to establish the information that I believe is necessary for the protection of the islands. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Prime Minister and it concerns the financial situation that we will be addressing tomorrow night in the May statement. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effects of introducing the Australia Card system in this country? Mr HAWKE —Obviously the Government had indicated its view about the necessity for an Australia Card as the most effective instrument to deal, on the one hand, with welfare fraud and, on the other hand, with tax evasion. That is not only a view we hold but a view which clearly the present Leader of the Opposition embraced to a considerable extent when he was Treasurer, because when he was Treasurer he had a number of inquiries undertaken in relation to the concept of an Australia Card. Indeed, once out of government he also expressed the view that he could see merit in the concept of an Australia Card. That is not surprising because, quite clearly, it is the most effective way of dealing with social security fraud and with tax evasion in the black economy. Our best calculations from official sources suggest that, were the Australia Card fully operational, it would bring revenue to the Commonwealth of about $880m per annum-or about $2.4m a day. It is a tragedy that Opposition members and senators have refused, not only to this Government but to the people of Australia, that most effective instrument to beat social welfare fraud and, in particular, tax evasion in the black economy. But that is typical of the sort of ideological approach referred to by my colleague the Minister for Health in his answer in regard to the proposals to abandon Medicare. What permeates the ideology of the Opposition is that everything possible must be done to protect the rich, the privileged and the rorters and to impose a greater burden on the ordinary, honest taxpayers of this country. That will be another one of the many nails that will go into the coffins of the five Opposition parties when we go to the election in the relatively near future. They will have to answer to the people of Australia for continuing to protect the welfare cheats and tax frauds. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the existence of more than 2.6 million people currently living below the poverty line, compared with 1.9 million when the Prime Minister assumed office, further evidence of how-to use his words in answer to yesterday's dorothy dixer-his Government has transformed and revitalised the economy? Mr HAWKE —Again picking up a comment by my colleague the Minister for Health when he referred to the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper, I suggest that if the honourable member is really interested in the matter he should study the impact of the social wage and the way in which the many manifestations and elements of it have operated in this country to help those who are less privileged. I will not take up the time of the House again by detailing in all the relevant areas the contrast between the performance of the previous Government and the outstanding achievements of this Government. I simply remind the House that, if honourable members wish to talk about the welfare of families, they have to look at what has been done for employment, education, housing and so on. The Opposition's record in those areas was appalling. In every respect, the achievements of this Government leave the Opposition for dead. We must also recognise-and this Government recognises-that we have to tailor our social policies to fit the economic capacity that is available to government. If we are to be a responsible government, we simply cannot ignore the fact that this country has had imposed upon it a loss of $9 billion in economic capacity. If the Opposition wishes to engage in voodoo economics, if it wants to get into cloud-cuckoo-land, if it wants to insult the intelligence of the Australian electorate and say that the people will not have to endure the consequences of that loss of $9 billion in economic capacity, it must go ahead and do so; let it try to suspend the laws of arithmetic. In insulting the intelligence of the Australian electorate, however, it will continue to go further and further down in the polls, as it is doing and will continue to do. The fundamental mistake that those opposite make is that they think they can get up in this House and say: `Ooh! Look at the terribly high level of interest rates. Ooh! Look at the fact that real wages have gone down'. Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall my raising with you the standing order which states that in answering any question a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers. This is a question which is directed to a specific matter. The Prime Minister is clearly debating that question. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Clerks in their memorandum-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —If I may, Madam Speaker-it is relevant to the point of order-I quote just one part of a memorandum from the Clerk of the House on 16 February in which he states: There are very good reasons, which go to the heart of the complaints regarding our present question time, for resurrecting this rule- he is talking about the rule I have just raised- and for a strict application of its intention by the Chair. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to apply that rule and to apply it strictly to the Prime Minister. Madam SPEAKER —May I say that the House put the Speaker into the position of making such decisions. The standing order that the honourable member brings up now still relates to questions, not answers. It is a very grey area. I do not totally accept what the honourable member says in relation to it. I am still here to interpret it, and I find the Prime Minister in order. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, it is all very well for those opposite to get up and say: `Look at the level of interest rates. Look at the fact that there has been a reduction in standards'. But they cannot have it both ways. If one is to accept one's economic responsibility to bring in policies that one thinks are relevant to this country, one has to take account of what has been imposed upon this country as a result of external factors. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Those opposite can ooh and ah and have their pathetic giggles; but the people of Australia, fortunately, are singularly more intelligent than those opposite give them credit for. The people of Australia understand, even if those opposite are not prepared to, that the country has lost $9 billion in income. What the people are looking for from the parties in this country is a way in which that loss of income can be shared equitably. What will distinguish this Government from the five Opposition parties as we go into the election will be the fact that it will be this side of the House that will ensure that that loss of income will be shared equitably. For instance, coming back to the area of health which is very much concerned with the question, we will not be doing what the Opposition would be doing, that is, abolishing Medicare, which on average would impose about an additional $15 a week upon the average family in this country. I repeat that a fundamental distinction between this Government and the forces of darkness on the other side is this: We will ensure that there is restraint with equity. We will not-the Opposition will be promising to do this-give pensions back to the millionaires. We will not be abolishing the capital gains tax so that the paper shufflers can make no contribution to the welfare of this country. We will be ensuring, through mea-sures such as the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and those sorts of things, that the people of this country with the greatest capacity to pay will be making a contribution so that in the straitened economic circumstances imposed upon this country the great mass of people, and particularly the poorest people, will get the fairest go. Of course, it is the fact that, as we have had that sort of loss of income of $9 billion, there will be a loss of standards. But the distinction between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that the restraint that has to be exercised by the Australian community will be exercised with fairness. We will not see the return of the rorts and the rackets which characterised the Opposition when in government and which it promises to return to if ever-it is not the case in the foreseeable future-it should be restored to the treasury bench. The people of Australia tried the Opposition in gov- ernment for seven years, they found it wanting, they found a better alternative, and there is no way that they will go back to any one of the five parties masquerading as an alternative gov- ernment in this country. Mr KEOGH —Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Treasurer-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr Beale interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Bowman please resume his seat. The Chair has twice asked the honourable member for Deakin to stop interjecting; the honourable member ignored the Chair because he was so busy interjecting he could not hear me. I am asking the honourable member now to stop interjecting, and I call for order on both sides of the House. Mr McVeigh —Tell us about your pre-selection. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEOGH —I did not want to give members opposite the same opportunity again but it seems that it is too hard for them to resist, Madam Speaker. My question is as follows: Will the Treasurer inform the House of the information that he will be providing when he delivers his May statement on Wednesday evening, so that the House will be able to evaluate properly the changes that are being made to the Government's fiscal policy? Mr KEATING —The Government will be providing the maximum amount of information for both the House and the nation, and on Wednesday night we will be publishing-as we publish in Budgets but never before in May statements-a full reconciliation table of the Budget accounts. That will show the Forward Estimates for 1987-88, published in December last year, and it will show that they have been reduced as a result of expenditure cuts. This will be the fifth time that the Government has published such a table. But the table provides an enormous discipline on a government. It identifies new policy; it identifies where the savings are coming from by providing the Forward Estimates figures; it shows the full year consequences of savings and the out-year savings; it shows the new policy; and it highlights one-off savings. With such a table there is nowhere for a government to hide. People can see clearly what is going on with government spending. By contrast, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition, when Treasurer, never published the forward Estimates. He conducted phoney savings exercises on forward Estimates that he never allowed people to examine. He never showed people the full year consequences of the disastrous 1982-83 Budget. We were left with a $9.6 billion deficit to pare back. The Leader of the Opposition, as Treasurer, always took the easy course on public policy. He had no stomach to face the issue squarely. He over valued the exchange rate and he refused to allow the public to properly examine the public accounts. Now, of course, he is prey to the mindless savagery of the New Right and the venal excesses of the Queensland National Party of Australia. As I have said in this House previously, a vote for the Leader of the Opposition is a vote for Joh. The Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government provide almost no information on the public accounts. Borrowings are treated as a receipt and they do not publish a deficit. It is impossible to know what is going on within the Queensland financial accounts. Queensland, of course, is run for the benefit of a few chosen people around the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition, the Queensland Premier and the New Right would undermine our institutions and destroy the fabric of public policy. This born to rule view, which the former Treasurer has, is shown up by the fact that they did not have to face up to issues-that is their view; they did not have to expose their policies to public scrutiny; they never had to publish forward Estimates; they never published reconciliation tables; and they did not publish the out-year effects, the new policy. It was all left in the dark. That is basically where we stand today in respect of the Leader of the Opposition's policies. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as having this to say when asked about the details of his reply-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We have listened now for over two minutes to the Treasurer not answering anything about the information that this Government is going to give but providing a so-called catalogue of what the Opposition has done in government. That is an abuse of Question Time. He knows it is an abuse of Question Time and he should be told to sit down if he will not be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will return to the question, please. Mr KEATING —This Government has provided forward Estimates and full documentation in what are now the Rolls-Royce of Budget accounts around the world. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Those opposite may laugh, but that is the view of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development officials and International Monetary Fund officials when they look at the national accounts and the financial accounts of many other countries. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was reported as follows, when asked about details he would give on his reply on Thursday night: `The last thing I am going to do is to give a detailed alternative mini-Budget', he told the Herald. They can just go and get lost over that and so can anyone else who gives such advice. Mr Carlton —That is right. Mr KEATING —The honourable member says: `That is right'. In other words, only the Government should sit for the test. We should publish a reconciliation table; we should publish all the hard data; we should take all the hard decisions, but the Leader of the Opposition can slither out and backslide as he did in all his years as Treasurer with no details, no argument, no hard policy and no numbers. As the Leader of the Opposition said before, he has the policies, but no numbers. He might have the policies, but matching the no numbers is no sense. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is it a fact that in his role as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs contrary to the advice of his departmental office he accepted an invitation to officiate at the opening of the Sarajevo Restaurant Inn in Crown Street, Sydney, on the Thursday night before last? Is it a fact that his Department advised him that the premises were owned by Mr Abe Saffron and that the proprietor had had applications for a liquor vendor's licence refused twice by the New South Wales liquor licence tribunal? If the Minister was not aware of these factors and did not have personal knowledge of the proprietors of the premises to which he gave the importance of his office and, if he was not aware of those facts, why did he not make full inquiries and lend the name of his office to such an opening? Mr YOUNG —I am particularly careful about invitations that I accept and I was on this occasion as well. There was a very large community of Yugoslav people at the opening of the Sarajevo Inn which I attended. As I understand it, they are going to make it their headquarters. I was in Sydney on other business as well and I accepted the invitation to do the official opening some weeks ago when it was issued to me. I have spent the past 100 days since I became Minister visiting dozens of communities all around Australia and I intend to continue to do this because they have great trust and faith in this Government and this Minister. Mr GAYLER —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the House what reduction has occurred in the level of industrial disputation since the Hawke Government came to office? What are the prospects of continuing to achieve reduced levels of industrial disputation in the future? Mr WILLIS —Since the Hawke Government came to office there has, indeed, been a big reduction in the level of industrial disputation measured by working days lost in industrial disputes. The figures released by the Bureau of Statistics today show that for the 12 months to January of this year 1.4 million days were lost in industrial disputes, which is fewer than in any year to January for any year of the Fraser Government. An even better illustration is the fact that the average number of working days lost under the Fraser Government was three million per annum, whereas the number of working days lost under the Hawke Government was 1.4 million-a reduction of 53 per cent in the average number of working days lost since this Government came to office. Of course, a proper analysis does not look just at the total number of working days lost but relates that to the number of wage and salary earners. Since this Government came to office there has been a 60 per cent reduction in the number of working days lost per thousand employees; that is, the average number of working days lost per thousand employees under the Hawke Government is 60 per cent less than the number under the previous Government. That is an enormous reduction by anyone's standards. It is a particularly enormous achievement, given that in the first three years of our four years in office there were very high rates of economic growth. They were not years in which one would normally expect to see big reductions in the level of industrial disputation. Also, as the House would be aware, that very large fall in the level of industrial disputation has been accompanied by a further large fall in real unit labour costs. There has been a 7 per cent reduction in real unit labour costs whilst we have achieved a much better industrial relations environment. So we certainly were not buying off the workers to achieve industrial peace. That allegation cannot be made. The reasons that we achieved that enormous improvement are attributable to the prices and incomes accord and the atmosphere of co-operation and not confrontation which this Government has engendered, which was based on the prices and incomes accord, and the very sensible wages policy which has been pursued by this Government in accordance with that accord, which has been varied to fit the times, as we have seen recently with the two-tier wage system. All of that has brought about a very substantial reduction in the level of industrial disputation in relation to wage issues, because they have been very largely set by decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We are not resting on our laurels. The Government, whilst it has been achieving that spectacular reduction in the level of industrial disputation, has been working on a comprehensive industrial relations legislation reform package which will be brought before this Parliament by me later this week. That reform package will provide the basis of further improvements in industrial relations outcomes. With this legislation and with the new two-tier wage system, we can be hopeful that further reductions can be made in the level of industrial disputation. However, I must say that there is one qualification; that is, if the Opposition were by some mischance to become the government of this country, the people of Australia could not have that expectation of further reductions or even the maintenance of a relatively low level of industrial disputation. We know, from the published policy, that the Opposition's policy is based on confrontation and not co-operation-the reverse of what this Government has pursued. It would introduce chaos through its so-called voluntary agreements policy, which would undoubtedly provoke a rash of industrial disputes as various groups sought to achieve increases which other workers had achieved, leading, undoubtedly, to a much higher level of industrial disputation. Only recently we saw that the Liberal Party secretariat, in a leaked document, was advising the Leader of the Opposition that he should be prepared, if he became Prime Minister, for a general strike. So quite clearly the Liberal Party secretariat was saying: `We realise that our policies will bring industrial relations to such a bad state that we will even face the prospect of a general strike'. If that is what the Liberal Party secretariat, the advisers to the Opposition, are telling the Opposition, surely we are entitled to assume that the Opposition in government would certainly mean that there would be a far higher level of industrial disputation than the level that has been achieved by this Government and that the prospects for low industrial disputation rest solely on this Government remaining in office. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to sub-section 125 (12) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Arbitration Inspectorate for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to sub-section 8 (3) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, I present a report on the state of the automotive industry for 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —On page 2 of this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, under the byline of Mr Milton Cockburn, there appears in the second last paragraph of his story a reference to a discussion between myself and the Group General Manager of John Fairfax Ltd regarding matters relating to the media ownership legislation which will be before the House this afternoon. The context of the report suggests that I had a discussion with Mr Gardiner relating to the matters before the shadow Cabinet yesterday, specifically in relation to yesterday's meeting. That is incorrect. The situation is that I did have a discussion some time ago with Mr Gardiner regarding matters relating to the Government's media legislation, as is proper and appropriate, as I did with all other media proprietors regarding the same legislation. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I seek leave to make a short personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr MAHER —During Question Time the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said that the question I asked yesterday was a dorothy dixer. That is not so. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had absolutely no notice of the question I was going to ask. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Hawker,Mr Moore,Mr Reith,Mr Uren and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a lost of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Conquest,Mr Cross,Mrs Darling,Mr Martin,Mr Millar and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble 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 Aldred,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your Petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's Memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency service to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. 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 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 assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to Veterans, War Widows and their dependents and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Government to exclude Veterans, War Widows and their dependents from any further cuts in entitlements when consideration is given to the forthcoming May mini-budget. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuitants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Government to take the following action when considering budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to Pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to Pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to Commonwealth Superannuitants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuitants. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable or responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. 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 the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. 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: The existing Telecom service in The Gurdies, Victoria (059 976...) is continuously congested and has been for some years; This is seriously affecting business and emergency calls as well as routine use of the telephone service; Constant complaints to Telecom have brought no improvement and the service is deteriorating more rapidly with the increase in local population; We request that this serious matter be brought to the attention of the responsible Minister and steps be taken to update the services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we Australian young people wish to grow up without the threat of nuclear war hanging over us, now and in the future. President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) which will have weapons systems in outer space, represents a new and most serious danger to the whole world. It will step up the arms race and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict at a time when the reduction of armaments is the most important thing for all of us. We believe that the `Star Wars' project will waste billions of dollars on the unnecessary militarisation of outer space which could be better used for the peaceful exploration of outer space and for the solution of humanity's pressing problems on earth. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House publicly condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. 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 humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Benefits of War Widows have been altered, and they no longer receive Pharmaceutical Benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain the medications, just to stay alive . . . Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these War Widows by: Returning their Veterans' Affairs Pharmaceutical Benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veterans' Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands . . . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that. The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. 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 the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth:- That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume 1, Page 98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1986 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke Government to address the real concerns of families in Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, RBeazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. ABeddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly. R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.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.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Miles, C. G.Carlton J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.PAIR Hayden, W. G.Brown, N. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.10) —I move: That this House- (1) Noting the- (a) failure of the Joint Sitting of the Tasmanian Parliament on 8 May 1987 to choose the duly nominated ALP candidate Mr John Devereux, to fill the casual vacancy consequent on the resignation of Dr Don Grimes; (b) resolution of the Senate of 19 March 1987 endorsing the constitutional convention, established in 13 successive instances since the 1977 Referendum, that ``a person chosen to fill the vacant place in accordance with s. 15 of the Constitution should be the member of the political party duly nominated by that party to fill that place'', and (c) statement by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. John Howard, on 8 May 1987 that ``I believe that the person appointed to fill casual vacancies of this kind ought to be the person nominated by the retiring Senator's political party'', and the statements in support of the established convention made by the leaders of all other parties in the Commonwealth Parliament; (2) calls on the Presiding Officers of the Tasmanian Parliament to immediately take such action as is necessary to reconvene the Joint Sitting of the Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament to fill the vacancy in order that representation of the people of Tasmania in this place be in accordance with their constitutional entitlements, and (3) calls on the members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly and Legislative Council, including members of the Gray Government, who have to date acted contrary to the established convention, to vote at such a Joint Sitting to accept the nominated ALP candidate, Mr John Devereux. The motion before us today has been made necessary by the unprincipled behaviour of the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray. Since Don Grimes resigned his Senate seat on 2 April, we have been treated to a display of disruption, deadlock and delay as the Tasmanian Premier has sought to obstruct the proper processes of nominating a replacement senator. Last Friday a joint sitting of the Tasmanian Parliament voted to reject the duly nominated Australian Labor Party candidate to fill the vacancy in the Senate, Mr John Devereux. We are thus faced with an extraordinary situation-one replete with political as well as profound constitutional implications. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Will the honourable member for Cook and the honourable member for Kooyong resume their seats. Mr HAWKE —They are just counting numbers, Mr Deputy Speaker. A State parliament, at the urging of the Premier, has flown in the face of the clear intention of a constitutional provision. The vacancy in the Senate remains unfilled, and Tasmanians remain under-represented in the Senate, while the machinery specified in the Constitution to resolve those shortcomings has been flouted. A State Premier has set himself up as the person who is to determine who may or may not sit in the Federal Parliament. Now, more than a month after the seat first fell vacant, we have no replacement senator, and no immediate prospect of one. Beyond all the manoeuvrings, all the talk, this fact remains: We have only four ALP senators to represent Tasmania when Tasmanians voted for five. Tasmanians are represented by only 11 senators when they are constitutionally entitled to 12. And Premier Gray, by reportedly stating that he will not recall Parliament before July, has promised that the deadlock will remain unresolved. Many Australians would wonder how this could happen when we have constitutional provisions designed to ensure that any Senate vacancies are filled promptly. More particularly they would wonder how this could happen when they voted overwhelmingly just 10 years ago to tighten the constitutional provisions following abuses of them by two conservative State governments. The answer is that the Tasmanian Government has allowed short term political motives to determine its conduct in this matter and has set aside the well-established and proper constitutional course. The Tasmanian Parliament has thumbed its nose at the 70 per cent of Australians who supported the 1977 referendum designed to eliminate that kind of dispute from our political life. I remind the House that, in 1977, the Constitution was changed in order to embody the constitutional convention that a person chosen to fill the vacant place in the Senate in accordance with section 15 of the Constitution should be the member of the political Party of the outgoing senator duly nominated by that Party to fill that place. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The words `duly nominated' do not appear-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there is a point of order. I refer you to page 654 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice which states: It is a grave contempt to deliberately mislead the House. The words `duly nominated' do not appear and the Prime Minister is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —The intention of that constitutional amendment is crystal clear-- Mr Hodgman —It does not say `duly nominated'. Mr HAWKE —It is crystal clear to everyone except that inane interjector. The outcome should be-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask you to hear me. The words `duly nominated' do not appear in section 15. The Prime Minister is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —As I said, the intention of that constitutional amendment is crystal clear. The outcome should be that Mr Devereux should take his place in the Senate. On 13 occasions since 1977, when Senate vacancies have arisen, State parliaments have voted smoothly and without controversy of any kind to appoint a replacement nominated by the party of the outgoing senator. That practice has been endorsed by the political leaders of all the main political parties without exception-and why not, for that is the only way to ensure that the will of the people expressed at election time can be honoured. Of the 13 precedents, there are numerous occasions where a government has accepted without demur the nominee of another party. These include the New South Wales Labor Government's acceptance of the Liberals' nominee to replace Senator Sir Robert Cotton in 1978; the Victorian Labor Government's acceptance of the Liberals' nominee to replace the late Senator Missen last year; and earlier this year the Victorian Labor Government's acceptance of the Democrats' nominee to replace Senator Chipp. The Tasmanian Parliament, when called upon last year to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Peter Rae, unhesitatingly accepted the Liberal Party nominee to replace him. But on this occasion, when called upon to fill a Labor vacancy, the Tasmanian Government shirked its constitutional duties and broke the long line of precedents. Thus it is not only the very clear intention of the constitutional provisions, but also the invariable practice to replace a senator with the person nominated by his political party. The Tasmanian Premier, however, claims a right to take issue with replacements nominated by political parties where he is not happy with their policies. Such an approach renders the constitutional procedures unworkable. The plain fact is that if State governments waited until replacements nominated by an opposing political party agreed with their policies, no such vacancy would ever be filled. The constitutional provisions also clearly envisage a minimum of delay. Section 15 states that the Parliament of a State shall choose a replacement if a Senate place falls vacant. Alternatively, if the Parliament is not in session the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council of the State, shall nominate a replacement. Yet the Tasmanian Government appears unperturbed about the prospect of lengthy delays- Mr Hodgman —Well, challenge it in the High Court. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —It is all very well saying `Order'; the honourable member just keeps interjecting. In matters such as these, involving the functioning of our basic political institutions, the community looks to politicians and governments to obey the rules. To do otherwise is to risk damage to the nation's confidence in its fundamental institutions; damage that cannot easily be repaired. The principle in this situation has always been clear. Well before the Australian people changed the Constitution in 1977, the proper course had been apparent to governments. On the occasion of the first casual vacancy in the Senate after proportional representation was introduced in 1949, the then Premier of Western Australia, in whose State the vacancy occurred, communicated with other States and the Commonwealth concerning his views about the principles involved. Among other things, the then Premier of Western Australia said: My opinion is that, in view of the fact that proportional representation is now the method of election to the Senate, a member of the same Party, nominated by the Executive of the Party, should be appointed when future vacancies arise through death or other causes. Appropriately enough, that Western Australian Premier, Sir Ross McLarty, was non-Labor and was considering a vacancy caused by the death of Labor Senator Nash in 1951. So, the principle was crystal clear then to that Liberal Premier. We all know that in 1975 Liberal Premier Lewis in New South Wales and National Party Premier Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland-these great defenders of law and order-decided to tear up this constitutional convention for short term political advantage. We also know that a majority voting in favour of the referendum in every State endorsed the 1977 constitutional amendment to reject this type of political opportunism. But Liberal Premier Gray has chosen to ignore the will of the people and has chosen to leave the Tasmanian people under-represented in the Commonwealth Parliament. They are entitled to ask: For how long will the Tasmanian people be robbed of their constitutional entitlement? The Tasmanian Liberal Premier Robin Gray has effectively claimed that the precise wording of the constitutional provision allows him to pick and choose among a range of possible candidates. All that can be said for that argument is that it denies the clearly expressed wish of the voters who supported the 1977 amendment. Any other interpretation is a specious and partisan one. What makes Liberal Premier Gray's motives even more perverse is that he claims to be acting in the interests of the people of Tasmania. He has yet to explain, however, how Tasmanians are advantaged by the denial of their full representation in the Federal Parliament. This unfair outcome makes hollow the argument so often put by those who recall the Senate's original purpose as a States House, for, by his own hand, Mr Gray has effectively reduced his State's representation in Canberra. This goes to the most profoundly worrying aspect of this affair-its essentially anti-democratic implications. The Liberal Mr Gray says that he does not want Mr Devereux to be a senator because he disagrees with Mr Devereux's opinions on the logging of Tasmania's forests. What that attitude fails to acknowledge is that democracy is not about dealing only with people with whom one agrees and ignoring all the rest. We cannot choose our political opponents. I say, parenthetically, that if we could we would not choose any differently from the bunch that we have opposite; but we cannot choose our political opponents any more than we can dictate what they should believe. That is not our prerogative. It is our task to accept that we will have differences. It is our task to resolve those differences through debate. That is what parliaments are for. One cannot pick and choose and say: `I am going to have an Opposition with which I agree and that is the only Opposition I will have'. The very essence of what Parliament is about is that one has people on the other side of the House who have different points of view to one's own. If we move towards a position of tolerating only Oppositions with which we agree, we are gnawing away at the very vitals of democracy. This is precisely what parliaments are for-to be forums to represent the divisions within society and to ensure that those divisions within society are fully debated in this parliament of the people. If the Liberal Mr Gray is unhappy with the views held by those who disagree with him on logging or on any other issue, the responsibility of the Liberal Mr Gray as Premier is to attempt to change those people's views through debate. That is what the responsibility of the Liberal Mr Gray is. In a democracy it is unacceptable for him to seek to gag his opponents or to deny representation in the Federal Parliament to those who have committed the great crime of having a view different from that of Mr Gray! That, after all, when one strips everything from it, is the crime of Mr Devereux-he has a different point of view from that of the Liberal Mr Gray. I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has taken the proper course in extending the pairing arrangement so as not to take advantage of the current imbalance in the Senate numbers. But it is not enough. What is clear is that anyone other than Mr Devereux is not and will not be acceptable to the Labor Party. On 16 March the Leader of the Opposition stated: Senator Grimes's replacement will be a person nominated by and acceptable to the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party, because- and this is what the Leader of the Opposition said; apparently he has not conveyed the point to the honourable member for Denison- that is what the Constitution says must happen. Although the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have any lines of communication with anyone in the Liberal Party any more, it is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition had not successfully conveyed that point of view to this strident member for Denison. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say: Robin Gray won't defy the Constitution. He can't, anyway, because it is the supreme law of the country. Yet, this is precisely what the Tasmanian Premier is now doing, and in defying the Constitution he is also defying the Federal-- Mr Hodgman —Take him on in the High Court if you believe that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr HAWKE —In defying the Constitution, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania is also defying the Federal Leader of his own political Party. However, contrasted even with statements made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), the Leader of the Opposition has been feeble in the extreme in failing to challenge the constitutional vandalism of his Liberal colleague, Premier Gray. His feebleness in this respect confirms not only that he has no policies to offer the Australian people but, as I said yesterday, that he simply has no authority within his own Party. In putting this motion before the House I invite the Opposition parties to stand by their own statements of constitutional principle and through that action to support the interests of the Federal Parliament. No lesser position can satisfy their proper loyalty and the interests of the State of Tasmania. I commend the motion to the House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.29) —Let me say at the outset of my speech that I remain of the view that I have expressed on a number of occasions, and I will repeat it for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who never displays the Prime Ministerial courtesies that have normally been extended in this Parliament. The Prime Minister spent 20 minutes lecturing the Parliament about constitutional, political and parliamentary propriety but he does not have the courtesy to extend even the most basic courtesy to this side of the House on a matter that he says is of supreme constitutional importance. We will just put that aside for one moment. Let me repeat what I said on 8 May-and let me repeat it so that there will be no misunderstanding even on the part of the Prime Minister and those who sit opposite. I believe that persons appointed to fill casual vacancies of the kind created by Senator Grimes's departure ought to be filled by the person nominated by the retiring senator's political party. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —If the noisy boys opposite will hold on for a moment, if they are really interested-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Leader of the Opposition should not provoke them if I am attempting to get order for him. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, respect for the position you occupy restrains me from replying with the reply that you ought to receive on that. This motion is supposed to be about an important constitutional principle. Let us understand one thing very clearly: What the Constitution requires in its strict letter of interpretation is that the person appointed to fill the vacancy must be a member of the relevant political party at the time that person takes his or her seat in the Senate. That is what the Constitution requires. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Government members can make as such noise as they like, but if they are interested in a serious debate on what the Constitution says, they can totally ignore most of what the Prime Minister said because he failed abysmally to understand what the Constitution says and he also failed abysmally to take any account of what his own Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said last Friday, when he gave the game away. The Deputy Prime Minister said: `Oh, I have got to admit there is a bit of a weakness in the Constitution. We might take it to the High Court'. What did he say after he said: `We might take it to the High Court'? He said: `We would just lose if we took it to the High Court'. In other words, what the Deputy Prime Minister was saying is the strict legal reality. The strict legal reality is that when the Constitution was amended in 1977-- Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —The more those sitting opposite carry on, the more we on this side like it. The more they carry on, the more relevant becomes the realisation that their Prime Minister's address was not directed to a strict legal interpretation of the Constitution but, rather, to a political judgment as to what ought to be done. Let me say to those sitting opposite that I did not agree with the action of the New South Wales Government in appointing Bunton; I did not agree with the action of the Queensland Government in appointing Field; and I do not agree with the action of the Tasmanian Government or the Tasmanian Parliament in blocking Devereux's appointment. I do not agree with that for one very simple reason: I believe it is a very unwise political practice for a government, although it has the strict power under the Constitution-- Mr Hollis —Oh! Mr HOWARD —It is all very well for the honourable member to say `Oh' like that. There was not one syllable in the Prime Minister's speech which disputed what I am saying, because the Prime Minister was talking about desirable political practice. I agree, and as I have said on a number of occasions-- Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I am not worried about being protected from those people, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can have one of your gratuitous interventions if you want to, but I am not the least bit-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honour- able members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition deserves the right to be heard in silence and he will be heard in silence. The honourable member for La Trobe is not helping anybody or himself. Mr HOWARD —The motion that the House is being invited to support is asking the House to express the view that it is desirable in all cases where a casual vacancy occurs for that casual vacancy to be filled by a person belonging to the political party to which the person who died, resigned or retired belonged. I have no argument with that. I have made that plain on a number of occasions. What I have endeavoured to do is to point out the technical fallacy of the Prime Minister's argument and to remind the Prime Minister that the amendment that was carried by the Australian people to the Constitution in 1977 did not require that the person appointed to fill the casual vacancy be the person nominated by the political party to which the retiring or deceased senator belonged. Those opposite can interject, they can carry on, they can examine, and they can analyse the words of the Constitution as long as they like, but that, in reality, is what the Constitution precisely falls short of saying. That is not to say that it is not desirable practice, and it is not to say that I agree with the action that has been taken by the Tasmanian Government-I do not, and I have made that clear on a number of occasions. But we have this rather curious notion that because the Constitution said that the person had to be a member of the political party at the time he or she took the seat in the Senate, then ipso facto the person automatically nominated by the political party is the person who must take that place. I think that ought to happen; I think it is desirable for it to happen; and I have expressed the view that it should happen. But it is arrant legal nonsense for the Prime Minister or anybody else in this House to get up here and to say, `That is what the Constitution says', because it is not what the Constitution says. The history of this particular issue owes a great deal to the way in which the Federal Government, under the present Prime Minister, has treated the State of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Government. The Prime Minister had the gall to get up in this Parliament in answer to my first question at Question Time and say that under no circumstances would the Hawke Government ever stoop to playing politics with the interests of the people of Tasmania. He gave the people of Tasmania an assurance that that $50m of general revenue funds would not be withheld from the Tasmanian people because of what was happening over Senator Grimes's vacancy. Yet what on earth are the Prime Minister and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) doing other than playing politics over the Lemonthyme with the people of Tasmania? Have they forgotten and have those who sit behind them forgotten that only 18 months ago, their Minister for Primary Industry entered into a solemn memorandum of understanding with the Tasmanian Government about the logging of the Lemonthyme? Have they forgotten that they repudiated that agreement? They have the nerve to come into this Parliament and talk about constitutional propriety. They have the nerve to lecture the Tasmanian Government on constitutional propriety. They have the nerve to tell us what is the right thing to do. Yet despite the fact that they made a solemn agreement with the Tasmanian Government, because Graham Richardson, Rod Cameron and a few of their other advisers came along and said, `You are starting to lose support within the environment vote section of the community', they decided to do two things. The Prime Minister got in his plane and went to Kakadu National Park and he decided to repudiate the Lemonthyme agreement that had been made between this Government and the Tasmanian Government. Mr Chynoweth —Good. Mr HOWARD —One honourable member interjects and says: `Good'. Does he think it is good for the Hawke Government to repudiate agreements? Does he think it is good for the Government of this country to thumb its nose at an agreement that has been made? If that is the attitude Government members adopt, all I can say is that it is no wonder that you have provoked the Tasmanian Government into taking some of the actions it has taken. It is absolutely beyond belief that Government members have the gall to come into this Parliament to cheer on the concept that agreements made between the Federal Government and the Government of Tasmania should be so completely violated. However, it is not surprising because the Hawke Government has a very long history and a very long tradition of disturbing the balance that exists in our community between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) may sneer and attempt to interject, but it was a very sad day for this country when the Government of which he is a member chose to use the external affairs power of our Constitution to justify intervening in the internal affairs of the States of Australia. That action, that intervention and that decision have done more to disturb the Federal compact and the historic balance between the Federal Government and the State governments than any other action of any other government in relation to federalism in this country. A great deal of the genius of the Constitution under which we live was the compact and the balance that existed between the Federal Government and the State governments. A great deal of the resentment that is felt in the less populous States of Australia, of which Tasmania is the best example, towards the Federal Government and particularly towards the present Federal Government is the feeling that, so far as they are concerned, on all matters Canberra always knows best. They will not hesitate to use powers that were never intended by our founding fathers to be used for purposes for which they have been used over the past couple of years. I say without any fear of contradiction that a great deal of the bad blood that exists between the present Federal Government and the present Tasmanian Government is a result of the abuse of the external affairs power by the Hawke Government. It started on that course of action the night it was elected and it has continued on that course of action since. The Government's decision to introduce the Lemonthyme legislation, to put at risk the jobs of hundreds if not thousands of Australian workers who live in Tasmania-an action, incidentally, that has caused the Labor Opposition Leader, Neil Batt, in Tasmania to criticise the Hawke Government, an action that has caused the Australian Council of Trade Unions to criticise it and an action that has caused the entire Labor movement, with the virtual exception of Devereux himself, to criticise the Hawke Government-has done more to poison the well of goodwill and relations between the Tasmanian Government and the Government in Canberra than any other action. The Hawke Government can carry on with supreme indifference to the interests of the people of Tasmania. Quite clearly, it has written off its Federal political prospects in Tasmania, otherwise it would not treat the Tasmanian people with such supreme contempt. As I said at the commencement of my speech, whilst I hold the view that I have expressed on a number of occasions that vacancies should be filled in the manner I have described, the Government does not come to this issue with clean hands. I move the following amendment to the motion: add the following words at the end of the motion: (4) calls on the Federal Government to maintain and preserve the traditional and Constitutional division of powers between the Federal Government and the State Governments and in particular calls on the Federal Government not to use the external affairs power for the purposes of intervening in the affairs of the States. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.44) —As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, this is a most important question. However, as is his wont in this day and age, he made the classic John Howard speech of having five bob each way. The trouble is, and the Leader of the Opposition ought to realise it, that this is a one-horse race and there is no each way betting. His feeble addendum to the motion, his amendment, is meant to attract the votes of Tasmanian members-that is all the amendment is meant to do-so they will not split on the floor of the House. He is terrified that some Tasmanian Liberal members will vote for the Government's motion. This is just another clear example of the massive crisis in conservative politics in Australia. Why should Robin Gray take any notice of what the Federal Liberal Party and the Federal National Party say when their stand is so nonsensical? He will not take any notice of what they say; therefore, he will not be guided by it. When Robin Gray says `I am going to do the same as Bjelke-Petersen', he drags all members of the Opposition down and they are unable to make a stand. For five minutes of the Leader of the Opposition's 15-minute speech he told us what a great motion it was. Then, for 10 minutes, he told us why Robin Gray took the action that he did. He found all the excuses in the world to put forward as to why Robin Gray led the Tasmanian Parliament into making the decision to reject the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate. All of the 148 members of the House of Representatives are endorsed by their political parties. Yet, the Tasmanian Government says: `We will not take the endorsed Tasmanian Labor Party candidate to replace Senator Grimes; we will pick somebody of our own'. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Constitution states quite clearly that the person replacing a senator who resigns or dies must, at the time of taking his seat, be a member of the same political party. I have a bit of news for him. If somebody else in the Labor Party decides to take the nomination from the Tasmanian Government, he will not be a member of the Labor Party. He will not be a member of the Labor Party when he puts his nomination in, as we have already informed the Tasmanian Parliament and the Tasmanian Premier, and he could not possibly be a member of the Labor Party when he takes his seat. That clears up any grey area regarding the constitutional interpretation by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I suggest that he consider that angle also. We have had this debate in the Parliament ad nauseam. We have had it because the Labor Party has always played the game by the conventions of Australian politics. The Labor Party has been the decent party in all this. It is the Liberal and National parties which can never accept that they, being born to rule, as they see themselves, cannot make any decision that they may wish to make irrespective of the turmoil it thrusts upon the Australian community. Robin Gray has made this remarkable decision at this time not because he finds the person totally objectionable or because he does not like the character of the person or he thinks he is too old, too young, too immature or from the wrong profession. Robin Gray says: `He holds a different point of view to me on logging'. That is sufficient reason for the Tasmanian Premier to say that he will not accept the Labor Party's nomination. I have news for Robin Gray. Every person in the Labor Party in Tasmania I have met holds a different point of view to that of Robin Gray on some question. So no one would be eligible. No one in the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party would be eligible. The reason they are in the Labor Party is because they are opposed to the ideas of Robin Gray. Robin Gray could not be the Premier of Tasmania if he were not the endorsed Liberal Party candidate. He is only the Premier. If he wants to test it he should tell the Liberal Party to withdraw its endorsement; then he will see how long he remains the Premier. Firstly, there can be no other person from the Labor Party; Devereux will be the only candidate. Secondly, irrespective of the fact that the Premier says that Devereux holds a different point of view to him on logging, everybody in Tasmania holds a different point of view on some question, so there is no foundation in that. Let us look at how the Liberal and National parties have changed their position; it depends on who is affected by their decision. In 1971 Joh Bjelke-Petersen wrote a letter to Jack Houston who was the Labor Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. The letter stated: His Excellency the Governor was formally advised by His Excellency the Governor-General on 25th May, 1971, that, on 24th May, 1971, Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin, D.B.E., a Senator for the State of Queensland, resigned her place in the Senate, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that place there upon became vacant. Dame Annabelle Rankin's term of service had been due to expire on 30th June, 1974. As you know, the accepted practice when a casual vacancy of this nature occurs is for the new Senator to be of the same political party as his predecessor and I have asked the Queensland division of the Liberal Party of Australia to advise me, as quickly as possible, of the name of the person they wish to nominate on this particular occasion. It is as clear as crystal following the conventions that had been laid down for years, since 1949. But in 1975, when Bert Milliner passed away, the Queensland Premier sent a different letter, and at the end of his letter he said: To this end therefore, I should appreciate your advising me as soon as possible the names of three persons whom your Party would be prepared to nominate for the election of one of them by the Parliament . . . So between 1971 and 1975 he had a change of mind. He had a change of mind for only one reason: In 1971 the Liberal Party was affected and he did not want to upset that. In 1975 it was the Labor Party that would be affected and he threw all the conventions out the window. That is what Lewis did in New South Wales. Here we have the trifecta of Gray, Bjelke-Petersen and Lewis-Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania-all throwing the conventions out the window to suit their own personal egos, to try to build into the Senate an imbalance that the Australian people have never voted for. Let me reiterate: As honourable members know, there can be no other nomination but that of Mr Devereux in Tasmania, because any other persons who put themselves forward are automatically expelled from the Australian Labor Party, so they would not be members of the Labor Party. Honourable members opposite ought to be reminded that at the convention in 1977-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —I am pleased to hear honourable members opposite crying out. But when the wood was put on the Queensland Nationals to make them make up their minds in the recent coalition crisis, they opted to keep their endorsement. They were not game to take Joh on because they might have lost their endorsement. So those opposite all know, and they should not kid themselves, about the importance of endorsement. The vote in 1977 to clear this matter up was five and a half million voters in favour and two million voters against. So the referendum was clearly carried, and the intent of the referendum should never be forgotten. We should look behind, at what people have said previously about this. The then Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott, was asked about the difficulties of the recognition of political parties in terms of the endorsement of a political party for the appointment. He said at the time that he did not think anyone would have any difficulty in Australia identifying political parties. He said: `I do not see that as a problem, and the person who takes the position of the former senator would have to be the endorsed member from that party'. As he said-- Mr Spender —Did he use the word `endorsed'? Mr YOUNG —If somebody else is endorsed at the time and another person takes his seat he would not be a member of the Party. So in replacing members previously the convention should have been followed and the endorsed member should have been appointed. Mr Ellicott knew that. Since 1983 we have had the registration of political parties because of political funding. So if there was a difficulty in 1977 in identifying political parties, there is no problem now, because no one else can use the name `Australian Labor Party'. So if the Tasmanian Premier says `I think there is more than one party called the Australian Labor Party' and tries to circumvent the convention in that way, he has only to look at the registration of the political parties in Australia under the new electoral laws of this country to find that there is only one Australian Labor Party and that no one else can use that name. So there is no difficulty in recognition of political parties. John Cain did not have any difficulty in appointing the endorsed candidate from the Liberal Party to replace the late Alan Missen. Did John Cain agree with everything that Alan Missen stood for? Is that the test? The Tasmanian Government did not have any difficulty in taking the endorsed candidate from the Liberal Party in Tasmania to replace Peter Rae; and so it goes on all the way down the line. I notice the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in the House taking an interest in this debate. He told the Senate at the time that it should take no joy when Field and Bunton were endorsed under the new strange convention by Lewis and Bjelke-Petersen; that the Senate was taking the votes over the corpse of Bert Milliner. That is what it was doing; it was voting in a majority that had been prostituted by Bjelke-Petersen and Lewis in appointing people who had not been endorsed by their political parties. We got five quotas in Tasmania. Five Labor representatives from Tasmania deserve to be in the Senate. Nothing that those opposite can say can deny the Labor Party its right under this convention to have five Labor senators. The only Labor person who is going to be nominated is Devereux; those opposite need not concern themselves about that. As I said, it was not enough for the Leader of the Opposition, being terrified of perhaps losing his position, to say: `I stick by my statement of 8 March, or whenever it was, when I say that it should be the endorsed candidate from the Labor Party who takes the vacancy left by Senator Grimes'. He then went on for 10 minutes to apologise to the Tasmanian Premier. He said: `I am sorry, Robin, that I have to say these things. I know how the Federal Government has upset you'. We are not upset about using the external powers and getting the decision of the High Court of Australia which we got to save the Franklin River from being dammed. It was not just the Tasmanian people who were interested in the outcome of that. The Opposition put a rider on the motion which would allow all the Franklin dams of the world to be built in Australia. That is what those opposite want. They want all this larrikinism by the Tasmanian State Government to go on in an unwieldy way, irrespective of the views of the rest of the people of Australia. By moving this amendment they want to apologise to Robin Gray. This is a very clear cut case. We are the national Parliament. We have a right to express our view about what the national Parliament feels about this. But those opposite are unable to bring themselves to have a confrontation with these people when they distort the conventions which have been observed by political parties since 1949. This has never happened to those opposite because the Labor Party has never been that indecent. It has never been the Labor Party which has flouted the conventions. We have people here who are terrified of Joh. Half the people here are terrified of Robin Gray or somebody else, and they cannot make up their minds. The Opposition did not have to move any amendment today to apologise to Robin Gray. What the Opposition should have said to clear this matter up as quickly as possible was that the national Parliament insisted that Mr Gray appoint the endorsed Labor candidate, John Devereux, as quickly as possible. It does nothing for Australia, or Tasmania, to have those opposite carrying on in the way that they are. In all the debates recorded in Hansard on the legislation for the referendum in 1977 it can be seen that the referendum was carried overwhelmingly not only in this Parliament but by the people themselves. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) says that we should look at exactly what the Constitution says. He should look at what was said in the debates that led to the constitutional amendments; there can be absolutely no doubt. The Leader of the Opposition says that the person who takes his seat must be a member of the same political party. As I have pointed out, the only person who can take that seat in the Senate to replace Senator Grimes is John Devereux, because anybody else would not be a member of the Labor Party. The same thing will apply to other political parties. If the Labor Party were ever so silly as to engage in the same tomfoolery as Robin Gray, the Liberal and National parties would act in exactly the same way. Instead of playing around today with the motion the Opposition members should all have given it unanimous support to let Robin Gray and all future premiers know where the Australian Parliament stands on this important issue. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.59) —The arrogance and overweening patronage of this Government never cease to amaze me. If the Government really believed in the motion it has before us today, we would have seen the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Deputy Prime Minister, up at the table a moment ago. He is the only one in the Government who has acknowledged that there is a fault in the constitutional change. He has acknowledged that the High Court of Australia would not enforce the interpretation of section 15 of the Constitution that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), have sought to impose on it. Let us look at the motion itself. I think everybody needs to understand that the Government is seeking to pretend in some way that the Australian Labor Party has never been that indecent, never breached the conventions. I think that the Labor Party talking about not breaching conventions is rather like an arsonist talking about putting out a fire. Have honourable members opposite all forgotten that back in 1975 Sir John Kerr, exercising the conventions of the Constitution, exercised quite correctly his powers within those conventions to fire the Government of Gough Whitlam? We heard all around the country how diabolical it was that that convention of the Constitution should have been applied as it was. We need to realise that what this Government is about is selectively choosing those conventions which it believes are appropriate to its cause and, in particular, trying to ensure that its numbers in some way are protected when it happens prejudicially to affect the rights of everyone in a State. Nobody should ignore the reality that Labor is centralist. Labor has no concern about the rights and opportunities of the people in Tasmania. Day after day my colleagues from Tasmania come into this place and ask the Prime Minister and Ministers what the Government is doing for the people of Tasmania. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said a moment ago, a firm and formal contract negotiated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has been ignored because of the convenience of political opportunism-because the Government thought that a greenie vote might be capable of being won. We had the whole of this Lemonthyme-- Mr Simmons —Why don't you get back to the issue? Mr SINCLAIR —This is the issue, my friend. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill was introduced into this place peculiarly so that the Labor Party could try to attract to itself the greenie vote. It is now recognised that as far as the Labor Party is concerned the firm contract entered into by the Minister for Primary Industry on the Government's behalf was not as important to the Government as getting a few votes from a few conservationists which it thinks in some way will swing the pendulum back in the Government's favour. 6 This motion is not about the conventions of the Constitution; it is about the Labor Party trying to assert a bit of big muscle against Tasmania. As far as Tasmania is concerned, for a long while this Government has tried in every possible way to deny the Government of Robin Gray the rights and opportunities of governing his State in the way he believes to be fit and proper. We need to remember that the whole of the Franklin dam project was the beginning of this Government's actions against the rights and prerogatives of a State. We remember Biggles Evans and his streaker's excuse: It seemed like a good idea at the time. Today the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) came in here and said `We did not use military aircraft. We did charter an aeroplane and we took photographs'-- Mr White —And chartered it in Melbourne. Mr SINCLAIR —Yes, in Melbourne. The Minister said: `We asked whether the aircraft had a camera, and of course photographs were taken'. But did he apply within the appropriate Lemonthyme legislation to get approval to go in and inspect the site? No, he ignored that. Once again a spy aircraft was used to engage in domestic espionage. What the devil is the matter with this Government? It is asserting its arrogant right to intervene in the prerogatives of a State government. The motion before the Parliament today is not one, were it to be addressed to this Parliament, that we would accept was other than a breach of parliamentary privilege. It seeks not properly to draw attention to the conventions of the Constitution with respect to replacement senators; it seeks to direct the Tasmanian Parliament as to the way in which it should act. The sad part of this whole affair is that for a long while this Federal Government has progressively tried to use its international affairs powers in such a way that it can intrude on the sovereign rights of Tasmania in particular. I wish to identify a few areas where I believe this whole affair has gone far too far. The reason the Government is now embarrassed is not that there has not been a replacement senator from Tasmania, but that it has suddenly realised that it is being seen by the people of Australia as engaging in a total abuse of its constitutional power. It is for that reason that we have moved an amendment to the motion. Firstly, the Tasmanian Government believes that, including global borrowing cutbacks, there has already been a cutback in funding for Tasmania, last year, by $160m. Whilst it is true that at Question Time today we had a denial by the Prime Minister that there will be a further $50m cutback, it did not change the fact that there have been media reports of the Prime Minister running around the country for weeks threatening the Tasmanian Premier with action unless he acted in a certain way. Constitutional conventions are one thing, but to have a Prime Minister of this country berating a State Premier in the autocratic way this Prime Minister is doing with regard to Robin Gray is totally unacceptable to honourable members on this side of the House. Secondly, we have to understand that the magnificent freight equalisation scheme, introduced by a coalition government to assist the people of Tasmania to gain a more equal place within the Commonwealth, has been cut by the Hawke Government. The Government has removed the air fare subsidy. It has continued National Estate listings without consultation with the State Government. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill was introduced significantly to try to ensure that the greenie vote was picked up by the Labor Party. We know that the Prime Minister has never shown any real interest in Tasmania. I am told that until the ALP Conference last year the Prime Minister had spent fewer than 70 hours, that is, not even three days in Tasmania in the whole of the period that he has been Prime Minister. This motion is not about how section 15 of the Constitution should be adhered to but about how and in what way the Labor Party can beat a small State around the ears and try to ensure that it complies in every way with the directions of this Federal Government. Unfortunately, as far as Tasmania is concerned, there is little doubt that progressively the Labor Party has shown not only that it is prepared to act in every way it can to deny the Tasmanian Government its constitutional rights but also that it is prepared to act in such a way that it ignores even the rights and opportunities of ordinary Australians. ALP senator, Terry Aulich, has a staff member who properly was concerned about the actions of the Federal Government-- Mr Goodluck —Yes, of course-Murphy. Mr SINCLAIR —That is right. His name is Murphy, as my colleague says. Mr Murphy was quite properly concerned about the jobs of those who work in logging in Tasmania. Poor old Senator Aulich found that he was going to be carpeted because Mr Murphy, a member of his staff, thought that the Minister for Primary Industry had meant what he said when he entered into a firm agreement. Talking about conventions, I would have thought that one of the conventions a government ought to honour would be the legality of a formal contract, entered into formally between a Minister on behalf of a Federal Government and a Minister on behalf of a State government, relating to the logging of forests. But what happened? The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has already told us that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area is to cover an area of about 284,000 hectares. We know that the logging that Senator Aulich's Mr Murphy was concerned about affected only about 600 hectares. But the Government was not content with producing some sort of a ban with respect to 600 hectares. We have a new piece of legislation, intruding on the rights and opportunities of Tasmania, this bully boy tactic, this contravention of a firm agreement, and the Labor Party comes in here today and has the hide to talk about the breach of a constitutional convention. There is no more sacred convention than the rights of a legal contract and agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the States. Mr Shayne Murphy set up a new organisation called the Australian forest workers task force. It was out there trying to protect the jobs of those Tasmanians who properly thought that their Federal Government was going to abide by its Federal responsibilities. But it was not only a question of loggers losing their jobs, it was also a question of Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd finding out that its $200m Japanese-Australian joint venture was not to go ahead because this Government was not prepared to abide by that legal agreement. We now have the prospect of yet another inquiry. Three people are to be involved in the inquiry. None of them is a Tasmanian. The commission of inquiry is to be headed by a retired New South Wales Equity Court judge. The other two commissioners are a Mr Peter Hitchcock, a former forester with the New South Wales Forestry Commission, and a Mr Robert Wallace, Reader in Economics at Flinders University, Adelaide. In an inquiry looking at logging, looking at the products of a contract entered into formally by the Labor Government, nobody from Tasmania is included. I do not know how many inquiries there have been into logging but there have been a sufficient number of inquiries for the Minister for Primary Industry to believe that he was in a correct, proper and valid legal position to enter into a formal agreement. Let us put this whole matter back into perspective. Don Grimes, for his own valid and proper reasons, retired from the Senate. We all accept that it is the right of any senator, or any member of this place, to leave if he or she wishes to do so. Senator Grimes having resigned, the Tasmanian Government was called on to elect a replacement. It is true that within this motion there is a reference to a constitutional convention, but there are a number of ways in which that convention has been carried out. For example, in Queensland the party which is required to fill the vacancy within section 15 of the Constitution has been called on to offer three names. It cannot be denied that there is a right, within section 15 of the Constitution, for the Parliament ultimately to make the decision. It is on that basis and for that reason that the Attorney-General-the Deputy Prime Minister-who refused to participate in this debate, in fact said that the High Court would not in any way declare illegal the action taken by the Tasmanian Parliament. We need to understand that this particular motion has done several things. Firstly, it tries to take, in a politically opportunistic way, the constitutional convention and rewrite it in a tighter way than the Constitution itself expresses it. While the Leader of the Opposition and I have already declared our position, it needs to be understood that it is not for this Parliament to intrude unduly in the affairs of any State parliament. Secondly, it should be understood that this Federal Government consistently, over a protracted period, has sought to intervene not just in the affairs of Tasmania but in the affairs of every non-Labor State and Territory in this country. We all know that only the other day there was a meeting of Labor Premiers to consider the impact of Budget cuts to be announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tomorrow night. Why were not the other leaders, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Premiers of Tasmania and Queensland invited to come to Canberra and confer on that same basis? We all know that this Government has consistently asserted its right to differentiate between Labor States and non-Labor States. We all know that as far as the Constitution and division of powers is concerned, this Labor Government is not concerned with equity between States; it is concerned with what it sees as inequity between political parties. The whole basis of this motion is in no way related to constitutional conventions, nor to the upholding of constitutional conventions. This motion is entirely related to the Government's assertion that it will beat around the ears any State that in any way might have a point of view that differs from its own. It is under that circumstance and on that basis that the Leader of the Opposition has moved this amendment, which has the wholehearted endorsement of the members of the National Party. We are fed up with the Federal Government using external affairs powers for the purpose of intervening in the affairs of a State. We are fed up with the Labor Government differentially asserting its right to intervene in the prerogatives of State governments, particularly those of a non-Labor persuasion. We are extremely concerned that in the circumstances of general economic disquiet that exist at a time when ordinary Australians are being beaten around the ears by high inflation, by high interest rates and by economic policies that have run amok, this Government in some way tries to suggest that all that happens that is wrong is done by State governments. That is not true. Yet again, this motion demonstrates that the Federal Government should start concentrating on those things for which it is responsible and stop intruding unduly on the affairs of those State governments which quite properly are incensed because of the high-handed, autocratic and arrogant behaviour of a government that has lost touch with ordinary Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand. G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K .W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H . Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I, McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. PAIR Hayden, W. G. Brown, N. A. In division- Mr Goodluck-On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Does this mean that the five Tasmanians cannot speak on this motion? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-There is no point of order. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Mr Howard's amendment) be added. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. 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. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. PAIRBrown, N. A. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House authorises- (1) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to film all or part of the ministerial statement concerning economic measures to be made by the Treasurer on 13 May 1987, and all or part of the reply to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition; (2) the direct, live telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches, and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. Mr GEAR(Canning) —I present the report of the Committee of Privileges relating to the matter of printed references to the proceedings and prospective recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception in the Sun News-Pictorial and Courier-Mail of 17 November 1986, and similar references in other newspapers, and incorporating four dissenting reports and the minutes of the proceedings. I also present evidence received by the Committee and correspondence relating to the inquiry. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr GEAR —by leave-The report I have just presented follows an inquiry initiated by a complaint by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) on 17 November 1986. The honourable member, who at the time he raised the complaint was Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, raised, as a matter of privilege, Press reports which purported to reveal recommendations of the Joint Select Committee which had not, at that time, been reported to either House. The matter was referred to the Committee on 18 November 1986. The Committee received written and oral evidence from Mr Martin and, inter alia, he indicated that two of the articles in question indicated to him `an oral briefing given to a reporter by someone who had participated in the Committee's deliberations, rather than a draft report being in the possession of a reporter'. Mr Martin said, in particular, that a knowledge of private discussions at meetings of the Committee on 13 and 14 November 1986 was revealed. The Committee took the view that it should investigate, as thoroughly as possible, the apparent unauthorised disclosure, as well as the aspect of publication. To that end, the Committee wished to receive evidence from all members of the Joint Select Committee. Senators who had served on the Committee were given leave by the Senate to appear before the Committee of Privileges of the House if they saw fit. Each member of the Joint Select Committee gave evidence, as did staff members who had served on the Committee secretariat. The Committee also heard oral evidence from four journalists involved; namely, Messrs S. Rous, G. Greene, A. Fewster and M. Cockburn. Written material was also received from journalists and persons associated with the various newspapers. The Committee made two historic decisions. First, evidence was taken in public, apart from the first evidence from the Chairman of the former Committee, although the evidence received from him in camera was subsequently authorised for publication. Secondly, the Committee permitted witnesses, if they wished, to have the assistance of an adviser or counsel during the course of their appearance. In the event, four witnesses took advantage of this offer. The level of involvement permitted was limited, and not as extensive as desired by those involved. However, witnesses were permitted to consult with and receive advice from counsel as frequently as they wished in the course of their evidence. Witnesses were also advised that further submissions could be lodged with the Committee after their oral evidence was given, and submissions were subsequently received on behalf of two witnesses. All witnesses who gave oral evidence did so after making an oath or affirmation. It appeared from the evidence that there had been more than one source of information on the deliberations of the Committee. However all members of the former Committee, and staff of the Committee, denied having disclosed confidential material or information to the journalists in question. None revealed any grounds for believing that they could have been a source of an inadvertent disclosure, and each stated that they had no knowledge of the way the apparent disclosure took place. I come now to the conclusions of the Committee. First, on the matter of disclosure, although the possibility of some form of interception or monitoring cannot be dismissed, the Committee has concluded that confidential Committee deliberations have been disclosed without authorisation by persons with access to the information. If such persons acted deliberately, they were each guilty of a serious contempt. Regrettably, the Committee has been unable to ascertain the identities of such persons. It takes a very serious view of such actions, which display an offensive disregard for the Joint Select Committee itself, and others associated with it, and ultimately a disregard for the important rules and conventions of the Houses. Secondly, the Committee has concluded that the various acts of publication revealing the confidential deliberations constituted contempts. In particular, Messrs G. Greene, A. Fewster and M. Cockburn, in submitting material for the reports eventually printed, were each responsible for publishing information revealing confidential Committee proceedings which had not been authorised for publication, and these actions constituted contempts. Further contempts were committed by those responsible for the later publication of the reports. Having been unable to identity the person or persons responsible for the disclosure, the Committee can make no recommendation on this matter. If, however, the Committee had been able to ascertain the person or persons responsible, the House would have been well advised to take exemplary action. On the matter of publication, although an important rule has been breached, and whilst the actions of the three journalists in question do them no credit, the Committee has taken note of the view of the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception to the effect that no impediment was caused to the Committee. It therefore seeks the guidance of the House as to its attitude to penalties. If the House believes that a penalty is warranted in this case, it should refer this matter back to the Committee for consideration. If the matter is referred to it, the Committee would propose to recall the persons in question so that they could be heard on the matter. On the question of incidental matters, during the Committee's inquiry it heard evidence from members and staff of the former Joint Select Committee. As mentioned before, each person denied having disclosed confidential material and stated that he had no knowledge of the source of the material. If the presumption is that persons with a knowledge of the confidential deliberations of the Committee in fact disclosed the material in question, it would appear that one or more persons has lied to or misled the Committee of Privileges. The Committee regards this as a very grave matter, and even more serious than the actual disclosure of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee. The Committee was faced with a situation in which three witnesses, namely Messrs G. Greene, A. Fewster and M. Cockburn, each refused to provide certain information requested by the Committee. The information sought concerned the sources of their information about the Committee's work. The witnesses were advised of the possibility of a refusal to answer questions being regarded as a contempt. However, they referred to their desire, even a perceived obligation, to respect the confidentiality of their sources. Reference was made in particular to the Code of Ethics of the Australian Journalists' Association. Whilst the conventions associated with this code may be given considerable weight by journalists, it is not accorded special significance by the Committee. The Committee is of the view that, whilst the Houses and their committees would always take note of these conventions, in every case question of whether they should be respected or whether, on the other hand, a journalist or other representative should be required to answer, would be for the House or committee to determine. In this particular case, I advised the three witnesses who refused to provide the information sought that refusal to provide information could itself be regarded as a contempt, but they did not change their positions. The Committee therefore recommends that the House refer the matter back to the Committee for the consideration of an appropriate penalty. The Committee advises the House that, prior to considering the question of penalty, the Committee would recall the witnesses and provide them with an opportunity to be heard on their own behalf. Only last week, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House debated and passed the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, which declared the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of the Federal Parliament and their committees and members. I hope that the House will now find time to consider this report from the Committee of Privileges because some very important issues are involved. Finally, as Chairman of the Privileges Committee, I would like to place on the public record the appreciation of the Committee to Bernard Wright, the Secretary to the Committee, and his assistant Veronica Lategui, for the high standard of assistance given to the Committee during this inquiry. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —I thank the House. I am one of the members who have brought forward dissenting reports on the reference to the Committee of Privileges. Although my dissenting report, like the majority report, speaks for itself, there are nevertheless a number of matters that I would like briefly to highlight to the House today. The substance of my dissenting report revolves around a very different view that I have of the role of the Privileges Committee when considering an alleged breach of privilege or contempt. There is no doubt in my mind that the usual summary given of section 49 of the Australian Constitution, to the effect that the Parliament is strictly limited to the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons as at 1 January 1901, is obviously still the case. However, where I differ from the majority report is that I do not believe that a recurrence now or in the future of any act or omission which is the same as or very similar to acts or omissions held by the House of Commons to be contempts in the years before 1901 must be determined in the same way. In my view it is the power to punish contempts which is inherited, and the application of that power is for the judgment of the House, usually in the light of advice from the Committee of Privileges. It is because I hold that view that I believe, putting it in broad terms, that this House and the Privileges Committee must change with the times and cannot be blind to the very different interpretations of the law of privilege adopted in other jurisdictions, and indeed by the House of Commons. I hold that view above all else because the principles of natural justice still do not operate before the Privileges Committee. Despite the fact that the Parliament has passed the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, the reality is that in relation to matters of parliamentary privilege this House is still in effect the prosecutor, judge and jury in matters of privilege. Mr Cleeland —And the executioner. Mr TICKNER —My colleague adds `executioner', which I think I can say is a word that I would have used in my dissenting report had caution not prevailed. It is for that reason that I do believe that we must adopt a view of privilege that is in accordance with community standards. I believe that the minor reform that has been brought about to the law of privilege by the Parliamentary Privileges Bill is still woefully inadequate and fails to meet at all the concerns that I expressed in my minority report. I hope that this particular reference to the Committee and its report to the House will be the springboard that will ensure the passage of the resolutions that were tabled by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading stage speech on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill because, until this House passes those resolutions, we will not in any way have adequately addressed the concerns of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I make this very specific point: The Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, Mr Martin, indicated in his evidence that he did not believe that the publication of the resultant revelations would in any way impede a member of the Committee or in any way impede the Committee's work. Thus, as Mr Martin has advised, the matter did not obstruct or impede his Committee and this case would fail the test now applied in the United Kingdom and would not even go to the Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons. I respectfully suggest that so out of touch are we with current practice that the matter would not even have been referred. It follows from all this that I do not find that the various acts of publications revealing the confidential deliberations constituted contempts by Messrs Greene, Fewster and Cockburn. I do not believe that justice has been delivered to those journalists, as I believe that they have not had adequate legal representation to be able to defend themselves. My view is that it is the person or persons who leaked the information who are at fault and who subsequently have given false evidence on oath or affirmation. Those at fault are not the journalists, who I believe have conducted themselves honestly and with integrity in accordance with the professional rules governing their calling. I note that the House of Commons in the Times case in 1986 passed a resolution that stated in effect: . . . it would be wrong to punish a journalist merely for doing his job. I strongly support those sentiments of the House of Commons as recently as 1986. I do not wish to take further time of the House, except to reiterate that, although I respect my colleagues on the Committee, I do hold very strongly the view that the way that the Committee has applied the concept of breach of privilege is an anachronism and I believe that this report ought to be the springboard once and for all for the removal of this blight from our parliamentary landscape. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to speak for a few moments on the same matter. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be aware, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges and I am obliged to address this matter which now commands the attention of the House. Let me, firstly, say, in respect of my Committee colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), that I respect totally his philosophical views on the matter of privilege. They could well be substantiated. But, as far as the Committee was concerned, it was obliged to address this referral from the House under the rules presently prevailing. I respectfully suggest that the submission of the honourable member for Hughes should be directed more to a substantial question of the whole matter of privilege. The Committee in this case was required to address the referral under the prevailing rules. The Committee has done exactly that. The comments offered by the honourable member for Hughes fairly warrant consideration by the House on the fundamental question of privilege and how that matter should be addressed. The other point that I wish to touch upon briefly is the decision of the Committee to refer the matter to the House, seeking guidance as to the question of penalties without proceeding of its own initiative, as it may well have done, to determine penalties considered appropriate to the breach as the Committee perceived it. The Committee is mindful that in so doing it has perhaps exposed itself to the criticism that it lacked the intestinal fortitude to go all the way. That could not have been further from the Committee's thoughts in the matter. However, it felt that because over a period of years the House on occasions has come to the conclusion that the whole matter was beneath the dignity of the House, or has elected not to proceed with penalties, it was a far better arrangement, firstly, to test the opinion of the House as to whether the considered penalties should be applied. That being the case, if the House so decided, the Committee then was quite willing to readdress the matter and of its own volition determine what penalties should be recommended to the House in respect of the matter. I thank the House. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement in respect of this matter. Leave granted. Mr CLEELAND —I am a member of the Committee of Privileges and I have put down a dissenting report which honourable members can read in due course at their leisure. One thing that concerns me in this whole area is something that I have heard reiterated yet again. Both the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) have spoken about privileges. The reality is that historically privilege and contempt are two separate items. They are two separate heads of power which the House of Commons had prior to 1901 and prior to the enactment of section 49 of the Constitution. The mere fact that even today we have members of this House standing here and talking about privilege when in reality we are talking about the contempt power of the House of Representatives indicates-it should indicate to all members of this House-just how misguided we all are when we start talking about this very issue, because really what we are talking about is the power of the House to command the attendance of people before it and before its committees. That is the power. It becomes very confusing. We hear-and the majority of members take this view, and I respect it-that because of the operation of section 49 of the Constitution, this House in 1901 inherited not just a power of contempt but all the rules and the precedents that existed within the House of Commons prior to 1901; that in some magical way 1901 was the cut-off point when all this activity ceased and that this Parliament must remain forever moribund in looking back beyond 1901 to determine in each and every circumstance what should constitute contempt. I totally reject that view. I do not believe that the power granted under section 49 covers all the bits and pieces which constitute contempt but that it pertains simply to the power of contempt. That is the fundamental difference between my view and that of the majority of members of the Committee. Powers are granted throughout the Constitution. For example, it grants the head of power for this Parliament to operate under. It does not give the sub-rules relating to the bits and pieces involved-that is for the Parliament to decide after having determined that it has the power. The majority of members of the Committee, in their wisdom, have said that in order to find what is contempt one must consider precedent, that one must go back and look at what the House of Commons did prior to 1901 and that if one can find some head prior to 1901 where, by precedent, the House of Commons says that it is contempt then, per se, an action will be considered in contempt of this Parliament in 1987. I cannot accept that. That is a myth and I think that that view is not founded on a proper interpretation of constitutional law or on a proper reading of the Constitution. It is for that reason that I find myself dissenting from the view held by the majority of members of the Committee, and I find that in the principal circumstances outlined there has not been a contempt of this Parliament. It is fair to say that I do find that a contempt has occurred-but not in relation to the publication or the printing of the material outlined. I do not accept that journalists more than any other citizen in this country have a peculiar or individual right to refuse to give evidence to a committee of this Parliament. If that is to be the case, then any group of Australian citizens could determine that as part of their ethical responsibilities they can decide that they have the right to refuse to give evidence to a committee of this Parliament. That is the logical extension of what the Journalists Association is saying. I reject that. Journalists operate in this place as a privilege. They are Australian citizens with no more or less rights than any other Australian citizen. The fact that this Parliament allows them the right to live in this building with us does not give them any greater right than any other Australian citizen. The fact that they work in this building creates enormous problems. Politicians and staff sit in various places in this building and talk and communicate with each other. For example, evidence was given that a staff member of the Committee can sit in the cafeteria of this building with journalists, and we are expected to believe that in those circumstances there is no possibility of a leak. One has only to go into the snake pit, as it is popularly called, and see the journalists and members of this House enjoying each other's company to appreciate the close relationship that exists between journalists and staff and members of this place. The Parliament is making a joke of itself if it honestly believes that in the hot-house of this building it will prevent leaks. This is the aspect that concerns me in relation to this whole matter of contempt. The situation to which I have referred happens every day in this building. Since the inquiry was established I have read two reports in newspapers concerning leaks of information from Senate committees, which leaks constitute, if the majority of members of the Committee are right, contempt of the Senate, and yet the Senate has decided not to take any action. In fact, the matter has not even been raised in the Senate. What seems to occur in this area is that each House, whenever it feels aggrieved enough about a particular item, will then get its committee out and go through the process of an inquiry and will drag journalists and other people before it, knowing full well that probably every member of this place has at some time leaked information to a journalist. I find that hypocritical. I find it sad, because it is obvious that a member of this Parliament has provided information to the journalists. I think that is very obvious, and yet the majority on this Committee are prepared to condemn the journalist-and, to their credit, they condemn the unknown member. However, the majority are prepared to say that they will consider punishing the journalist. It seems to me that if members in this chamber are prepared to provide journalists with information as they see fit to suit their own self-interest, their own Party functions or their own ambitions, and if members of this place cannot have the integrity, both collectively and as individuals, not to do that, then why should we condemn the journalists for doing it. They are being paid to to it. They are here to ferret out information, and they know which one in this place will talk; they know from where they can get the information that they require-let us not kid ourselves. I find that the whole thing is somewhat akin to a Gilbert and Sullivan farce-and it worries me. The whole power as it operates worries me. I agree with the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) that it is about time that Parliament took the bit between its teeth and put together a collective approach, specifying what we mean by privileges and what we mean by contempt, specifying the rules and guidelines of contempt, so that any person coming into this building, any Australian citizen, can pick up a book and read exactly what we mean. At this stage we do not know what we mean. None of us can stand up here and say with any authority that a certain act will constitute contempt. If the Parliament is not prepared to go through the exercise and to put the integrity of its own viewpoints into an Act of this Parliament and to codify the law so that every Australian citizen knows what we are talking about, then we do not deserve to have the power that we now have. It is about time that we took that bit between our teeth. I thank the House for the indulgence granted. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie) —I seek leave to make a statement concerning the submission of a dissenting report. Leave granted. Mr CAMPBELL —I, too, submitted a dissenting report. I find myself largely in agreement with the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), although in a much less learned way, and honourable members will find my submission much shorter than theirs. I want to make a few remarks about what I did not say in my report. I think it is very important to clarify the situation once and for all, as was mentioned by both the honourable member for Hughes and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I believe that this is hard to do, as I think an argument could be advanced that we are in fact contemptible. In those circumstances, I cannot see how it is possible to commit an offence by holding in contempt a body that is contemptible. I would like to enlarge on that. In 1902 a Federal member of Parliament had about 22,000 constituents-give or take a few thousand; it was 22,000 in Western Australia. However, today a Federal member has 65,000-plus, and an enormously enlarged work load. One might say: `Ah, but in the days of modern technology a member is much more able to handle that work load'. This, of course, is a perversion of the truth, because that modern technology has in fact further compounded a member's work load. A member is now much more available to all constituents. For example, the fact that anyone can now telephone his local member by means of a reverse charge phone call has compounded his or her workload enormously. In relation to my own electorate, in those early days the member used to come to Canberra and stay here for the duration of the session. If a member did venture out into the electorate, it was a leisurely journey up and down the coast in a steamer. However, today, as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, I fly backwards and forwards every weekend and I am out in the electorate for most of the time. So the work load has increased enormously. We also find that the power of the Parliament has been enormously eroded by members of parliament because the Executive of the Parliament in 1902-I take 1902 as a benchmark because 1901 was an aberration in a sense-and the Cabinet was about half the size of present day Cabinets. When members of parliament caucus-as both the Liberal and Labor parties caucus; I suppose the National Party has several caucuses-if they are confronted with Cabinet solidarity of the dimensions we have today, it leaves very little room for a back bencher to have any real effect. So we have grossly reduced the power and influence of back benchers which I consider is an affront and a contempt of this Parliament. Let us look at payments made to members of parliament. I believe an Opposition senator said that if we pay people peanuts we will get monkeys. When Mr Chifley set up arbitration commissioners-I think it was in 1946-he said that it was such an important job that he intended to pitch their pay at the level of Federal members of parliament. Today we find those people enjoying vastly superior salaries to members of parliament. We find that people in Division 2 in the Public Service are enjoying better salaries than members of parliament. No one can tell me that the work load or responsibility is anywhere near comparable. So here again we have held ourselves in contempt. We are so frightened of usurping the authority and dignity of this House that every time a pay rise is suggested for members of parliament, it is opposed. We seem to think we are doing the public a favour. In my view we are doing the public a great disservice because we are inevitably reducing the standards of this Parliament. This is going to be more evident in the Liberal Party than it is in the Labor Party because people in the Labor Party come to parliament for reasons other than money. The Westminster system, which I hold very dear-I think it is probably the best system in the world-relies very much on strong opposition. If there is not a strong opposition, good government cannot be maintained. Over the years we have denigrated the position of parliamentarians and so reduced their wages that the Opposition is finding it very difficult to get people of a suitable calibre into the Parliament. Looking around this House, it would be fair to say that the intellectual capacity of the Opposition is probably a good 30 per cent less than it is on this side. This is a contempt of the Parliament. It is putting the Westminster system under enormous strain. Until these problems are addressed there can be no case, from my point of view, of any contempt charges arising in this place. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —by leave-The Parliament will recall that when I first raised this issue in this place it was referred to the Committee of Privileges for determination. I believe that the conclusions that have been reached by the Committee of Privileges have vindicated that reference to the Committee. I would like, very quickly to refer to the conclusions which were reached and which are reprinted on page 11 of the report. The first conclusion states: . . . confidential committee deliberations have been disclosed without authorisation by persons with access to the information. That, in itself, is a vindication of the fact that this matter was referred from our Committee-the Telecommunications Interception Committee-to the Parliament and thence to the Committee of Privileges. What has been said by a number of speakers this afternoon, however, and was certainly said by the Chairman in the Privileges Committee report was that because the work of the Committee-that is the Telecommunications Interception Committee-was not impeded, the severity or otherwise of that information being passed on to journalists was difficult to measure and that whether or not a penalty should apply was also difficult to determine. I am not a lawyer and I dispute that fact. I think that by virtue of the conclusion being reached that there was a breach of the privileges of this Parliament a penalty should be determined. The information that was disclosed to journalists by people whom the Committee was unable to detect through its extensive investigations was, nevertheless, extremely important. Whilst I said in my evidence to the Privileges Committee that the work of the Telecommunications Interception Committee was not impeded-I said that because the Committee's deliberations had reached the stage where the report was about to be printed in its final form-that does not take away from the fact that, in my view, there was a serious contempt of this place. In layman's terms I suggest that information being considered in a chairman's draft report or in confidentiality in the confines of committee deliberations should remain firmly within the confines of the committee. They should not be available to be freely spread around through whatever form of media should somebody choose to do so. I certainly agree with my colleague, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) in his summation that the persons who actually leaked the information are the ones at fault. It is not necessarily the fault of the journalists for printing it. It is my belief-I have said this previously in this place and in evidence-that journalists have every responsibility to sniff out information on stories which they believe are in the public interest. I find it abhorrent that somebody-I am disappointed the Committee was unable to determine who it was-felt it necessary to pass on confidential information from a committee to journalists and that that took away from some of the determinations and considerations of the Committee. I will refer to some of the comments that were made by my colleague, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). His assertion that leaking is a natural phenomenon in this place and that it is hypocritical for anyone to suggest that leaking should not occur or does not occur is drawing a very long bow indeed. There are many honourable members in this place. If they take their job seriously-I believe most members of the Telecommunications Interception Committee take their job seriously-they would not, under any circumstances, choose to go down that particular road and make confidential information available to the media or anybody else outside the Committee. In conclusion, it is my view that the Committee worked as an effective group with one common purpose which was to look at the matters under investigation in its reference from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and to make a very real contribution to the whole question of the need for and the extension of telecommunications interception powers in Australia. I still believe that the Committee made an appropriate contribution. I am only deeply sorry that persons undetected found it necessary to make that information available to the wider community before it received the full assent of the Committee and before it was tabled as is the legal position in tabling documents in this Parliament. Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 273rd report of the Committee, the response to report No. 240-the report of the Auditor-General of March 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr RUDDOCK —by leave-Each year the Joint Committee of Public Accounts examines recently published reports of the Auditor- General. Following the tabling of the report of the Auditor-General of March 1984, the Committee sought written submissions from 16 departments in respect of 19 items raised by the Auditor-General. The Committee's findings were presented in its 240th report to the Parliament on 28 November 1985. The items raised in the Committee's earlier report have largely elicited a satisfactory response. Of the outstanding matter, the most significant were telephone rental concessions to pensioners and the National Biological Standards Laboratory. In its earlier report, the Committee expressed concern that the matter of telephone rental concessions to pensioners, which has been raised in many reports of the Auditor-General, remained unresolved. The Committee is satisfied, at this stage, with the discount voucher system currently being introduced, but recognises that this system needs to be tested in practice. The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by representative organisations about the voucher system and will keep this matter under review. If the Committee finds that concerns remain once the voucher system is fully operational, then it will examine the operation of the system further. In relation to the National Biological Standards Laboratory, the Committee is concerned that insufficient and inadequate resources continue to prevent the laboratory from carrying out its functions effectively. This, together with other information available, has prompted the Committee to embark upon a public inquiry into the National Biological Standards Laboratory. This review will encompass laboratory standards, the quality and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and generic drugs on the Australian market, the testing of these drugs and the acceptance of overseas testing, and the efficiency and effectiveness with which the laboratory carries out its other functions. The Committee will also examine the resources available to the National Biological Standards Laboratory. I believe that this will be a very important inquiry and one which, in view of the considerable public interest already shown in the matter, will evoke considerable interest. In conclusion, the Committee would like to express its serious concern on a matter becoming increasingly common in responses to Committee reports; that is, the length of the time taken to respond to the findings in these reports and the growing number of matters which remain outstanding. The Committee is particularly concerned that in some instances departments are taking an inordinate amount of time to deal with specific and immediate administrative problems identified by the Committee, particularly when raised previously by the Auditor-General. Accordingly, the Committee expects a more determined effort from departments to ensure timeliness in dealing with and responding to the findings of the Committee. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill with the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.13) —At the outset, I would like to say to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, that I appreciate his courtesy and assistance to me in recent days following my transfer on this side of the House to responsibility for communications. The Minister and I may not agree frequently on Government policies in this area, but there can be no disagreement that proper courtesies have been followed. Mr Lloyd —He is a courteous man. Mr BEALE —I also welcome the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Murray, my National Party colleague, who is now the National Party's spokesman on communications, among other things. This cognate debate involves the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Let me tell the House and the Government exactly where the Liberal Party stands on these measures. As far as the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill is concerned, if the Government will undertake to introduce new television licences in Sydney and Melbourne within the next two years and in the other major cities around Australia-that is, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart-within the next five years, we will not oppose the legislation. Mr Saunderson —How many licences? Mr BEALE —If the honourable member for Aston will be patient I will tell him in due course. If, on the other hand, the Government will not give these assurances in a form that is acceptable to us-I invite the Minister to respond in the appropriate way when he sums up the second reading debate-we will vote against the legislation. So that the Minister and the honourable member for Aston can understand our position, I 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- (1) the calling of applications for- (a) at least one additional commercial television licence for each of Sydney and Melbourne, and (b) at least one additional commercial television licence for each of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania, and (2) the issue of licences following applications- (a) in the case of Sydney and Melbourne by 1 July 1989, and (b) in the case of Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and Tasmania by 1 July 1992'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BEALE —I can assure the Minister that the position we are adopting is not a negotiating position. It is of crucial importance to us that we open up the Australian television market to more diversity and competition, that we give Australian television viewers more choice and that we allow a more competitive environment to exist. If, by means of additional licences, we cannot see that we will achieve these objectives, the legislation will be unacceptable to us. The clauses contained in the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill which impose a moratorium on the issuing of pay television licences for at least another four years are unacceptable. If the Minister will not give an assurance that he will not persist with those clauses, it is our intention to vote against that Bill at the second reading stage. Further, we may seek to amend those clauses to allow the Minister to bypass certain consultation processes so that proper discussion with interested parties can take place. The two pieces of legislation before us today, together with the Government's regional television equalisation and aggregation legislation which was defeated recently in the Senate, form the three arms of the Government's current policy for the future of the television industry in Australia. With some candour I say that we do not approve of that direction. The abolition of the two-station rule and its replacement with the 75 per cent reach rule does afford some opportunity for further diversification of Australia's television industry. However, this can only occur satisfactorily if additional television licences are issued. We object strenuously to the means by which the Government's policies are communicated to the Australian people. The Government is not governing by legislation; it is governing by Press release. The Minister's statement on 27 November 1986 that he would legislate in the way now made clear, opened the way to an extraordinary series of events in the media industry. The transactions whereby the ownership of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd portion of the Channel 9 system, portion of the Channel 10 system, various newspapers and various radio stations changed hands electrified the share market and put a number of investors in a position where they would almost certainly be in breach of the law if it were not changed. This expectation of change and the possibility of capture of monopoly positions is clearly unhealthy, and that the Government's Press release triggered these events is a savage indictment on it. It is simply not appropriate for a government to conduct its affairs in this fashion, and this Government stands admonished for its extraordinary lack of sensitivity in dealing in this way with matters of national concern. It is now clear that the Government's legislation seeks to entrench an oligopoly of television interests centred around Channel 7, Channel 9 and Channel 10 operating from Melbourne and Sydney, and furthermore to deliver to those channels control and eventually ownership of Australia's regional television. In addition, the Government, by its four-year moratorium on the issue of pay television licences, seeks to protect further the major participants from competition. It is well known that the Minister, despite any protestations that he may make to the contrary, did not share the Government's majority view on this matter. The Minister fought, apparently to the last ditch, to prevent an extension of the power of the major players by trying to replace the two-station rule not with the 75 per cent reach rule but with a 43 per cent reach rule. The Government's regional television equalisation and aggregation legislation would have broken up the eastern seaboard of this country into four regional zones and aggregated the operators in three groups in each zone. These three groups would then have found themselves in a position where, in order to be competitive, they would have needed to align themselves with one of the three major networks. At the beginning this would, of course, be only for programs, although in some markets ownership changes are already taking place. However, inevitably the networks would have imposed increasing coercion on the regionals and finally absorbed them. The relevance of these events for regional television is clear. Programs with a regional flavour would diminish and local news stories would evaporate from the screen. Further, the Government's proposed four-year moratorium on pay television would have allowed the networks to consolidate their interests without fear of short term competition. This is not the way we would have conducted matters in relation to television in Australia. We stand for more choice, more diversity and better programs for the viewing audience and that is why, unless the Government gives us the assurances to which I referred earlier, we intend to oppose this legislation. Furthermore, our position has been clear for some time and the Government has now introduced this legislation in the knowledge of our opposition. On 30 January we advised that whilst at that time we were disposed to support the Government's proposal that any television network should have the right to reach 75 per cent of the viewing audience, we wanted to be certain that, firstly, its introduction did not unfairly disadvantage regional television stations, and that secondly, there should be a removal of existing barriers of entry to both television and radio. We believe that the Australian television audience should be entitled to see networks that operate throughout most of Australia if they choose to do so, in order that our national culture, heritage and characteristics can be communicated across the nation, but we believe in this only if there are no barriers to entry into the television media. For years now we have heard a lot of mumbo-jumbo from the Department of Communications about whether it is possible to introduce new licences on to the existing spectrum. The evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation strongly suggests that there is room in the capital cities for at least one additional licence to be granted in the very high frequency band, and more than that in the ultra high frequency band. That is why we say to the Government that we will vote against this legislation unless it is prepared to grant at least one additional licence in Sydney and Melbourne within the next two years, and in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania within the next five years. The Government's earlier announcement on prohibitions of cross-media ownership implied some draconian restrictions that would further entrench the powers of certain groups. In the event, however, now that we have at last sighted the legislation, those restrictions appear to be a toothless tiger. The Government has decided to legislate that a person with a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence could not also have within that area a monopoly radio station, and that is clearly absurd. The proliferation of radio in recent years, particularly in the frequency modulation spectrum, testifies to that. Furthermore, the prohibition on the holding of a newspaper 50 per cent of whose circulation is within the area of a television licence, is also fatuous given the general trend in recent years for the amalgamation of major newspaper interests around the Western world. It is obvious that these two measures are not really designed in any serious way to prohibit cross-media ownership but, rather, are a sop to the left wing factional group in the Australian Labor Party. We might have preferred to see any abuses that arose by virtue of cross-media ownership to be dealt with by the Trade Practices Commission, but we note that the specific clauses in this Bill do enable a clarification of the situation to take place and therefore, provided the Government accedes to our request for additional licences to be issued, we will not make the matter of cross-media ownership a reason to defeat this legislation. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to amend four Acts and, amongst other matters, to enable the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to engage in telecommunication activities in Australia other than to compete with Telecom Australia and to enable the Commission to provide domestic and international services for foreign countries. Conferring further power in the hands of government statutory authorities is always a matter for concern. We can see, for example, what happened recently in the case of Telecom. The monopoly that Telecom has on the supply and installation of the first phone is not only costly to the consumer-in many ways it is irrelevant to the consumer-but it may be illegal in that it may be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. Telecom's small business system, for example, as exemplified in the Commander switching service, has proved to be totally inadequate to the needs of small business in Australia, and accordingly, because of Telecom's monopoly in this area, more effective systems are precluded from competing with it. Mr Saunderson —Imported ones? Mr BEALE —Where does the honourable member think the Commander system comes from? The Telecom monopolies in commercial service areas, already admitted by the Chairman of Telecom to be uncompetitive, will be the subject of continuing attention by the Liberal Party in the months ahead. With that in mind we regard the conferring of additional power in the hands of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission with some scepticism but acknowledge some necessity for it to be provided with that power to be able to perform its duties and functions more effectively. However, I advise the Minister that we will continue to watch this situation with interest and concern. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill also seeks to place a four-year moratorium on the issuing of domestic pay television licences. As mentioned earlier, this move appears to be part of the Government's plan to protect the existing participants in the television industry from unnecessary and untimely competition. The most peculiar thing about this portion of the legislation is that it is not necessary at all. The Minister already has the power to issue licences or not to issue licences. What possible reason can he need, therefore, to place a legal moratorium on the issue of those licences? We are now about a year away from an election. In the unlikely event that the Government should be re-elected and in the much more unlikely event that the Minister should be the Minister for Communications over the following three years-- Mr Duffy —That is more unlikely. Mr BEALE —I note the Minister's interjection that it is very unlikely that he will be the Minister. I leave honourable members to decide the basis on which they should interpret that interjection. In the unlikely event that the Minister will be the Minister for the following three years he will be in a position to determine whether he should issue those licences. It is only if the Government changes in a year's time that the proposed moratorium will be at risk and then only if the new coalition parties in government have control of the Senate. It seems clear that the Government is trying to protect itself and those people who would be protected from competition by these clauses from the probability of a change in government and to prevent the new coalition parties in government from issuing new pay television licences should they not have control of the Senate. We do not accept the Government's explanation on this matter. We do not accept this portion of the Bill which further restricts entry to the market. Accordingly, if the Minister does not give us an assurance that he will withdraw the relevant clauses on the moratorium on the issue of pay television licences we intend to vote against the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill at the second reading. This Bill also seeks to amend the Radiocommunications Act to allow the Minister to bypass certain consultation processes. The effect of these changes would be to remove the opportunity for persons to make representations to the Minister in respect of amendments to proposed standards, spectrum plans or frequency band plans. Assurance from the Minister as to the last minute changes he proposes to introduce as amendments tonight would be appreciated. These changes are curious. They are curious because the Minister already has the power to bypass these processes if he concludes that the matter before him requires his urgent action or if he concludes that it is appropriate in the circumstances. They are curious because there do not appear to be any matters the Minister is currently considering which would require urgent decision. They are curious because the Minister has not really chosen to amplify his reason for these changes. If the Minister wishes to avoid public criticism of certain actions of his Department he should say so. It may very well be that the Minister may wish to avoid adverse public reaction to his radio frequency spectrum plan which has been coming for 3 1/2 years but which still has not yet arrived. That seems to be a rather flimsy excuse for the introduction of the relevant clauses. In agreeing to debate these two pieces of legislation cognately here today, the Opposition has been well aware of their combined effect on the future of the television industry in Australia. These two pieces of legislation, together with the regional television equalisation and aggregation Bill, are the benchmarks for a firm entrenchment of an oligopoly in the television industry in Australia. They are the benchmarks for tight control of this industry and the guidelines for a reduction and perhaps elimination of programs for regional areas. The Opposition does not see the future of the television industry in that way. What we wish to see is a more competitive, innovative and diverse range of services for Australian television viewers. We wish to see a market where there are no barriers to entry, where there are no prohibitions on regional programs, where there are no restrictions on the development of cable television and pay television, where there is a plethora of smaller stations giving specialised service to the Australian viewing public and finally, when that day comes, where there is a myriad of services arising from the use of satellites. That is our vision of the future of television in Australia. The Government has no vision. We say to the Minister that if he will not issue new television licences in the capital cities of Australia and that if he will not withdraw the proposed moratorium on pay television we will vote against both these pieces of legislation in the House today. If the Minister will not accede to our requests, the defeat of this legislation is the only sensible way to draw to the Government's attention the concern of millions of Australians about the need to provide more diversity, more choice and more programs to the television viewing audiences around this great country of ours. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.36) —I and, I think, the majority of honourable members on this side of the House are still no nearer to understanding what the Opposition's stance is on the legislation before the House-the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill; in particular, the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, which is probably the most significant television and broadcasting legislation to come before the Federal Parliament since the decision to introduce television in 1956 because it places the media in general, and particularly television, in a completely different ball game. When one talks about the media one has to ask what does one mean by the media. Various Opposition spokesmen have contributed to the debate. We are going to hear the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) speak next on behalf of the National Party of Australia. We will hear the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steel Hall) and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) speak later on behalf of the wets, putting their version. What does one mean by the media? Is the media radio? Is it television? Is it the newspapers? Is it film? Or is it all of them put together? This Government has put them all in the one basket. That is the fundamental change this legislation introduces. The major slice of this legislation concerns the cross-media ownership question. The honourable member for Goldstein has been rabbiting on in the Press recently about the concentration of media ownership. To some degree there is such a concentration, which I will allude to in a minute, but I would argue that there is not a fundamental concentration. Indeed, the opposite has occurred. In Melbourne the two most influential mediums are television and newsprint. One could not argue against that assumption. Melbourne will move from having four basic owners of all the newspapers and television to five. Sydney will move from having three owners to four and, if the Fairfax group sells its network-I suggest that is quite on the cards because Fairfax is in more trouble than the early settlers at present-from three owners to five. So rather than having had a further concentration of the two most powerful mediums in our country we have had the reverse effect in the two biggest cities which carry half the population of Australia. For example, in Melbourne one could get up in the morning, turn on 3DB, get one's morning newspaper, the Sun-which has the highest circulation of any newspaper in Australia-read that on the way to work, leave work at night, pick up the Melbourne Herald, get home and turn on Channel 7 at night and one would have heard the one voice all day. That will not occur any more under this legislation. The one voice in Melbourne was the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. Good luck to it. That was allowed to occur. If I had been the Herald and Weekly Times I would have been into it like a shot, too. But it should never have been allowed. This legislation stops that. It is ridiculous. I do not think those opposite know what they are talking about. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) succinctly said that they really have no idea what they are on about. In all the years that I have been connected with the industry, I have never blindly supported anyone, let alone the television owners with whom I have had a few blues from time to time. But on this occasion one has to support the owners having regard to the nonsense put by honourable members opposite. One aspect of television and broadcasting is profits-it has to be. One does not buy a television station or radio network to lose money-one is not a benevolent society. Other aspects are proper programming, television production, and responsibility to society. All the networks believe at present that they are in a tight financial position. The Opposition says: `We'll fix them up well and good. We'll introduce another network. If they are in trouble we will make sure that they go right out of business'. Who will it benefit? It will not benefit Australian production or programming because no one will be able to afford it across the board. The only way for them to survive will be for them to say: `We'll have to buy a few more Mickey Mouses from America. We'll whack it on. It is the only way they will survive'. A person in the industry put to me some time ago-and this will probably send a few people into apoplexy-that the way to go would be to have only two networks, that we make them wonderfully profitable and then regulate them. I believe that that is not a bad philosophy. I do not see a fourth network coming in for a long time. But we have to make the three networks profitable. I put it not only to the House but also to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Government that now is about the appropriate time to say: `As we have given you a little more influence, a little more accessibility to national advertising, thus giving you more profits in the long run, we want to see some regulation of Australian program production'. Who makes that program production? I am not necessarily talking about program production made by the networks. There is a very good argument that the networks should not produce any programs, that they should buy it all as happens in some countries where the stations are the distribution centres. It is interesting to note why Fairfax is in so much trouble in Melbourne at present. It is because networking has two strands to it. One is the aspect of networking down the line, when one actually pushes the button to roll the film or the videotape that puts the program to air throughout Australia. If that comes from a central point there is a certain aspect of employment, but it is relatively small in the overall employment of the industry. A major slice of employment comes from program production-the production of shows. Therefore, Channel 9 and Channel 10 have successfully been able to have a certain amount of production in both major cities. Channel 7 in Melbourne, owned by the Fairfax organisation, has scrapped virtually all production in that city. As a result, there is a possibility of massive job losses, et cetera. Most of the jobs are on the production side and not on the actual distribution side of programming. I would also like to make a point about ownership as against programming. There has been much debate about ownership, about who owns what. Does it matter who owns what? If an organisation owns stations in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, does it make it any better if it owns stations in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth? I argue that it does not. I argue that the power is in the hands of those who control the programming. The power and the influence is in who controls the programming. Certain people in bygone years who have been owners of television networks have gone to certain regional stations and said: `Look, I don't care whether I have shares in this company; I'm telling you that you will accept such and such because if you don't you won't get any programming from me'. I put it to the House that in that case, it does not matter two hoots who owns the station; it is who controls the programming who has the most influence. So it really does not matter whether Alan Bond owns stations in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth or whether he owns stations in just Melbourne and Sydney. If he can control the programming, obviously he has the most influence. I have not heard anyone from either side of the House-although the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) may well put it forward-say that we should tackle the question of breaking up the Melbourne-Sydney axis. It would be a game government which would even think about that, but that is another question. I think I have made my views very clear on the nonsense put forward about the new commercial network. We have also heard about unabated free enterprise marketeering, that will allow cable television, free television and pay television. Cable television may well come in. It is a few years off yet. I see it in contrast to what has been done in Britain. I see it being initially funded-and this is why it is a few years off-through business and information, with entertainment on the back of it rather than the other way round. We have a very good `free' system in Australia now. When cable television comes in, the entertainment channels, apart from the business and information channels, will be basically as they are in the United States of America. They will be theatrical or sporting channels, or they will be channels specialising in areas such as language. They will not have, as is the case in the United States, any great influence or power because they will be concentrating on special things such as running films 24 hours a day. In the United States, where there are a hundred cable channels, the basic political influence and power that so many people are worried about is still exercised by the networks. They are the ones who still control that influence. It will always be the case. I support this legislation. It will expand the allowable population reach for ownerships of television stations. It will do away with the two-station rule, which was quite ridiculous as it equated Melbourne and Sydney, which has a 43 per cent population reach with Mount Isa and Broken Hill which at the other extreme has a 0.4 per cent population reach. Obviously, that is quite ridiculous. This legislation repeals that situation and introduces a 75 per cent reach in conjunction with the cross-media rules. That is why this legislation is the most impoortant legislation for television and broadcasting since the introduction of television. I have mentioned program production. It is a very important area. The Government should be looking at what it can do. I believe the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is about to commence a very important inquiry into the Australian content of program production. I hope that is successful and that some good comes out of it. The film industry is also wound up in this little exercise. No longer does the film industry get out there and make just feature films, and it is completely separate. It is wound up with and should be part of this Minister's portfolio. Hopefully under the next Labor government it will be because it is all intertwined. The film industry makes films not only for the cinema but also for the television industry. When I worked in the industry I would be working one day on a television program and on a film the next day. It is intertwined. It is all the one industry. Even if the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy) is not the Minister for Communications but has a higher portfolio after the next election, I hope that the next Minister for Communications has the film industry as part of his portfolio, because it is very much intertwined with other aspects of this area. In relation to program production and film, it is interesting that Mr Hector Crawford, in a letter to the editor in today's Australian Financial Review headed `Squeeze to hit TV programs', states: . . . many US-produced series which we show on Australian television screens cost between $A1.5m and $A2.5m an hour to produce. However, the cost of comparable formats of programs made in Australia range from $100,000- they are really the cheapos- to $250,000 an hour. Although US produced programs are so expensive to make, they have traditionally been sold to Australian television networks for only a small fraction of their total cost of production, about $15,000 to $25,000 an hour. I would say that Mr Crawford's figures are reasonably accurate. We hear about protection and so on in other industries, yet the Australian production industry has not had any protection at all, and I would argue that it probably should not have protection. The tribunal should look at those interesting figures in its coming inquiry. The honourable member for Deakin spoke about radio as if it were part of the cross-media ownership and implied that, if there were one owner in relation to a radio station in the Melbourne and Sydney market, for example, we were in trouble. That is not right. This legislation specifically stipulates that radio is treated when it is in a monopoly situation. If there is a radio station in a monopoly market, such as Ballarat or Bendigo, then the matter is addressed. However, if the radio station is in Melbourne or Sydney, for example, where there are eight or nine radio stations, it is not affected by this legislation; it is exempt. Basically, the major thrust of this legislation is to attack the ownership of newsprint and television in the one market. It does this successfully. I have been talking now for 20 years about cross-media ownership in Australia, and I am glad to see that this Government has introduced this legislation. It may be that the Minister for Communications can enlighten me about his, because I am dashed if I can work out what the honourable member for Deakin was talking about when he referred to all the barriers put in front of people entering the industry. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been talking about barriers too. I want to know what barriers he is referring to. Unfortunately, my time is up. This is very important legislation about which I could talk for some time. In fact, it is the most important legislation affecting television and broadcasting since 1956. The duo of the outreach of 75 per cent plus the cross-media ownership are intertwined. This Bill must be passed in its entirety by this House and the Senate to bring some very big benefits to the Australian television and broadcasting industry. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.53) —The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), for a considerable part of his speech, kept referring to the fact that in his view whoever controls programs and programming is more important than who owns the station. I say that is rubbish. The ownership of the station dictates the number, type and cost of programs and the fewer the owners the greater the dictation. The National Party of Australia supports the abolition of the two-station rule, and that is the basis of this legislation. The restriction is outmoded and unfair to regional television. The honourable member for Isaacs highlighted the extremes involved, from under one per cent in the smallest market to 43 per cent ownership in the two major cities of Melbourne and Sydney. Not only regional television is unfairly restrained by the two- station rule; the two major cities of Melbourne and Sydney have 43 per cent and Adelaide and Brisbane have 16 per cent. It is time that the great inequity in that situation was addressed. As I understand it, the trigger that has caused the Labor Government to address the two- station rule now is as a result of the twists and turns it has made on its regional television policy over the last few years, and the pressure by some networks to expand their dominance to all capital cities and the regional areas of Australia as well. Disagreement within the Government as to what the ownership percentage should be when the two-station rule is replaced has delayed the legislation for some time. Originally, two figures were considered. Firstly, there was the 31 per cent to 33 per cent suggestion, which would allow ownership affecting stations in Sydney, and Brisbane, or Melbourne and Adelaide, with a grandfather clause for existing media owners who were above that figure. Secondly, the figure of 43 per cent was suggested. That would allow everyone to come up to the largest ownership at that time. Later, the figure of 75 per cent was put forward; it was the innovation of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I believe that that was against the wishes of many people in the Australian Labor Party who felt that 43 per cent should be as high as electronic or media television ownership should go in this country, and one can speculate why the Treasurer went for such a high figure. Since the announcement on 27 November by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that 75 per cent would be the maximum percentage allowed, there has been a series of takeovers and prescribed interest purchases that have placed several companies above 43 per cent ownership. The highest figure is now 58 per cent. The figure of 75 per cent is too high. It would be dangerous to have such a percentage affecting the future concentration of our most powerful media form. That is not in the national interest. In theory, it allows four major groups, because we have three commercial stations in our major capital cities. Therefore, there is an effective theory of 300 per cent. If that is divided by 75, the result is four. However, that applies only in theory because the three organisations involved now have the pick of the market; they will pick the eyes out of the market. Thus, ordinary competition theory is not relevant in this limited entry market, and it will always be a market of limited entry because of the spectrum and because, while we maintain the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with the regulations surrounding that and the issuing of licences, there will be viability arguments, High Court of Australia injunctions, and so on going on for years and years. This means that ordinary market theory does not apply in this type of situation. Honourable members do not have to take my word for that. The United States of America is the home of competitive enterprise and of real enterprise rather than private enterprise and the corporate state. The United States has effective anti-monopoly legislation-and that is an essential part of competitive practice-and it has 12 stations and a 25 per cent of the market rule. Yet in this legislation the figure is 75 per cent. Mr Duffy —There are only three networks, though. Mr LLOYD —In the United States the figure is 25 per cent of the market, and that is the fundamental point I am trying to make. In determining what should be the correct percentage, we should consider what criteria should be used to determine the best percentage of ownership to replace the two-station rule. I will make several points: We should have a percentage that allows large enough scale by a number of operators to be able to make Australian programs and maintain Australian content. They should also have the ability to make those programs of adequate quality or, to take up the point made by the honourable member of Isaacs, to contract with independent companies for programs of adequate quality so that they can be sold to other countries as well as to the smaller stations in Australia. There will have to be an adequate number of those programming forces though the ownership arrangements so that we have a diversity of programming. I believe that we must have diversity of ownership for that to occur. There must be reasonable financial strength to give such organisations the power necessary to purchase overseas programs, and they must have financial strength to be able continually to use the latest technology. Many people believe-including, I think, the supporters in probably just about every party-that about 31 per cent, 32 per cent or 33 per cent best fits those criteria. It would immediately allow for four separate significant groups. That is, there would have to be four separate licences in Melbourne and Sydney, which could then be matched with an Adelaide or a Brisbane licence and so on. That would give maximum program choice for the people of Australia. However, there is a complication with that percentage, because 43 per cent is already in place for those companies that own Melbourne and Sydney licences. If they went for 43 per cent, no divestment was necessary and others could build up to the same figure. That provides the possibility of five or six major or reasonable players over a period of time, and would still guarantee a reasonable diversity in programming. But 43 per cent is important not only for the overall programming diversity competition in commercial television; it is also important for regional Australia and regional television ownership. That 43 per cent would prevent the physical takeover of the major regional stations by the major networks. There could be some interesting series of ownership arrangements with 75 per cent-for example, one could have 43 per cent, which is Melbourne and Sydney, have three other capital cities and still own one of the aggregated regional television markets. Alternatively, it could be Melbourne and Sydney, two other capital cities and two of the aggregated regional markets; or it could be Melbourne and Sydney and every aggregated regional market in eastern Australia. The point that I wish to make is that regional Australia is greatly concerned at the prospect of actual ownership of commercial regional radio stations by metropolitan networks. It is just as concerned about the physical ownership as it is about the networking and programming control that comes from aggregation. As an Australian, I am also concerned by the tighter, more complete monopoly on program purchase that would be created in relation to the price that would have to be paid by regionals and those not in the major networks. The more concentrated the monopoly, the higher the price paid by everyone who is not in the monopoly. That would further reduce the viability of many regional television stations. The National Party is opposed to the restrictions in the legislation on cross-media ownership. It confirms-- Mr Saunderson —Ha! Mr LLOYD —That laughter from the honourable member for Aston confirms the ideological hatred of the Australian Labor Party for the regional newspapers. Labor members do not even try to deny their hatred. The relevant clause prohibits anyone with a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence from also: Holding a prescribed interest in a relevant newspaper, 50 per cent of whose circulation is in the service area of the associated commercial television licence. I do not believe that the basis of that restriction is valid because it exaggerates the significance of local newspapers. Anyone who talks to people living in regional towns and asks them what newspapers they read, will not be told, in general, that the most important paper is the Bendigo Advertiser or the Shepparton News. They will say that it is the Melbourne Sun, the Melbourne Age or the Sydney Morning Herald, or whatever the paper is in each of the States. The metropolitan daily newspapers are the major newspapers read by, and have the greatest significance on, people in regional areas. The legislation grandfathers the existing arrangement, and that acknowledges what I believe we should always acknowledge-the positive role that regional newspapers have played in the development of commercial regional television. However, this Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill overacknowledges the need or opportunity for a single operator to expand in a limited entry market in television. However, for the print media-which is completely open to entry-it is very restrictive, and for any minor expansion the grandfather aspect is lost. The National Party is also unhappy about the back door method of controlling the print media when, constitutionally, we have no power to do so. For the benefit of a couple of my colleagues opposite, I repeat that the only reason the restrictions on cross-media ownership exist is because of the vindictive attitude of members of the Labor Party towards the regional newspapers. They have also been vindictive in their arrangements for the termination of the two-station rule. That termination will not be allowed for those companies that choose the multi-channel service path rather than aggregation for equalisation. As a further blackmail to aggregate quickly, there is a sales tax exemption on UHF equipment that will be lost after 1991. This legislation is based on a false premise-that there must be equal programming choice between city and country for commercial television. Let us compare ourselves with other countries. With the exception of our remote areas, which are difficult to service, there is a greater commercial choice in the regional areas of Australia than there is in many, if not most, other Western countries. If the Government had gone ahead with a supplementary licence system, which we started, there would have been greater program choice in the regional areas already. The two major markets of Sydney and Melbourne, compared with many other countries, should obviously provide more choice. In fact, in the communication policy that I prepared for the coalition parties for the 1984 election, there was the ability for more program choice. The question is: Which way is best? Should it be by a fourth channel-and that is the purpose of the Liberal Party amendment-or should it be by pay television? The four-year ban that the accompanying legislation requires becomes a matter of debate. The point that I wish to make about pay television, and the completely unnecessary four-year restriction, is that pay television can also be important in our remote areas. Honourable members may recall that when we were considering the provision of a commercial television signal to people in the remote areas, the John Hartley group said that there would never be a free service to remote areas, so there would have to be some sort of pay system. The proposal then was to use the 30-watt spot beams to provide the remote areas with service. I supported those who went that way. Obviously, people in the remote areas deserve free service, the same as everyone else in this country-that is, in addition to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation there should be one commercial channel. That would have been a reality if the supplementary system or the MCS system had been the only way to equalisation of programs between the city and country. With aggregation, nobody will pick up that spot beam option because it is not viable and there is no future in it for the company. The people in the remote areas of Australia are now further away from a commercial television program than they were five years ago. In retrospect, John Hartley and his group had a fairly powerful argument. In relation to remote areas, I ask the Minister for Communications-and other members of the National Party will make this point in stronger terms-why there should be coding or encryption restrictions on the Special Broadcasting Service, the ethnic system? Removing encryption would be a way of allowing people in remote areas some choice. The Minister may wish to respond to that question and expand on the complications or possibilities of such a system. I know that a range of speakers will ask that question during the debate, because it is a genuine point. This is a cognate debate and it is part of a wider debate that includes the equalisation legislation. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), our specialist on communications, will give in greater detail the attitude of the National Party and the amendments that will be moved in Committee. But in general terms the National Party believes that 43 per cent is the maximum that should be allowed for television ownership. There should be no cross-media restrictions. There should be no two-station rule, irrespective of whether a station opts for MCS or aggregation. The two-in all-in option should replace the present one-in all-in requirement in deciding whether regional television stations in the aggregated market areas opt for the aggregation option or the MCS option. So, in total the National Party will oppose the motion for the second reading of the legislation because this is not the most appropriate way to abolish the two-station rule. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(6.10) —I must say that I rise to speak in this debate a bit bemused, having listened to the two speeches from the Opposition. With the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill and the previous legislation introduced into this House regarding regional television, television, which began in 1956 in Australia, is going through the most revolutionary change since its introduction. Given the fact that during those almost 31 years of television the Australian Labor Party has been in office for only seven years and this Government for only four years of those seven years, we have to look at what happened during the rest of the period when the present Opposition parties were in office. What we really saw then was basically no change, or minimal change, in the rules governing ownership, particularly in relation to regional areas. The status quo remained for the whole of that period. For many years people had argued that the two-station rule did not work not only in terms of breaking down the influences that minorities might have had in terms of television production and programming but also in the sense of limiting some people to very small areas while others had a very large areas. It had been argued for quite some time that change was needed. That argument certainly was not echoed by the Opposition parties when in government. They made no effort to change things. They made no effort to look at the problems of cross-media influences. It is interesting to note that there are so many experts within the Opposition. We have already heard from two of the experts. We have been assured that we will hear from a couple more experts from the National Party of Australia. I know that there are a couple of experts on the back bench of the Liberal Party of Australia. Ian Macphee has been talking about his policy. So it appears that there are lots of experts and I am sure that some of them will certainly know more about the industry than does the shadow spokesman from the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I do not think that my position on television ownership is any secret. I have certainly made it clear and I doubt whether people would be surprised to know that I was one of those members of Caucus who had a different view on the level of ownership. That is my personal view. But the majority within the Caucus opted for 75 per cent as the rule to apply. Mr McVeigh —Did you get done? Mr SAUNDERSON —It certainly is nothing new for me to get done. I see the question of ownership as something that has always been fluid and ought to remain fluid in terms of the regulations. I believe that the problems that we face today about television ownership and the distribution of television stations arise because we were stuck with one rule for too long. The two-station rule was left in place. The problems were recognised but nothing was done about them by the Opposition parties when they were in government. In correcting those problems a lot of factors have had to be taken into account. We have ended up with a figure that some people might argue is too high-certainly that was my view in Caucus-and others argue is too low. But it is a bit hypocritical for the Opposition parties to start talking about how they are experts and about what they believe is the right figure. It seems to me from recent Press reports that the Opposition parties, when they were together and since they have been broken apart, have espoused figures that vary from 100 per cent to 22 per cent, the 43 per cent which is being pushed by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and now 75 per cent as long as there are more licences. For the Opposition parties to argue that they have a clear cut policy is just nonsense. We have seen at least five figures bandied around. We have the National Party saying that the figure should be 43 per cent and the Liberal party saying that 75 per cent is okay as long as there are more television stations. We need to look at the position of the Liberal Party because that is where we strike the greatest sort of hypocrisy. In recent times we put up changes for regional broadcasting. We looked at ways of increasing the choice for the viewers in the regional areas. The Opposition-in particular the Liberal Party-says that what we should do is just give more licences. It has failed to look at the problems that exist in regional areas. There are many small broadcasting areas which are based around regional centres but which represent no real logic in terms of the numbers of people in the area. The Opposition fails to recognise that, if there is to be competition in an area, there has to be a large enough base from which that competition can gather revenue and have a share of the market. In a small population area one cannot just introduce more competition because in effect that will make the existing television stations, and any proposed new ones, not viable and bring about chaos and uncertainty in the industry. With our proposal for regionalisation we did two things. One was to increase the size of the broadcasting area for each of the television stations that currently existed and by doing so to introduce the possibility for increased choice by having three stations instead of one in those areas. So, what we did in a very rational way was to provide for greater choice for the community-the thing that people had been asking for-but we also ensured the viability of the stations concerned so that there was consistency within the industry. When the Opposition rejected in the Senate the regional television provisions, the shadow spokesman-I recognise that he had only just been put into the position, so perhaps he spoke with a bit of haste and did not realise what he was saying-put out a Press release saying that by rejecting the legislation, which provided three television stations in the regional areas where there was currently only one, it was providing the opportunity for the Government to give greater choice. So, the Opposition rejected the provision for three stations and committed everybody to stay with only one and he said that by doing that the Opposition had given people greater choice. Now he says that what we should do is grant more licences. I am afraid that the poor shadow spokesperson, the honourable member for Deakin, has licences on the brain. He does not understand the rest of the problems. His solution to the national broadcasting situation now is to say that he will support our notion so long as we issue more licences in the capital cities. So, we will have more licences in the regions and more licences in the capital cities. We will have licences everywhere; everybody will be copping one. If people want a licence, they can come along and we will give them one. If they want to broadcast, we will give them a licence. If people want pay television we will give them a licence. Everyone can have one. We will have no regulation; we will have licences everywhere. What about the Opposition's concern to ensure that we have a rational industry that can survive and can provide permanent broadcasting for the people in Australia? The things that are taken into account are not just the spectrum, the frequency range. With VHF and UHF we probably can put more television stations on air, but in doing so we would probably drive a couple of others bankrupt. They would all go broke. Mr Beale —Why? Mr SAUNDERSON —I suppose the honourable member for Deakin would argue that they would not go bankrupt because there is an unlimited supply of advertising revenue and that people are prepared to pay and pay. He would maintain that people would be prepared to keep saying that cigarette and beer companies and everyone else will just put out more money for advertising on all these stations. It is quite obvious that some of these television stations are operating on the marginal levels already. In recent days we have seen Channel 7 before the Tribunal talking about a low profit of only a couple of million dollars, given the large investments that it has made over the 12-month period. It seems to me that the one way to bring about disaster in the industry is to start issuing willy-nilly licences without any consideration for the sort of continuity in service and concern for the community in ensuring that a permanency of programming is maintained. Under the regime proposed by members opposite-if, God help us, the Opposition did get into government and if the honourable member for Deakin were in fact the Minister for Communications-we would probably find that there would be 20 television stations and that one would be able to flick a knob and go to UHF and VHF, but the problem is that they would be there one day and gone the next. When one tuned in, one would wonder whether Channel 28 was there or whether Channel 27 was still there; although there yesterday it might be gone today, while lo and behold Channel 26 might now be on air. There would be no set programming. There must be programs; it might get a bit boring watching the old muzak and the test pattern. So, there must be programs and there must be enough of them to ensure that the programs screened by one channel are different from those screened by another or that it is not a repeat of what was screened yesterday, in which case people would not be likely to watch it. So, I think that the honourable member for Deakin needs to go away and think about the matter a bit more. The situation is a bit more complex than simply saying: `We will support your legislation if you give us another television station in Melbourne or Sydney in two years time-no later; you put out the licence and get someone up'. It is a bit more difficult and complex than that. I am sure that a few people out there in the industry would like to get the ear of the Opposition and just tell it what the problems will be-if it ever has the opportunity to implement this type of legislation. Mr Beale —You can say that again. Mr SAUNDERSON —I am sure that the honourable member for Deakin has a few telephone messages back there asking that he ring Channel 9 or Channel 10 or Western Australia. The other problem that we have is that the honourable member wants to bring in pay television. I am a bit surprised that the honourable member for Murray has indicated that he wants to bring in pay television for the remote areas. I would have thought that one of the things that people ought to be proud of in Australia is that we have free television, excluding the fact that we probably pay for it through the cost of advertising and through taxes. However, basically we have free television from the point of view of people able to buy a television receiver, of turning it on and watching a bit of television. I think that is a fairly good principle. I think we ought to do whatever is in our power-and this Government has tried to do it-to ensure that people in remote areas who currently do not get television enjoy that same opportunity. They are out there in the remote areas, trying to develop Australia-and they are providing a lot of wealth to Australia in terms of the work that they do, coming from exports and so forth-so why should they suffer making payments? Why should they have to put in two bob or pay the bill? Mr Robert Brown —The National Party wants them to. Mr SAUNDERSON —Yes, the National Party of Australia wants them to; it thinks it is a good idea, and so does the honourable member for Deakin-he wants everyone to pay for television. He wants pay television everywhere. First of all one must recognise the historic circumstances concerning pay television. Pay television came in at a time when no video machines were around. It was introduced in America because there were problems with poor broadcasting and some people maintained that with pay television there would be some sort of suitable reception. It is not sensible to suggest that we should introduce pay television in Australia, considering that we have one of the highest concentrations of ownership of video machines, with a proliferation of entertainment available that way. For example, I can go out and rent three movies for the evening for $1.50 each or $4 or something like that. To suggest that as soon as members opposite introduce pay television I will rush down and pay a $300 subscription for the year or something and watch the same movies that I can get for a dollar down at the old video shop does not make sense. Members opposite are behind the times. In my view pay television is something that is just not on. At the moment we should concentrate on the benefits available in Australia from free television. There may well come a time when we will have four or five television stations in Sydney and Melbourne. However, such expansion ought to occur by natural growth. It ought to come at a time when it is perceived and accepted by people, not just by government or legislators but by the industry as well, that sufficient viability is there for a city to sustain another television station. Growth should occur by that sort of progression. It should not be forced on people, as the honourable member for Deakin is trying to do, by means of a bit of regulation-although I thought that the honourable member for Deakin was against that. However, I think that natural progression is the way to go. The honourable member for Deakin referred to some other matters. For example, he said that the cross-media controls that we had were fatuous nonsense and all that sort of stuff. I would say that if the honourable member were to speak to John Fairfax-although there is probably a ring back message for him there already concerning these other things that he is proposing-he might actually tell the honourable member that he is not too impressed with the Government's cross-media controls in relation to newspapers and television. Currently, Mr Fairfax happens to own the Age in Melbourne, with more than 50 per cent of its circulation in the area where he owns Channel 7 as well. Under our regulations he will have to reduce that ownership from 100 per cent to 5 per cent. What is more, he knows that even under our current provisions of going out and searching and making sure that he does not try to create other companies or have directorships and all that sort of thing by interlinking he will not really be able to keep control. So, Mr Fairfax is not very impressed with the cross-media controls-the measures that members opposite think are a bit of nonsense that will have no effect. I was a bit disappointed by the attitude of the National Party. In listening to the speech that was made I thought that a fair amount of knowledge was expressed concerning the whole basis of the situation, with details given of why the percentages were wrong and reference made to the American scene and the 25 per cent, and so on. Following those remarks I thought that a principal position would come out. However, when it came to the regional area-the one area where there is one radio station, one newspaper and one television station, all owned by the same person, who is a leading member of the National Party-we find that the members of the National Party are opposed to cross-media controls. So, apparently the 43 per cent is okay, because out there in the regions the old television stations are lucky to get over 10 per cent-so 43 per cent does not really matter to them. But the leaders in the National Party who happen to own the television station, the radio and the newspaper are not too impressed by the cross-media controls, either. All I can say to the honourable member for Deakin is that, if he really things that our cross-media controls are not important, I suggest that when he is talking to the people in this area about this other new idea that he has about licences he should raise the matter of whether they think that the cross-media controls are nonsense. I am sure that they will tell the honourable member that they are not too impressed with them. A couple of other things have come out since the legislation was introduced. I had hoped that the Government would have moved further on these issues than is the case at present. One thing that has become clear is that people in the community generally accept that the media in all its forms is something that ought to be within the controls of the Australian community. I think that some people were a bit surprised that the legislation relating to newsprint ownership in fact did not really prevent foreign nationals from owning it. I am not having a go at Rupert Murdoch as an individual, as I recognise that he is a person who was an Australian who changed nationality. But obviously it made people think that the real situation exists in which someone who perhaps is not in that position perhaps might come and purchase newspapers in Australia. We would find that a very influential part of our media would be under the controls of nationals who may not have the same sort of links with Australia that, say, Rupert Murdoch has. So, I would hope that at some time within the next few sessions the Government will do something to bring into line that situation as it exists with the electronic media. The other thing that has been highlighted by the changes is the fact that the amendments moved by the Fraser Government in 1981, the ones that abolished the requirement for prior approval, have in fact been shown to not really work very effectively. We have seen the situation where the challenge in relation to the Channel 10 ownership continued for four years or so, the end result being that the rules that existed were upheld. However, basically the whole question of ownership had been dragged out through the courts. In more recent times we have seen the problems created by the transfer of ownership within Channel 7 in Melbourne and the ownership not being approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In most instances the Tribunal is in fact being faced with a situation of a fait accompli. I think that that is totally unfair from the point of view of the viewers, owners and the Tribunal. I think that a re-think and a return to the original position are probably what is required. But, in hindsight, I support this legislation, because it is significant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SMITH(Bass)(8.00) —We are debating cognately tonight the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. My remarks shall refer to the first Bill. There has been considerable discussion in the last couple of days about what this Bill seeks to do. Firstly, it will replace the 30-year-old two-station rule with a new 75 per cent reach rule based on the population of Australia and the service area population for each commercial television licence. Secondly, it will provide certain limits on the cross-media interests that may be held by a person with a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence where those cross-media interests are within the service area of a commercial television licence. The new 75 per cent reach rule will enable persons to hold prescribed interests in any number of commercial television licences provided the combined population served by those licences does not exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. The Bill also provides for new cross-media interest limits which have the effect of prohibiting a person from holding a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence if that person also holds a prescribed interest in a commercial radio licence that has an area of monopoly within the service area of that commercial television licence or a newspaper that is associated with the service area of that commercial television licence. In general terms, that is what the Bill does. What position does the Liberal Party take? That has been outlined by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in his speech earlier today and primarily it is contained within the amendment which he moved and which I seconded; that is, that we would be calling for the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to withdraw and redraft the Bill. We ask that the new draft of the Bill call for an application for at least one additional commercial television licence for Sydney and Melbourne and at least one additional commercial television licence for Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania and that the issuance of those licences take place in Sydney and Melbourne by 1 July and in the other area by July 1992. Quite clearly, we have a divergence of view as to how we ought to be going about addressing the question of media control in this country. It all stemmed from the Minister's Press release back in November which unleashed a whole lot of activity on the share market with new acquisitions and new players entering the market. We have the situation where one media operator effectively has a 58 per cent reach within the electronic media. It is not yet up to 75 per cent. The Liberal Party will not support the monopolies or oligopolies which protect vested interests. That is quite clear; it is clearly demonstrated in the decision we have taken today. We have demanded that the Government issue more licences for television stations to ensure that the Australian public gets a far greater choice. It would also offer Australians a greater variety of views, news, information and entertainment. In time we would like to see-as I am sure people on the other side of the House would like to see-teaching institutions, cultural groups and similar bodies being able to apply for licences. Unlike the present Cabinet and its mates, we do not believe that a television licence is simply a licence for printing money. Australia will benefit most, economically and culturally, by offering far greater choice and breaking down the monopolistic practices enforced by government regulations. This is not an easy decision. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), made an entertaining speech, but he did have the grace during his remarks to say that he did not agree with the position that the Government was taking and that he lost the debate in Caucus. The debate on media has been going on within the Australian Labor Party ranks for many months. We have finally seen it come forward with this legislation and previous legislation, which we opposed-the equalisation legislation-which was a method of fast tracking in to additional services within regional areas. The Government has got itself into a bit of a bind. The broad, theoretical basis that has to be determined is: If one adheres to the contestability period-there should be no barriers to entry into markets and, therefore, anyone can go in and make a dollar or lose a dollar-should that be counterbalanced by greater considerations? Personally, I am of the view that other considerations need to be looked at, especially in a parliamentary democracy, as to the concentration of media ownership. We have a concern about the concentration of media ownership. We have been consistent about it and some of those people who might be feeling this evening that their fingers have been burned and that they may be standing to lose some funds-that remains to be seen-might have been advised to look more carefully as to what we stood for in the last election. I would like to quote from our 1984 policy which was mentioned by our National Party colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) earlier in the evening. We said: The Liberal and National Parties believe that choice, freedom from political interference, or sectional domination, and response to community needs must be the basis of an appropriate broadcasting policy. Further on, we stated: The Coalition Parties believe that all Australians should have access to as great a range as possible of commercial radio and TV programs and in government we will: Implement the supplementary licence scheme to provide a second radio and TV channel in regional areas. That is the position we put when the Government brought in its equalisation legislation. In addition, we would look at additional independent licences for larger markets. That, in effect, is what we are doing here tonight in moving our amendment. We would also encourage the greater use of domestic satellites by commercial radio and television companies and we would encourage new technology. I just diverge there to say that we have not considered the impact that fibre optics and lasers are going to make on the television industry. Indeed, the developments in the United States of America indicate that there are going to be massive opportunities and a greater range of choice to consumers through the provision and use of these new techniques. Whilst we might be making decisions on how we perceive the technology to exist at the moment, in a very short time we might have to go back to reconsider it. Perhaps we need to be looking a bit more closely at that aspect. Finally, we said that we wanted to maintain local identity and programming in regional areas. That is of paramount concern to someone from Tasmania but it ought to be of concern to all of us in this place. Whilst many people live in the major cities many others do not and it is important to ensure that the services that they receive reflect the views and the mores of their communities. If one looks more closely into the activities of regional television stations throughout this country one can see that they do have a capacity to produce programs. I will comment a little later on programs. We should reflect on how we have got to this particular situation. I went into some detail when I spoke on the equalisation legislation as to the Keating-Hawke axis or deal-however it is best described-that led us to that position. This is a flow-on from that position. I think this all began on 4 November 1976. The present Treasurer (Mr Keating) was a young 33-year-old Opposition member in this House. I will quote to the House exactly what he said then and follow it through a little because I think it explains where we have got to and why the Government has brought this legislation to the House now. He stated: The present provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act allow three groups of companies to dominate the Australian media to an extent that would not be tolerated in countries comparable with Australia . . . What also makes the situation frightening is that most of the proprietors who operate these groups share a common social background and, in political terms, share a common point of view. Divestment must occur. In future, newspaper groupings should not be permitted to take over other groupings with holdings in radio and television. I will now quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review by a well known communications writer, Greg Earl, who was with that newspaper in February this year. He makes the following rather pertinent point: The 75 per cent level leapt beyond any deregulatory initiative of the Hawke Government, cementing its free market credentials, one of the most politically sensitive industries, while the cross-media limits appealed to the Labor heartland by delivering on a 20-year quest for regulation of the family dominated press empires. I have before me a report on the debates that took place in Caucus at the end of last year. One knows how we get quotations from party meetings and a detailed analysis of what takes place at party meetings. We on this side of the House are no strangers to that activity and neither, I am sure, are honourable members opposite. Therefore, one can put some credence beside this analysis of what went on in Caucus. It is important to quote in detail what was said: Mr Keating was reported to have: . . . savagely told the MPs the changes would probably ``split up'' the HWT which would be no bad thing because it was not ``one of us'', but simultaneously declared that Mr Murdoch like the others of them would have to choose between being the ``prince of print or the queen of the screen''. The Caucus meeting saw heated attacks on the proposal from some more independently minded MPs but any concerted attempt to overturn the proposal was dulled by a combination of year-end fatigue and the magnitude of the change. But underlying uncertainty about the ``sleaziness'' of the deal-as one MP put it-was to prove well founded with a ferocity no one could have ever imagined. Within a week, Mr Murdoch arrived at the HWT. Within two months he had deserted the Australian television industry along with Mr Packer, who conceived the satellite to leapfrog the two-station rule. It is worth keeping such things in mind when one considers the present legislation. There have been arrangements and there have been discussions between the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and media operators. We have seen a monumental change in the number of players in the industry. One can only assume that some of those changes that have been brought about were designed in part to benefit some of those new players. The Press and media supply to the public the information upon which the public largely depends for its knowledge of most current affairs, both domestically and internationally. There is no doubt that power unduly held and concentrated has a potential to corrupt. A free Press and a diversity of ownership is important to ensure that there is a continuation of a free Press. It is always hard to describe what a free Press is and what one means by the term `a free Press'. It is one of those catch-phrases that politicians seem to jump on and use with gay abandon without understanding what they mean. However, the term is ably described by a British royal commission into the media in 1977. It is interesting to note that Australia has never had an inquiry into its media arrangements on a national level. With all the changes that are taking place, such an inquiry might not be a bad thing. Back in 1977, the British royal commission, in describing what is meant by a free Press, said: We define freedom of the press as that degree of freedom from restraint which is essential to enable proprietors, editors and journalists to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. That is well worth keeping in mind when we consider the legislation. On the broader question of media control internationally, the United States of America has a 25 per cent reach limit. No one can own more than 12 stations and no one can own newspapers and television in the same market. In Britain there are limits on multi-station commercial ownership imposed by the IBA and the ownership of newspapers is strictly regulated and controlled by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Under Mrs Thatcher, the Commission has rejected more takeovers than ever in its history since the start of the Fair Trading Act 1973. In Europe there are strict reach and cross-ownership limits imposed in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy and Sweden. The position that applies in those countries is quite different from that which the Government proposes. When one looks at what is happening in other areas of the world and at what has happened so quickly in Australia, one must raise a question mark as to what is the position. The amendments which we propose, designed as they are to provide a greater choice, even in the broader theory, need to be supported; indeed, they reflect a commendable position. That does not mean that all is easy with the position that we are putting forward, because it is not. Speakers on both sides of the House have elucidated in some detail the problems that exist. There are difficulties in entering this market. It is not a free market. Therefore, we must consider the problems of spectrum clearance. I do not know enough about the technical details to say whether or not the spectrum can be cleared to allow immediately another licence into an area. Certainly, there is a problem. We must consider the question of advertising revenues. It is well known that advertising revenues in the electronic media have been declining. One of the requirements that we have put into the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal legislation is that a licence only be issued provided that it will be viable. That matter must be considered also. There is also the question of programming. I mentioned earlier that it is important for regional stations and, indeed, the network stations to be able to produce programs in this country. All of us would want that. Continual re-runs of McHale's Navy, Peyton Place and so on are not programs that the consumers of this country want to see. We want to see an enhancement of programming in this country. The question we must then ask is: What size does a station need to be for the development of programming to be viable? We have existed in this country, under the two-station rule, with, in effect, a level of 43 per cent. I think that the level of programming has been reasonable, but it could be better. However, is a quantum leap to 75 per cent needed to ensure that there will be greater Australian content programming? That question needs to be answered. The Government, in proposing the legislation, does not go into a great deal of detail. The Minister, at page 11 of his second reading speech, said that the reasons for consolidating television licences into ownership groups with wide population reach were the ability of advertisers to enter into mass markets and programming. I do not think that he has made out a case yet to sustain that. Indeed, further down the page he made this point: There are 36 regional licences, each in a monopoly market. Entry into the commercial television industry is limited by the licensing process. That is correct; we would like to overturn that. He continued: Under the 75 per cent reach rule it is likely that some existing small owners will be bought out. The industry may eventually shake out into a smaller number . . . stronger ownership groups able to operate competitive services. He admits that there will be a greater move towards monopolisation. That is something which should be considered more carefully as the issues have not been addressed. One point which I shall make quickly concerns the Trade Practices Act. I think that that would be a preferable route to take than that of cross-media ownership rules. If we look at the cross-media ownership rules, we see that new section 92fad, I think it is, in the proposed legislation has already been amended. The Minister's explanation suggests that that has come about by way of suggestion from his Department. I suggest that it may well have come to him from other sources; that is, by those who believe that the cross-media ownership rules, technical though they are, are not drawn as expertly as they could have been. I have some doubt as to the accuracy and ability of those cross-media ownership rules to work justly. In my view, it would be far preferable to control the things that I fear-that is, the concentration of media ownership and market dominance-and to do so by way of the Trade Practices Act. I refer to the decision by the Trade Practices Commission when it considered the takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd empire by News Corporation. The Commission found that there was not a concentration because HWT had a pre-existing domination in the market and that News Corporation, in effect, just took that over. It leaves a bit of disquiet in my mind as to the operation of section 46, the mergers provision. I think that that area could be studied usefully in greater detail not only by honourable members on this side of the House but also by honourable members opposite, because at some future time we will have to face these decisions. I will quote from the decision by Mr McComas, the head of the Trade Practices Commission, as to what the Act actually does. It is worth putting it into the record: Put succinctly the Act seeks to ensure, in particular markets, that no one company achieves a dominant position by acquisition, and no one company is permitted by takeover to achieve the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately consumers of its products. In its application of this test to the newspaper aspects of the takeover and subsequent mergers, the Commission has sought to ensure that both advertisers and consumers have real alternatives in terms of the newspapers in which they advertise or which they read. That relates to newspapers. However, it is important that there be alternatives not only in newspapers but also in the electronic media. I do not believe that the legislation that is proposed by the Government addresses these issues in any definite sense to ensure that there is going to be greater choice and a greater opportunity for others to get in there. The amendment that we are proposing, by way of issuing an additional licence, will in effect mean that the 58 per cent now achieved by the existing players, will not be able to get on further to 75 per cent. Perhaps the Government ought to look again at the 75 per cent rule. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(8.20) —The Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill is essentially about repealing the 30-year-old two-station rule and replacing it with a package. That package combines, first, a 75 per cent reach rule, and second, limits on cross-media ownership where television, radio and newspapers may or may not come under common ownership. The repeal recognises the existing imbalance between metropolitan and regional television. It beats me why people thought that the two-station rule recognised the differences between regional and metropolitan television. There is no way that anyone can compare two small regional stations with two television stations, say, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. One reaches a couple of a per cent of the audience and the other two combined reach some 43 per cent. In no way could we compare regional and metropolitan television under the two-station rule. What has been brought about by that two-station rule has been exacerbated by the regional structure. The third part of this package of television Bills is, of course, the equalisation legislation, which was recently defeated in the Senate, and which was to bring about aggregation and groups of a more economic size of regional television. But there is no doubt that the two-station rule had to go. It is amazing that the Opposition did not recognise the deficiencies of that rule as against the industry, and for some 21 years allowed the industry to stagnate, and it has no policy here today. Its contribution in this Parliament has been merely a reaction to the Government's proposals-we have had quite a few reactions-but there has not been a unified reaction. One of the spin-offs I suppose, or the disadvantages of splitting the coalition is that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. So we get the sort of thing that we have been getting here, such as the Macphee line, that is that of the honourable member for Goldstein, who has been reported as putting one line, and then we get the Beale line, that of the honourable member for Deakin, who moved the amendment to the motion here today, and then we get the line of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), giving the line of the National Party of Australia, and finally the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) who has just sat down and who gave us a mixture of the lot. He is as confused as the others are. I guess there could be more than those three strands of Opposition reaction. But the question remains that if the two-station rule is removed what can be put in its place? We need a formula which will increase market sizes and increase the economies of scale and so support the Australian television industry and local content and yet remain competitive enough to prevent an over concentration of media in the hands of a few. The Government has decided that 75 per cent of the national audience is to be the upper limit. This will bring about desirable structural changes and encourage, as we have already seen, new ownership, the industry will diversify and there will be a turnover of old wood which will encourage investment in the industry. That investment will be encouraged because now people will have mass markets. Advertisers will flock in because they will have greater reach and they will get more advertising penetration for their dollar. The different television organisations will be able to enjoy greater economies and will be able to buy more programs locally and to feed them through more outlets. So the Government's policy will encourage investment in the industry and will enhance program competition. The minimum number of new players-if we can call them that-with the three channels will be four, but I guess it is probably more likely to be six, eight or 10 players. Obviously we have to reject the policy of the honourable member for Deakin who wants no limits. He wants an open market and for the number of players to be controlled purely by market forces. He says that this will bring a greater multitude of television organisations, but I remind him that there is no limit and ultimately we could get to the point where all the media is owned by one organisation. That is the logical end to takeovers and increased concentration, to the point where there is only one owner. There is no safeguard to the public if we have an open market policy, so we have to reject that approach. I will return to the Beale policy later. We could have the Australian Democrats' suggested limit of 35 per cent, but we have to ask ourselves whether this would be acceptable. It would definitely favour those who already have a 43 per cent coverage in Melbourne and Sydney, unless of course we break that up. If we grandfather it we will then have this unequal market of 43 per cent and the others will only be allowed to reach the disadvantaged percentage of 35 per cent. I guess what they would do if they were dinkum would be to require those with 43 per cent to divest, but that is just not on. We might get up to about nine players, but there would then be no economies of scale and it certainly would not encourage investment in the industry, so we have to reject the Democrats 35 per cent as well. Then we come to the Macphee line, that of the honourable member for Goldstein. He has argued on many an occasion that it should be 43 per cent. Therefore there would be a minimum of seven players, but more likely a dozen or so. That is far more realistic than 35 per cent. It would support a television industry and there would be far less concentration of the media, which concerns the public today. Frankly I find that percentage very attractive. It is one which I would not find too hard to support. The honourable member for Bass said that tonight is the time for being honest. In fact I was actually one of those who moved in our Caucus for 43 per cent. I am not ashamed of that, but I recognise that it does not have the support of this Parliament, either in the Senate or in this chamber. It was certainly rejected by the Liberal Party and the dries over there want this open market policy where there are no limits. I heard the honourable member for Bass quote a long passage from the Treasurer when he was 33 years of age. I want to remind him, without quoting, of their bible, the Wealth of Nations, written by Adam Smith some 200 years ago, when he talked about market forces and their desirability. This is the Opposition's credo, the linchpin of its policy. He warned that we can never rely upon market forces to protect the public interest, because the only interest that operates in a market is self-interest and that is the profit motive. If there were not a public benefit or interest it would be fine, but here we have the possibility, without controls and limits, of having a concentration of ownership that would confront the very substance of democracy, and that is a wide variety of opinion and news sources and information. We need that if we are to support democracy in this country, so that people can be educated, can take different views and carry on sophisticated debates and are able to exercise their vote actively at the polls. That leaves us with the only economically, politically and industrially feasible proposal of 75 per cent. The other stream put by the honourable member for Murray is that the National Party of Australia is quite happy with the 75 per cent, but it does not want the cross-media controls. The honourable member for Murray argued strongly that we were somehow objecting to regional newspapers, but really once we have a small regional market it is even more important to protect the democratic principles of diversity by making sure that a newspaper's concentration or monopoly is not shared by the regional stations. In other words it is essential that it be divorced from common ownership. So at best we have from the honourable member for Deakin conditional support for our proposal, and that is that we introduce one extra television channel across Australia. This is a staggering proposal. As the honourable member for Bass said, he did not understand the technical implications of trying to find on the spectrum space for another channel. I understand there is no space in Sydney or Melbourne and it is very unlikely that there will be space elsewhere because of the crowding out of the VHF band. We will definitely have to move to the UHF band for expansion, and of course that means a different inquiry and new proposals from the Government. But more importantly, this proposal is slapped down in front of us without any consultation with the industry. There is no discussion on or analysis of the effect it would have on economic returns. Even now revenue in the industry is soft. The proposal strikes at the Australian content provision, which requires restriction of competition and ignores, as I said, the frequency problems. It is an unrealistic proposal. That is not even considering what it would do to upset those in the market who have acquired television stations lately. It ignores the high prices paid for those stations. I have no sympathy for those who went out and ignored the existing legislation, the two-station rule. I have no sympathy for those who went out and bartered and argued for new television stations on the basis of a Press release, and of the proposed legislation which has no guarantee of going through. They will not be very happy if suddenly they find that the prices they paid have been halved overnight by this stupid proposal. The public has every right to be concerned and to raise the question of whether there are dangers in television being concentrated in the hands of as few as four organisations. Given the recent decision by Channel 7 under Fairfax to sack workers and to go to networking, I have no doubt the television professionals are also worried. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who come to me and say: `No more are we going to watch Channel 7. We are disgusted by the decisions that have been made by the new management to take away local content. We have lost VFL football, World of Sport, Day by Day'. The list goes on and on. It is no wonder that the ratings of Channel 7 have gone through the floor. Recently its news service, formerly one of the most watched programs on television, was outrated by none other than Inspector Gadget on Channel 2. My children are very pleased with that, but I doubt whether the management of the new Fairfax Channel 7 shares that pleasure. There is a lot more I could say, but I have undertaken to limit my speech to 10 minutes. This legislative package provides the basis of the first real reform of ownership and control of the broadcast media in 20 years. Its essential plank, which makes it acceptable to honourable members on this side of the House who are concerned with democracy and the concentration of ownership, is the cross-media rules, which I would have liked to go into in more detail. The legislation is essential to the removal of barriers to effective competition, while still providing a modicum of protection against the over-concentration of ownership. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(8.33) —The Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill are the most significant pieces of legislation concerning the television industry we have had since 1956. My time to speak on the legislation has also been cut down. The histrionics of the television industry have been mentioned in the debate tonight and I certainly will not repeat them. However, I have been fascinated to hear the diversity of views expressed in the debate by honourable members on both sides of the House. I think it would be true to say that underlying the thoughts of many honourable members is a concern about the effect of this legislation. I can understand that. I would not be honest if I did not also say that I have a few concerns about what the legislation is all about. I am trying to cast my mind forward to picture what the television industry will look like in two to three years time. The only thing I can see is a very sharply defined networking of the three commercial television stations. I wonder whether we have all thought out exactly what that will mean. If this legislation gets through the consequence will be that the network corporations will make sure that they have the major metropolitan stations wrapped up. The ramifications of that for the future of the industry could be quite alarming. I am delighted that the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) is in the House. One of the things he referred to in his speech earlier this evening was the future of Australian programming. The point he made was very salient. There must be fears on the part of honourable members on both sides of the House as to what exactly we are letting ourselves in for. I know that an inquiry into Australian programming is coming up soon. I trust that this area will be one of the areas to be addressed by the inquiry. It concerns me to see what has happened at HSV7. The honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) has pointed that out. Three years down the track we will have a great number of slave stations around Australia. I am concerned that if we go along the line of this legislation virtually the entire television industry will be centred in Melbourne, where the major station will feed out its particular signal. I have concern for the hundreds, indeed the thousands, of people who are employed in television stations around Australia-people with a great deal of talent. What will their future be if we go down this path? There is some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the electronic media in years to come because ultimately, in under a decade, this legislation will probably become quite irrelevant. As the new technology catches up with us we will have some amazing opportunities to get a diversity of media ownership and control greater than we could probably ever imagine. That is good, but in the short term I do not think we will be without problems. I also have some concern about what might happen in the regional areas of Australia. It is a fact that the networks have a capacity to tie up sources of program production and to go out into the regional areas and put the screws on regional operators to take programs. They have a capacity to go overseas and choose the best overseas product that is available and then, perhaps, feed it out to some of the regional stations. I wonder what will happen to the viability of some of these regional areas, even though they might be aggregated. That is one of the things we should be terribly concerned about. We have to make absolutely sure that we continue to promote the concept of localism as much as we possibly can. I have worked in the industry, as has the honourable member for Isaacs. We know how the networks have operated-under pretty loose arrangements. But they were tough and they were tight, and they did not give too much sway to anybody. When we have the super-networks the competition will be even more fierce. As I have said, down the track we will have opportunities to open things up. By virtue of the tremendous electronic advances that are being made-such as fibre optics interplay, the greater use of satellites and pay television-we may have the opportunity of blowing the whole thing wide open and starting to get diversity. They tell me that in the United States at the moment fibre-optics has reached the stage where it will not be too many years down the track before we have the capacity to use fibre-optics to beam about 960 separate television programs into the home. That is a frightening prospect. It will give us all sorts of options in terms of providing information. The entertainment and information components will certainly be there. At last we will have the opportunity to provide things such as educational television. But that is a decade down the track. At present we are tying up the industry very tightly indeed, which we should be very concerned about. Of the 11 pieces of legislation we have had in this House since 1985 concerning the electronic media-in less than two years-this legislation undoubtedly is the most significant. I do not think anybody would doubt that change was necessary. Thirty years down the track the two-station rule became quite ridiculous and had to go. I suppose it would be very easy for me to argue, like the honourable member for Streeton did, the case for 43 per cent. The figure we have been given is 75 per cent and maybe we are stuck with it. In the short term we will not be without problems. We have to start making detailed planning proposals as to what we are going to do with the new technology. What worries me at the moment-it worried me when we were in government-is the capacity of governments, Ministers and departments to go ahead and try to form some concept of what the electronic revolution is going to be all about. I am not convinced that Australia has realised the full ramifications of the new technology. I am sure that we do not realise what might be available to us. We should be making those detailed planning proposals. We should be looking at all the technology options. We should be having inquiries to find out what will be available and what we should be doing, rather than tying ourselves into this old technology. That we will be tied in so very tightly to that technology, which in the short term will be detrimental to the industry as we know it today, concerns me. My plea is for this Government and future governments to start working out the strategies of how best we can use some of that new technology. The purpose of the associated legislation before the House tonight is to impose a moratorium on pay television. I do not know whether that is a very good idea at all. I would rather hope that we would be encouraging people to look at particular propositions. I would rather hope that we would be looking towards the initial installation of cable television because fibre optics are not too far away. We have a lot more options available through cable television than we have now. We should be looking at the ramifications of satellites, whether we will have any capacity to control television signals in the years to come. We should be trying to get our act together so that we do not make the mistakes in the planning for future radio and television that I think Australia has made in the last four decades. So it is with some reservations that I talk about this legislation. I sincerely hope that if we get the super-networks in place there will be a sense of responsibility by the people who control them for the future of the Australian television industry, especially the production industry. We have the capacity to make good television programs. I hope we do not squeeze ourselves out of the Australian market and also out of the world market because the potential is tremendous. I hope that legislation will not put us into a hole that we will find difficult to get out of in the short term. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(8.43) —It had been my original intention to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. However, now that it is linked with the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, which is vastly more important, I will speak to both. I use that term deliberately because I do not believe that any legislation this Government has dealt with or any legislation that this Government will deal with will prove to be more important in the long term than the legislation with which we are dealing at present. I know that recognition of that fact has been given by a number of people who have spoken on the legislation. I would be less than honest if I were not to suggest that I share many of the reservations that have been expressed about the provisions of this legislation. I do not believe it is a question of just television station ownership, about broadcasting programs, and owning and operating cameras. This legislation is involved intimately with the whole question of the acquisition and exercise of power in our society, in the formulation of attitudes, and in the direction of thinking of the community. Thirty years ago when the television industry in Australia was born, a policy was adopted which has been referred to as the two-station rule and which, of course, should not have persisted until today-it had to go. It was inappropriate, and I doubt whether it was appropriate at any stage. Others have also indicated that the two-station rule made it possible for one television interest, for example, to own a television station in Sydney and Melbourne thus having access to 43 per cent of the total viewing audience. It restricted at the same time some other owner to television stations in Mount Isa and Broken Hill each having about 0.4 per cent of the total national viewing audience, thus having access to a combined viewing audience of less than 1 per cent of the total national viewing audience. This policy was incoherent and incapable of achieving any sensible television policy objective. But the 75 per cent on the other hand means that one television owning company could own a television station in Melbourne and one in Sydney plus three other metropolitan television stations together with one regional television station. Networks of that kind have access to a very significant proportion of the population. I accept, and I think it is important to keep in mind, that provision has been made for the retention-at this stage at least-of three stations within each of the metropolitan cities and, of course, through the aggregation system for regional television, which is really a sister proposal to this one to ensure that people throughout regional Australia also have access to three, hopefully competing, programs. Probably one of the most important elements that came from the Government's present total media ownership approach was its attitude towards cross-media ownership. I am glad that consideration finally has been given to this. I also understand that there are grounds for a possible constitutional challenge against that. If such a challenge is successfully mounted it will be necessary for the Government to go back to base one because the package which the Government has devised and which the Government is in the process of putting into place could not and should not reasonably be allowed to stand without the cross-media ownership provisions. If it is later shown to be unconstitutional it would mean not only that a single television interest in Australia would have the right to get access to up to 75 per cent of the total national viewing audience, but also that it would have the right to buy into newspapers, which would I believe provide such an interest with an unconscionable degree of control, influence and power over the thinking of the Australian community and over the Australian media. I do not believe that anyone would deny that one of the great protectors of the integrity of democratic processes, democratic structures, democratic procedures will continue to be free, independent, competitive, courageous and diverse media. To a very large extent we have that in Australia. I have not been satisfied, nor would any other single person be satisfied, with the policy which has been adopted, but I do not think that I have ever challenged the right of private ownership of the media. I am pleased to see that it is tempered by a significant degree of participation by the public sector. I would like to see that extend to newspapers as well instead of just to radio and television. I have never supported any proposition that would cause serious and significant constraints being placed on the free exercise of the power that comes with the private ownership of media. But it does, and it should, concern me that individual significant owners of media in Australia reflect their attitude towards the media when in answer to the question `What do you think freedom of the Press means?' they say: `It means that I am free to put in the Press what I like and I am free to leave out what I like'. In terms of private ownership that is precisely what it means. I accept that there are some qualifications of the beneficial effects that flow to communities from private ownership, but I have never challenged it. I have been listening closely to the contributions to this debate by members of the Opposition, from both the Liberal party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, and I have attempted to identify a coherent theme and a coherent approach. Mr Cohen —How did you go? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Not very well, although I tried hard. Really, if this evening's performance is going to reflect the approach of the two Opposition parties to policy formulation and to determining attitudes of great national importance, it does not augur well for them when it comes to any degree of sensible support from the community. Mr Cohen —It doesn't come as any surprise to you, does it? Mr ROBERT BROWN —It did not come as any significant surprise. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), representing the National Party, indicated that it supported the concept of 43 per cent audience access. He said 75 per cent was too high. The National Party also objects to the cross-media controls that are an integral and essential part of this Government's approach. The National Party, the honourable member for Murray says, will oppose the second reading entirely. On the other hand, the Liberal Party brought forward a proposal that I think is upside-down. It wants the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted to provide, firstly, for one additional commercial television licence in each of the metropolitan cities. In addition, it has indicated its support for the 75 per cent audience access provision. I believe that the Liberal Party would have been more coherent and sensible had it put forward a reverse proposal, opposing the 75 per cent access provision and abandoning the idea of an additional television station in each metropolitan city, at least at this stage. On what basis the Liberal Party could possibly conclude that what it proposes represents a sensible and coherent approach to this question completely eludes me. The National Party has decided to oppose the second reading entirely. It is supporting some aspects of the legislation which one might have thought it would oppose and opposing other aspects that one would think it was more coherent, sensible and intelligent to support. In conclusion, I am also surprised that the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), has not yet retreated from the Press release he put out for regional television. Other people have drawn attention to this matter. He said that the Government's aim, by aggregation and providing people who now had access to one television station with access to three, hopefully, competitive television stations, was to stifle viewers' choice by forcing a rigid three-station arrangement on the community. That is three stations instead of one. This statement was made by the Opposition spokesman on the media. Earlier this evening I asked the honourable member for Deakin whether he would retreat from that statement. Since he has not yet responded, presumably it stands. He also said that this further regulation would prevent new entrants to the television industry. It might have been useful in relation to some regional areas-one of which I am associated with-for consideration to be given to the proposal for supplementary licences. However, that has gone by the board and I accept that. The aggregation system is in place. Nationally, the Government's attitude towards metropolitan television is much more coherent and sensible, and will be more acceptable to the industry and the community, than this nonsense served up by the National Party and the Liberal Party. For regional television, the Government's policy is also more coherent and sensible than the nonsense served up by the Opposition. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.54) —I say from the outset that the National Party of Australia opposes the legislation before us. We have a clear, precise, coherent, reasonable and sensible attitude in relation to the ownership and control provisions before us. We also have a precise, clear, reasonable and intelligent approach to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, being considered this evening as a cognate debate. I ask members opposite not to misinterpret our position. For the most part, the Government's own expert, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), had the same attitude as we have when he first started to debate the matter some months ago. Our position represents the middle ground. There is an opportunity for extra television services to be provided to regional Australia and for this whole mess, which the Government has brought upon the media interests of Australia, to be sorted out. In addition to our amendments to the ownership and control provisions being debated tonight, we will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading in relation to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. No one in his right mind could honestly be proud or pleased about the situation in which Australia finds itself in relation to media ownership. Mr McGauran —No way. Mr SHARP —There is no way in the world. The situation is that government is being conducted by Press release. What other countries allow this sort of situation to occur? The Third World countries have that sort of system of government; the countries that are run by half-baked dictators. No sensible democracy-loving country in the world can allow government by Press release, yet that is what this Government is allowing. That is what is happening because of the confusion and mayhem generated by this Government. Mr McGauran —Yes, Duffy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr SHARP —The Government has behaved reprehensively over this issue. What it has done smacks of arrogance and is fraught with danger. I believe the wrath of the media owners of Australia will be heaped on the Government as a result of the chaos and mayhem it has caused them. In the process, the Government has left itself in a position whereby claims can be made of patronage being distributed as a result of the way in which the Government has run its communications portfolio. At present, all major television networks in Australia are theoretically breaking the law. In no circumstances should a government allow that to happen, yet it is happening at present. If such a situation applied to any other company, organisation or individual, the law would come down with its full weight, but while this Government is running the show things are different. For that reason, there have been claims that patronage has been distributed. I hope that that is not the case, because every democracy-loving Australian would be very disappointed to see that happen. No wonder the opportunity exists for claims of patronage to be made, because the legislation before the Parliament is the most significant change to media ownership that the country has ever seen. It is important to realise that the legislation will deliver into the hands of a small group of people tremendous power and potentially massive profits. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) said in this debate that this legislation is all about power and profits. That is why it is so terribly important for us to ensure that we do the right thing; that is why it is so important for the Government not to allow confusion and mayhem to reign by allowing government by Press release. I say `power' because, by giving the 75 per cent reach rule a straight passage in this House, we would be allowing the networks to be able to impose their opinions through the most influential means available to mankind-the television networks that reach three out of every four Australians. Potentially, that situation could be very dangerous. It is potentially undemocratic, and we should be very concerned about it, and the National Party is concerned about it. I say that the legislation delivers profit, since it means that virtually now new players will be able to afford to enter the game because the legislation basically ensures a monopoly for the major networks. We must guard ourselves against that to ensure that there is no suspicion or claim of patronage. The National Party of Australia is opposed to the legislation. We believe that it presents a real threat to our democratic process, that it installs a monopoly that makes entry by anyone else virtually impossible and that it could lead to a loss of jobs throughout the television industry, in both the metropolitan and regional areas. There is no clearer example of that than what has happened with HSV7 in Melbourne during the past few weeks. The programming decisions are now being made in Sydney and the local content has been withdrawn from the station in Melbourne. I am sure that the quality of programming in that station will fall. If this legislation goes through the House, I believe that local content, not only in HSV7 but in every other television station, will be reduced or, possibly, even wiped out. I believe that that will be the end of regional television as we know it today. It will become virtually nothing more than relay stations for the networks, and fairly poorly paid ones at that. At this stage, it is important to mention that other legislation is going through this Parliament relating to the communications industry-I refer to the equalisation legislation. If we couple that with this Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, there will be a complete routing of regional television throughout Australia. If equalisation takes place, if the 75 per cent reach rule is passed and if the aggregation path is followed, each regional television station will be given virtually no choice other than to take up one of the network programs. It will have no choice but to accept whatever charges the networks impose. When the programming costs go to the regional television stations, they will have to cut their costs in one way or another because they must have a viable business. In which area can they cut their costs? They cannot do so by reducing programming charges because they are dictated to them by the networks. They cannot cut their transmission costs. The only way to cut costs to remain viable is to remove the local content and, therefore, local employment. That is what the National Party fears is likely as a result of this legislation. Whatever happens, out will go local content, and what will be the first to suffer? Will it be local television news, local current affairs, local children's programs or, perhaps, local sport such as football, cricket, tennis, swimming or whatever sport is popularly played in that region? All of that concerns the National Party. We want to ensure that regional television viewers have more choice, more services and more dials on their television sets to turn. We are anxious for that to happen. We are also anxious to ensure that local programs remain local programs on regional television. We want that because, as regional television people will tell us, local content is the best part of the regional television service; it is the most popular and most highly-watched part. I gave the clear example of HSV7 in Melbourne, and that is the way that the remainder of Australia will behave if this legislation is passed. The current audience rating for HSV7 is a shade over zero per cent-why? It is because the local content has been removed and local employment opportunities threatened. The National Party intends to protect that local content and those local jobs. There are two Bills before us today, but before moving to the second Bill we are debating cognately, I wish to say that we support some aspects of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. Firstly, we support the lifting of the two-station rule, which we believe to be inequitable. It is most unfair for the regions. Two regional television stations could reach, perhaps, 8 per cent of the audience of Australia, yet that will be compared on the same basis with two metropolitan stations that could reach 43 per cent of the audience. Therefore, we support the lifting of that inequitable rule. We do not support the cross-media ownership requirements. If we have a 43 per cent audience reach-that is the National Party's wish-there will be no need for cross-media ownership requirements. They are unnecessary, bureaucratic, and will impose further regulation on business and society. For those reasons, we will move amendments to delete that component from the Bill. The National Party will support the provisions in the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill relating to Australia Post because they are sensible and businesslike. We will oppose part of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission changes. We are opposed to the extension of the OTC's powers to operate in our domestic market in competition with private enterprise operators. However, we do not oppose the extension of its ability to compete in foreign countries. By allowing OTC to compete domestically, despite whatever assurances are given in the legislation the opportunity for it to cross-subsidise its profits from its monopoly areas to the private competition areas will be very real, and something that is fraught with danger. That is why the National Party will oppose that component of the legislation. We will also oppose the pay television four-year moratorium because it is a most curious inclusion. The Minister for Communications, as we know, does not need that moratorium written into the legislation; his office already has the power to grant pay television licences or not, as he so chooses. Yet, somehow, this provision has been included. I think that the reason for that is that the Government wishes to tie the hands of any future government so that no pay television can be introduced for the next four years. We will not stand for that; we believe that pay television is a real option for the remote areas of Australia that do not enjoy commercial television services. We will oppose anything that might get in the way of the remote areas obtaining commercial television services. We will also oppose the administrative changes made to the Radiocommunications Act because we feel that to bypass the proper consultative process is not good. The Minister, once again, has the power to declare as urgent any changes to the standards, spectrum plan or the frequency band plan, so why is legislation required? There is no reason for it. To deny the radio and television operators of Australia the opportunity for proper consultation would not be good, and we will oppose that provision. Overall, the National Party will not support the Government's legislation. We would prefer a 43 per cent audience reach-- Mr Tim Fischer —As the Minister actually wanted. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Farrer said, that was the Minister's original position. We believe that the cross-media ownership requirements should be deleted. We believe that the one in all in equalisation rule is unfair and undemocratic. We will propose a change to two in all in, which would allow the operators within each approved area the right to determine, by a majority decision, whether to go down either the multi-channel service path or the aggregation path. That will ensure that they are not bullied and that democracy takes place. The National Party believes that the Special Broadcasting Service signal via satellite should be uncoded so that people in the remote areas of Australia who currently have no choice of television services can at least watch the SBS station for which they pay through their taxes. It seems grossly unfair that people who pay for the service and who have no choice in television services are denied the opportunity to watch the SBS. The National Party stands for better television services in regional areas. We want to maintain localism and local jobs through regional television. Most importantly of all, we want to ensure that democracy is not put at risk by handing to a few people the tremendous power and influence that this legislation will give them. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.10) —I think people listening to this debate this evening will well understand that it encapsulates some of the political confusion that surrounds the Opposition. It has to be made very clear to people that the Opposition is in a terrible state in terms of its policy making. We have had a vast array of propositions being put before the House by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. In essence, to put things in their proper context, the Liberal Party at this stage is really making concessions to its wet faction and getting back to the position adopted by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) when he was its shadow spokesperson. In fact, what it is trying to do is to appease those who have been shut out of leadership and the front bench. Therefore, what we have heard today is a set of proposals about introducing new licences in capital cities which really provides no recognition of the process of capital development that has occurred recently in television ownership and which also, by the way, completely disrupts the structure that has recently developed in terms of ownership. We have only to look today at the reactions of people in the media industry to recognise that they see the Opposition's policies as ad hoc and dreamt up simply to deal with the shortcomings of the Liberal Party. The interesting thing that we have to reflect upon is that the Opposition parties had a long time in which to do something about broadcasting in this country, but they never did anything. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) spoke about mayhem and so on. In fact, what we had in this country was a moribund broadcasting industry under the old two-station rule and the paternalism of successive Liberal governments. That has to be hammered home in the context of this debate because what people must understand is that in country areas and in capital cities in this country there was no dynamism in broadcasting, and especially not in television; the whole industry has become moribund. It had become moribund for a reason. The reason was that those then in power, the Liberal and National parties, had grown used to and comfortable with those existing media owners. It seemed to me that what we had to do was to recognise that broadcasting is an important part of this country and that there can be dynamic capital ownership and dynamic management in broadcasting. What we have done is to free up the situation. I find it surprising to listen to the comments from those opposite, who stagger into this place from their various divided Opposition meetings and creak out arguments, pretending to have a structured approach to policy. But they have not put forward any policy. There is no evidence of any policy. What they have done is simply to glue together a few ideas to try to present themselves as Opposition parties. Once again, that has failed because they lack talent, they lack leadership and they lack ideas. They have a lot of problems in terms of their policy making. This simply brings out the same problems as they have with their tax policy. It is no different. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is well aware of the shortcomings of those opposite in relation to tax policy and economic policy. We are now seeing that lack of policy on broadcasting. Mr Robert Brown —I am glad to have you identifying it. The honourable member for Stirling is doing a sterling job again. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thank the honourable member for Charlton. We have the situation of the Opposition being again in chaos in what we had hoped would be substantial debate. What those opposite are doing-as they frequently do, unwilling as they are to recognise the role of the House of Representatives-is trying to hold a gun at the head of the Government in the Senate. We have seen it done before on a number of issues such as the Australia Card and so on. They are going to try to do it again. They are trying to bargain. But the trouble is that they do not have any ideas or policies with which to bargain, and the Australian community recognises that. Let me talk about what I think are the principal components of the legislation. We have seen the abolition of the two-station rule and the move to a 75 per cent rule. That 75 per cent reach component of this legislation is very important because what it recognises is that television is a dynamic industry. But, going along with that is the question of cross-media ownership, which is also an important component. What we are also recognising-I find the National Party's reaction to this interesting-is that we need to put some constraints upon the way in which a market can be dominated. The previous government lived with that-with the situation that in the city of Melbourne people simply received HSV7 and 3DB, the Sun News-Pictorial and the Melbourne Herald. That was their diet. The previous Government lived with that because the people in charge of the media were its mates and it was comfortable with that. Well, the world has changed, ownership has changed, and those opposite have to come to terms with that. Sadly, they have not even come to terms with the changes that the satellite has brought. None of the comments from those opposite in tonight's debate fully recognise the role of satellites in communications. Of course, we on this side are in a different position. The other piece of legislation we are debating- the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill-provides, under a new section 24a, for a four-year moratorium on pay television. That is a very important initiative and it provides a legislative or statutory basis for the rulings of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in that area. We see that as important because it is another policy area that has to be addressed down the track. Another matter that is still of concern to me in relation to television and broadcasting in this country-this is frequently expressed to me-relates to the complete dissatisfaction with the ratings system that operates in broadcasting. What we have are two standards of television in this country. We have a high standard of television programs being offered during the ratings periods, and in the non-ratings periods we have television which is an absolute disgrace, populated with repeats and low standard programs. There is a simple solution to that. The solution is either to adopt the United States system of electronic Nielsen ratings under which television stations are rated continually, or to conduct ratings in secret so that the television stations do not know when they are being conducted. I am concerned that the television industry has still not addressed this problem. It has extended the ratings periods, but we still have the situation that anyone can detect when we are in a non-ratings period because the television programs are absolute rubbish. In the ratings periods there is a surfeit of good material. There is far too much good material during the ratings periods and very little good material offered during the non-ratings periods. In fact, I say to the television stations that they have a serious issue to address, that is, a lack of viewer interest in their programs in the non-ratings periods. The television advertising component must feel that it is being ripped off in the non-ratings periods because clearly what is being offered is sub-standard programs. What we ought to be offering the public of Australia is a continuously high level of programs. Another issue which I wish to address, which is of concern in my local community, relates to the possibility of interference with television signals. We have the irony-I am sure my colleagues on this side will appreciate this-that the Bond Corporation built a building in the suburb of Scarborough which interferes with television signals. I have hundreds of people in my electorate who cannot get a proper television signal. They cannot get the proper television signal because the Bond Corporation has built a building which blocks out the signal from the Bond Corporation's Channel 9 in Perth. Mr Lamb —Is that right? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My friend the honourable member for Streeton asks: `Is that right?'. Yes, it is. So, we have the irony of the Bond Corporation having built a building which interferes with the television signal from its own television station. Unfortunately, the Act is quite deficient in this respect because there is no onus on local authorities, such as the City of Stirling in this case, or the State Planning Commission, which was completely negligent in its attitude towards planning and took no account of the fact that people now have this amenity of a television signal removed from them. I have a great concern about this. It is something that the Act should address because the whole process of broadcasting in this country is still vulnerable in the sense that people's local television reception can be seriously interfered with. It is not something that we should let go; it has to be addressed by legislation. Another issue which I wish to address and which is of concern to me is the fact that we have not proceeded with the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. What we now have on the ABC and SBS is parallel scheduling; that is, on both channels there is classical music-the provision of programs to what must be the most overserved and affluent market in Australia. If one turns on the television on Sunday night, the offerings on Channel 2 and SBS are parallel. That is a disgrace. Why should we have this overserved affluent market? On SBS and ABC television on Sunday nights people cannot watch a decent program. They are driven away from commercial television in the non-ratings periods. They turn to the ABC and SBS and what happens is that they get parallel scheduling of classical music. That is a disgrace and is something that should be addressed. It is a pity in that sense that there was not a merger because we would at least have been able to address that issue. It is a really important issue because people are being deprived of quality television. One final matter I wish to address concerns the programming in Western Australia. I understand that the ABC is looking towards doing strip programming-perhaps I should clarify that-which will remove the local content in ABC programming on radio in Western Australia, on 6WF, and will replace three very popular music programs on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday nights with programs of a more generalised or more homogenised format. That concerns me because people in metropolitan Perth and in country areas would certainly suffer. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) says that she would swap, and I can understand that because I think that in Canberra there is a poor quality offering at night. It is certainly bad on 2BL in Sydney and it is not a lot better on 3LO in Melbourne, until one gets to the Music to Midnight component. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is threatening to do that in relation to 6WF in Perth, and I am concerned about that. In summing up, many speakers on this side of the House have referred to the important structural components of broadcasting entailed in this legislation. This legislation is about allowing for a dynamic broadcasting industry. It is important because better quality television and radio programs will be provided. Anyone who appreciates the importance that that plays in their lives will recognise that we are reacting to a dynamic community. We are allowing the industry to become dynamic and we are removing those constraints that existed through years of conservative neglect. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.21) —I support the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the shadow Minister for Communications, in opposing this Bill. The Bill has three elements: The abolition of what is known as the two-station rule; its replacement by 75 per cent viewing reach; and the introduction of cross-media ownership laws or restrictions. I agree with the abolition of the two-station rule and with the introduction of the cross-media ownership rules but, of course, I oppose very strongly any notion of giving to any organisation at all a 75 per cent audience reach. The Norris committee of inquiry, commissioned by the Hamer Government, which was the only inquiry into concentration of Australian media ownership, showed that at that time we had the highest concentration of ownership apart from Ireland. Now we have the greatest concentration of media ownership of any country in the world-certainly any country that calls itself a democracy. Complaints were made about the concentration of the print media ownership prior to the Murdoch takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. Those complaints of course have greatly increased. They are justified complaints, especially as the Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) failed to enforce the provisions in the Foreign Takeovers Act, the result of which should have held that an American citizen owning 60 per cent of the Australian print media was contrary to the national interest. The Treasurer and this cynical, expedient Government have never explained how the ownership of 60 per cent of the Australian print media by an American citizen can possibly be justified, and honourable members opposite should hold their heads in shame that they have allowed this to happen. He controls not only that print media ownership but the news prints with the other part of the duopoly. This is the man who said that if there were less than three it would be bad and that he should not get bigger because it would be bad for Australia. They control the news prints and they control the means of distribution. So, even if market niches are to be filled in the print media, they are barely tolerated. If they are any threat whatever to the duopoly in the print media they will not get newsprint or get on the bookshelves. We are talking not about just any commodity but about the dissemination of information. We have before us at the moment a Bill which it is claimed deals with print media via the licensing of radio and television. It greatly concentrates further the electronic media. It goes to the heart of democracy, the heart of freedom of speech and of liberal principles. We are talking about the dissemination of ideas, news, information and opinion. The potential for news management is great and, again, the Norris inquiry to which I referred shows that no working journalist who has worked for Murdoch believes that there is not news management, that there is not the potential for news management and that, at the very least, there is not self-censorship. The potential in the electronic media is even greater. The creation of images which leave fleeting impressions with people is a threat to freedom of speech. The power to influence public opinion and to make and break governments is immense, especially via television, and so one finds editing and self-censorship. In a speech that I made here on 19 March-I refer honourable members to Hansard pages 1184 to 1188-I referred to this matter. We are under a time constraint here tonight so I will not repeat what I said on that occasion. However, the capacity to manage news is massive. The capacity in the next 15 pages to make and break government, not just by media magnates but now by other people who are commercial entrepreneurs not interested in the media traditionally but who now want to try to influence the outcomes of a whole range of government policies and buy up into the media, really is quite insidious. It is a major threat to democracy. Those people who know and who say privately how wrong it is ought to be ashamed of themselves within here in the legislature. I gave been here for 13 years and nothing has been more important, or will be more important, short of a war, than the undermining of our democracy. That is what we are faced with here. This will concentrate still further the ownership of the media. Certainly, we need cross-media laws, of course. Whether the provisions in the Bill are adequate I will not comment on tonight, because we are opposing the Bill, and rightly so; but trade practice laws and cross-media laws are necessary to safeguard the freedom of speech. Let me give an example. One person who allegedly is a friend of this Government, a man named Kerry Packer, had three media outlets-the Bulletin, the Nine network and what he called CBC radio. The same commentators were on these outlets, and in some parts of the viewing audience, the listening audience and the reading audience the views expressed by those commentators were the dominant opinion. The others were playing music or providing entertainment. The Opposition opposes this legislation, and rightly, because we want maximum opportunity for freedom of expression. Mr Charles —It increases it in Melbourne and Sydney. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member is telling lies and he knows it. It does not increase freedom. Mr Charles —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I would like a withdrawal of that. Mr MACPHEE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not argue with my neighbour in the adjoining electorate: I am prepared to withdraw that and say that the facts do not support his interjection. Program choice will be delivered by competition, and competition is gained by an audience reach much lower than 75 per cent. There are, we know, tremendous limits to the spectrum. It is dictated by the engineers of the Department of Communications and the forward development unit report on the future of commercial television has indicated that over the next 15 years there will be room for only one more channel free to work in commercial television in Sydney and Melbourne. Leaving aside whether that spectrum has been well managed or not, we know that the market is circumscribed; so the frequency, which, of course, is public property and therefore the province of the Government, is not a free market in the classical sense. If we want competition, therefore-and I certainly do-it must be attained by prescribing a much smaller percentage than 75 per cent. Given that the constraints are imposed by the spectrum, the allocation that is available, a 75 per cent reach means four or five players; 60 per cent means only a little more; 43 per cent means eight or nine; and 33 per cent means about 10 or 12. We know that there are people in this building tonight who want to be major players in the provision of television services. They are capable of buying up to 33 per cent or 35 per cent of the market, and they want to be part of it. If this Bill giving 75 per cent goes through they will be excluded. If we want competition, diversity of opinion and counterbalances to editorial opinion and the willingness to manage news, the maximum number of players should be allowed to compete on a sound economic base. These creative entrepreneurs, many of whom are here tonight, will be blocked out by the 75 per cent reach rule. If this Government were successful-thank goodness it will not be-in giving 75 per cent, the mere fact of doing that would create tremendous economic barriers that would prevent anyone else coming in when a fourth station is granted, for example. It would be impossible for others to come in because the capital expenditure would have been made and other people would be excluded just by that economic barrier alone. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal recommended 25 to 30 per cent. In the United States of America, the home of capitalism and the home of freedom of speech-its first amendment says that there must be freedom of speech; its anti-trust laws protect freedom of speech by imposing cross-media restraints, trade practice restraints and very strict rules regarding ownership and control-25 per cent is the maximum. In my view, that is what this country should be striving for. At the very most I will settle for 35 per cent, but 25 per cent would be a sensible outcome. One could look at the existing holdings and say that Sydney is the maximum viewing size that is needed. Networking has been spoken about by several people tonight. Networking in the United States is by recognising certain networking entities and then having affiliation. There are strict rules about the way in which people who are affiliated to a network can be obliged to take programs from that network. Networking does not have to be by ownership; it should be by affiliation. By that kind of co-operation by commercial contract, they can get the economies of scale, they can commission the programs and they can put to air programs which are diversified. So diversified ownership brings diversified programming and, above all, in terms of freedom of speech, it brings very real chances for people to hear a diversity of opinion. Mr Hand —You should have taken notice of him, and you wouldn't be in the mess you are in now. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member for Melbourne should hang his head in shame. The solidarity pledge is a disgrace in 1987. It was relevant to the Labor movement when it started, but the honourable member should be ashamed. The honourable member should not be in this legislature if he is not prepared to vote against this legislation. He is not serious about his role as a democratic member of the legislature of this Parliament. This matter really is very important. We must have countervailing arguments for the kind of stuff which will be peddled by his mates to get his Government elected at the next election. He is making himself and future governments hostage to these tycoons who just want the sense of power and will love the sense of power that they are given. Seventy-five per cent to 100 per cent ownership makes all governments vulnerable to the pressures of other people, whether they are media specialists or not. Now we are getting to a situation where some people are running international advertising credit cards. We are not just going to be run from Sydney; we are going to be run from Los Angeles. We are not going to have local advertising. There will not be Australian content of advertising or programs, and there will not be Australian employment. Forget Australia's Actors Equity. We will be run from Los Angeles, New York or wherever else our tycoons want to locate themselves. Members of the Socialist Left of the Labor Party have sold out to these media moguls. They have departed from what we know to be the Labor Party's commitment. Those opposite should have a look at what they have said for years in the Labor Party-diversity in choice of programming; optimum guaranteed levels of Australian content; diversity of media ownership; reduction in the concentration of ownership and control in private hands both within and between the various forms of the media. Do I need to go on? The honourable member for Melbourne is moving back to his seat. I can see that he wants to interject. They talked about protecting the commercial sector against foreign penetration of ownership and control. A great foreigner, an American citizen, now owns 60 per cent of the print media-and those opposite just lie down and let him take it! They talked of encouraging the development of additional new commercial broadcasting services to ensure more diversity of ownership and program choice. This is their policy; this is their platform. They talked of developing proper and responsible planning mechanisms. Planning mechanisms! They have surrendered to these greedy media moguls; that is what they have done. Mr Hand —On a point of order. I just want to say that we would not treat you as shabbily as your own mob have if you were with us, my friend. Just remember that. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member should come over here if he is with me. What are those opposite doing? They are selling out Australia's cultural heritage; they are selling out our economic prospects and our employment capacity. We are struggling to find our identity in this world, and they are selling it out to overseas interests. They do not care about domination from outside. Are we to be technology driven, to be driven by other people's investment in technology transplanted into this country, or are we to make some sort of assessment as a nation of what we want and how we want to use technology and how we want to apply it for ourselves? The role of government is very clear. We have an obligation to allocate the spectrum in a way which meets what we regard as the classic role for liberalism. What is in the public interest? How can we admit as many players as are able and willing to invest their capital, their experience and their ideas and employ as many Australians contributing their ideas equally? Contrast that with the expediency of this Government. It has failed Australian television viewers. It should have had one package of legislation. We have just defeated a Bill in the Senate and this Bill is going to be defeated in the Senate. As Joh would say: `Don't you worry about that'. If the Government had brought the Bills in as one package, it might have been possible to examine rationally how to provide services to the country areas as well as to the metropolitan areas. The Bill deserves to be defeated. It is sad that those opposite have sold out everything that they say they believe in, and they have encouraged a lot of entrepreneurs to sell out their shareholders. The Government has shown a contempt for this Parliament. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is just striding out of the chamber now, issued a Press release at the end of November. On the basis of that Press release various market deals were made on the assumption that Parliament would not reverse what had been done. Mrs Kelly —On the word of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr MACPHEE —This Parliament makes the laws of this country-otherwise that building on the hill will be a mausoleum to democracy. This Parliament makes the rules, not the market-place. The people who have made these deals have breached the existing law and they have breached the intent of the new law. They have not cared what Parliament has said about it. I remind them of the old Roman law, caveat emptor-buyer beware. I tell honourable members that the people in Richmond know about that. The people who now complain that their fingers have been burned and their bids are under subscribed are the victims of Labor's shoddy arrangements. Seventy-five per cent was struck as a back-room deal. We know all these numbers people in the Labor Party. There were no economic criteria, no social criteria, no technical criteria, no logic, no fairness and no equity. Labor is selling its soul in the hope that certain people will editorialise in its favour and manage the news in its favour. A decade hence, new technology, if we manage it properly and if we do not now lock in all sorts of capital investment, will open up to Australia exciting potential for communication and for the flow of information. But the Government is locking out tremendous opportunities for Australians to understand what is going on. It is a two-edged sword. They will turn against the Government as they have done before. We know about someone who crowed about how many seats he won in 1972 and how many in 1975, and he was not supporting the same party on those occasions. In conclusion, again the forgotten people are the regionals. Because the Government has turned its back on the law which we passed when in government giving supplementary licences-and 31 of the 37 regional stations had set aside the capital to provide those licences-it is now effectively, by its great wheeling and dealing to give them centralised networking from one spot, namely, Sydney at the moment and Los Angeles next time, depriving them of any commercial choice. We had the capacity, the policy and the law. It is in the statute books-eight years tenure, a supplementary licence and three years notice of cessation of that licence-and yet the Government has deprived the regional stations of that. It is the Government that has deprived them of those services, not us. We would have had them running a second service 18 months to two years ago. Labor is to be condemned. We must abolish the two-station rule, of course; we know that; and to preserve democracy we must have cross-media ownership rules. But we cannot, and we will not, support Labor's concentration of ownership. We must oppose this Bill. Of course, we will get to a point in a decade or so where there will be multiple choice programs from all over the world. If the Government is prepared to look at a fourth channel, as we propose in our amendment, I suggest that it look at the United Kingdom model, the channel 4 model there, where commercial stations were prepared to contribute funds. The Government receives $100m in licence fees from the commercial stations in this country. We should let those stations contribute to a Channel 4 concept and provide diversified programming, a complementary program to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service on the one hand and the commercials on the other. Mr Duffy —That is not what your amendment says. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister should look at the amendment. Mr Huw Evans, a most enlightened consultant, gave evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. The reference is the Senate Committee Hansard dated 21 January this year, pages 332 to 351 and 352 to 365. This is a bad Bill. We oppose it strongly. If honourable members opposite had any conscience and if the Australian Labor Party made itself relevant to this century, they would abolish the solidarity pledge which they once needed but now do not and they would let people exercise some conscience. As far as I am concerned, and I am sure that I speak for my colleagues, if we are to be serious members of this legislature we can never let such legislation pass, otherwise we are handing down to future generations a heavily handicapped legislature which is suitable for a totalitarian regime, not for a democracy. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.41) —In the five minutes allotted to me, it is very hard to address the legislation in detail, as I had intended. I take this opportunity to say that, from my observations tonight, there is no shortage of Australian talent. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) did a very good mouth-frothing impression of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). It is a pity that his talent is overlooked by journalists. Very few people in the Press gallery recognise his talent. Therefore, it will probably go unrecognised, which is a pity. I commend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for introducing the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. It is an indication of the enormous ability of the Minister. I want him to know that he has the entire support of my faction if he ever decides to run for the office of Prime Minister. However, I wish to take issue with a few comments that have been made tonight. Honourable members on both sides of the House have pontificated about how important the legislation is, that it is the most important piece of legislation to come before this Parliament, et cetera. That is arrant, sheer nonsense. The Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill will not create one single new job; it will do nothing to reduce the deficit; it will not redistribute income; and it will not really temper the power of the rich and powerful. However, it makes an attempt to do that. It makes an attempt that has never been made before; that is, to stop the cross-ownership of the media. However, the self-interest and greed of the rich and powerful are such common interests among them that I have no doubt they will find a way around that. While I commend the Minister for the cross-media ownership rules, I think that in the long run they will have little effect. It is not just the ownership of the media that causes problems. Every day, talk back artists on the radio utter superficial, simplistic, pseudo-compassionate, right wing, ignorant-based claptrap. That has enormous influence on members of the community, most of whom are not in a position to determine the validity of what is said. They take those gushing gentlemen at face value and they tend to believe them. Those people do an enormous amount of damage in the community. They probably have more influence on the community than the mere owners of the stations. After all, if we were serious about getting some integrity into programming, we would be looking at funding. We would fund courses to teach journalists their profession so that we may be able to get some competence and integrity into journalism. That would be the way to go about it. The ownership of the media will be quite insignificant in this regard. A lot has been said about networking. I have networking in my electorate and it works very well. Since the advent of GWN and the changes made by this Government, the whole of my electorate can get commercial television for the first time. The station GWN takes programs from all around Australia. It picks and chooses and shows the best programs. I am probably the only member of parliament who has gone into battle with his own home town station and appeared before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to try to get the station wiped out. The station was dreadful. I still have sleepless nights when I think about VEW8. Fortunately, that station was taken over by the Golden West Network which gives us a much higher standard of programming. I pay tribute to the Western Australian Government which has shown some concern for people in remote areas and contributed about $2m a year for several years to that station to make sure that the programs are of a high quality and are distributed throughout my vast electorate. I thank the Western Australian Government for that. People talk about the dangers of networking as though it is a nightmare; that Sydney or Melbourne will steal it all. That is simply not true. I can tell honourable members that the march of technology, which no one can stop, will ensure that more and more options are made available to people. A company in Western Australia has the ability, at a very cheap cost, probably less than $1,000, to take material off the satellites and rebroadcast it in sizable towns. There could be three additional radio programs or whatever television programs are available. This technology would be done on a two giga-hertz band. That band is presently used by the telephone scramblers, I believe, in the capital cities. Legislation is required for that. As the demand rises for this service, legislation will be brought in to allow it to take place, because there is an irresistible demand for the advance of technology. I know that honourable members will be sorry to hear that my time is up. However, all good things must come to an end. I think that the legislation is a step in the right direction. It will not have the dire consequences for democracy prophesied by the imitation honourable member for Cowper-the honourable member for Goldstein-nor will it do the good as other people are saying. However, it is a workmanlike and businesslike effort to make things better in industry and it is a long needed reform. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.47) —There is a principle that stands well above the content of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and it is the principle of orderly and effective government in Australia. That is why I believe the legislation should be opposed first and foremost before the intricate details of the legislation are approached. If Australia is to be governed by the methods that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Government have presented to us, there is no future for this Parliament in deciding the wishes and desires of the Australian electorate. It is absolutely outrageous that the Minister can advise the moguls of the media to take action to feed in a frenzy, as a pack of sharks do, on the new media opportunities on the promise that he can have Parliament sanction the changes he wants. It is an outrageous proposition. Of course, it is antagonistic to the views that members of the Australian Labor Party have presented in the past to Australians. I remember clearly the 1979 election in South Australia and the dismay of the Labor Party which lost it. I remember the remarks of Labor Party heavies about the activities of the media in that election. I quote from a program of 9 March this year when archival material was used to illustrate Labor Ministers' previous views on the media. I quote the comments made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) which he made in 1979. The Minister is well known in this House for his various perambulations in and out of the Ministry and his various activities. Regarding the media he said: I really do sound a word of warning to the voters of Australia that we live in a very sick situation with the ownership of the media in Australia. We should demonopolise it if we possibly can. I repeat: We should demonopolise it if we possibly can. The Minister made those remarks in 1979. Now the Minister will vote for this legislation to give the rich friends of the Labor Party the fruits of the decision made by the Minister for Communications and the Government on the media. There are plenty of examples of how this Government stands for the rich in Australia. The people who have been disadvantaged under this Government's policies are those on the middle ground; those who are trying to buy a house, raise a family, educate a family and look after a family's health. They are the people in Australia who are finding it hard going. But ask the first 200 or 500 richest people in Australia which government they will vote for at the next election and they will say that they will vote Labor, because they are the people whose wealth has increased in this country beyond all the dreams of avarice. The people at the forefront of that increase in wealth are the moguls of the media. We remember the seven Ministers of this Government who sat down with Mr Holmes a Court and discussed and connived with him about the takeover of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited and then brought into this House legislation to change the rules of the takeover at the same time that the takeover bid was standing. The people opposite are the people who now want us to believe that this legislation is the best thing for the good of Australians in relation to the media. It is a lot of arrant nonsense and the Government's past record and views show that. How much wealth does one have to have in Australia to be influential with this Labor Government? Is it $10m, $50m, $100m of $1 billion? What is the measure of influence with this Government? All I can say is that if someone can muster up whatever the required figure is, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will come in and battle a proposal through Caucus-battle with those weak, lame ideologues who fall around like a bowl of mush when the Treasurer puts the word on them on behalf of his wealthy friends. They stand exposed. Talk about wet, they are mush in the hands of the Treasurer, and they produce this sort of legislation which has only one or two aims: First to increase the Labor Party's chances of electoral success by currying favour with the richest media people in Australia; and second, of course, for them to state their support, which they have already stated. If honourable members want to find out the views of Mr Bond or Mr Holmes a Court about this Government, they will find that they were given quite freely in the last few weeks. `Oh yes' say Mr Holmes a Court and Mr Bond, `the Labor Government and Mr Hawke have got it right'. These people say the Government has got it right because they have been handed hundreds of millions of dollars on a plate by legislation which, I remind the Minister at the table, has yet to be passed by this House. The greatest blow that Parliament could make on behalf of freedom in Australia, the future accountability of Parliament and the future of democracy in this country is to disregard the detail of this Bill. I do not care one iota whether these amendments are successful. I think they are extraneous to the major concept that for the sake of the future of this country this Bill must be defeated and this Government must be shown to be what it is, to have disregarded the mainstream of Australian people and their needs and to have gone right across the spectrum to reward and curry favour with the rich and the powerful and those who have influence. I urge this House to throw this Bill to the wind-and I certainly hope those in another place will do that-and to require the Government to bring back a sensible proposition which takes into account the needs of Australians and not the Government's rich and powerful friends. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(9.53) —At this stage I would like to indicate a couple of matters before summing up the second reading debate. I firstly indicate that in the Committee stage there will be four government amendments to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. They have been circulated. Those amendments will provide for the adoption of the Australian Table of Frequency Allocation as the first spectrum plan under the Radiocommunications Act. Under the Act the spectrum plan is the basis of planning in Australia, and this has been the accepted role of the Australian Table of Frequency Allocation since it was published in 1982 following extensive consultation with industry and with users of the radio frequency spectrum. I will make a further brief statement on this matter explaining the amendments during the Committee stage of the debate. There are no government amendments to the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, but an addendum to the explanatory memorandum has been circulated. The reason for that is significant. The addendum to the explanatory memorandum was necessary and has two purposes. Firstly, it corrects a technical error in the explanatory notes on sub-clause 22 (2) of the Bill dealing with the application of the two-station rule; and, secondly, it clarifies the operation of the cross-media directorship provisions in the new section 92fad, sub-clause 27 (1) of the Bill. This arose because the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills suggested that there is a possible ambiguity in sub-clause 22 (2) of the Bill. That sub-clause provides that no contraventions of the two-station rule can arise between 28 November 1986 and the commencement of the 75 per cent reach rule. The Senate Committee has suggested that sub-clause 22 (2) of the Bill could be interpreted as providing that no contraventions of the 75 per cent rule can occur between 28 November 1986 and commencement. On the basis of this latter interpretation, the existing two-station rule would continue to apply in this period. The possible ambiguity raised by the Senate Committee turns upon whether the reference in sub-clause 22 (2) of the principal Act refers to the provisions of the existing principal Act which contains the two-station rule, or to the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Bill; that is, which contains the 75 per cent reach rule. The parliamentary draftsman has advised that the reference could be only to the existing principal Act, as no contravention of the 75 per cent reach rule could have occurred by reason of the holding of a prescribed interest before the commencement of this legislation. The explanatory notes on sub-clause 22 (2) of the Bill contain a technical error through a reference to paragraph 21 (1) (a) of the Bill, the 75 per cent reach rule, instead of the correct reference to paragraph 92 (1) (a) of the existing principal Act, the two-station rule. To remove possible confusion on this issue the addendum corrects this technical error. Information on this matter was distributed to the Opposition earlier today. The second matter to be dealt with in respect of that addendum to the explanatory memorandum arises as a result of advice from my own Department of Communications of a suggestion that the cross-media directorship provisions in the new section 92fad, clause 27(1) of the Bill, could possibly be interpreted as prohibiting the holding of a directorship in a single company holding cross-media interests. Such a prohibition would be unnecessary because the cross-media interest provisions in the new section 92fad, clause 27(1) of the Bill, prohibit a company holding such interests subject to the period of grace provisions in that section. Such a prohibition would be contrary to the operation of those period of grace provisions because the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal would automatically be required to refuse approval of a transaction involving a company acquiring cross-media interests on the basis of the breach of directorship limits. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the grandfathering provisions in sub-clause 27(2) of the Bill, because a grandfathered company holding cross-media interests would be prevented from appointing any new directors on the death or resignation of existing grandfather directors. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Reluctantly I interrupt the Minister, but it would appear that he is addressing matters which should more properly be dealt with in Committee, as in the opinion-- Mr DUFFY —Mr Deputy Speaker, could you bear with me for a moment? If you want this address in the Committee stage, that does not concern me, but it will take me only about one minute to dispose of this matter. It is a matter of only putting it on the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister could relate the comments to matters raised during the debate I will then allow him to proceed for that time that he seeks. Mr DUFFY —Thank you. The parliamentary draftsman has advised that the cross-media directorship provisions do not apply to the holding of a directorship in a single company. However, to remove any legal doubt on this issue the addendum to the notes on section 92fad clearly states the policy intent of these provisions. Honourable members will be aware that section 15ab of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 allows the explanatory memorandum to be taken into account by the courts in resolving any possible ambiguity in interpretation. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in this matter. Whilst it is extremely difficult to agree with everything that is said in second reading debates, I would like firstly to thank honourable members for their contributions and then deal with some of the matters that have been raised. I would like to thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for his undertaking of support from his faction which can be crucial in the deliberations of the Government from time to time. Mr Spender —Can he deliver? Mr DUFFY —He is one of the few people who can deliver because his faction is of one. It was difficult to follow all of what was put by honourable members on the other side of the House this evening because of the new position of the Opposition, the National Party and the Liberal Party being separate entities. Liberal Party members support an amendment requiring the Government to commit itself to calling for applications for new commercial television licences in Melbourne and Sydney within two years and in other capital cities by 1992. Various Liberal Party speakers ranged across pay television and direct broadcasting but at the same time talked about localism. They did, however, support the cross-media rules. It was interesting to note that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and subsequent speakers on behalf of the National Party did not support cross-media legislation. It was interesting but not surprising, for the reasons pointed out by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) in his interesting contribution earlier this evening. The thrust of the proposal by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) cannot be accepted by this Government. We have a broadcasting system where planning is not meant to be arbitrary and capricious. Under the present law governments must consult with licensees in making planning decisions. That consultation has been painted tonight as something terrible. However, one has to look at major planning decisions which can fundamentally alter the structure of markets, put at risk the profitability, and even the viability, of existing licensees and radically alter the nature of programming. That was another matter raised at some length by the honourable member for Aston. Let me give the House some examples of the major planning decisions that are conventionally approached. The area of equalisation decisions is one of the areas which, interestingly, honourable members opposite seem to be united on. They propose to deny extra services to regional Australia. It will be interesting to see National Party members trying to justify this approach to the constituents they purport to represent. The equalisation decisions were preceded in the planning process by a public report. There was a forward development unit report by my Department which explored options-it did not make recommendations-for increasing the number of television services in rural areas. The report was followed by a public comment phase and an exhaustive round of community and industry consultation. We followed a similar path in relation to the extension of FM radio. We do not accept that so fundamental a change to the broadcasting system as the Liberal Party now proposes can be introduced in this way. There has been no examination of its implications for programming, the viability of licensees, employment and no opportunity for community discussion. The proposal, to put it mildly, is in my view an immature and undeveloped approach. To announce it here without doing anything more than moving it by way of amendment should be condemned as an arbitrary and quite pathetic performance by the Opposition. I put it to the Opposition that it does not seem to have considered what would happen if, as the honourable member for Aston said, operators had licences `coming out of their ears'. He then mentioned the fact that one could watch a station one night and it might disappear the next. These are very important matters which the honourable member for Deakin, on reflection, will probably give more thought to. For example, a question we on this side of the House consider important is Australian drama and Australian programming generally. It is worth mentioning that the Australian drama content of 104 hours per channel costs about $50m a year. There is the requirement of eight hours of children's drama. There is the requirement relating to religious programming, news, current affairs and other programs under the adequate and comprehensive cover required by the Act. Those matters seem to have been thrown out the window by the Opposition which suddenly says that licences should be issued. I said earlier that another member of the Liberal Party-not the honourable member for Deakin-talked about pay television, direct broadcasting satellites and, at the same time, localism. It is worth noting, for the benefit of regional television operators, that how that can all happen at once and how we can retain localism are totally beyond my comprehension. It will also be beyond the comprehension of honourable members opposite when they sit down and think about it. I have already referred to the need, in making major planning decisions, to explore the implications of change. It is worth pointing out a number of matters which come to mind immediately. It may seem rather boring to honourable members on the other side of the House-this was mentioned by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee)-but in all these matters we have to consider the question of the availability of frequencies. People can be critical of engineering decisions. One of the defences of lawyers is that when one asks two lawyers for an opinion one will finish up with three. If one asks two engineers for an opinion one might finish up with four. Nevertheless, the issue of the availability of frequencies has been completely skated over tonight. There are no VHF frequencies available for new television services in Melbourne and Sydney. Yet it is put to us tonight that we should introduce new television services by July 1989 in Sydney and Melbourne and by July 1992 in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. But as I said, there are certainly no VHF frequencies available in Melbourne and Sydney; so any new services would be UHF, with all that implies in the commercial sector about the character of competition between the new licensee and the existing licensees. Another implication, which I mentioned earlier but which I wish to repeat because it is one of the most significant aspects of this debate, is the impact of extra commercial licences on Australian content. Seventy per cent of Australian made television programs are made by or for the three television organisations in Melbourne and Sydney, Channels 7, 9 and 10. Any proposal to divide the pool of advertising revenue available in those markets must impact on the capacity of the existing licensees to meet their Australian content obligations. Let there be no mistake about that. One cannot divide that advertising cake and then require the Australian content this Government believes in. If honourable members opposite do not believe in it, it is about time they came out and told the people of Australia. We will see how they like that. I do not propose to dwell on the contribution by the honourable member for Goldstein because I know that he has very strong feelings on these matters, but he kept talking about a certain concept. He mentioned Huw Evans. I assume that he was talking about some sort of Channel 4 concept which perhaps ought to be considered by this Government or some other government in the context of some sort of public access television. But I remind the honourable member for Goldstein that that is not what the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin is saying. He was talking about something entirely different. If one looks at the amendment, one will see that it refers to the calling of applications for at least one additional commercial television station. So I think the honourable member for Goldstein ought to be very clear about what we are talking about. Finally, I would like to make a few observations about priorities. This Government believes that rural people should have access where possible to the same level of services as is generally available in cities. Technology provides the capability, and sensibly structured or commercial broadcasting systems can provide those services profitably. We say that this is the priority and we have been saying if for a long while. It is very illuminating to hear-and I think that the National Party ought to think about this a little-where the priorities of the Liberal Party lie. It says that it does not like equalisation. It voted in the other place to block a Bill which would give two extra services to country people. Now it says: `Let's have more licences in the cities'. We are not talking about regional Australia here; the Liberals are talking about Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania. They want more licences in those places, thereby widening the gap between the cities and country even further. I suppose that the Liberal Party will say that this is a market outcome. If it thinks that it will give country people some comfort to know that they have been denied services that people in the cities have taken for granted because of the almighty market, I suggest that it is sadly out of touch with the realities of Australian political life. It will justifiably pay the penalty for that at the next election. We have heard a lot of bleating about regional television from the National Party, and what it wants to do and what it does not want to do. Localism is something it keeps talking about. The fact is that if regional television does not have competing services which provide a diversity of choice, where that can be achieved on a population basis, as I said earlier, similar to that provided in the cities, it will not be possible for regional television to survive because technology will be the problem. The system will be there to deliver signals to country people. As I have said consistently since 1983, there is no way that we will be placed in a situation where we can have direct broadcasting from those commercial channels and in fact we are going to say: `No, you can't have it'. The Government rejects the amendment to the motion for the second reading moved by the honourable member for Deakin on behalf of the Opposition. Debate interrupted Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being nearly 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Duffy-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.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.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C. PAIRHayden, W. G. Brown, N. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 15-by leave-taken together. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.25) —The National Party opposes the cross-media ownership requirements in the Bill because we believe that, since we support the 43 per cent reach rule, there is no need for the cross-media ownership provision. We believe that the 43 per cent reach rule is eminently sensible and reasonable and represents the middle ground in this whole fiasco affecting the media in which we find ourselves today. The cross-media ownership provisions are a bureaucratic inclusion. They are unnecessary and impose regulation on business and society. For those sound and logical reasons, the National Party opposes the cross-media ownership provisions contained in the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.26) —I point out that all the action in relation to this media legislation has occurred since the Government released its Press statement in November 1986. Since then, we have seen the multi media players across the nation juggle billions of dollars to try to wrest control from various television stations. Some of these people will fall on their neck, because we will not support the 75 per cent ownership component of the legislation which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Labor Government want to inflict on the people of Australia. We will stick with 43 per cent ownership. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa must restrict his comments to clauses 1 to 15. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am speaking to paragraph (2). Before I get to that I go back to the history of this debate. The Minister has imposed on the nation this multi media juggling for ownership and the people of Maranoa and of similar electorates have really missed out because they are without any commercial television and will remain without it. Honourable members have spoken this evening about extra channels in the cities of Australia, but thousands of Australians are getting no commercial television signal at all under these arrangements. It is a disgrace for the Minister for Communications to totally sell out rural Australia, because that is what he is doing. In addition, paragraph (2) of the amendment to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill relates to the moratorium on pay television which is proposed for four years. That is an absolute disgrace. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa should address himself to clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am addressing the problem that the isolated television viewers of Australia, under paragraph (2) of the amendment to the second Bill-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are dealing with the first Bill at present. Mr IAN CAMERON —There are two Bills subject to cognate debate, and the National Party is moving an amendment to the second Bill, but the amendments on both Bills are being taken in concert. They are not being debated separately; we are debating the two Bills as one. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is out of order. I call the honourable member for Berowra. Mr IAN CAMERON —I want to question your ruling, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I call the honourable member for Berowra. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am told by my Party spokesman that I can debate this matter because we are dealing with all the amendments together. Right? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. If he wishes to speak on the particular clauses before us, he will get the call after the honourable member for Berowra. The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Berowra. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.29) —This whole matter is fearsomely complex. A lot of honourable members have spoken with apparent authority but actually not too expertly. Freedom of speech, the availability of information, the diversity of opinion are social values of great importance in our Australian democracy. It is recognised that the media play a unique role and are not simply a business activity. They play a dominant part in forming the values in our society. It is such considerations that first blush seem to justify the regulatory intervention that has long characterised the industry. The 30-year-old rule of not owning more than two stations which we are presently seeking to change exemplifies this regulation. However-and I come now to clauses 14 and 15, and the amendments thereto, which refer to the spectrum plan-in this day and age we have all become increasingly aware of the distortion, inefficiency and, indeed, the potentially corrupting effect of government bureaucratic control and regulation, which are very much exemplified in all the vast detail of the spectrum plan set out for the control of the situation. As a measure of the impact the cost of regulation, we have only to witness the financial implications of the change in the rules-the new framework of legislation-that is before us. Mr Roger Colman, a media analyst with County Securities Australia, has estimated that, with the present changes foreshadowed Mr Kerry Packer and News Ltd-Mr Murdoch-received $1.8 billion for their television interests, whereas the valuation prior to the new rules would have been of the order of about $800m. Therefore they received an additional $1 billion gift. Mr Cadman —Is that a government handout? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It was, in effect, a $1 billion gift, as Mr Colman put it. I shall not comment on that beyond saying that it is a measure of the distortion that is inherent in the sort of plan before the Committee. The purchasers of those interests have the job before them of achieving a sufficient profitability to justify those outlays. That surely underlines the logic of the Liberal Party's position on these Bills. While supporting the inherently deregulatory 75 per cent of population reach rule, in the interests of competition as the only effective moderating force, and of an enhanced diversity and choice, we are making our support conditional on the Government reducing existing barriers to entry. Yet all this legislation is creating additional barriers and complexities. Therefore, as in the terms of our second reading amendment with which the House has already dealt, we are calling on the Government to issue at least one additional licence in both Melbourne and Sydney, and in other cities in due course. However, further to that-and this is important because in static terms the television industry is inevitably a limited entry market-our support is also conditional on the abandoning of the proposed moratorium on pay television licences. It is conditional on the Government taking active steps to encourage what are vital forms of new competition-taking to further the development of pay television, direct broadcasting services and commercial cable television throughout Australia. For example, it is important that the necessary steps are taken now to ensure that Aussat 2 has the capacity to provide such pay television and direct broadcasting services. In referring to those developments, I conclude by saying again that the whole position is extremely complex. There are no perfect solutions-and I concede that to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). A further complicating, although challenging and exciting, factor is the new technology in the communications field that is just around the corner. For one thing, great change is about to happen in the capacity to transmit signals via fibre optics, laser beams and so on. It is not far from the time when one fibre-optic strand should be able to deliver 900-odd stations into the ordinary home. That is very important because, in setting the stage for the development of the industry over the next 10 to 15 years-which is what this legislation should be doing, although in the event it is not, but rather is simply putting before Parliament the latest stage of ongoing compromise between the Minister, his Party factions and the media proprietors-we do not want to become too hung up about the limitation of the spectrum and so on. We can be pretty certain that technology will enlarge those limits, and sooner than we think, and with that will come the realisation that our purpose for a dynamic industry that is competitive, diverse and of high quality-- Mr Cadman —With vision? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —This is the vision. I am talking about a dynamic and diverse industry that is high quality with some networking, other new services, special regional services, new UHF specialist transmissions for, say, children's and religious programs and, of course, cable and pay television. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations)(10.35) —With the indulgence of the Chair, in closing the second reading debate I referred to the addendum to the explanatory memorandum on the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. I table that addendum and move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Clause 16 (Condition as to statutory declar- ations). Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.36) —I move: (6) Clause 16, page 5, lines 11-19, omit paragraph (b). This clause further relates to cross-media ownership and I wish to take this opportunity to emphasise further the opposition of the National Party of Australia to the inclusion of that in the legislation. We believe that it is not necessary, especially with regard to our position on an audience reach of 43 per cent. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 17 agreed to. Clause 18 (Interpretation). Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.37) —by leave-I move: (7) Clause 18, page 5, lines 29-32, omit paragraph (a). (8) Clause 18, pages 5 and 6, omit paragraphs (g), (h) and (j). Once again, this clause refers to cross-media ownership. Again, the National Party of Australia is opposed to the clause because of our position on an audience reach of 43 per cent. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.38) —I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to several parts of the clause that I think are poorly drafted. Because we are opposing the Bill, I do not intend to move amendments-I simply draw the Minister's attention to this matter, and the Senate may wish to debate it. Clause 18 (d) (b) refers to a newspaper that is published at least four days in each week. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it omits mention of magazines. Magazines are often more influential than newspapers. We can think of several, such as the Bulletin, Business Review Weekly, Australian Business and, dare I say, the Australian Women's Weekly which is now a monthly, and Woman's Day, which is a weekly. These are very influential. Sub-clause 18 (d) (c) states `is sold as a newspaper'. I make the point that we should not only include magazines in these cross-media ownership rules; we should include free newspapers that are distributed. Suburban newspapers have a tremendous influence. In my opinion, the fact of their being sold is not relevant. Increasingly, local newspapers are covering national events. I can say that from my experience; in my suburban papers the Premier of Queensland attacks me week in and week out-all of which increases my votes, so I am not complaining. But the fact is that they are not just covering who is putting a pedestrian crossing where, or whether there is a bus stop at a certain corner. They cover national politics and they are owned by these same media magnates who own our television stations, our daily newspapers, our magazines and our radio stations. All of that is important. So obviously the word `sold' should be deleted. In sub-clause 18 (e) we have the definition of `publisher'. In the light of what Mr Murdoch got up to when, as a foreigner, he was creating his shelf company to try to circumvent the Broadcasting and Television Act-when he was trying to say that he was not a foreigner, he created a shelf company by a man who has now been appointed by the Government as head of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, already being head of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission-I ask: Does this definition of `publisher' guarantee that subterfuges of that character designed to circumvent the law will reach somebody? In other words, will it cover trust arrangements such as those that were employed? If it does not, the Bill should be amended if it is re-presented in any form. Sub-clause 18 (j) seeks to add at the end of section 91 of the Principal Act the following sub-section: (12) Where, having regard to the ownership, editorial control and style of 2 or more publications, it is reasonable to conclude . . . I would say that ownership is the only test that matters here. Editorial control and style will be difficult for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or the courts to interpret. In fact the three add up to a cumulative expression, which makes it all the more complicated. For example, the Daily Mirror in Sydney and the Australian have the same owner but a very different style. On occasions they also have very different editorial content. But their influence is massive and, as with the magazines, influence is the test. So I think only ownership should be taken into account in that clause. They are my contributions to clause 18. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.43) —I will reply to the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). The cross-media rules will apply only to those associated newspapers which have more than 50 per cent of their circulation within the service area of the commercial television licence. The honourable member well knows that because he mentioned it. Again, as the honourable member indicated, a newspaper is defined in the Bill as a publication that is in the English language, is published on at least four days in each week-I do not know which magazines are published four days a week-and sold as a newspaper. So magazines are not included in that definition. The honourable member for Goldstein raised the fact of their being sold, and pointed to the throw-away type publications. The last requirement that a newspaper be sold as a newspaper is further defined in the Bill. It states that where less than 50 per cent of the circulation of a publication is by way of sale, the publication will not be treated as a newspaper. It is proposed that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will maintain a register listing for each commercial television station those associated newspapers to which the new cross-media rules apply. This register will be available for public inspection. The Bill also provides that where it is reasonable to conclude that two or more publications should be treated as a single publication having regard to their ownership, editorial control and style, they will be so treated. This reflects the Government's determination to defeat the sorts of matters to which the honourable member for Goldstein very correctly drew attention-that is, the question of artificial schemes which attempt to prevent this legislation from operating in the manner intended. Should it become necessary, the Government will consider retrospective legislation to pick up any artificial avoidance schemes. I can assure the honourable member for Goldstein that it is pleasing that this evening the Liberal Party of Australia has supported the cross-media rules as opposed to the extraordinary position adopted by the National Party of Australia. I understand the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein and I think I have covered them in my contribution. I wish to assure him of one thing, no matter what reflections he may wish to cast upon the Government and individual members of it. I said earlier that he feels very strongly about these matters. At times tonight he made a measured and at other times an emotional contribution but I understand that. However, as I have just indicated in some detail, if there is one thing he can rest very easy about tonight it is that this Government will not tolerate artificial schemes which are set up to avoid cross-media rules. Should it become necessary-let us hope that it does not-we would certainly consider retrospective legislation to pick up any artificial schemes. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.47) —by leave-I move: (10) Clause 19, pages 7 to 9, omit proposed sections 91aaa, 91aab and 91aac. (11) Clause 19, page 10, lines 20-40, omit proposed section 91aae. (13) Clause 22, page 11, line 16, omit ``75%'', substitute ``43%''. (14) Clause 24, page 12, line 34, omit ``75%'', substitute ``43%''. (19) Clause 29, page 21, lines 7-15, omit paragraph (b). (23) Page 22, lines 5-15, omit Part IV (comprising clauses 35 and 36). The significance of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill cannot be overstated. It represents the most significant change that has been made to media ownership requirements in the history of this country. It is important to realise that if we do not oppose the 75 per cent reach rule and install in its place a 43 per cent reach rule, which is the position of the National Party of Australia, we will hand tremendous potential for both power and profit to a small group of people. In the process of doing that we will also put into serious question the proper democratic processes that this nation has held so dearly since its inception. So for those reasons the National Party is proposing that a 43 per cent audience reach rule be put in place of the 75 per cent audience reach rule. We do that because we believe that is a sensible position; it is one that in the early days of this debate the Minister personally supported; it is one which we believe the majority of Australians support; it is one in which we believe democracy can be maintained; it is one in which we believe that power cannot be handed to a small group of people, perhaps for their own benefit. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.49) —I will be very brief because the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has warned me that I must be brief. I refer to two clauses-clauses 19 and 27. Clause 19 inserts, amongst other things, a new section 91AAE which creates a newspaper register for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to administer. For the purpose of elucidation here and in the Senate, I ask: Why has the Broadcasting Tribunal of all organisations been given this task? How can it possibly do it? It seems that it is a matter of getting factual information. Where will the Tribunal get it from? We are trying to avoid the Tribunal getting bogged down in further inquiries, and this chamber and the Minister have helped to streamline its procedures. I also think of section 17 of the Act which we passed only recently in this Parliament in which we used the term `substantive power'. I ask the Minister to consider, if not tonight at least in time for an answer in the Senate, whether this sort of provision becomes a substantive power. It seems to me that what is being inserted here is largely an administrative function which should be done by the Minister or his Department. It is purely factual. If the Minister makes a decision which the industry dislikes, it may appeal to the AAT. This is something that we could do without especially if the Government takes the view that I expressed earlier on clause 18, about editorial control and style being omitted from the question of ownership. Clause 27 inserts in page 14 of the Bill a proposed new section 92FAB, and this leads me to make the obvious point about cross-media rules: There is differential treatment between radio and television licences and those for print. It is very important that we recognise that in some areas radio can be more influential than print or even, perhaps, television. It is important that we look at radio and print as well as the combination of television and print. I suggest that we should look at the question of influence, not just the case where there appears to be some offence stemming from monopoly. The mere fact of there being more than one radio station in a given place does not, in my opinion, justify the removal of the cross-media ownership rules. If there is more than one radio station there can still be influence. The Leader of the House, who has just given me the wind-up signal, comes from Adelaide which has five commercial stations. Even then, if the station running the main talkback program or the most popular high rating television station which most influences opinion is owned by the newspaper it can further influence opinion. The mere fact of there being more than one radio station is irrelevant in a regional area and I believe that metropolitan radio stations should be considered along with regional stations. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.53) —On the question of the Administrative Review Council, which will make decisions on this matter, the Government does not wish to pre-empt its recommendations and accordingly no action has been taken at this stage on the matter raised by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) to make entries in the Associated Newspaper Register reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is proposed that the issue of review by the AAT of tribunal registered decisions will be referred to the ARC for consideration as part of the current study. On the second matter raised by the honourable member, a person will be deemed to be in a position to exercise control of a newspaper if that person is the publisher of a newspaper or is in a position to control the company which publishes the newspaper. Control of a news- paper is defined to include control of the operations of the publisher in publishing the newspaper or control of the selection of provisions of material to be published in the newspaper. In relation to the radio matter, despite the views put by the honourable member for Goldstein, I do not think he would seriously suggest that there is not tremendous competition in radio and that is why monopoly in regional areas is in the cross-media rules instead of radio generally. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.55) —I 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 is of the opinion that- (1) the operation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in foreign countries should be supported, but the Commission's engaging in activities other than the provision of domestic telecommunications carriage in Australia should not be supported; (2) it is neither appropriate nor necessary to impose a legislative moratorium on pay television to domestic premises, and (c) current provisions, concerning recommencing of public consultation following ministerial amendment of a draft plan in the process of making standards, and spectrum and frequency band plans, should be maintained'. The National Party of Australia has moved this amendment because it believes that there are certain aspects of this legislation which are not in the best interests of Australians and, indeed, of Australian industry. I will speak specifically about the inclusion of Overseas Telecommunications Commission powers to operate on our domestic market in competition with private enterprise operators. Earlier tonight I expressed the view that the National Party feels that it cannot support the extension of OTC's powers to operate within the domestic market of Australia. However, we believe that can see room for OTC to have its powers extended to enable it to operate on the competitive market overseas. We believe that if this legislation is allowed to go through without amendment the ability that OTC will have as a result will enable it, despite whatever assurances are given in the legislation, to be able to cross-subsidise its profits from its monopoly area, which relates to overseas telephones, telegrams and telexes, and use those profits in that monopoly area to boost its activities in the commercial domestic market. We believe that with an active, viable and effective private enterprise market already operating that there is no need for OTC to have its powers extended to operate in the commercial market within Australia and we believe that there is a very real risk that it may enter into the cross-subsidisation business and, therefore, enter the competitive domestic market on unfair grounds. This amendment also relates to the four-year moratorium on pay television to domestic homes. This is an area of great interest to the National Party. It is of great interest to remote area Australians because they have little choice in the television services that they watch. Most of them only have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and many of them would be very interested indeed to have pay television provided in domestic homes in the future. This is a curious inclusion in the amendment. One might ask: Why is it needed? The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) already has the power within his office to grant or not to grant pay television licences, but he seems to find it necessary in this legislation to tie the hands of any future government so that there is no pay television for the next four years. We find this completely unsupportable. The National Party opposes it and we oppose it very strongly because we think that any government has the right to determine the situation in the next four years. If the situation is acceptable for pay television to go into domestic homes, we believe any government over the next four years should have the right to implement pay television. This amendment also relates to provisions that will change administrative procedures within the Radiocommunications Act. At present any changes to the standards, to spectrum plan or to the frequency band plan are subject to at least two levels of consultation with the industry. This legislation, if it is not amended, will bypass the second stage of consultative processes with the industry. We have had consultation with various levels of the industry. I inform the House that the industry is concerned about this. It believes that if any changes are to be made in those areas it should have a right to consult the Minister and the Government. Any changes made without its consultation could have a very serious effect on the operation of its business. It would also seem to be a curious inclusion in this legislation because the Minister already has the right to declare any changes as urgent and whisk them through in the minimum possible time. So this legislation is not needed. We oppose it because we do not think it is in the best interests of good consultative government, of ourselves or of the industries that are affected by the decisions made by this Government or future governments. For all of those reasons we are proposing these amendments. We believe they are sensible. We believe they represent an approach which can be accepted by the Government. It is an approach which I am sure represents the majority views of the Australian people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.01) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to continue my contribution to the debate on this legislation. In particular I will concentrate on the second part of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. In doing so I would like to refer the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to the history of this debate. In 1980, when I first became a member of this House, we looked at satellite television and at giving remote areas of Australia a television signal for the first time. What do we see? The whole thing has done a full circle. Here we are tonight debating Bills which will give the moguls of the television industry in Australia more television channels. People in western Queensland and inland Australia still receive no commercial television services. The Minister understands that. He does not support this legislation. I wish he had the guts to say so in this House. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) supports this legislation, but the Minister does not. He has said so. He does not support the 75 per cent concept; he supports the 43 per cent concept. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might address himself to the amendment. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, the history of this debate goes back to those years when the satellite was launched to give all Australians one television signal-that is, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation signal. The 30 watt transponders were to allow a footprint to be available to give each State a commercial channel. That is not being allowed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member is required to address the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gilmore. I require him to do that, otherwise I will ask him to resume his seat. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am coming to the second paragraph of the amendment. I think the situation is absolutely disgraceful. I know that the Minister takes an interest in people in inland Australia. The Australian Labor Party is meant to support the underdog. It is nonsense, because Government members are supporting the multi-millionaires of the country. It is an absolute disgrace that the Minister is not prepared to allow a commercial television signal to isolated Australians. He has the gall to propose a Bill-- Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This contribution may have been of some interest while the matter was being debated when the honourable member was at the National Farmers Federation dinner-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has a point of order. I ask him to come quickly to it. Mr Duffy —The point of order is that he is speaking to a Bill which has already been passed by this House. There has been no reference by him, despite your request for him to do so, to the amendment. We are now debating the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill, not the Bill which was before the House earlier-the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to the second part of the Bill- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa has not yet received the call. In response to the Minister, the honourable member is at liberty to address the second reading of this Bill. As he had seconded the amendment, it seemed prudent for him primarily to address that, but he is free to address the second reading of the particular Bill that is before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to the second paragraph of the amendment which I have seconded on behalf of the National Party of Australia. It has to do with the moratorium on pay television which applies to satellite as well as cable television in this nation. Again, I say it is a disgrace that either this Government or a future government will affect rural Australians in isolated areas in this way. If the Labor Government is not prepared to give the isolated people of Australia one commercial television channel through the existing commercial set-up, at least it ought to allow somebody who is prepared to run a pay television business to do so. Not only are people prepared to put up commercial television on the satellite and sent it down to isolated homesteads and communities in this country but also the Isolated Children's and Parents Association has also been to see the present Minister for Communications and other Ministers who have been responsible for the portfolio over the years that I have been a member of parliament to get pay education, pay university. Members of the Australian Labor Party are not prepared to allow inland Australians to have pay education. We pay our taxes the same as everybody else. It is a damned disgrace that the Government is not prepared to allow that. I do not believe that any honourable member should support an amendment which totally excludes people in isolated areas of this country. It does not apply just to those in inland Australia; it applies to people in isolated areas who do not get commercial television. There would be people around Canberra who do not get commercial television. The only way in which they can pick up a signal is via the satellite because it is a direct signal. I pay tribute to people in my electorate, such as Jim Warner of the ICPA and Mr Hartley, who has been to Canberra on many occasions seeking to get pay television up. The Special Broadcasting Service signal, for which the taxpayers also pay, is sent across Australia to Darwin in an encrypted form which cannot be picked up. The existing commercial networks and channels in regional Australia are to be offered one or two extra channels. Those in isolated areas still will not get any commercial television. If you the Minister force them into that position it will be five to six years before they will be in a position to get a signal. You have already issued a licence to regional operators in Queensland. They have a licence in their hand to operate through the satellite system. Yet here we see Bills being put through the House tonight which will completely negate those negotiations. You tell me, Minister, that they will not be in a position-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order-The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr IAN CAMERON —They will not be able to take up the footprint that we have in place with the 30-watt transponders. I ask the Minister what he intends to do with those 30-watt transponders and what he intends to do with the licences that he has already issued to the commercial conglomerate in Queensland which was prepared to put up a channel and to give inland Queenslanders at least the opportunity to look at one commercial channel. Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: On the question of the moratorium on pay television, the honourable member was addressing himself to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. I repeat that if he wanted to speak on matters relating to broadcasting ownership and control he should have been here rather than being out of the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out to the Minister that I was on the speakers list. The Minister cut off the debate before I was able to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair had not satisfied itself that the honourable member's remarks were not in some way related to pay television and was prepared to hear him further. I invite the honourable member for Maranoa to be relevant to the question before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —On behalf of the people I represent and others in inland Australia, I would suggest that the regionals can be given an extra channel through the multi-channel and supplementary licence arrangements and that a third channel can be used by a conglomerate, under the existing licence that has been issued, to send a signal via the satellite to those people who no longer get commercial television. That is the system which we in the National Party advocate. It is disgraceful the members of the Labor Party propose to represent those in rural Australia, yet those in rural Australia are not getting commercial television. I can assure the House that when the Bills reach the Senate they will be lost. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.10) —The first matter that I wish to refer to in relation to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) concerns amendments to the Overseas Telecommunications Act. It was disappointing to hear opposition to those amendments by the National Party of Australia. This may have been a result of some misunderstanding of what the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill proposes to do. This legislation will enable the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to participate in Australia in telecommunications activities that do not have a direct international component. The amendments will enable OTC to participate in activities such as: Membership of the telecommunication trading and development company, proposed by the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which is a significant factor for OTC, and; commercial developments of research and development projects sponsored and financed by OTC-for example, antenna design with universal applications. I suggest that the honourable member for Gilmore give some thought to that because a tremendous amount of work has already been done by OTC which could be of considerable benefit to people in the country for whom the honourable member for Gilmore and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) so eloquently express concern in this House. Other activities are the marketing of specialised computer software and undertaking domestic consultancies. OTC will not be empowered to compete domestically for the provision of basic telecommunications services. The amendment excludes OTC from the establishment, operation, provision and maintenance of telecommunications services. Ministerial approval will be required before OTC exercises its new domestic powers. It is anticipated that domestic activities will be undertaken under the umbrella of an arm's length subsidiary to ensure that there will be no cross-subsidisation between domestic and international activities. That is a matter about which the honourable member for Gilmore expressed tremendous concern. I repeat for his benefit that activities will be undertaken under the umbrella of an arm's length subsidiary to ensure that there will be no cross-subsidisation between domestic and international activities. The honourable member for Gilmore expressed concern on behalf of the industry regarding a reduction in public consultation requirements for the making of standards, spectrum plans and frequency band plans. I am extremely interested that so much concern has been expressed to him by the industry because the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has obviously not been inundated with such concern and, I assure him, nor have I. The issue here is the reduction of consultation requirements in relation to standards, spectrum plans and frequency band plans, which are justified, especially given that once the standard has been made the supply of substandard devices or the possession or operation of a substandard transmitter will attract a maximum penalty of $10,000 in the case of an individual or $50,000 in the case of a corporation. I understand that the honourable member probably raised this matter because of the substantial penalty involved. But I do not think that there has been anything like the outrage which he had indicated is in the industry because the industry understands what this is about. The answer to the honourable member's problem is that as the Radiocommunications Act presently stands, even the most minor technical and totally insignificant amendment which may be proposed to a standard or plan following the first round of public consultation has to be published for comment. So there is a first round of public consultation, but however minor the amendment may be it has to be published for comment. Under the proposed amendment it will still be open to a Minister to republish a plan or standard for comment where significant alterations have been made to the document in response to the first round of consultations. Therefore, I think the concerns expressed by the honourable member are not really justified on that basis. The amendment will do away with the cost of needless public consultation in the making of plans and standards. But it does not take away what the honourable member seemed to think that it did in relation to that consultative process. I think that it probably meets the concerns that he has raised-I hope it does-which were in fact not properly placed. As to the pay television moratorium, I find it extremely interesting that the honourable member is saying that the people in rural Australia see pay television as some sort of answer to their problem. I doubt that very much. As the honourable member for Maranoa is aware, as he made reference to this in his wide-ranging contribution, this Government is committed to providing a remote commercial television service-- Mr Ian Cameron —When? Mr DUFFY —I can assure the honourable member that it will be provided as soon as possible, but I am not in a position tonight to tell him exactly when. I am becoming extremely tired of people coming into this House and saying: `Yes, the Minister has concern for people in the country'-I hope that is correct, and I think it is correct-`We are doing everything that we can'. But let us just go back a little in time. Tonight we heard accusations that this Government has allegedly given preferences to certain people. We all make tremendous mistakes in this game, but the biggest mistake that I can recall having made was fighting the fight for regional television in relation to remote commercial television services. Mr Ian Cameron —Where is it now? Mr DUFFY —If the honourable member would listen, I will explain. The mistake was this: The regional commercial television stations put together a consortium to provide remote commercial television. The competing operators who wanted to provide that service at that time were in fact the networks. Networks 7, 9 and 10 were also interested in providing it. The dangers in that were obvious at that stage to commercial regional television in rural Australia, and that was why this Government decided-it was not an easy matter for the Government to decide-in fact to give the opportunity for applications for licences for the remote commercial television licences to consortiums of regional television stations rather than to the dreaded networks that we have heard so much about tonight. The time has come when we are not going to be able to let it go on for very much longer unless the regional consortiums are prepared to deliver. They said they could deliver that service, but at this stage they have not shown any real indication as to when. They have not even signed a contract with Aussat Pty Ltd. I am telling honourable members that if it is at all possible that service will be provided. If the remote commercial television service cannot be provided by a consortium of regional television stations, which have said that they could provide it but which are now having second thoughts-and that is not surprising-because of the-- Mr Ian Cameron —You forced them to aggregate. Mr DUFFY —We are not conducting a conversation on this matter. If the honourable member wants an explanation as to what is happening, I will give it to him. If he wants to conduct a conversation across the chamber, I will talk to him privately at some other time. I am not going to stand here all night and conduct a conversation with him on this matter. Although the current licensees are not prepared to say that they will enter into a contract to provide this service-negotiations are in fact going on at the moment in relation to this matter-a remote commercial television service will be provided. This Government is doing everything in its power to have that matter finalised, insofar as the arrangements can be finalised at this stage, as quickly as possible. I can say no more than that. I find it surprising that pay television is the answer for rural Australia suggested not by the Liberal Party but by its country cousins, who seem to be saying: `The best way to provide television for remote Australia is by making people in remote areas pay for it'. The Liberal Party does not seem to be saying that and this Government is not saying it either. We are saying that the people of remote Australia are entitled to a commercial television service which is free to air and which is not a pay service. That is what this Government will provide. I find extremely interesting the great impatience of people who ask: When is it going to happen? The Opposition was in government from 1975 to 1983. When we came to government the National Party had some sort of concept of a second homestead and community broadcasting satellite service which, as much as one can piece it together, was a remote commercial television service. But the National Party had no idea where it was going. We have run into difficulties in this area because of a problem which I think even the honourable member for Maranoa will understand-the viability of a remote commercial television service. The service will be provided as soon as possible. The second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Gilmore to delete the pay television moratorium provision, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission provision-- Mr Beale —Why do you need the moratorium? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member may well question the need for a moratorium. As indicated earlier, the moratorium on pay television is a major policy decision. Mr Ian Cameron —Come on, you are protecting the networks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is recognised for his wide ranging debate. He must not confuse it with a wild ranging debate. I ask him to remain silent. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Deakin raised this question. There was a lot of criticism tonight on the issue of governing by a Press release, something which we have been accused of. I will not go back and canvass that matter because I would be doing what I have been suggesting honourable members should not be doing, and going back to the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. In our view, pay television does not provide an immediate or practical alternative to equalisation for regional Australia. It is not an alternative to extra free to air television services. The moratorium will provide a breathing space to further assess changes in the communications environment. Developments in this area are moving very quickly. One area to consider is fibre-optics and their possible impact. Another matter we have to consider is the possible impact of pay television on the film and television industry. As I indicated, the pay television moratorium is an important policy decision. We consider that it ought to be endorsed by legislation by this Parliament. If the Opposition decides that it will not do that, so be it. But we are bringing to the House tonight what we consider to be a major policy decision. We are not prepared just to announce a moratorium. The industry across the board needs some certainty on this issue. This is a major policy decision. If the decision to have a moratorium on pay television for four years were just announced tomorrow by a Press statement it would be reasonable for the honourable member for Deakin and the cockatoo over there to complain about governing by Press release. Nevertheless, we have decided on this matter that it is desirable to have this sort of major policy decision endorsed by the Parliament and it is also desirable to have it reflected in legislation. It is before the House on that basis. If honourable members opposite do not agree with it they are entitled to vote against it. But that is the basis on which we consider that we need a legislative base for that decision. On that basis, the amendment moved to the second reading motion by the honourable member for Gilmore is not acceptable to the Government. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R. Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Lloyd, B. PAIRHayden, W. G. Brown, N. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 14A. Amendment (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: (1) After clause 14, page 4, insert the following clause: Interpretation ``14A. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the definition of `spectrum plan' and substituting the following definition: ` ``spectrum plan'' means: (a) in relation to a time before the first plan prepared by the Minister under section 18 comes into effect-the table of frequency allocations for Australia set out in the document entitled ``Australian table of Frequency Allocations (9kHz-400GHz)'' and published in 1982 by the Australian Government Publishing Service; and (b) in relation to a time after the first plan prepared by the Minister under section 18 comes into effect-a plan prepared by the Minister under section 18;'.''. Clause 15 (Spectrum plan). Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.35) —I move: (2) Clause 15, page 5, lines 1 to 15, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Spectrum plan ``15. Section 18 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (2) `spectrum plan' and substituting `plan prepared by the Minister under subsection (1)'.''. The amendment has been circulated and I indicated the reasons for it during the second reading debate. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 16 (Frequency band plans). Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.36) —The Government wishes to omit this clause, and will therefore vote against its inclusion. Clause negatived. Clause 17 (Publication and tabling of plans). Amendment (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: (4) Clause 17, page 5, at the end of the clause add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (c) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(7) This section does not apply in relation to the spectrum plan referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of ``spectrum plan'' in section 17.'.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. House adjourned at 11.39 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Langmore to move- That in view of the severe constraints on global economic growth and on the development of lower income countries caused by severe trade imbalances, high real interest rates, massive debts of many countries, historically low commodity prices, and industrial and agricultural protection This House urges the Group of Seven major Western industrial countries (the G7-the United States, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany,. France, Britain, Italy and Canada) to- (1) co-ordinate their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rate and interest rate imbalances and instability (2) strongly encourage current account surplus countries to adopt expansionary macroeconomic policies so as to increase their imports and stimulate world trade, (3) reduce their wasteful military expenditure and urge Warsaw Pact countries to do the same so as to reduce fiscal imbalances, reduce interest rates and increase resources for economically and socially useful activity, (4) establish facilities through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for phased, partial debt forgiveness and rescheduling, (5) support a new issue of Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund allocated to developing countries to allow relaxation of their balance of payments constraints, and to (6) convene a global conference on reform of the international monetary system. Mr Lionel Bowen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to provide for the reporting of certain cash transactions and transfers, to establish a Cash Transaction Reports Agency and to impose certain obligations on financial institutions in relation to the opening of accounts, and for related purposes.