Tuesday, 17 May 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on Sunday, 15 May, of Mr James Bernard Keeffe, a former senator. Mr Keeffe represented the State of Queensland from 1965 to 1983. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Keeffe, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places-- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Honourable members will be aware of reports of major civil disturbances in Vanuatu yesterday, 16 May. I wish to make a statement about these developments and my Government's response to them. There was extensive rioting by about 2,000 people in the capital, Vila, in connection with what I believe is a long running land dispute. Reports indicate that one person was killed, a number injured and considerable property damage sustained in the capital. In a city with a population of fewer than 20,000 it is clear that these disturbances have been on a very serious scale. At around 10.30 last night the Government received a request, through the Australian High Commission in Vila, from Prime Minister Lini and the Vanuatu Minister for Home Affairs for riot control equipment and material to replenish the stocks available to the Vanuatu authorities in containing the disturbances. Following receipt of the request, I decided to speak personally with Prime Minister Lini to obtain first hand information about the situation in Vila and to discuss the nature of his Government's request. In this conversation, which took place early this morning, Prime Minister Lini confirmed the seriousness of the disturbances and that the request for riot control equipment and material was for the purpose of assisting the Vanuatu authorities to prevent further loss of live and property damage and to restore order. In consultation with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Duffy) I decided that it was important for Australia to respond promptly and positively to the request, coming as it did from the duly elected government of a friendly South Pacific neighbour facing a very significant problem of law and order. Both in my telephone conversation with Prime Minister Lini and through our High Commissioner we have made clear to the Vanuatu Government that the equipment and material is being provided on the basis that it is for containment of the situation and that any use of it should be in that context-that is, used only to the extent necessary to restore order and with all due concern to minimise injury. Since the request strongly emphasised the urgency of the situation, the Government moved quickly overnight to make the necessary arrangements. Today at 0620 hours a Royal Australian Air Force Hercules left Canberra for Vila carrying gas masks, tear gas canisters and tear gas launchers. This is standard police riot control material and equipment of the kind held by Australian police forces. The aircraft should be reaching Vila about now. My Government has remained in very close contact with the New Zealand Government on the situation. I have spoken to Prime Minister Lange. New Zealand has also received a request from Vanuatu for assistance and will be providing equipment and material complementary to the supplies we are sending. Prime Minister Lange told me that he expected a New Zealand aircraft to depart for Vanuatu later this afternoon. I have also spoken with Prime Minister Wingti of Papua New Guinea, who expressed his support for our positive response to the request from Prime Minister Lini. I believe that all honourable members should support the Government's decision, designed as it is to assist the Vanuatu Government to protect the life and property of its citizens, and indeed others, including a substantial number of Australians. I also believe that honourable members will share my sincere hope that the equipment which we have supplied to the Vanuatu authorities will not, in the event, be required. I am pleased to report that, according to the most recent information available to me, the situation today in Villa appears to have quietened but it does remain tense. Finally, I advise the House that our High Commission has made extensive inquiries of Australians in Vila and has reported that all Australians contacted are safe. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition supports the action that has been taken by the Government in these circumstances according to the facts related to the House in the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and separately in a briefing the Prime Minister was kind enough to give me. I do not believe in the circumstances any responsible Australian Government could have acted otherwise than the Government has done. On behalf of the Opposition, I express the hope, as did the Prime Minister, that the equipment supplied will not be required for the designated purpose and that the apparent improvement in the internal security situation reported today continues. I believe the only other observation to be made is that this event illustrates yet again the extraordinary volatility and instability of our region and the requirement that overall policies-defence, foreign and otherwise-fully recognise that inherent instability and volatility in our part of the world. Mr Hawke —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his supporting comments. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, left on 11 May on Government business overseas. He will return to Australia on 8 June and in his absence the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I also advise the House that the Minister for Employment and Education Services, Mr Duncan, left Australia on 12 May on official duty overseas. He will return on 24 May and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, has assumed Mr Duncan's portfolio duties in his absence. Mr MOORE —Is the Attorney-General aware of the role of the American Investment Bank, Salomon Brothers, in a recent sale of shares by the Bell Group? The Attorney-General would know that Salomon Brothers have been key advisers to the Bond Corporation and have recently been appointed financial advisers to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC). The Attorney-General would also be aware that Bond Corporation and SGIC recently acquired 40 per cent of the Bell Group in a transaction which has caused concern to a wide area of the investment community. Does the Attorney-General agree that the parties appear on the surface to have acted in concert, which amounts to a breach of section 11 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Regulations? Finally, does the Attorney-General agree that the deal could be considered to discriminate against the smaller shareholders in the Bell Group? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter is of concern to me as Attorney-General, but at this stage I do not have any information from the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC). One of the difficulties which the honourable gentleman would appreciate, of course, is that the NCSC does not regard itself as being responsible to me. It is responsible to a ministerial committee of which the Federal Minister is never the chairman. I have mentioned those matters in the past. What the honourable gentleman is about has some validity. I understand from my own investigation that the acquisition of shares in each case is either 19.9 per cent or 19.6 per cent and, added together, could well amount to a controlling interest. Issues could arise that might affect minority shareholders. I am disappointed that I am unable to answer what the honourable gentleman is about because I cannot get this information. It is not as though I have not sought it. I have sought it for the last week or so. The answer I have to give the honourable gentleman is that the NCSC is still conducting inquiries and is not in a position to make a statement. Mr DUBOIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Following the statement yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition expressing concern at the level of family migration and the skill component in our immigration program, is the Minister able to update or provide the House with information on the level of family migration and the skill component in our immigration program? Mr HOLDING —Having analysed the figures which the Leader of the Opposition used in making his statement that the Opposition was considering withdrawing bipartisan support for our immigration program, all I say, in the kindest way possible, is that the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have learnt any of the lessons of the last election and continues to have a numeracy problem. The Leader of the Opposition claimed in his statement that in the five years to 1986-87 family reunion had risen from 17 per cent to 50 per cent of migrant intake, while skilled and business migrants had fallen from 46 per cent to 17 per cent. As I have come to regard figures provided by the Opposition with some scepticism, I had my Department take out the figures. The Department informed me that the Opposition's figures for family reunion in 1981-82 excluded brothers and sisters and more distant relations, over 20 per cent of the intake in that year, but they are included in the figure for 1986-87. That means that the figures upon which the Leader of the Opposition was basing a very important policy position had a 20 per cent error. However, there is a more substantial error. The clear implication of the figures of the Leader of the Opposition and his whole statement is that family immigration brings in no skilled workers. That is not only incorrect, it is also offensive. Overall, the skill level of settler arrivals has been going up, not down. In 1981-82, 23 per cent of settler arrivals were skilled. In 1986-87 the proportion was 27 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition talks of business migration. I remind the House that it was this Government that introduced the whole concept of a special business migration program, which has already been hugely successful. We set a target for this group of 3,500 arrivals in 1987-88. When I announced recently that the overall program for 1987-88 was increasing from 120,000 to 132,000 I pointed out that this was being done in no small measure to increase business migration. We now expect 8,000 settler arrivals under this program. None of the figures I have cited are regarded, either by me or by my Department, as secret. They are available. They ought to be public so that all members of this House can take a fully informed position on the debate that is taking place. I therefore will table the figures and provide the Leader of the Opposition with an extract so that he will be able to understand the correct figures. I will also provide him with a simple pamphlet given to every intending immigration applicant explaining how the points test works. I invite the honourable gentleman to read it. He will therefore be in a position, hopefully, when the important debate on the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies is resumed to make some useful contribution on a matter of major public concern and importance to this House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Did the Minister intend to table a couple of papers? Mr HOLDING —I now table them, Madam Speaker. Mr Sinclair —He threw them at the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOLDING —I hope that the right honourable member reads them, too. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the response that the Attorney-General gave to the honourable member for Ryan, will he also obtain advice on whether the Bell Group has breached the aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring provisions of section 38 of the Code? Because of genuine public concern, will the Attorney-General look into this whole matter and report to the Parliament as soon as possible? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would be delighted to do that, and I will do so as soon as the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) is able to give me the information. I emphasise that the NCSC is not responsible to any Minister. That is the defect in the scheme. Mr Beale —You can ask. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have asked, and it is still carrying out its investigations. It is not in a position to give us any information. Mr Beale —Will you report back to us? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will do the best that I can as and when the NCSC allows me to do so. Mrs DARLING —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware of suggestions that the Government should fund the expansion of higher education by increasing general taxation? Can the Minister provide the House with information pertinent to these suggestions? Mr DAWKINS —I am very grateful to have received a large number of suggestions in recent days as to how we might fund higher education in this country. I still think that the best suggestion we have had comes from the committee headed by the former Premier of New South Wales. One of the difficulties with using general revenue as the sole source to fund higher education and, indeed, to fund the expansion of higher education is that those who contribute to the general taxation system and therefore, to any increase in taxation are not the major beneficiaries of the higher education system. The Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding has two sets of statistics which I think are worth repeating today and which demonstrate the uneven composition of the student population in higher education institutions throughout Australia. For instance, 43 per cent of those who come from families with professional backgrounds enter higher education, whereas only 9 per cent of those from unskilled backgrounds have the opportunity, under the current circumstances, to enter higher education. To put it another way, 40 per cent of students in higher education, on the basis of this study, have a father who is a professional, whereas professionals make up only 20 per cent of the work force. Fifty per cent of the work force is made up of manual workers while only 20 per cent of the student population is made up of the sons and daughters of those people. There is a very uneven distribution within the student population and that is what we are trying to correct in terms of the expansion that we have in mind. Therefore, the Committee has proposed that those people who are the direct beneficiaries of the higher education system should make some small contribution to the cost of providing their courses. I want to make one other point very clear: the funds which are proposed to be raised through ACCESS-the Australian Contribution to the Cost of Education for Students Scheme-as recommended by the Wran Committee, will go into a special, dedicated fund. The Government has already said, in the context of the Green Paper, that it would at the least maintain its current level of expenditure on higher education in real terms. This is not a proposal to reduce the current levels of expenditure by the Commonwealth on higher education; rather, it is a proposal to establish a dedicated fund of additional moneys which would primarily have two purposes-to expand the number of places within higher education and to enhance the availability of Austudy. The two major factors which will determine whether we are able to correct the imbalance in the nature of the student population will be, firstly, whether we are able to create the additional places so that the 20,000 people who are currently unable to enter higher education, although they are qualified to do so, have an opportunity to get into a university or college; and, secondly, whether there is adequate income support for them while they are undertaking their studies. They are the two primary objectives of establishing this fund, a fund which would be contributed to by those people who have enjoyed the benefit of a higher education and who contribute to it only once their income exceeds that of the population on average. Those funds would be sufficient not only to expand the system but also to provide additional income support. I am absolutely convinced that it is only through providing those additional funds that we will be able to have a fairer system of access to higher education in this country. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the underwriting of $140m of bonds in the Bell Group Ltd by the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia, and I note that these bonds are currently valued at approximately $90m on the Luxembourg market. Will the Treasurer advise the House, firstly, whether he or any members of his Department have been in contact with persons in Western Australia concerning the extraordinary transactions of that corporation? Furthermore, is the possibility of a shortfall in the underwriting of the Bell Group bonds, by the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission, consistent with the statement on page 418 of Budget Paper No. 2 that `some State Governments are in the process of addressing the problem' concerning the rundown in insurance office financial assets? Mr KEATING —This is a theme that the shadow Treasurer has returned to on a number of occasions. I do not know why he continues to ask me questions about State Government insurance offices. Mr KENT —I ask the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs: Has he received the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I received the report and accompanying documents at about 5.30 last night. I am currently providing Cabinet with proposals in respect of the preparation of a tabling statement and the ensuing timetable in respect of the debate. My aim would be to release the report for public information and discussion as soon as possible, so that members of the Parliament, leaders of the ethnic community and any interested citizens can consider its proposals and participate in the debate. I would expect to be in a position to table the report early next week. Mr SHARP —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to the recent report South Africa: Race and Rugby prepared by our embassy in Pretoria. Will the Minister assure the house that this report was the result of investigations carried out in an unbiased, fair and objective manner and free of any guidance from the Government as to its likely conclusions? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. In response to a request which came from the Australian Rugby Football Union, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade directed the Australian Embassy in South Africa to undertake a special survey of rugby union in that country, with a view to maintaining an up-to-date assessment of how real the integration progress had been in that code in South Africa. That paper, as the honourable member is aware, has now been released. Whilst acknowledging that significant progress has been made by the South African Rugby Board in removing racial barriers, the paper nonetheless demonstrates the extent to which the sport continues to be influenced by race. The survey brings home two very fundamental points. Pressure from abroad, including the sports boycott, has led to considerable progress towards non-racial rugby. Nevertheless, barriers to fully integrated rugby and to a non-racial South Africa remain firmly in place. The legacy of racism and the ongoing realities of the wider apartheid laws continue to keep people apart on the basis of race. The Government is convinced that sporting sanctions such as those embodied in the Gleneagles declaration, to which Australia scrupulously adheres, deliver a powerful message to white South Africans about the need for fundamental change before normal sport can be played in a normal society. In relation to the point the honourable member raised, I am satisfied that the objectivity of the report is something in which we can be confident. Our representatives in South Africa have prepared, as the honourable member is now aware, a detailed report and I am confident of the objectivity of that report. Mrs HARVEY —I ask the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business: What is the significance of the `gene-shears' technique in genetic engineering developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and announced at the Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science (ANZAAS) in Sydney yesterday? Mr BARRY JONES —Dr Jim Peacock, the chief of CSIRO's Division of Plant Industry, referred to the new `gene-shears' technique in an address to the Centenary Congress of ANZAAS at Sydney University. Full details of the discovery are being withheld until the publication of a full report to be submitted to Nature. This is to ensure that CSIRO's researchers maintain absolute priority. In recent years in laboratories throughout the world genes have been modified by adding new bits of genetic information. However, CSIRO's breakthrough-for the first time-creates a technique for targeting undesirable genetic information which is already in the organism and cutting it out, hence the idea of `gene-shears'. The research has been carried out by Dr Jim Haselhoff and Dr Wayne Gerlach. The implications are enormous and may well be the most important development in genetic engineering internationally for a decade. I ask honourable members to listen to this: the `gene-shear' technique involves attacking the genetic messages produced by genes. Madam SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to speak into the microphone so all can hear. Mr Goodluck —Why are you talking to them? Mr BARRY JONES —They are the target in a way. These people understand this, it is for reinforcement; in more technical terms, a short sequence of ribonucleic acid, or (RNA), can be modified to target and cut chains of RNA produced by a gene or a virus. DNA generates a genetic message; RNA is the communication link which transmits the message to the protein. So far the technique has been developed within the test tube but it points the way to application in a wide range of micro-organisms and plants to make possible the development of avocados and watermelons without seeds, but, much more importantly, control of cereal diseases and of alkaloids and anti-nutritional proteins. Obviously-this is the most important part of all-if the technique can be applied in animals and humans, and there is a strong theoretical basis for believing that this is the case, the implications for controlling foot and mouth disease in animals and diseases based on genetic defects such as Alzheimers disease-even if it is 10, 15 and 20 years down the track-will be enormously important. The `gene-shears' technique has been patented. I was first briefed about this discovery by Drs Haselhoff, Gerlach and Peacock on 9 December 1987. Senator Button and I have had further discussions with Dr Peacock and his co-workers about the exploitation stage. We have good reason to be proud of this achievement with its implications in agriculture, animal husbandry and human health. I shall convey the congratulations of the Government and I hope also the Opposition-indeed, the congratulations of the whole House-to the Chairman of CSIRO. Mr HOWARD —I direct to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade a question supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Gilmore. I preface my question by reiterating the continued support of the Opposition for the Gleneagles Agreement covering sporting contacts between this country and South Africa. I ask whether the Minister still asserts that the report on South African rugby was carried out with complete objectivity in light of the fact that in a cable from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Australian Embassy in Pretoria, inter alia, instruction was given in the following terms: We hope that a convincing report on the extent of integration of rugby in South Africa will be a useful tool in our future dealings with the ARU. I ask whether the cable also went on to say: Mr Hayden has asked that in the conduct of this survey and in particular in drawing up any conclusions such procedures or results should reflect the fact that apartheid is an institutionalised system reaching, in one way or another, practically every facet of South African life. Does the Minister believe, in the face of those statements and the clear implication of this cable, which I shall supply to the Minister, that in terms of the question asked by the honourable member for Gilmore the survey was carried out with total objectivity without any instruction or direction from the Government as to the substance of the conclusions? Mr DUFFY —I think that there may be some misunderstanding in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted the cable referred to. I must say that it is not a cable that I was aware of until the Leader of the Opposition referred it to me. The fact is that he referred to the system of apartheid in South Africa as institutionalised. He did not appear to be casting any doubt on what is an obvious fact. In answering the question that was asked of me earlier by the honourable member for Gilmore, I made the point that we asked our Embassy in South Africa to carry out a survey looking at the extent to which the sport continues to be influenced by race, having regard to the fact that we are aware that advances have been made in rugby in that country. In the answer to the question from the honourable member for Gilmore, I said that the legacy of racism and the ongoing realities of the wider apartheid laws continue to keep people apart on the basis of race. The contents of the cable referred to by the Leader of the Opposition do not imply that we believe that the system of apartheid in South Africa has changed. It has not. The survey that was carried out was on the effect of that system on non-racial rugby. That is what we were looking at. There was no question of any change in the basic concept of the apartheid regime in that country. Mr O'KEEFE —The question I address to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade concerns protection of Australian malt exports. Is the Minister aware of recent steps taken by the United States of America to sell subsidised malt in the Peruvian market under its export enhancement program? What measures are being taken by the Australian Government to protect our exports of malt to Peru? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Burke for his question. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Embassy in Washington have made a number of representations to the United States Administration following the offer of the United States to subsidise sales of 20,000 tonnes of American malt to Peru. The Government has a particular concern on this issue because an Australian trader has contracts to supply 32,000 tonnes in an estimated market of 45,000 tonnes this year. The representations made to the United States Administration have resulted in written assurances from the Administration that the initiative was, in this case, targeted at the European community and sales under the initiative were not expected to be delivered before 1989, when the Americans anticipate an expansion in the market, which they claim should not preclude Australia's traditional or expanded levels of malt exports to Peru. The Government has some reservations about the American predictions of next year's Peruvian market. The Government is advised that it was not the intention of the United States to impede the trade of non-subsidising exporters, such as Australia, but this is another example of the disruptive effects of any export subsidy programs, regardless of whether they are totally intended. Mr DONALD CAMERON —My question to the Treasurer concerns the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) considering causing people to have blood tests and to reveal intimate details of their sex lives to total strangers. Is the Treasurer aware that only a few weeks ago the Statistician's office commenced a household survey which included a section requiring many people, by force of law and fines, to spill the beans about their bowel and bladder problems? Government members interjecting- Mr DONALD CAMERON —Well may members of the Government laugh but the survey is being conducted right now. Is the Treasurer aware that in the United States of America there is one statistician for every 18,000 people and in the United Kingdom there is one for every 15,500, while in Australia there is one for every 4,411 people? In light of the bowel and bladder survey and the contemplated blood and sex practices surveys, will the Treasurer cause the Statistician to put a stop to this dangerous galloping practice of sticking the nose of government or Big Brother into what must surely constitute the private and personal affairs of this nation's citizens? In view of the comparative staff ratios in the United States of America and the United Kingdom and the manner in which the 3,500 staff members of the Statistician are spending their time, will the Treasurer commence an inquiry into the present grossly overstaffed levels of the Australian Bureau of Statistics? Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Moreton is determined to stay on the back bench; he is not just about to stay, he is determined to stay. National health surveys are conducted at regular intervals in Australia to provide reliable national information on the health status of Australians and their health related behaviour. The last was conducted in 1982 and the previous one in 1978. One will be conducted in 1989-90. The Australian Bureau of Statistics consultative papers that have been circulated to health experts and organisations emphasise the Bureau's concern for privacy and the need to avoid sensitive questions. Mr Donald Cameron —What about these personal questions? Mr KEATING —I shall not bother myself with an extemporaneous reply to a question like this. Whilst the Act enables the ABS to direct respondents to fill in a form or answer questions to obtain statistical information, it does not empower the ABS to direct a person to be physically examined. No survey by the ABS will incorporate compulsory medical examinations. There is a proposal that respondents might be asked to volunteer for an examination including height, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, but the suggestion that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has desired to ask an array of highly personal questions, in particular about psychiatric illnesses, is entirely mischievous. Despite a series of statements by the Australian Statistician denying these claims, some people, including the honourable gentleman opposite and some areas of the media, have continued to peddle these misleading and, they hope, alarming suggestions. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. It concerns defence policy of particular concern to members from Western Australia. Has the Minister for Defence seen a statement by the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson, that the Chief of the Defence Force has joined the Federal Opposition in calling on the Government to study the option of nuclear powered submarines for the Australian Defence Force? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I have. I have also had my attention drawn to a statement by the Chief of the Defence Force on the same claim, in which he said that he today dismissed claims by the Opposition spokesman for defence, that he had joined the Opposition in calling for nuclear powered submarines. He emphasised that in his recent address he had been speculating on long term force structure options for the Australian Defence Force. He said: My statement about giving consideration to nuclear propulsion for RAN submarines was made in the context of decisions which will be required about the year 2015 for the next generation of submarines which should come into service after the year 2020. He thought that, if any option were to be considered, it should be considered, in other words, about 30 years from now, which should see out most of the members of this House. Far from the claims of the Opposition that, as a result of a political decision in the Australian Labor Party, we had in some way overruled a position of the Navy and the Chief of the Defence Force in going for the conventional submarines that we are going for, General Gration further pointed out that the Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Hudson, had recommended the acquisition of conventional submarines to replace the existing Oberon class submarines. He said: The decision to build six Kockums Type 471 conventional submarines has my full support. I would say that that Press release amounts to a comprehensive line by line repudiation of the suggestions made by the Opposition's defence spokesman. Perhaps there is some clue, however, in the Opposition defence spokesman's position on his soon to be forthcoming overseas trip. He has said that, despite what he believes to be problems in the defence forces on manpower issues and on procurement issues, he is going to devote himself on his overseas trip to the study of nuclear-powered warships and come back with a few options in that regard. I was critical of him before. Now I realise that his stand is a gesture of total self-abnegation. He has clearly decided-and greater love hath no man than that he lay down his overseas trip in this regard!-that he will never be Minister for Defence of this country. However, he has concern for the situation of the shadow spokesman 10 people removed in the year 2015 and he will do some groundwork for him on his overseas trip so that what he will leave behind as shadow spokesman at least will be a fairly decent file! Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Does the Government still have under active contemplation a possible merger of the Commonwealth Bank with one of the existing private banks? Mr HAWKE —I have seen Press reports about various proposals concerning the future of the Commonwealth Bank. The Government is looking at ways to ensure that the bank is capable of meeting the undoubted challenges of the banking industry in the late 1980s and early 1990s. When we have completed our work of looking at the situation we will announce our decisions. I certainly do not intend to use this forum to make announcements concerning the Commonwealth Bank. Mr Sinclair —No, don't tell us. Mr Howard —No, no, don't do that; never do that. This is only Parliament. Tell the reporters. Mr HAWKE —The Opposition should cut out this silly cackle and sort out its own position in regard to its policy on public assets. Let me make the point that the current Leader of the Opposition says that he would not dispose of Australia Post or Telecom Australia, but that is not the policy of the true Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the Federal President of the Party. The Federal President of the Liberal Party had something quite different to say. He was asked about this matter on the business program on channel 10 on 19 July last year and this is what the real-- Mr Howard —Oh, no. Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —We can see why Opposition members laugh. Any statement of policy made in July last year is now out of date. In other words, Opposition members may have said something about policy in July last year, but we should not take it too seriously as being relevant today. That is a fair enough comment on the Opposition's policy formulation processes. What it says one month it discards the next. Let us get it quite clear about the fundamental divergence between the true Leader of the Liberal Party, John Elliott, and this figurehead we have here, the honourable member for Bennelong. What did John Elliott have to say about what he would do in regard to Telecom and Australia Post? He said, `No doubt the Liberals would have sold off more than they said in their manifesto'. In other words, he was saying, `Do not believe our manifesto. No doubt they would have sold off more than that'. When asked whether they would include things such as Telecom and Australia Post this was his reply, and I ask members of the National Party of Australia to listen to this because this is what John Elliott promises-- Mr Peter Fisher —Don't you worry about that. Mr HAWKE —Liberal Party members do not want to listen to this but the National Party members do. John Elliott said, `Yes, I think all those things ought to be privatised'. Elliott, the Liberal Party, would privatise Australia Post and Telecom, and National Party members know what that would mean. I have given them this little lesson on occasions before. If this mob here, the Liberal Party, with whom the National Party has a temporary and rather dangerous alliance, were ever to get control of this country it would flog off Australia Post and Telecom. National Party members know what that would mean. It would mean the end of cross-subsidisation. It would mean that all those people in country Australia, whom the National Party purports to represent, would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars more as the Liberal Party, led by John Elliott, flogged off Australia Post and Telecom. In the light of the position of the Liberal Party, I suggest that the Leader of the National Party should have something to say about the policy of the Liberal Party. If he does not, the true Leader of the National Party, Senator Stone, probably will not be short of a few words. The policy of the Liberal Party spells doom and disaster for the National Party. I suggest that National Party members continue their present position and have a very healthy scepticism about these people with whom they are in the political marriage bed. Mr SCHOLES —Has the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy noted some gratuitous advice about protection policies given to Australia by a person described as one of President Reagan's advisers? Will he again draw the attention of the United States Administration to its own policies in respect to the dumping of primary products and artificial protection barriers? Mr KERIN —The matter the honourable gentleman points to is what we often see in international discourse: people take one stand that is principled and say, `This is what our policies are', and then there is a different reaction when it actually gets down to the crunch. Of course the situation in the United States at present is that there is an administration saying very sensible things about the development of world trade-agricultural trade in particular-and a Congress which in the recent past has been highly protectionist. When we are dealing with a system such as that in the United States all we can do is address our view to the Administration, the Congress and also the public service in that country because often they are working to different forces and pressures. I think it is partially by using that approach that we have been successful in getting our view across on the trade Bill, for example, and very effectively on the farm Bill. That is the reality we deal with. In Europe we deal with the same sort of reality. There is the European Commission, which puts forward certain matters, and then there is the council of Ministers or the national parliaments or some other thing that can cause an unpredictable result. That is the sort of environment in which we live. We do not believe that if we stand naked in the world without any protection whatsoever all the rest of the world will gasp and follow suit; but what spokesmen for this Government do, and what my colleague the Minister for Trade Negotiations does, is articulate the principles that should govern trade and not go for the lowest common denominator, the lowest form of protectionism or double standards. Mr COWAN —I preface my question to the Prime Minister by reminding the House that our Prime Minister is one of only four leaders of the countries of the world who have ever been invited to address the Irish Parliament. This being the bicentenary year, and keeping in mind the historical value of the founding of Australia and the people who first settled Australia, will the Prime Minister consider accepting from the United Kingdom and from the Republic of Ireland an additional substantial number of young skilled people to take their place here in Australia to fill the jobs in trades for which there are vacancies at present? Does the Prime Minister agree that this would be a responsible and excellent method of recognising in this bicentenary year the actual contribution made by the United Kingdom and Ireland in the founding of Australia? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his question and the spirit in which it was asked. May I say by way of preface to my response that I remember with a great deal of pleasure and indeed pride the honour which was accorded to me by the Irish when Hazel and I visited Ireland at the end of last year. The warmth of the reception that was extended to me was a combination of many things, not least the fact that-this statistic may be a matter of some surprise to the honourable member-in our population of 16 million, five million of our fellow Australians have an Irish antecedent, which is some measure of the closeness of the link between our two countries. It is said that one of the reasons for the very high quality of my Ministry is that some 50 to 60 per cent of my Ministers are of Irish antecedents. However, coming to the substance of the honourable gentleman's question, let me say that over many years young people from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have obviously, from the statistics I have given, been immigrants to this country and many have brought the particular skills of the type to which the honourable gentleman referred in his question. Under the immigration program, which has been conducted expertly under the guidance of my Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, there will continue to be a capacity for people with these and other attributes to come to this country and continue the great contribution to the development of Australia which has been made by so many of their forebears. Let me say this to the honourable gentleman: we do not believe that the filling of skill shortages and other types of vacancies in this country should simply be thought of in terms of immigration. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the five years of our Government-and I think one with which the honourable gentleman would agree-is the very considerable increase we have made in the funds available for the training courses and apprenticeships in this country so that, more and more, these vacancies will be filled by our own, Australian born, young men and women. Having said that, there will still be room for a significant component of people from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. They have in the past made a remarkable contribution to this country. The strength that we have and the fact that we are a country which is an object almost of jealousy and certainly admiration around the world reflect the contribution that they, in part, have made. I hope that in the years ahead many more thousands of them will continue to make such a contribution. Mr CAMPBELL —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. It concerns allegations that banks and financial institutions have been overcharging farmers, in particular with respect to interest rates. Work done by the Hon. Julian Grill, the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia, indicates that this is the case. I understand that the Department of Consumer Affairs in New South Wales also maintains that farmers have been overcharged many millions of dollars by banks and finance companies. Whilst I recognise that it is largely a State matter, is there anything the Attorney-General can do to ensure that the money owing to farmers is returned? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have been told by my ministerial colleague that surveys show that in certain cases what the honourable gentleman says is true. Putting it euphemistically, there has been a miscalculation of interest in a number of cases. There have been substantial overcharges. These matters are basically State matters. They do not come within the Federal jurisdiction. My colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs has taken the matter up with the responsible Ministers in other governments. I am sure that, as a result of those efforts, they will make strong-- Mr Howard —You are even frightening babies. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Another disgruntled borrower up there! The issue is serious. The merits of the question relate to State administration, but the Federal Minister for Consumer Affairs has taken an interest in the matter. I think legal action will be taken in certain cases if the matter is not corrected by amicable arrangement. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australian Capital Territory- Gaming and Liquor Authority-Annual Report 1986-87. Pollution Control Authority-Annual Report 1986-87. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1986-87. Report of the Commission of inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests-Volumes 1 and 2-section 20 (b) of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill 1988 Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1988 Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill 1988 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988 Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Marketing Bill 1988 Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's handling of the immigration debate. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.00) —The debate on Australia's immigration program has started on a sour note because the Government has sought to direct a debate which should be open and frank in a direction that is not appropriate. There is community concern about Australia's immigration program. This concern has been expressed in many ways. It has been expressed time and again in surveys that have been done both at large and by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. This is a serious matter that affects all Australians. The population and immigration programs of Australia affect us all. Immigration levels and the growth in population affect our self-reliance and self-defence capacity. The larger our population, the more capable we are of being self-reliant. In trade, the diversity of our products and the development of new markets are significantly dependent on the composition and size of our population. Our foreign relations are significantly affected by the size of our population, particularly our relations with those in the immediate vicinity of Australia in South East Asia and the South West Pacific. Our economic performance is affected by the size of our population and our immigration program. Our industrial competitiveness, our high technology capacity, the ability to innovate, the structural adjustment that Australia is going through-all are affected by immigration and by the size of the Australian population. On a government level, the requirements of our people relating to health and education and the infra- structure factors of roads and housing are affected by population and immigration. The depletion of natural resources is affected by our immigration program and Australia's population. These are not matters that should be entered into lightly and dismissed with tags or catchcries, as the Government has sought to do. They are serious matters and a serious debate and examination of them must take place. The Government has soured the debate by wanting to tamper with the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies-the report that is being prepared by Dr Stephen FitzGerald. The Government is also aware that the first report from Dr FitzGerald branded the Government's immigration program as a failure. The Government is also aware that that report branded the Government's program in the following terms: The current selection procedures are ineffective in controlling numbers. They are not seeking enough skilled and entrepreneurial migrants and they are widely considered inequitable. That is the way in which the Government's own inquiry saw the Government's programs. Not content with just muddying the waters on the final report, the Government has sought to fling around terms such as `racist', branding as a racist anyone who disagrees with its policies, a most unfortunate characteristic of this Government and one not worthy of its members. Can they point to a disagreement in policy whose differences are based on racial characteristics? No, they cannot. A bipartisan approach is what the Government consistently wants, but it wants that bipartisan approach only if the Opposition agrees with it. Never has the Government said, `That is a good idea; we will be bipartisan'. The claim for bipartisanship is made only when the Government wants the Opposition to shift its ground. Those are not good bases for this debate to commence on. If we do not agree, we are not bipartisan; if we have a different policy, members of our parties are branded as racists. The Government is failing to present the importance of this debate in its proper light. We will not be diverted from expressing our views, for we believe that an immigration program must be of national benefit, it must be something for every Australian and something that all Australians broadly endorse, no matter what their origin or background. There must be a strong endeavour by the Government to reach agreement with the various elements of the Australian community, including the Opposition. The Government should be bipartisan about the right policies. We will be bipartisan about the right policies. But we will not be locked into something that is called bipartisan and on which the Government then proceeds to set the agenda. That is not part of the way in which we intend to participate in this debate. The Government has changed the balance and the direction of Australia's immigration program. Whether we use the highly qualified departmental figures produced by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) today or the figures released by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) at the weekend, we can see a great shift in the direction of the Government's immigration program. The Government halved the program in its first year in office. It is suspicious of migrants, and when it came to office it basically halved the size of the program. It brought it down from a level of 93,000 in the year before, or 118,000 in 1981-82, to 69,000. Since then, to its full credit, it has gradually increased the size of Australia's immigration program. Not only did the Government halve the program, but it entered into an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Under the agreed policy details, section 4 (c) of the accord, the following policy guidelines were agreed to by the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU: . . . family reunion and refugee intake are of the highest priority in determining migration criteria. That was the basic policy to which the Government gave its agreement before coming to office, and it has shifted its program so that year after year an increasing proportion has been devoted to the unskilled and semi-skilled migrant. The Government in fact has created a situation where migrants coming to Australia, who are largely unskilled or semi-skilled, are starting to squeeze the job opportunities for young Australians leaving school and for forced early retirees. That is the fact of the matter. Whether we use the qualified figures of the Minister, which seek over three policy changes to keep a basic criterion and, seven years in reverse, seek to allocate people to categories that the Department is currently running-and the Department says in the footnotes on those figures, `These are qualified' and that it is an extremely difficult task to do, and they are from unpublished statistics from the Department on an undated note-which should be highly suspect, or whether we use the figures of the Leader of the Opposition, there is that dramatic shift. Whether it be a shift of 200 per cent or 50 per cent, there is a significant shift in the Government's policy. The Government needs to look at the levels of skilled employment-creating migrants coming to Australia. When one looks at the family reunion program or the independent and concessional programs of the Government, one finds that in those programs there is a skill level of only 20 to 26 per cent. The skill programs involve a skill-managerial capacity of 49 or 50 per cent. There is a dramatic difference in the types of people who come here under both programs. The Opposition is saying that Australia needs to have a larger immigration program and that the increase in immigration under that program must be skill-based. It must involve people who can make a positive contribution to our nation and society on arrival. They must be able to fill the shortages that exist in practically every industry; they must also be self-starters. We do not care where in the world they come from because, despite some of the ragtag comments of the last few days, we have a non-discriminatory policy. Mr Holding —Good. Mr CADMAN —The Minister says, `Good'. He has known that since he became Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The Opposition has never shifted in this area, so he can keep those comments for his later remarks. The non-discriminatory policy will apply to the quality of the individuals. We are saying that Australia needs more job creators, more people who are dynamic in their attitudes, and that, as such, the family reunion program should not provide for an increase in numbers. The immigration program should provide for an increase and the extra people should be those with skills, qualifications, knowledge or an investment to make in Australia. Skill levels are the key to what we believe the future should hold for an immigration program. The program is in a mess. One and a half million people from all around the world have applied to come to Australia to live on a permanent basis. We should be proud of that. This is a country that they see benefit in coming to. Therefore, any policy must be selective to gain the types of people that all Australians nationally feel will best suit the circumstances of this country. That is what we need, and that is what the Opposition has set out as its basic criterion. There is a program overrun this year; there is a 1 1/2-year wait on the review of cases; there is a one-year wait in the chase-up of known illegal immigrants, wherever they may be; the points score system is keeping out people who should be here and letting in people who should be kept out; and the number of illegal immigrants has jumped to 74,000. What a mess. The Government has a wreck of a program but challenges anybody who criticises it as having a racist attitude. The program is unbalanced and is in a mess. The Leader of the Opposition has set down significant criteria for a program of the future. The list is not conclusive; it contains the broad principles, not to be confused with the nine principles that have been traditional in immigration. These are the basic factors: Australia's national interest must always be the overriding consideration in deciding upon the level and composition of the immigration intake. The prime influence on all post-arrival policies must be that all Australians have a common destiny transcending other loyalties. Those are commendable principles and ones that we endorse. The Leader of the Opposition said, `The capacity of Australian society to accept and absorb change must be a factor determining our immigration intake. Continuing high levels of migration are essential to a sustained economic growth and expansion'. The Government does not endorse those things. Let us hear what the Government has to say. The Leader of the Opposition said, `As a member of the international community, Australia has an obligation to play her role in the humanitarian resettlement of refugees'. There we have what the Opposition has said. The best that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs can do is throw around tags of concern for racism. Why can the Government not be bipartisan? When pressed on the policy of the Government on family reunion, the Minister said: I believe we can continue to handle numbers at about the same level now, but this has to be qualified about where the economy is heading. The Minister would not commit himself. He would not give guarantees on family reunion and would not say that the numbers must be maintained or increased. Of course he would not. The Opposition is saying that family migration should be maintained but that we should also have as migrants people with skills and people of capacity. Let us have some nation builders as part of Australia's immigration program, an expanded program of capable people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(3.16) —About the only thing on which I agree with the shadow Minister for immigration and ethnic affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), is that this is a poor start to a very important issue. How did it start? It was public knowledge that the Government was about to receive and has now received the report of FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Equally it was public knowledge that the Government created the FitzGerald inquiry in order that Parliament could have before it an objective report based upon an examination of all the issues and a canvassing of opinions from the widest possible spectrum of Australian society so that we could, within the framework of a bipartisan policy, reach agreement on levels of intake and parameters of our immigration policy and establish guidelines to take us to the year 2000. I am bound to say that I feel some sorrow for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) because of the position he finds himself in. It is not a question of there being two sets of figures. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition quoted figures that were demonstrably and palpably wrong. Mr Howard —No, they were not. Mr HOLDING —They were demonstrably and palpably wrong. I advise the Leader of the Opposition that he ought to drop off trying to prove the correctness of them. I said to the shadow Minister-and I say it to the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House-that there ought not to be disputes in this place on questions of fact concerning sources of intake. Those figures are public and are in the report of my Department. They exist and they are available. Mr Cadman —Do you call those qualified figures facts? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for Mitchell is excited because he has misled his Leader. That is his problem and we all know it. He indicated that he obtained his figures from the Parliamentary Library. It is matter for him what his source is, but the Library cannot be expected to keep up-to-date with the range of figures that emerge in this area. The honourable member for Mitchell and the Leader of the Opposition are wasting their time and the time of the House when they do not use the resources of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs so that any debate that takes place takes place on an agreed set of figures. It was obvious from statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that not only were his facts wrong but also, because the facts and figures were wrong, his conclusions were incorrect. He talked about a lack of skills. In the tables that I gave him today he would see an upturn in the skills capacity of intending immigrants. Mr Cadman —It is not. It is down. Mr HOLDING —I know the honourable member for Mitchell is excited and that the Leader of the Opposition is likely to sack him-well he should-but I ask the honourable member to restrain himself. The fact is that the tables that I have made available to the Opposition indicate a general level of increase in the skills of people coming into Australia over the past four or five years. That is the reality. The Leader of the Opposition tended to say several things about family reunion. Firstly, he said that family reunion was distorting or producing an imbalance in the figures and causing considerable concern among ethnic leaders. It seemed that what he was saying was that we had to abandon the basis of the family reunion package in favour of an emphasis on skills. The mistake made by the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers was simply this: in terms of family reunion, aged parents come to Australia, and many of them bring pension benefits from overseas. Will anyone deny any Australian citizen or any person who has come to Australia the right to have his aged parents come here also? Brothers, sisters and cousins must go through the points system the same as everyone else. If they fail the points system, they do not get in. They get certain marginal concessions. To suggest, as was implied by statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that the family reunion package is somehow deskilling Australia is absolute nonsense. The evidence available clearly indicates that many people who come to Australia under the family reunion program because they have a family network of brothers and sisters in Australia are joining people who have gone through the experience of finding employment. Therefore, they are able to direct and assist them not merely to settle but also to find work. On many occasions in the allocation of points system, it is the offer of a specific job that gives a person the necessary points to enter Australia. That is the fact. In the statements made yesterday, it was suggested-and it was suggested again by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-that the priority of the Opposition was to cut back or restrain family reunions because they were threatening jobs. Mr Cadman —I did not say that anywhere. Mr HOLDING —The Opposition claimed family reunions were taking jobs that should have been available to young Australians. The emphasis of the Opposition is that Australia needs to bring in trained and skilled migrants. The honourable member for Mitchell is entitled to have that position if that is his view. However, I say quite frankly that it is not the position of the Government. Mr Cadman —So you brought in 500 waiters last year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! If the honourable member for Mitchell continues to interject, I shall have to warn him. The Minister heard the honourable member in relative silence, and the honourable member for Mitchell should do the same. Mr HOLDING —The Government has embarked upon a policy of encouraging young Australians to stay at school. It has been involved in negotiations with unions and employers to provide on the job training. The commitment of this Government in the first instance is towards the adequate training of and the provision of skills to our young people so that they will be able to take their place in areas of industrial expansion and new industry. The honourable member for Mitchell talks about the Australian Council of Trade Unions connection. The fact is that any Minister for Immigration, knowing that his Government is committed to the policies of training young Australians and producing a skilled work force-and that is the Government's first priority-must then say that in terms of employer nomination and bringing in skilled workers those two policies are not mutually antagonistic; one has to live with the other. An employer may be happy to provide on the job training. He may have an expanding business and within three years will expect to need 100 skilled workers but he currently needs five or 10 to keep the business going. That demand will be met. How absurd it is to talk about skilled migrants in the way the honourable member does and to suggest bringing them all in and not worrying about one's training obligations. After three years we would have young people who had done their training in colleges of advanced education looking for jobs and to whom the Government would have to say, `Sorry, although we told you to stay at school and get training, there is nothing for you because all the places have been filled as a result of our immigration policy'. That is palpable nonsense; I reject it and the Government rejects it. We make no apologies for that. The family reunion program has produced levels of skill. Australia's immigration policies are working, and we can all be proud of them. I do not claim them as exclusively the province of this Government; Australia has a non-discriminatory policy. This year, there will be more than 1.4 million applicants to come to Australia, and the Government will take in about 132,000. We are still saying no to eight applicants out of ten and, therefore, have to determine the margins and the parameters of our policy. Australia should be proud of its refugee policy. Over successive governments, I believe, we have maintained a level of commitment of which we can be proud. We ought to be proud of our family reunion policy, because it is based upon humanitarian considerations, a spirit of compassion and a commitment to the concept of the family. The importation of skills and the number of people that will be brought in must be measured, in the final analysis, by the capacity of our own economy to deal with those numbers. We cannot have an immigration policy that sits outside the framework of our economic parameters. Immigration not merely assists in the development of our economy; it also has its parameters determined by the success or otherwise of our economy. We cannot say, for example, that we will bring in just skilled workers without having any regard for the commitment to train our own people. We can retain the refugee programs and maintain family reunion; we can look at those areas of skill that we need to bring in. As I indicated in my answer to the House today, the whole concept of business migration was produced by this Government. It is a major factor in increasing the numbers from 120,000 to 132,000. That program is working. We still, I might say, have a lot more work to do. In this debate today we have heard a shadow Minister who has grievously misled his Leader and who has produced figures that are sloppy in the extreme. The announcement of the Leader of the Opposition allying those figures with the potential for abandonment of a bipartisan policy has caused grave concern within the ethnic communities of Australia. I believe this started off as a simple political exercise by the Leader of the Opposition to try to pre-empt some of the debate on the FitzGerald report and to try to get himself into a position where, in terms of what the FitzGerald inquiry is likely to recommend-and it is making many recommendations-the Leader of the Opposition could say, `You see, my position has been vindicated'. All that this Opposition has done with its sloppy application and its lack of consideration for the real issues is to place itself into a situation that should never have occurred. I believe there needs to be a sustained commitment from the Opposition to the principle of non-discriminatory immigration, and I have indicated to the shadow Minister that at least I am grateful that today the Opposition has acknowledged that that is the fact and continues to be the fact. Of course, there will be a wide variety of issues that will have to be debated. The very nature of the FitzGerald Committee, which was established for this purpose, will provide that opportunity not merely to the Opposition, not merely to ethnic leadership, but also to the Australian community at large. The issues that have to be considered are large and varied and they do not provide us with simple answers. Therefore, there will be plenty to debate. So long as there is a commitment within this Parliament to a non-discriminatory immigration policy, that policy can be bipartisan. It does not lose that important quality because there may be strong differences of opinion about certain aspects of the policy-how it is weighted and which way it ought to flow. That is a debate yet to come. It is a matter of regret to me and to the Government that on this occasion yet again the Leader of the Opposition has made public statements which have caused concern within the ethnic community, based on figures that were demonstrably and palpably false. If this debate is to be engaged in a serious and important way, the Opposition will have to get its act together. It will have to get itself to the position where we will not spend our time arguing about facts and details. There will be plenty to consider in terms of policy. There will be plenty of points of emphasis that could be made by all honourable members, and I have no doubt they will be made by people outside this House. I repeat publicly to other members the invitation that I made to the shadow Minister: honourable members requiring any facts or figures from my Department will have them made readily available. If they are not satisfied and they want to pursue some of those matters further they will have assistance in doing so. These figures ought not to be and are not regarded by me or anybody else as being secret. They are public and they are open. The sooner the shadow Minister avails himself of that opportunity, the sooner the Opposition gets its act together, then the sooner the people of Australia can get what they deserve, that is, a principled and informed debate on our future immigration policy. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.31) —I am glad to hear the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) say that we should have a principled and informed debate on immigration. I agree with him absolutely. I remind him that it was in 1977 that a document called Immigration Policies and Australia's Population was produced. I remind him of that because it was the forerunner, in a way, to the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. We are talking about the whole history of Australia-past, present and, in a sense, future. The history of Australia is the history of migration and that will continue to be the case. The tremendously responsible thing about migration policy is that the decisions made in this area cannot suddenly be reversed. It is not like economic policy or any other policy. We are dealing with bringing into this country people from all over the world. The policy decisions taken by successive Ministers live on after them in a very tangible form. That is what an immigration debate is so important. We are not talking about the absence or otherwise of family reunion, the absence or otherwise of skilled migration; we are talking about migration policies to be pursued by future governments so that we can develop the sort of Australia that most Australians want. I have been very depressed to see the quick way in which the Minister, who is at the table, and others in this Parliament and outside have sought to slur the motives of people who in one way or another have sought to enter the immigration debate and put views contrary to the prevailing policies of the Government. I remember very clearly the furore that broke around Professor Blainey when he made some suggestions. I am not saying for a moment that I necessarily agree with all the protagonists of one point of view or another, but we should be very careful not to tag as racist somebody who questions some aspect of Australia's immigration policy. Too often and too quickly the Minister trots out this racist tag. It is quite wrong of him to do so and it does him little justice. It is an easy thing to do, it raises that term in the public mind, and it does not really address the questions which are before the Australian people. The simple fact is that there is a tremendous amount of concern amongst the general community about Australia's current immigration program. Why is that concern there? One of the reasons is that this Labor Government, over a number of years, has simply failed to explain its policies. We cannot change the balance of the intake, as this Government has done over a period of years, without the general public asking what this Government is up to, why it is doing this, and what is the reason for its making the changes. We can argue about percentages but the fact is that the family reunion category has gone up and the skilled category has gone down in percentage terms. I am not suggesting for a moment that the family reunion category is not highly important and significant; of course it is, but there are two main considerations in any immigration policy. The first is that the immigration policy must serve the national interest, and here we look particularly to those skilled migrants who stimulate economic growth and make a contribution in so many areas. Secondly, we have the humanitarian side of the immigration program. Essentially, refugee and family reunion categories fall into that humanitarian aspect of any nation's immigration program. The Government has allowed or encouraged the proportions of family reunion and skilled intake to alter. The Minister at the table can fulminate to his heart's content but the fact remains that those proportions have changed. Dr Theophanous —Rubbish! Mr MacKELLAR —The honourable member for Calwell interjects. We can argue about the extent of the change but the fact is, on the figures demonstrated by the Minister today, that they have altered, that there has been a growth in the percentage of family reunion. Mr Holding —But not by 20 per cent, as was suggested by your Leader. Mr MacKELLAR —I have already suggested to the Minister that there has been a significant rise in the percentage. Nobody should misrepresent the Opposition's position. We are not saying that family reunion is a bad thing, that we will cut it out or anything like that. We are saying that we should be looking at the balance of the intakes, to ensure that Australia's national interests are being served. When other migration issues have been discussed the Minister has tried to suggest that our approach is not bipartisan, that this is not the way to enter into the immigration debate, that somehow or other we are getting a little grubby and muddying the waters. We are saying that it is an extraordinarily important debate. We believe that the Government has not outlined factually to the Australian people the changes that have occurred and are occurring, and that if we are to have a proper approach to immigration, one that initially is based on the needs of the nation, we should be looking very carefully at the balance between the various categories-no more, no less. I hope the Minister agrees that skilled migration has made an enormous contribution to the development of this country. I agree with the Minister that skilled migration should not take place at the expense of training Australians. Obviously, the two things work closely together. But we are not about to wait until economic circumstances force us to lift the intakes. What happens, if we look at experience, is that a proper selection of skilled migrants can assist, encourage and develop the economic take-off that everybody wishes to see. When we look at family reunions, obviously there are a number of other considerations which must come into mind. The changing sources of Australia's migrants mean that one emphasis or another on family reunion, how widely we allow that category to develop, will alter the composition of the intake to Australia. These are very proper questions which concern Australians at present. I am very pleased that the Government, as I have already mentioned, instituted the FitzGerald inquiry. I look forward to the sanitised version of the report. We all know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took a special and paternal interest in the early drafts of that document. I hope that the Minister does not take too long to read through it carefully and make his recommendations to his Cabinet colleagues so that we can see it on the table in the House as soon as possible. This is a debate which is of the utmost importance to all Australians. It is a debate which has been growing steadily in the community. It is a debate which has led one major newspaper to run a poll encouraging people to write to it and through it to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. All the indices of concern throughout the community are plain to see. Why is the concern so much more apparent now than in the past? Simply because the Government has failed in putting forward to the Australian people a clear basis for its policies. It has not explained why it has allowed or encouraged the proportions to change. Naturally enough, when these things happen without clear exposition from the Minister at the time or the government of the day, there will be proper community concern. That proper community concern and nothing else is being reflected by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for immigration and ethnic affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). Immigration is vitally important to all of us. We should be looking at the relationships between the various categories. We should be looking at the way in which we choose those people who are going to make Australia their home. It is a difficult job. Every year there are literally millions of people who wish to come here. That is why this debate is so important. That is why the Minister should not demean himself by casting racist slurs on those people who seek to bring the debate forward. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.41) —The Opposition has proposed for discussion a matter of public importance to criticise the Government. This has been an exercise to try to cover up the sloppy work of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in raising the issues in the way in which he has. One does not have to rely on what we say here. I quote what an editorial in the Australian, not well known to be a pro-Labor newspaper, had to say about the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and why the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), others and I have reacted in the way in which we have to those comments. This is what the Australian said in its editorial headed `Liberals' sloppy work': However, Mr Howard has caused unnecessary distress among some immigrants by the sloppy and ambiguous wording of his initial press release, which made it look as though he wished to reduce significantly the family reunion program. The shadow Minister for immigration, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) say, `We do not want to do any of those things. We are not really concerned about all that'. But look at what the Leader of the Opposition said in his Press statement. He said: . . . there is too high a proportion of migrants under the family reunion category and too small a proportion of those within the skilled and business migrant category. I urge honourable members to read the full statement that he made. Anyone reading it could have drawn no other conclusion than the conclusion that the Opposition parties were concerned to attack and reduce the family reunion program. Now we have not John Howard giving an explanation of why he made the comments or trying to change those comments but the spectacle of the shadow Minister trying to excuse the behaviour of Howard in putting these comments forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Calwell will refer to other members by their title or by their electorate. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. The family reunion program has been a very important and significant contribution to Australia's development and it has been significant not merely socially, not merely as a humanitarian program but also as an economic program; that is to say, the family reunion program has contributed to Australia's economic growth and development. The idea that immigration should be divided on the basis of family reunion and skills and that the skills contribute to economic development and family reunion contributes nothing shows an appalling ignorance of the program. More than 50 per cent of the family reunion program involves people coming under the concessional category or what previously was called the numerical multifactor assessment system, the NUMAS points system. Over the years those people have had to satisfy criteria of employment, skills and education. This has been the case under the previous Government and under our Government. So the people coming as brothers and sisters and, in more recent times, as nephews and nieces have had to pass that points system and have had to show that they would make a contribution to Australian development not merely in social and humanitarian terms but in economic terms as well. So the idea of this either/or, black and white division, as if family reunion makes no contribution, is absolute nonsense. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition unquestionably creates that very serious impression. Furthermore, because he did not understand the point I have just made, he made a fundamental error in his figures, which we pointed out yesterday. If the correction of that error yesterday by the Minister and me was wrong, why was it not challenged in Question Time? Why was there not a single question to the Minister from the Opposition in relation to this matter? The obvious reason is that the Leader of the Opposition made a fundamental mistake. I do not know whether the shadow Minister had anything to do with it but if he did he ought to be ashamed of himself. He said that 50 per cent of the 1986-87 intake was under the family reunion program but this figure included the concessional category, the brothers and sisters. When he gave the figures for 1981-82 he forgot to put in the brothers and sisters. He forgot to put in a whole category of family reunion. So he compared a figure of 17 per cent with a figure of 50 per cent. But the problem was that he was not comparing like with like. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) set up the NUMAS scheme in the old days and he knows something about this subject. He would not have made such a fundamental error and the Leader of the Opposition would not have looked so foolish in his comments. The fact of the matter is that there has been a slight increase in the family reunion program but nothing like the massive increase suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. To suggest that there has been some strange and massive shift in immigration policy over the last six or seven years is absolute nonsense. To base a conclusion on those comments, as the Leader of the Opposition did, is also rubbish. In addition to the economic issue that was mentioned we can talk about the family reunion program in a number of other ways. The Liberal Party of Australia talks about the importance of the family. It appears that families are important unless they are migrants. If one is a migrant one's family is unimportant. This is what the Opposition is saying. I personally take offence in relation to this matter. Many people, including myself, have come to Australia under the family reunion program. What are the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister suggesting-that we should diminish the importance of the family reunion program, which has an enormous humanitarian base? Let us hear nothing more from the Opposition about the sanctity of the family if that is the sort of thing it is talking about. Not only is the family reunion program important from the humanitarian perspective but also sociological evidence over the years shows that the overwhelming proportion of migrants coming in under the family reunion program have settled very well in Australia because their relatives have helped them to get jobs and housing and to find assistance in the community. They help them to participate in the community. We have known that and that is one of the reasons why there has been a bipartisan approach to support for the family reunion program up to this point. Now it has come under attack. The Opposition and the shadow Minister in particular have not reduced the anxiety that has been created by their comments. The shadow Minister said, `We will keep family reunion at the same numbers but if the program increases we will take more people in the skills category'. Let me say something about this skills question. Our fundamental obligation in Australia as a nation is to skill the people here, to skill our own citizens. The immigration program should not be used as a substitute for a program of general skilling of the community. The immigration program should be used to fill in temporary gaps in the skills area, gaps which we cannot fill very quickly. That is what the immigration program should be used for-not as some method of avoiding expenditure on skills or participation by the community in a skills program. We support the idea of having a skills component in the program. But let us be clear that there are other considerations involved in immigration besides the narrow economic skills issue. There are the humanitarian considerations I mentioned. There is also the question of settlement and community harmony. The Opposition claims that the Minister spoke of the racist nature of some comments by members of the Opposition. Can anyone deny that the suggestion by Senator John Stone that knowledge of the English language should be a requirement of intending immigrants does not have a racist import? Of course it has a racist import. Do honourable members opposite defend that suggested criterion? What about statements by other Opposition members? The shadow Minister says to the Asian community, `We believe in non-discrimination' and so forth, whereas other Opposition members say, `We want to reduce the Asian component of the program'. The Opposition is speaking with two tongues in this matter. Have Opposition members considered what would happen if the family reunion program were frozen or reduced? Are they suggesting that it would not have an impact on different regions? Of course it would. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, by both the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in the claims that they made about the figures contained in my Press release issued on 15 May. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —The allegation was that I had deliberately omitted brothers and sisters of immigrants already living in Australia in the comparisons that I made between 1981 and 1986. The honourable member for Calwell nods assent. He said that I had deliberately left them out. Mr Holding —I said that you made a mistake. Mr HOWARD —Now the Minister says that I made a mistake. The honourable member for Calwell said that I deliberately left them out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We might get to the specifics. Mr HOWARD —It is material because the misrepresentation falls into two categories: firstly, as to motive and, secondly, as to accuracy. As the honourable member for Calwell ought to know, the categories have changed significantly since 1981. That was made clear in the departmental minute that was tabled by the Minister. The departmental minute-these are the figures that the Minister relied on in Question Time in attacking the veracity of my figures-said: To obtain a consistent time series requires a number of assumptions and some interpretation to be made. There is no argument with that. The minute continues: The realigned data are provided in the attached tables. Because of the adjustments required, those data should be used with caution. The reported family reunion figures for 1981-82 clearly exclude brothers, sisters, non-dependent children and nephews and nieces. That is because in the categorisation then those people had to pass a test. Therefore, any suggestion that I had deliberately left them out, or that the figure of 17.5 per cent that I used was incorrect, is demonstrably wrong. Dr Theophanous —Rubbish! Mr HOWARD —It is not. The honourable member's colleague says that there ought to be agreement on facts. The facts that I used in my Press statement were correct. As of now brothers and sisters can be admitted under the family reunion category without having to pass a test or requirement relating to skills. Dr Theophanous —That is not true. You don't know what you are talking about. Mr HOWARD —I do. The figures that I have used of 17.5 per cent in 1981-82 and 50.4 per cent in 1986-87 are a valid comparison. I reject the criticism of the figures that has been made by the Minister. Mr Holding —Are you saying your figures are right? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I am. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOLDING —Yes, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) just misrepresented the figures that I gave. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HOLDING —The real question at issue is whether the figures adduced and produced yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition are correct. On all the available information they are clearly incorrect. In my speech to the House today I said that I felt sorry for the Leader of the Opposition because I believed that he had been misled. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) alleged that I had misrepresented him. He claimed that in 1981-82 brothers and sisters had to pass a test, a points system, whereas in 1986-87 because they were included in the family reunion category they did not have to pass a points system. That is false. In 1986-87 brothers and sisters still had to pass a points system. Mrs Sullivan —This is not a misrepresentation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am pleased that members on my left are starting to think that there is something wrong with debating personal explanations. A number of members on both sides obviously had considerable interest in this debate and wanted to explain what was said. I allowed both the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to do so. I am now allowing the honourable member for Calwell to explain where he was misrepresented, or to explain how what he said in the debate has been misconstrued. But he should not take all day to do that. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I wanted to make the simple point that the Leader of the Opposition's claim is wrong. Under the family reunion program in 1981-82 brothers and sisters had to pass a test. They do so even now. The Leader of the Opposition failed to compare the figures correctly. Mrs Sullivan —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is not claiming personal misrepresentation at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I draw the attention of the honourable member for Moncrieff to the Standing Orders, which provide that a member can make a personal explanation or explain where a further speaker has misused what he said in debate. The honourable member for Calwell participated in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition made some remarks relating to what the honourable member for Calwell said in the debate. The honourable member for Calwell was in a slightly different position from the Leader of the Opposition, who did not participate in the debate. Have we finished with personal explanations on this matter? Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —This is, to the House, an important issue. The point that I was seeking to make-and I make it again-is that in 1981-82 people in the brothers and sisters category had to pass a test under the numerical multifactor assessment system. In 1986-87 the test they had to pass was totally different from that test. Dr Theophanous —It is not totally different, John. Mr HOWARD —I add for the honourable member's benefit that I obtained some advice from officials of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs during this debate. In 1981-82 the test that was required was far more stringent than the test that is now required. In those circumstances, for the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) or anybody else to suggest that the figures have been deliberately misrepresented and that the treatment of brothers and sisters in 1981-82 was exactly the same as it was in 1986-87 completely misleads the House. That is why the Government's policy is in such public disrepute. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think we have exhausted our interest in personal explanations on this matter. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WHITE —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr WHITE —During Question Time today the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) again raised the subject of nuclear submarines. He indicated that I had said that the Chief of the Defence Force had joined the Opposition in wishing to introduce nuclear submarines. That has never been our position. He referred to a Press release that was issued in the last day or so. I have a copy of that Press release, and I now read from it: . . . in calling on the Government to study the option of nuclear powered submarines for the Australian Defence Force. In doing so he is supported by the Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Hudson, who also stated recently that nuclear powered submarines must be considered . . . General Gration . . . said that in the next generation of defence equipment submarines would play a bigger role, and that a nuclear powered submarine force for Australia must be considered. That is what General Gration said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might get to where he was misrepresented. Mr WHITE —I was misrepresented by the Minister for Defence. That is our position, that is what I said that General Gration's position was, and that is where the situation rests. If the Minister for Defence wants to continue this debate on nuclear submarines, we will be only too happy to oblige him on a day by day basis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now out of order. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the Committee entitled The National Crime Authority-an Initial Evaluation. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CLEELAND —by leave-I move: That the House take note of the report. The occasion for this report is the lifting of the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act 1984 which would otherwise have terminated the life of the National Crime Authority (NCA) on 30 June 1989. The Committee supports the lifting of the sunset clause although it considers that, because so many of the Authority's investigations and the resulting legal proceedings have yet to be completed, it can only make an initial evaluation of the Authority's performance at this time. Because legal proceedings are currently before the courts or are pending in relation to a number of matters, the Committee has been obliged in its report to be circumspect and to confine itself to generalities. Looking back on the debate leading up to the establishment of the National Crime Authority, the Committee considers that there was a clear expectation that the Authority would get results. The primary objective for which the Authority was established was, the Committee believes, to put significant criminals behind bars. In those terms the Authority is beginning to demonstrate success. It has put the Cornwell-Bull drug trafficking syndicate out of business and it has obtained convictions of significant figures under two of its other references. The terms of imprisonment imposed on Cornwell and Bull-23 years and 18 years, respectively-indicate the gravity with which the courts viewed their activities. Terms of imprisonment of 24 years and 20 years have been imposed on principals under another reference and the maximum term of imprisonment available for the offence concerned, three years, has been imposed on the principal under a third reference. Numerous other matters are before the courts at the moment. The success of the Authority cannot be measured merely by the successful prosecutions resulting from its investigations. There was also an expectation that the establishment of the Authority would have a deterrent effect, that by its success in its investigations and, possibly, by its very existence, it would increase the fear of detection and apprehension in the minds of those who might be tempted to enter the field of organised criminal activity. It is too early to say whether the Authority has succeeded in this second objective. The Committee therefore recommends that a more comprehensive evaluation of the Authority's work and of the success of the law enforcement strategy underpinning the establishment of the Authority be undertaken in three years time. By that stage more of the Authority's investigations and more of the resulting legal proceedings should have been completed and it should be possible to make some judgment as to whether the Authority has in fact altered the climate in which organised crime operates. The Committee does not recommend any changes to the Bill lifting the sunset clause, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, to which the House of Representatives has already agreed; nor does it recommend any changes to the legislation constituting the National Crime Authority at this stage. It has, however, identified the present limitations on the Authority's access to taxation records as a matter which it proposes to pursue in a further inquiry. The Committee does, however, recommend some changes to the Authority's present handling of the police component of its staff. It became clear to the Committee in the course of this inquiry that there was considerable dissatisfaction in police ranks about their role in the Authority's investigations and the Authority's perceived attitude to police. The Committee recommends that the Authority give greater recognition to the expertise of experienced police officers and that they should be given a greater involvement in its investigations. The Committee also recommends that the police component of the Authority's staff should be given contracts rather than being seconded in order to overcome the problem of officers working together but being subject to different terms and conditions of employment. It recommends that consideration should be given to the appointment of a senior and respected serving or former police officer as a member of the Authority in order that police may be assured that their views are represented at the highest levels of the Authority. Finally, the Committee has recommended that the Authority give greater consideration to the use of police task forces external to the Authority as a means of carrying on its investigations. While rejecting much of the criticism made of the secrecy surrounding the Authority's operations, the Committee has also recommended that the Authority give consideration to making greater use of its power to inform the public about the general conduct of its operations by holding public sittings and issuing public bulletins. Certain of the fears expressed at the time of the establishment of the Authority, both as to the obstacles which might lie in the way of its effective performance of its functions and the potential threat to civil liberties which it posed, appear to date to have been proven groundless. So far from being a `ninth police force', as some have claimed, the Authority is a unique and novel investigative agency, combining elements of traditional law enforcement agencies with the powers of a royal commission and able to use the one to complement the other. The Committee believes that Mr Justice Stewart, the members and senior staff of the Authority deserve credit for having turned this experiment into a successful working reality. On behalf of the Committee I express its appreciation to the secretary, Mr Giles Short, and his staff for the excellent support the Committee has received. As Chairman of that Committee, may I say that it must be one of the hardest working committees in this Parliament. Since the inception of this Parliament it has completed two major reports-this one and the report on witness protection which will be presented to the House next week. I think that Committee members deserve congratulations on their hard work and effort in a very short space of time. The Committee is aware of recent judicial criticisms of the National Crime Authority concerning matters relating to Mr Grassby and the Sergis. That matter is still sub judice. There are still before the courts of New South Wales criminal matters that are unresolved. It is regrettable that some senior counsel still appearing in that case have seen fit to use the media, whilst it is still a sub judice matter, to express views which are not necessarily correct and which are in many cases guesswork. I find that to be an abuse of the position of senior counsel and potentially dangerous to the proper workings of the judicial system of this country. The Committee understands concerns regarding the judicial criticisms of the NCA. I assure the House that the Committee will seek from Mr Justice Stewart and the Authority further information as to the criticisms that have been made. I thank the House and I thank the members of the Committee. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.10) —I join with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), in congratulating the National Crime Authority (NCA) on getting on with the job for which it was set up. I would also like to underline some of the concluding remarks of the Chairman because I do not think there is any area which engenders such broad support as that which relates to the pursuit, and hopefully the successful pursuit, of organised crime in Australia. The National Crime Authority is a real attempt to get to grips with the insidious criminal elements within Australia, and I for one have been particularly disappointed with some judicial and other comments which have been made in recent times and which would seek to undermine the work of the NCA and seek to call its work into question. Obviously this Committee has been given the task of evaluating the work of the Authority and, as the Chairman has said, we have now produced this report and obviously we will continue that evaluation. Everything that the Authority does is certainly not perfect; it is still learning in the successful pursuit of its responsibilities. But I think that to slam the NCA at this stage, so early in its life, really is not in the best interests of what we would all seek to achieve, and that is the successful fight against organised crime. I join with the Chairman in expressing regret at those statements which have been made because we should be seeking to buttress, support and promote the work of the Authority so that it becomes more successful in the pursuit of its responsibilities. There have been various statements in the Press in recent times. I noticed one suggesting that some elements within the Government may be seeking the permanent appointment of the Chairman. I notice the Chairman of our Committee shaking his head in relation to that suggestion. I would support, and have supported, the appointment of Mr Justice Stewart. I think he has been performing his task extremely well, but obviously we would be looking to the full range of possible appointments to the role of head of that Authority in the future. The Authority has a difficult task. I believe that so far it has successfully set out on the path of pursuing its responsibilities. I hope it gets the support of this House, police forces and judicial systems around Australia in the successful pursuit of those tasks with which it is charged. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.13) —In the few minutes available to me I wish to make a couple of points, as one of the original members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority upon its formation in early 1985. Therefore I have seen its relationship with the National Crime Authority develop into the quite harmonious working relationship that we have today. But my time on that Committee has led me to the depressing conclusion that we are not serious about fighting organised crime in this country. The National Crime Authority is serious, the Australian Federal Police is serious and the various State police forces are serious, but the community at large is not. Why else would the National Crime Authority be so strapped for powers and resources? The National Crime Authority should have a permanent office stationed in Perth, which I regard as rivalling Naples as the most corrupt city in the Western world. It should have one in South Australia also. I am simply fed up with the criticisms directed at the National Crime Authority, which is bravely, and I think under severe limitations, attempting to fight corruption which is deeply rooted in our community and which has been tolerated for far too long. If the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct currently taking evidence in Queensland, unearthing as it is the links between business, police officers, legislators and public servants, were to be reproduced in other States, we would get the same result, if not worse. The National Crime Authority has been remarkably successful in attacking the narcotics trade in this country. It has had a number of spectacular smashes of long-standing drug rings. It has been less successful, as we have seen in recent days at least, in tackling corruption of public officials. But the blame, in my view, does not rest with the National Crime Authority. The responsibility lies fairly and squarely in this chamber. Unless there is a fundamental change in attitude by legislators, in the first instance, and in the community at large, the cancer of corruption is going to continue to eat away at all different levels of authority within our society. At times, sitting on that Committee, particularly as the years have gone by, and seeing the toleration by the public of high profile criminal figures dressed up as folk heroes, I wonder whether we are ever going to get to the bottom of corruption in our community. All I know is that the National Crime Authority will not waver from its task. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Mr LEE(Dobell) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present report No. 1 of the Committee, entitled one vote, one value, incorporating a dissenting report and a supplementary paper on the report. Ordered that the report and the supplementary paper be printed. Mr LEE —by leave-one vote, one value is the title of the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The report presents the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987. This Bill seeks to enshrine in the Constitution the principle of one vote one value by requiring that the number of voters in Federal and State electorates is as nearly as practicable the same. The Bill aims to eliminate malapportionment. Malapportionment occurs when electorates have unequal numbers of voters, usually through the use of a zonal system which gives greater voting power to rural areas. This is a separate problem to the much talked about gerrymander, where electorate boundaries are drawn to advantage one political party. The Committee notes in its report that the achievement of one vote one value does not stop the possibility of gerrymandering but is a necessary first step for fair and democratic elections. The Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987 was introduced into the Senate by Senator Michael Macklin in September 1987. The Senate referred the Bill to our Committee for inquiry and report in October 1987. In examining Senator Macklin's Bill our Committee has continued the work of its predecessor, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Prior to the 1987 Federal election, the Electoral Reform Committee was inquiring into an earlier version of Senator Macklin's Bill. I wish to acknowledge the contribution which the Electoral Reform Committee made to this inquiry, particularly that made by the former Chairman, Senator Robert Ray, Sir John Carrick and past secretaries, Don Nairn and Mike Fetter. I also place on record my appreciation to all members of the current Committee, the Secretary, Trevor Rowe, and Helen Misa from the secretariat. Today is expected to be the seventh last day the House of Representatives will sit in this chamber before moving to the new Parliament House. It is perhaps ironic that a report on electoral equality is one of the last to be considered in this chamber, because on 6 August 1974, in this chamber, the first Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament debated a Bill to reduce the variation in number of voters for House of Representatives electorates from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. During that debate the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, stated: We believe the purpose of this Bill to be a clear and honourable one. Its basic principles have been recognised by the Supreme Court of the United States for 10 years and by an all-party committee of our Parliament for 15 years. It affirms the Government's belief that every person's vote is of equal value, no matter where that person lives. It affirms our belief that all men and women should be equal in making the law, as they are before the law. Since that debate in this chamber in 1974, there has been support from all major political parties for one vote one value for the House of Representatives electorates. The Macklin Bill, which was the subject of this report, sought to extend that requirement for equal voting power from the House of Representatives to the parliaments of the States and the Northern Territory. The Committee divided six to four on its recommendations, with Labor and Democrats members in the majority, and Liberal and National members and Senator Harradine in the minority. In chapter 3 of the report we have examined in detail the history of electoral reform in Australian parliaments and the techniques which can be used to measure malapportionment. As stated in paragraph 1.7, the Committee concluded, that using the three accepted measures of malapportionment-the David-Eisenberg index, the Dauer-Kelsay index and the Gini index-the electorates for the Queensland Legislative Assembly, both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament and the Tasmanian Legislative Council are unacceptably malapportioned. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which demonstrate the current enrolments for Australian State parliaments. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Electoral Enrolments for State and Territory Lower Houses of Parliament Parliament Date Lowest Enrolment Highest Enrolment Average Enrolment New South Wales ... Feb 1988 30,228 35,761 32,504 Victoria ... Feb 1988 26,685 37,987 30,933 Queensland... Dec 1987 8,256 25,398 19,028 South Australia... Feb 1988 16,909 24,604 19,859 Western Australia... Nov 1987 9,046 21,937 15,954 Tasmania (a)... Feb 1988 8,614 8,768 8,687 Northern Territory... Mar 1988 2,271 3,965 2,966 Electoral Enrolments for State Upper Houses of Parliament Parliament Date Lowest Enrolment Highest Enrolment Average Enrolment Victoria ... Feb 1988 58,833 69,843 61,867 Western Australia (a) ... Nov 1987 11,989 39,786 26,746 Tasmania (b) ... Mar 1988 5,671 18,919 14,440 Note: (a) Multi-member constituencies. Figures based on enrolments in electorates per member. (b) Zoning is not used in Tasmania, however, redistributions are conducted at the discretion of the Legislative Council. Source: Statistics Group, Legislative Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library. Mr LEE —I thank the House. It is unfair and undemocratic for one electorate in the Queensland Legislative Assembly to have only 8,256 voters while another electorate has more than 25,000 voters. It is unfair and undemocratic for one electorate in the Western Australian upper House to have about 12,000 electors per member while another has 40,000 electors per member. The Committee believes that the fundamental principle of guaranteeing one vote one value requires all Federal and State electorates to have less than a 10 per cent variation from the average enrolment. A 10 per cent maximum variation has been accepted at the Federal level since the 1974 Joint Sitting. The State parliaments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have legislated to enforce the same 10 per cent maximum variation. The Burke Labor Government was blocked by the Liberal and National parties in the Legislative Council from implementing one vote one value in Western Australia. In Queensland, despite Labor, Liberal and Australian Democrats support for one vote one value, the National Party has refused to eliminate the zonal malapportionment which allows it to govern in its own right with less than a majority of the vote. The Committee therefore concluded in paragraph 1.14 that the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to act to overcome this infringement of the individual rights of electors in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. However, the Committee is unable to accept the 1987 Macklin Bill as a model for implementing one vote one value because of a number of inherent defects. The Macklin Bill would allow electoral boundaries to be overturned if enrolments were not `as near as practicable the same'. The United States Supreme Court has used the exact words to overturn electoral boundaries having a variation of less than 0.43 per cent. The Committee strongly believes that any constitutional alteration should include an explicit maximum tolerance of 10 per cent rather than the vague concept of `as near as practicable the same'. I note in passing that the referendum proposal of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) explicitly sets the maximum limit at 10 per cent. The Committee's report contains a number of other criticisms of the Macklin Bill in chapter 4. Having studied the Attorney-General's proposed Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, it is my view that none of these defects are present in the proposed referendum. I am therefore at a loss to understand the position taken by Opposition members of the Committee. Given the bipartisan support for House of Representatives electorates having equal numbers of voters, I cannot accept that they are against equal State electorates. The Opposition has argued that the Senate is malapportioned and that therefore State electorates should be allowed to escape the test of fairness. I would have thought that no member of this Parliament could oppose electors having an equal say in which party forms their Federal or State government. How can the electors of Queensland have equal voting power when one electorate has 191 per cent more voters than another? How can the electors of Western Australia have equal voting power when one Legislative Council electorate has 232 per cent more electors than another? How can the electors of Tasmania have equal voting power when one Legislative Council electorate has 245 per cent more electors than another? A tolerance of 10 per cent for this House is accepted by every party and it is time that a tolerance of 10 per cent was the standard for all Australian parliaments. I wish to conclude by quoting paragraphs 1.35 and 1.36 of the majority report: 1.35 The Committee concludes that: The final question in achieving one vote, one value is one of State government's rights versus individuals' rights and that the latter is of paramount importance. 1.36 The Committee strongly recommends that: The views of Australian voters on one vote, one value be tested by way of a referendum. In early September the men and women of Australia will have the opportunity to enshrine one vote one value in our Constitution. It is my hope that this report will contribute to healthy debate on this important issue. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —by leave-My remarks will be made on my own behalf and on behalf of those honourable members who signed the minority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We felt it necessary to bring in a minority report because we felt that there was a degree of inconsistency in the majority report and a degree of sophistry in the argument that has recently been expounded by the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). I wish to address the question of consistency and the concept of one vote one value. The majority report argued that a 10 per cent tolerance should be applied to State electorates and for that reason, without knowing at the time the details of the Government's referenda proposal, argued that this matter should be put to a vote by the people. Since the report was prepared we have had the benefit of seeing the Government's proposal. The first point that must be noted is that the Government's proposal does not address the question of gerrymandering; it simply addresses the question of malapportionment. The second and most significant point to note is that it does not address the question of malapportionment as it exists under the Federal Constitution. A significant malapportionment exists within the Federal Constitution. It is based on the same arguments on which the present malapportionments within the States are based. Let me take a moment to explain this. It is argued that there should be a 10 per cent tolerance for House of Representatives electorates, and within each State there is, but between States that is not the case. I cite the classic example of Tasmania, which is protected by an original provision of the Constitution. The Government had the opportunity in drafting its referendum proposal to address the inconsistency within the Federal Constitution but it chose not to. It chose only to draft a change which would affect State electoral laws. That, I believe, is inequitable and an indication of the Government's approach. In presenting the report of the majority of the Committee, the Chairman made reference to the degree of malapportionment that exists within electoral boundaries. One significant figure that he did not address was the degree of malapportionment that exists within the Senate. I refer to a document which I will not seek leave to incorporate because it is part of the Committee's report. It is important to note that the degree of malapportionment for State legislatures ranges between 1.04 per cent and 3.32 per cent. The degree of malapportionment in the Senate is 11.82 per cent. The Government's proposal for the referendum does not address that malapportionment. When we examine in detail the impact of the referendum proposal, which is implicitly supported by the majority report, we note that it will make no difference to any State system of boundaries except Queensland's. It is important to understand the exact position of State boundaries in Australia at present. We have recently seen an election in New South Wales where the Opposition parties were required to achieve over 52 per cent of the two-party popular vote in order to defeat the Labor Government. For the Liberal and National parties to defeat the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra, with that Government's great commitment to one vote one value, we are required to obtain 52.3 per cent of the vote. The Labor Government can currently govern with less than 50 per cent of the vote-the same crime that the Chairman of the Committee has accused the Queensland Government of perpetrating. Yet the Government's referendum proposal will make no impact on the Federal boundaries. The situation continues for all Labor Government States throughout Australia. I am told that for the Opposition to win in South Australia it is required to achieve more than 54 per cent of the vote. A recent redistribution in Western Australia, the figures for which are incorporated in the Committee's report, requires the Opposition parties to achieve 53.1 per cent of the vote. The figures go on in similar vein right around Australia. The great problem with the majority report is that it does not address the true problem of electoral boundaries in Australia but allows some parties when in power to achieve a result which allows them to govern with less than 50 per cent. It simply proposes to attack the zonal system but not to attack the most popular method of gerrymandering-that is the only word that can be used-electoral boundaries in other States predominantly governed by Labor governments at present to allow government to be achieved with less than 50 per cent of the vote. That is the minority report's major concern. We are concerned with a number of other principles that are breached by the majority Committee report. Firstly, it is not appropriate to have a constitutional proposal without it going to a constitutional convention. At the time the report was prepared, we did not know the provisions of the proposed change. I believe the Opposition has amply demonstrated today that the proposal, no matter how it is framed, would not guarantee fair and democratic elections. The figures I have quoted support that. The Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to force on the States conditions that it will not accept for itself and, as such, it is tearing up the basis of our Federal Constitution as embodied in sections 106 and 107. The Australian Constitution does not provide for one vote one value. It is important to understand how that operates. Each original State is guaranteed 12 senators, irrespective of population, so the voting power of a citizen entitled to vote in Tasmania is considerably greater than the value of a vote of a citizen voting for the Senate in New South Wales. The only way to remedy that is to change the number of senators elected from those States. The Government is not prepared to do that yet it is prepared to force that principle on the States. The Commonwealth Constitution says that the States will be recognised as different within the Australian nation, yet the Commonwealth is saying that State governments cannot recognise different areas within each State as being different and entitled to different representation because of population, remoteness, communication difficulty or some other disadvantage-the same argument as is enshrined in the Federal Constitution. I find that considerably inconsistent. The Opposition has a number of other problems with the majority report. The major problem is that the Government is prepared to tolerate a continuation of malapportionment at the Federal level. The Government's referendum proposal will not address this malapportionment at the Federal level, yet it seeks to force on the States change that it is not prepared to accept for itself. If I may draw the political conclusion from that, the proposal of the Government will have an impact in only one State, significantly the State of Queensland, yet it will do nothing to ensure fairer and more democratic elections in Labor Government States-Western Australia, South Australia or Victoria. Had the Unsworth Government not been defeated by a groundswell of public opinion in New South Wales this referendum proposal, No. 2 in the Government's batch of four, would have done nothing to force the Unsworth Government to redraw the boundaries in New South Wales to make them fairer. The great problem is that the whole proposal is a sham; the referendum proposal is a sham. I am pleased the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is in the House, because the proposal will not achieve fair and democratic elections in Australia. The Government knows that. The majority of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters knows that, yet the Committee is prepared to lend its name to a report that perpetrates a misstatement. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. There being no objection, I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr Tim Fischer-I desire to raise a point of order under standing order 213 relating to the referendum legislation before the House. Standing order 213 states: The title shall agree with the order of leave or the notice of presentation, and no clause may be included in any bill not coming within its title. I refer to the first Bill listed, which has as its short title Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bills 1988. The long title for the same piece of legislation is: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to Provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The point I wish to raise in no way debates at this time the merits of the Bill or otherwise. However, I recognise that the House, the Senate and the people must canvass and determine the fundamental issues involved. I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, inter alia, Madam Speaker, that it is for the Chair to determine the correct construction of the Bill in accordance with standing order 213 and the relationship of the long title of the Bill to its contents. I submit that the Bill has two major ingredients. Firstly, it provides for a four-year term for members of the House of Representatives and for members of the Senate. Secondly, under clause 4, it specifically provides for a separate matter, namely, the removal of the Senate election timetable from the Constitution and the insertion of a provision for simultaneous elections for the chambers on the same polling day. Briefly, the second ingredient is not merely a functional adjunct to the first ingredient; it is a separate question. The matters embraced by the second ingredient of the first referendum Bill were deemed to be so important as to be the subject of separate legislation and referendums in May 1974 and May 1977 and again in a related Bill and referendum in December 1984. In conclusion, a precedent exists for the Chair ruling under standing order 213. In 1984 a Bill was withdrawn because it contained clauses that were not covered by the long title. Therefore, I ask the Chair to rule that under standing order 213 this first referendum Bill contains a clause not in accord with and not covered by the long title of the Bill. I submit that clause 4 is foreign to the Bill and, as such, is out of order in terms of its construction as currently presented to the House. In short, I respectfully submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the long title is misleading in the extreme and breaches the Standing Orders of this Parliament. Naturally, I am concerned about all four referendum questions, to which I am opposed. However, I confine my remarks to the first referendum Bill and ask the Chair to rule that the long title in no way refers to the second and separate major ingredient of the Bill, the aspect relating to simultaneous elections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Farrer was kind enough to advise Madam Speaker earlier of the point of order he has now raised. I understand that the matter is currently being examined and a ruling will be given later. Mr Lionel Bowen-On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I was not aware of what the honourable member for Farrer was intending to raise in the point of order, nor do I wish to canvass matters that are being considered by the Chair; but I know the honourable member for Farrer would have addressed his mind to the fact that the machinery of referendum legislation provides that the long title be submitted as the question. The honourable member appeared to relate his argument to the long title not encompassing the clauses in the Bill. One would dispute that, especially when looking at it from the point of view that we are talking about four-year concurrent terms. That is the way the Bill is expressed. Obviously the honourable member for Farrer will try to argue that there ought to be separate four-year terms but that is not included in the long title of the Bill either. The issue is four-year concurrent terms, and that would be in accordance with the title, in my submission. The honourable member tried to draw a distinction under standing order 213 between the short title of the Bill and the long title of the Bill. I gather the honourable member does not want to press that matter, because the long title of the Bill is in accordance with the machinery of referendum legislation-the obligations created by the House by its legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is grateful to the Attorney-General for his advice, but Madam Speaker will give a ruling on this matter at a later hour. Mr Reith-I seek the indulgence of the Chair. The Attorney-General has had the benefit of reply. Mr Lionel Bowen-The Opposition raised the point of order. Mr Reith-No private member has had the right of reply. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order has been raised. Mr Reith-I make the additional point that the title does not add the word `concurrent' as alleged by the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that fact is also taken into account. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I mentioned earlier, a ruling will be given at a later hour. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.40) —Monday, 9 May 1988 was one of the great moments of our Bicentenary. The opening of a new and permanent residence for our Federal Parliament was symbolic of the importance to all of us of our democracy. Opened by Her Majesty the Queen, the new Parliament House looks across Lake Burley Griffin to the War Memorial as a reminder of the sacrifices of so many to forge and safeguard our democracy for generations to come. It was an occasion to recommit ourselves to the betterment of our society and an occasion to remember, as Her Majesty put it, the fragility of democracy. The debate that resumes today is on the four Constitution alteration Bills, dealing with the four referendum questions to be put to the people later this year. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) wants to change the Constitution. Fortunately it can do that only if the people agree. Since Federation, the Australian Labor Party has tried 21 times to change the Constitution and, on those 21 occasions, it has been rejected 20 times. Labor Party proposals are usually put for the convenience of the Government and rarely for the people. This occasion is no different. These proposals are for the convenience of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and I have no doubt they will be rejected by the people. Our Constitution has been an outstanding success. It was the product of years of thinking, drafting, meetings and negotiation by the founding fathers. It is one of the world's most successful written constitutions. It is, of course, not without flaw; the product of human endeavour rarely is perfect, if ever. However, it has fulfilled the expectations of its producers. It brought six colonies together in a great federation. It established the High Court of Australia, one of the premier common-law courts in the international community, and it established our federal parliamentary democracy. It established the framework of a system of government that has added immeasurably to the rights of our citizens. In essence, Australia has a strong Constitution. Therefore, those who seek to amend it must discharge a heavy burden of proof. They need to satisfy a majority of Australians and a majority within at least four States that the proposals are, beyond reasonable doubt, beneficial to our democracy. Not only do these proposals fail that test, but also they do not even fulfil the prima facie rule: they are clearly not in the interests of the people of Australia and they must be rejected. Before turning to the referendum questions, it is appropriate to note the way these proposals have been formulated. Until 1985 we had always discussed possible changes to our Constitution at meetings of the elected representatives. In that way, the people were predominant not only at the last stage but also at the formative stage of any possible changes. In 1985 the then Attorney-General abandoned that sensible idea and set up his own hand-picked Constitutional Commission. It has been an extravagant waste of $6m. Some of its members are eminent Australians, and I do not question their motives. However, the whole exercise has been based on a wrong premise. The Constitution is all about politics and it was naive in the extreme to try to suggest that politics and the Constitution could somehow be separated. The members of the Commission and its committees have views about politics, but they are personal views only. The trouble is that the Commission has never had a mandate from the people and its report carries no more weight than the views of any other so-called experts. The Government will certainly and obviously rely on the Commission to support its proposals. That reliance will lack credibility except in one major respect. The Commission has kowtowed to the Government, and for evidence of that fact I refer to the Commission's first report where it notes that on 27 January it was directed to provide a report. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) did not just tell the Commission when to report, he even told the Commission the specific issues that he wanted included in the first report. Instead of providing the Government with a set of recommendations that revealed its independent consideration of priorities, the Constitutional Commission has meekly toed the line and given the Government all the ammunition it asked for. The one exception relates to parliamentary terms, and its fortitude on that issue was explained by the fact that an earlier report was released by the Commission last October before it got its marching orders from the Government. Before leaving the subject of the Constitutional Commission, I seek an assurance from the Attorney-General. The law in this country is that the Government may spend only as much on the No case as it spends on the Yes case. The Constitutional Commission is legally a part of the Attorney-General's Department. One of its roles is to educate the public. Now that the Government has introduced the referendum Bills, and given the Commission's partisan support for five of the six issues, it would be quite wrong-and I put it to the Attorney-General that it would be possibly even illegal-to use the Constitutional Commission as a backdoor means of providing extra funding for the Yes case. I seek the Attorney-General's assurance that there will be no attempt to use the Constitutional Commission to subvert the relevant sections of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Finally, as we start this $35m exercise, let it be put on the public record that this Government has not once attempted to find some bipartisan support for constitutional reform. The few discussions we have had have been initiated by the Opposition. The Government abandoned the constitutional conventions which comprised elected representatives, the best-known mechanism for seeking to obtain some common ground. The Government went ahead and set up its own group of non-elected experts. It then directed the Commission what to say. It pre-empted the first report of the Constitutional Commission-its own adviser-and it still does not have the Commission's final report. This is a good example of how not to seek constitutional change. The Government has no overall strategy; it has no effective consultation processes; it has adopted a completely unilateral approach and it has a complete mishmash of motives. Mr Cobb —So much for consensus. Mr REITH —The Victorian Premier is reconvening the abandoned Constitutional Convention executive and Labor backbenchers and members of the public are asking why we are having these referendums. The Government has picked the one option for obtaining a four-year term for the House of Representatives which it knew would produce and has already produced, a wall of resistance from the Liberal and National parties around Australia. The only questions that remain unanswered are when the referendums will be held and when the Government will announce defeat. It will be some time between now and the Sunday after the referendums are held. Four questions are to be put to the people, and I shall now deal with each one. The first question will ask voters to approve a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. This question is the focal point of the Labor Party's campaign, and it will be the rallying point for the Opposition's resistance. The Government says that the effect of the question would be to give greater stability to our parliamentary system, increase the term of the House of Representatives to four years and reduce the number of elections. If anything, it will mean more elections and not fewer. Currently, a term of the House of Representatives is up to three years and the term of senators is fixed at six years. The senators face the people at the expiry of their term or earlier when parliament is dissolved following a difference of opinion between the House of Representatives and the Senate within the meaning of the Constitution. In other words, apart from the expiry of a six-year term, the senators must face the people only when their actions put them at variance with the House of Representatives which is, of course, controlled by the Government. The referendum proposal removes the fixed term of senators and establishes a system of permanent double dissolutions. It removes the one fixed element in the system. Under this proposal the Prime Minister will be able to call an election for both Houses at any time whatsoever. Currently he can submit the House of Representatives to an election at any time but, as was recognised by the founding fathers when drafting the Constitution, if a Prime Minister does so, he still has to face a half-Senate election. The proof that that has been a strong factor in limiting the number of half-Senate elections is the fact that there have been only four half-Senate elections since Federation. In addition to raising the prospect of more elections, the proposal gives the Prime Minister the additional political leverage of being able to threaten to dismiss the Senate and force it to an election at any time of his choosing. This puts the Senate under the Prime Minister's hammer. The proposal also abandons the system of rotation of senators. Currently half the senators face the people every three years. This system of rotation is common in Australia in most of the upper Houses in the States. In local government in Victoria, for example, where there are nine councillors, three are elected every year for three-year terms. It is also common in a number of other Western democracies. The best known of these, and the country which provided the example which our founding fathers looked to, was, of course, the United States of America where the Senate has terms of six years and the House of Representatives members have two years. Similarly, in many of the American States they have different terms, usually four years in the upper House and two years in the lower House. Other countries that have different electoral cycles for their upper Houses and similarities with our federal system are Austria, Brazil and Canada. If Australia were to adopt the Government's contemporaneous four plus four system, Australia would be joining Bolivia, Colombia, Jordan and Yugoslavia, to name but a few; and among those having contemporaneous five plus five terms, Australia would be in the company of Czechoslovakia, Zimbabwe and Russia. The fact is that the system of rotation for terms of members of the upper House is a good idea. The mandate is the same but is given at a different point in time. The Senate is a House of review. The fact that half the senators do not face the next election buttresses that feature of review. It means that half the senators are that one step removed from the political heat of the moment. That encourages the review of precipitate legislation emanating from the lower House. It is a system designed to discourage hasty decisions. This is a fundamental aspect of our system, and it is a sensible system. It has worked well. In recent times, the Government has encouraged the claim that our Constitution is out of date. That is just misguided. No-one could foresee Labor's plans to keep a computer-based dossier on every Australian, but it was the Senate's threatened use of its power that stopped Labor's ID card-a testimony to the importance of a strong House of review. I will mention later in greater detail the Bill of Rights. If it had been adopted, it would have limited and restricted rights. We in the Opposition called it the `Bill of wrongs'. The founding fathers would not have foreseen Labor's Bill of Rights, but the strong Senate created in our Constitution stopped the Bill of Rights, another testimony to the importance of a strong House of review. The motives for this change are varied. For the Attorney-General, it is a finale for his retirement. For the minders in the Prime Minister's office, it is a low cost, low risk diversionary tactic. Labor's strategists are looking for an appeal to its heartland to counter the rejection of Labor's cronyism, rich mates, privatisation, and now the tertiary education tax. Australia is in for a hard year, with even greater falls in living standards which have exacted their toll in New South Wales in numerous by-elections. Of course, for some in the Australian Labor Party, the motives are all rooted in 1975; they never accepted the people's verdict in the 1975 elections. Lastly, there are the ideologues like Mr Whitlam, who as far back as 1959 and now as a member of the Constitutional Commission, has wanted to destroy the power of the Senate. When the Senate opposes legislation, the ideologues describe it as obstructionist; and when the Senate supports legislation emanating from the lower House, it is superfluous. The extreme language betrays the extreme views. For example, Senator Walsh was reported in the Press on 5 December last year as saying that he supported the view of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), that the Senate was the swill of Australian politics. Is that any way to talk about the upper House, a House in which the people are represented? Senator Evans betrayed his views in his maiden speech. Let me tell the House what he is reported as saying on the next day in the Canberra Times. He said: The way to abolish the Senate, or at least muzzle it, is to white-ant it from within. That is the real view of people in the Labor Party. The bottom line is that Labor's proposal does not mean fewer elections; on the contrary, it raises the prospect of more elections. The real motive-the fine print-is just a blatant attack on the Senate and our bicameral parliamentary system. The Labor Party loves to attack Queensland. Of course, the irony is that the upper House in Queensland has been abolished-and even the Attorney-General, in his generous smile, acknowledges the history of that fact. I say to the Australian people that Australia has a strong Senate. Why weaken it? Vote No to question No. 1. I now turn to question No. 2. We will be asked to vote on the question: Do you approve of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia? It sounds fair enough but, like the other questions, when one reads the fine print one finds it does not really mean what it says. This proposal is just misleading. I would expect that it would breach the law against false and misleading advertising. I note that even today Mr Gary Morgan of Morgan Gallup Polls, when addressing the ninth Australian Statistical Conference, described the manner in which these questions have been framed as `blatantly biased'. The fact is that this proposal does not provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections. It does not stop-it does not even try to stop-the fixing of electoral boundaries. If this proposal is meant to set a minimum standard-and let us not forget that this is a proposal to put something into our Constitution, the number one law in this country-I say to the Attorney-General that it will encourage governments around Australia to fix their electoral boundaries to suit themselves. I shall give some examples. New South Wales has a system of one vote one value. However, Premier Nick Greiner needed more than 52 per cent to win. Is that fair? The same applies in South Australia. Federally, the coalition needs 52.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win office, and the Government will stand up and tell us that we have one vote one value at the Commonwealth level! Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will manage quite well without the assistance of other honourable members. Mr REITH —Thank you for your support, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we look forward to seeing you cross the floor when this matter comes up. The proposal is indeed a nonsense, because it is based on the false premise that the drawing of boundaries will be fair if undertaken on a purely rigid numerical basis. How one defines `fair', of course, is open to debate. However, it has certainly been long established in Australian politics that it is appropriate to recognise the validity of the need for the representation of interests. That arises from the sheer size of Australia, the reality of the diversity of our communities and, of course, the establishment in the mid-nineteenth century of the separate political entities, the six colonies. The structure of our national polity is a federal polity because the desire to have a national political structure was accompanied equally by an acknowledgment of those differences. Our Senate is one of the most powerful upper Houses ever established because it reflects the importance that our predecessors placed on a federal as opposed to a unitary system of government. Each State, regardless of its geographical size and regardless of its population, has an equal number of senators; thus Tasmania, rightly, has the same number of senators as does New South Wales, our most populous State. The principle of the recognition of interests was not just applied to the Senate; it was also applied to ensure a minimum of representation in the House of Representatives from each of the original States, so that Tasmania has always had five MHRs regardless of its size. The concept of recognition of interests has not surprisingly been acknowledged in the States. The irony is that question No. 2 imposes a standard for the States, particularly in their upper Houses, that this proposal does not accept for our own upper House, the Senate. Mr Cobb —It is hypocrisy. Mr REITH —As the honourable member for Parkes says, it is a question riddled with hypocrisy. It also imposes a uniformity that closes off the options of State parliaments or the people of the States to change their parliamentary systems to meet their local circumstances. For example, in some countries upper Houses are used to reserve positions for the representation of minority interests. In some places people in the upper House are actually appointed. In other places the upper House is deliberately so constituted as to give special emphasis to rural areas. For the purposes of my argument I do not advocate such options but merely refer to them to highlight the fact that there are other substantial arguments that cannot be lightly dismissed in the embrace of the rigid and inflexible system proposed by question No. 2. I want to make four other points about this question. Firstly, this proposal in itself recognises its own inherent weakness. It has a tolerance figure of 20 per cent. There is no way that anybody could guarantee a strict one vote one value election, even if it were desirable on its own. Secondly, by amending the Constitution the proposal may increase the involvement of our High Court in what is a very controversial issue. The United States Supreme Court has had to deal with a lot of litigation on this subject. I believe that where the proposal is otherwise wrongly founded, as it is in this case, it is unfortunate deliberately to embroil the High Court in such issues. Thirdly, it is not true that our Constitution is silent on this issue. In 1975, in McKinlay's case, the High Court made it clear that the Commonwealth does not have an unlimited right to draw electoral boundaries as it sees fit. Fourthly, question No. 2 raises fundamental issues about our Federation. Section 106 of our Federal Constitution states that the Constitutions of the States-and they all have their own-would not be altered by the coming into force of the Federal Constitution. Electoral laws are incidental to the Constitutions of those States and thus fall within that section. In my view, section 128 makes provision for the alteration of any part of the Constitution but a breach of the spirit of section 106 is clearly a major attack on our Federal system. Nothing is black and white in politics, and that is certainly the case with the definition of a federal democracy. It is, however, a fact that since Federation the Commonwealth has massively accumulated power and influence at the expense of the States. The section 92 decision handed down two weeks ago by the High Court is a recent example. In the same way that free markets disperse economic power to consumers, the great appeal of a federation is the fact that it is a system of dispersing political power. Question No. 2 undermines the federalist nature of our system and for that reason alone it should be rejected. The question is, of course, aimed at Queensland, but it will certainly affect Western Australia's upper House and its lower House and, as I understand it, the Tasmanian upper House. The ALP does not come to this issue with entirely clean hands. In April 1986 Arthur Tonkin, the former ALP Premier of Western Australia, resigned because his successor, Brian Burke, was not prepared to fully reform Western Australia's gerrymander. Mr Burke, the former Labor Premier, is on the public record as opposing this question. There is a fifth point and that is that Australians have long recognised the right of access to their representatives and the impact that this has on equality of representation. Australia has a strong democratic parliamentary system. Why weaken it? Vote No to question No. 2. The third question asks voters to approve of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. The proposal is just a trick to con the local government vote. I, like so many on this side of the House, am a strong supporter of local government. I am a third generation local councillor. For three generations my family has served in local government. This proposal borders on the contemptuous. It is absolute tokenism. It is meaningless. I am not in favour of putting meaningless things in our Constitution. Our Constitution is too important to be used as a carrot to attract the votes of just any section of the community that the Labor Party wants to woo at any particular time. The proposal provides no guarantees against wrongful dismissal, no guarantees against enforced amalgamations and no guarantees against the abolition of local government in parts of States. It is a deliberate tactic to divert attention from Labor's plans for enforced amalgamations, for the cutbacks in road funding, and the abolition by the Labor Party of the system whereby local government used to receive a fixed percentage of income tax revenue. That is the reality. Let me say that, whilst on the face of it the wording is merely symbolic, the existence of the clause will probably exacerbate a long time problem for local government. That is a problem well known to anybody who has served in local government in Australia. The problem occurs when the Federal Government gives local government some new function. We find that it will be funded in year one but in year two it will withdraw the funding and local government will end up holding the baby. This provision, meaningless as it is, will simply encourage Federal governments to continue that practice. I note that there is no definition of local government in the proposal. Most people will assume that it is limited to municipal government-the local council-but that is not clear. The clause may include sewerage, water and electricity councils or authorities, some of which may currently have some members appointed by their respective State governments. The Government has failed to address these unintended consequences. The question also sidesteps the fact that local government is established under State law and already has constitutional recognition in most of the States. Let me read the actual wording of the proposed new clause. Proposed new clause 119a states: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. As you can see, it is meaningless, worthless. Australia has a strong Constitution. Why treat it as a vehicle for tokenism. To question No. 3, we say vote No. I now turn to question No. 4. It contains three separate proposals. Voters will be asked whether they approve of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. This question is a rerun of Labor's Bill of Rights, which instead of giving rights would have limited and restricted rights. At that time we opposed that Bill, with strong support from the community, and with the support of the community we again will oppose this latest mini-Bill of Rights. There are good specific reasons for opposing each proposal but there are also strong general arguments against the question as a whole. Additionally, opposition to any one sub-question will require voters to vote against the remaining two sub-questions tainted by the one which they oppose. The three sub-questions are completely unnecessary. We already have Federal constitutional measures on these subjects and no-one can seriously suggest that these freedoms are currently under threat in Australia. (Extension of time granted) I thank the Attorney-General and the House for their courtesy in granting an extension of time. The three sub-questions in question No. 4 are completely unnecessary. The whole concept is ill founded, as was said by one of our former Chief Justices, Sir Harry Gibbs, on 12 December 1984. I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald: If society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. The Russians have a finely worded Bill of Rights. That comes as a surprise. But of course it is worthless. One of the strong objections to the Bill of Rights-it applies equally to question No. 4-is that by making very general statements the job of defining the statements is left to the High Court of Australia. This wrongly places the High Court in the position of having to define, refine and interpret motherhood statements. This is a policy function of the elected representatives in the Parliament; it is not a function suited to the unelected judges on the High Court. The fine print is that by defining rights they can be limited, and such an approach is contrary to our Westminster traditions. Lastly, as a general point, our Constitution is a document to regulate the forms and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament and to provide a framework for our federal system. It is not a vehicle for a Bill of Rights and it was never intended to be used as a vehicle to control the legitimate legislative responsibilities of the States. For these general reasons, the proposals should be opposed. But there are, of course, specific objections to each of the sub-questions. The first sub-question proposes to extend the trial by jury guarantee. We have had the existing constitutional guarantee since 1901. The founding fathers put that into the Constitution. At the time one of them got up at a convention and said, `We all know this is worthless. It will never provide anything but no-one has been able to think of a better form of words for it'. Numerous conventions of elected representatives have tried to find a better form of words but without success and the Attorney-General has not succeeded either. He already has some drafting problems. The Constitutional Commission considered different proposals from two advisory committees and now the Attorney has differed from his own advisers. It is not even clear that the Bill actually does extend the guarantee to the States and the Territories, and for some reason the Attorney has rejected the advice of Messrs Finemore and Ewens, QC, and omitted the requirement of trial by jury for capital offences. Mr Lionel Bowen —No, no. Mr REITH —I have read the Attorney's second reading speech and I think he has a lot of explaining to do to his constituency about why he would not want to extend the right of trial by jury to those offences which may in the future carry the death penalty. The States already have statutory trial by jury provisions and the Attorney has given no reason why the Federal Constitution should impose itself into the running of the criminal justice systems of the States. The form of the sub-question will allow the States, if so inclined, to establish juries of fewer than 12 jurors. Most people think of trial by jury as trial by 12 jurors. That is not what is contained in this proposal. The provision also allows for majority verdicts. Does the Attorney think that a conviction on the basis of a decision of a majority of two out of a jury of three is the right standard to enshrine in our Constitution for trial by jury in Australia. Additionally, the sub-question does not guarantee trial by jury where the only penalties are very substantial monetary fines. The Attorney has failed to explain why such defendants should be denied this fundamental protection. The second sub-question is to extend the guarantee of freedom of religion. This sub-question, if it became part of our Constitution, would open a Pandora's box. The Attorney is just playing with fire. The sub-question widens the existing provision to cover not only laws but also Executive action and to extend it to the States and Territories. Again the sub-question is ill founded. The original intention of the existing provision was basically to prevent the establishment of a state church and to prevent discrimination within the Public Service. This proposed clause has the problem not only possibly of validating extreme practices conducted under the guise of religion but also of limiting or preventing normal religious observance in many aspects of our Australian way of life. There is absolutely no explanation as to how this will affect the management of our government school systems, let alone the difficult issue of funding of non-government schools. Mr Lionel Bowen —It won't affect it. Mr REITH —The Attorney-General can sit there and make his interjections but the reality is that he can give no guarantees about what his proposal may mean because it will be left to the High Court to interpret its real meaning. The Attorney is retiring early and if this question is carried he will leave behind him a real time bomb. The third sub-question provides for just terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. `Property' is not defined. However, at law, `property' has a very wide meaning: it is not only real estate. The title in the Bill and the question refer to `fair terms' but should read `just terms'. This change in words appears to be a ploy to enable the Government to peddle its questions under the false description of `a fair deal for Australia'. It is phoney to say that this will ensure people a fair deal. It will not stop governments acquiring for wrongful purposes. It will not even require a uniform standard. At best there will be a minimum standard set by the High Court. The provision will be full of unintended consequences because of the wide definition of `property' and it will not stop governments zoning land to limit land use and enjoyment. Such activities will not attract compensation regardless of this proposal. There is no guarantee of appeal procedures and no guaranteed protection of the rights of third parties. It is a minimal provision and again, as with the other proposals, the Attorney has failed to explain the necessity to apply this proposal to the States. The most common example used will be the Coal Acquisition Act in New South Wales. People in that State have undertaken the best remedy possible: they have elected a Greiner government. The reality is that the existing constitutional guarantee in respect of Commonwealth acquisitions is grossly inadequate, as the Government is well aware. That is why the previous coalition Government called for a report on the issue from the Law Reform Commission. The Commission's report has called for a detailed legislative response from the Government. In recently announcing the intention to introduce a Bill to implement the Commission's recommendations, the Government has admitted that the constitutional guarantee is totally inadequate in itself to achieve a proper framework for compensation. Obviously the proposed guarantee does not put in place at the State level this sort of detailed legislative framework without which the proposal is of little real value. We have examined these proposals very carefully. Our Constitution has served Australia well and the Government has failed miserably to validate its case for change. I am genuinely disappointed at the way in which the Government has handled the debate. It has not even been prepared to seek common ground and it has flatly rejected our attempts to find some bipartisan approach. The Attorney-General, in summing up his very brief address when presenting the referendum Bills, said these proposals would not mean any increase in Commonwealth power at the expense of the States or of the people of Australia. As I have shown, this is patently wrong. These questions would give more power for the Executive, more power for the Prime Minister, less power for the Parliament and, in the end, less power for the people. That is the bottom line. When one reads the fine print one finds that there is nothing in these proposals for the people. The referendum proposals are for the benefit of this Labor Government. The questions are misleading. They contain drafting ambiguities and, if carried, would not enhance our Constitution. Let it not be said that in proposing four No responses to the referendum questions put by the Government the coalition parties are taking anything but a positive attitude to our Constitution. On the contrary, it will be apparent to all fair-minded Australians from what I have said today that the coalition has carefully considered each of the proposed measures in detail and on their merits and has found them to be deficient on both policy and technical grounds. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr UREN(Reid)(5.20) —This is my first speech on the back bench of this Parliament for 20 years. I am proud to join my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in supporting the four proposed amendments to the Australian Constitution. All four proposals are moderate and reasonable and should be supported by all reasonable people. I will not waste my precious minutes expressing how negative and moribund the Federal Opposition's attitude to these proposals is. Because of my experience and background I want to concentrate on one of the proposals before the House. I am particularly pleased to support the proposition that local government be recognised in the Australian Constitution. Since before Federation local government has been an integral part of the Australian system of representative democracy and public administration. That fact needs to be acknowledged. Local government deserves to be recognised. The Constitution should be more accurately reflected in the real Australian federal system. Since the early 1970s local government has been evolving from its traditional roads, gutters and garbage mentality into a sophisticated and multifunctional level of community government. In many areas it has now undertaken a diversity of social and economic development tasks. In that process local government is making a significant national contribution to meeting the local needs of the Australian people. Despite the fact that local government is performing a variety of functions on behalf of the Commonwealth and the States-functions which the Commonwealth and the States could not so readily and effectively perform-local government remains either ignored or taken for granted in decision making about policies and programs. The absence of any reference to local government in the Constitution has permitted the neglect of local government, deprived it of status as a partner in the provision of public services and denied it the opportunity to make a fuller social contribution. Constitutional recognition of local government will have two far-reaching consequences. Firstly, it will establish the status of local government as a party with which the Commonwealth and the States ought to consult and negotiate. This should enable local government to participate more fully in the design and implementation of policies and so improve the responsiveness and cost-effectiveness of the nation's public sector. Secondly, constitutional recognition will extend to local government the application of principles of natural justice. Whilst this will not shield incompetent or corrupt councils from dismissal, it will ensure that due process is followed and that local electors are not disenfranchised, which will strengthen our democratic system. My personal view-and I have expressed it many times-is that local government should not be dismissed by anybody other than those people who elected the municipality. But my personal view is not the issue here. This constitutional amendment does not interfere with a State government's right to dismiss an incompetent or corrupt council. As a Labor member of parliament, as a former Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam Government and as a former Minister for Local Government in the Hawke Government, for seven years I have been associated, as a Minister, with the administration of local government. I have seen it evolve and broaden its base, as I described earlier. I am proud of local government that is evolving at that grassroots level. I am proud to be associated with this proposal for the constitutional recognition of local government. I have been an anti-centralist all my political life. I have always wanted people to have greater power over their lives and to be able to have a say in decisions which affect them where they live and work. Even within the Australian Labor Party I have struggled against those who have sought to centralise power within an elite. In supporting this proposal for the constitutional recognition of local government, I stress that I am not adopting a party political stance. I am supporting the local representatives of the Australian people. Constitutional recognition is wanted by local government. It is not being imposed by the centre of government. The pressure comes from the grass roots. It comes from local government representatives across the political spectrum. I remind my colleagues opposite that it has the support at the grass roots level of the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Labor Party and of Independents. Local government is claiming with one voice its legitimate right to be recognised. In this place we have, beyond party politics, an obligation to put to the people the aspirations of their local representatives. I recall the situation in 1974 when the Federal Labor Government initiated a referendum to enable the Commonwealth to make direct grants to local government and to borrow money on behalf of local government. At that time we sought to tell local government what was good for it. We were overzealous-I might add that is an understatement. Local government was suspicious and divided. It was one of our major opponents at the time. The referendum proposition was rejected. It was carried only in New South Wales. But 47 per cent of the Australian people supported the proposal. Today, 14 years on, we are responding to local government. We are responding to a momentum which has been building up within local government from the time of the Hobart Constitutional Convention in 1983 when a subcommittee was set up under the chairmanship of Doug Lowe, a former Labor Premier of Tasmania. I recall meeting with Doug Lowe and Greg Percival, a Liberal member of the upper House of New South Wales-both members from different sides of the political fence-as members of the structure of government subcommittee of the Constitutional Convention. They put to me a series of possible measures for effecting the constitutional recognition of local government. Their `maximum' position involved the insertion of a clause in the Constitution formally to recognise local government. Their `minimum' position concerned the adoption of a draft declaration of principles to be attached to the Constitution. Initially I was advised that local government representatives favoured the `minimum' position. But, when I put that to the test, I found overwhelming support from local government for the `maximum' position, right across the nation. At the 1985 Brisbane Constitutional Convention the `maximum' position was put by Greg Percival-a Liberal member of parliament, as I said-on behalf of the Local Government Association of Australia. I, on behalf of the national Government, seconded the proposal. The position was argued and carried across party lines. It was the decision of the 1985 Constitutional Convention which was first submitted to the Constitutional Commission. Subsequently the Australian Council of Local Government Associations gave additional support to that proposition in submissions to the Constitutional Commission. I instructed my Department, particularly the Commonwealth Office of Local Government, to submit a supporting case from the perspective of the Australian Government. The report of the Constitutional Commission recommended recognition of local government along similar lines to the proposal adopted by the Brisbane Convention. The Australian Government, consistent with its position in 1985, has accepted the recommendation of the Commission relating to local government. It is a modest but significant recommendation. It is a long overdue proposal. It is a bipartisan proposition. It is recommended by people of integrity from both sides of politics. It is supported overwhelmingly in local government by representatives of all political persuasions, and it deserves support. Finally, I say to my friends in local government, irrespective of their political persuasion, `Between now and the time that the Australian people vote on the referendum, get out into the highways and byways, stir up the possum, tell your story and leave no stone unturned to make sure that the proposal for which you have been fighting for so many years is supported by the Australian people'. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(5.32) —Because the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) addressed his remarks to the Constitution alteration proposal relating to local government, I would like to start my remarks by referring to that same proposal-that is, the third referendum proposal to insert in the Constitution a provision which is described in the heading of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill as a provision to recognise local government. Nobody could doubt the sincerity with which the honourable member for Reid promoted his case. It is true that for many years he has been an unswerving advocate of the interests of local government and an unswerving advocate of having local government recognised in the Constitution and generally given its proper recognition in this country. What I want to say to the honourable member for Reid and to the House by way of reply is that the constitutional amendment proposed by the Government does not achieve any of those things. Let me address two of the points made by the honourable member for Reid. Again, I emphasise that he put forward his arguments with great sincerity. Firstly, he maintains that the Bill proposes a referendum question which will give constitutional recognition to local government. What the honourable member means by that and what local government organisations during this long debate have meant by that is some recognition by the Federal Government of local government, some obligation to deal with local government directly, and some provision along the lines that the Federal Government hereby acknowledges the great worth and value of local government. The point must be made simply but clearly that the Bill, the proposed change to the Constitution, does not do that. All that it does at best is to make an obvious proposition, namely, that local government is the creature and the responsibility of the States. The question can be asked: Why is there any need to write into the Constitution such an obvious and self-serving proposition as that? To state the obvious, local government bodies are created by State parliaments. They are financed-although partly by revenue which the Commonwealth raises-by rates which are imposed under State government legislation. It must be said at the outset that the Constitution, when and if it is amended, will not recognise local government in the way that the honourable member for Reid and some of the local government advocates have believed. The second point that must be made in reply to the honourable member is as follows: he said, `When this amendment is carried it will force the Federal Government to consult with local government'. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is there a word or a syllable in this proposal which will oblige the Commonwealth Government to do that? The answer is no. There is not a word, a syllable or even an implication that the Commonwealth Government will have to do that. Those who herald this proposal as imposing on the Commonwealth some new obligation to consult with local government, bow down the knee before it and weigh up in its deliberative processes what local government wants are really deluding themselves. If they really want that sort of robust provision in the Constitution they should vote no to this proposal and put up some alternative proposal. There is one other point that must be made about his proposal with respect to local government. It gives the lie to the whole exercise of the present government so far as these proposals are concerned. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to bear with me while I read-and it has been read in this debate already-the exact proposal that is being put forward. It is set out in the following words: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected . . . How will they be elected? This is the answer: in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. Having gone through this whole exercise about one vote one value-the importance of enshrining it in the Constitution-and having gone through the whole exercise of the rhetoric of so-called democratic elections, what do we find when we come to the third proposal? Do we find that these great principles of one vote one value are to be enshrined for local government? No; second best is good enough for local government. Let me repeat: local government bodies, according to this Bill, are to be elected `in accordance with the laws of the State'. The Australian Labor Party apparently believes it is all right if State A establishes local government bodies to be elected on a property franchise basis, but State B has local government bodies elected on a franchise basis determined by whether the voter is an owner of property, an occupier of property or a white adult male owning property worth $100,000 or more. Under this proposal those entitlements, those obligations, and those rights to vote-whether it is compulsory voting or voluntary voting-will differ from State to State, if that is what the individual States provide in their laws. Is it commonsense to change the Constitution so that embodied in the Constitution itself is the entitlement of States to have varied franchises for the election to local government bodies? It is absurd and impractical, and it is simply one more reason why we on this side of the House say that this proposed amendment to the Constitution will achieve nothing at all. As I have shown, it not only simply enshrines a self-evident proposition, namely, that the State parliaments are responsible for local government, but it also goes further than that and has within it the seeds of inconsistency between one State and another with respect to the franchise. That seems to me by itself to be the end of the argument. To suggest that we should put into the Constitution a so-called guarantee of local government and at the same time say that the States can differ as to the franchises for election to local government bodies is, by itself, enough reason to oppose this proposal. For those reasons, amongst others, we say that people would be well advised to vote no with respect to this proposal. It achieves nothing and it has within it a formula for absolute chaos. I put that at the beginning of my remarks because the honourable member for Reid spoke about the local government issue. Having said that, I go back to the first proposal, which is the proposal so misleadingly described in its title as being to provide for four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is misleading to describe it as simply a Bill to provide an amendment for four-year terms, because the proposal itself goes much further than that. It goes so far that it overturns one of the very basic principles of our federal structure. We can have an argument, if we want, about the need to have State governments and parliaments. We can have an argument, if we like, about the need for a Senate. But, if we agree-and I think we all agree in this House-that there is merit in having a system of States, and if we want those States to continue in some harmonious relationship, we must have a House of the Parliament where the interests of the States are balanced. After all, that is why the House of Representatives is elected on the basis of having electorates of roughly equal numbers, and therefore a different number of seats or electorates from each State, and why, in contrast, each State sends to Canberra the same number of senators as the others irrespective of the population of that State. So it is at the root of our system. When the founding fathers wanted to establish this Federation, they decided quite rightly that they had to provide some element of the parliamentary system where the interests of the States were balanced, and they came up with this sensible solution of having a bicameral system and, in the upper House of that system, each of the several States, irrespective of their populations, electing the same number of senators as the others. That is why-it is not widely known-the Senate was originally proposed not to be called the Senate but the States Assembly, and in the early drafts of the Constitution the Senate was so described. The founding fathers went on-and this is not simply ancient history; it is something which is alive today as much as it was then-to decide that, if they wanted continuity, if they wanted to provide stability and if they really wanted the Senate to be a proper House of review, to have a serious second look at legislation and at the same time to keep a balance between the States, they had to have a rotation of senators. The reason why the Government is being so misleading about this whole proposal is that it seeks to hide the fact that it is abolishing this very foundation of the federal system, the rotation of senators-that they do not all retire at the same time, as we do at every House of Representatives election, but rather that there is a rotation and only half of them retire each time and therefore there is more continuity. That guarantees that the States have a solid insurance policy to preserve their rights and that the individuals living or residing and voting in those States can say to themselves with absolute conviction, `Yes, we have a House of review which is going to have a second look at legislation and which is going to make sure that the smallest States are not ground into the dirt by the larger and more populous States'. Let me put the importance of this rotation of senators not in my own words but by quoting to the House what Professor Geoffrey Sawer said on the rotation of senators and how important it is. Professor Geoffrey Sawer, of course, is acknowledged as having been one of our great constitutional lawyers. At the time of the hearings of the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill in 1950, Professor Sawer said: . . . there is no point . . . I repeat: . . . there is no point in having a House of review unless you have some degree of difference between the points of view of the Houses, and you get that more with the staggered system of election. Mr Andrew —It could not be clearer. Mr N.A. Brown —It could not be clearer, as my colleague says. As Professor Sawer says, there is no point in having a Senate, a House which claims to keep a balance between the States, if we are simply going to have in the Senate a pale shadow, an echo, of the House of Representatives. We may as well do away with the Senate altogether. We may as well do away altogether with any pretence that the States are protected by this balance that is created in the Senate if this proposal put up by the Government is passed. Frankly, if we are honest about it, we should then get on to a serious debate about whether we really need a Senate at all, or whether we really need States at all. I happen to believe that we do. I believe that a system of State governments provides a very sensible dissemination of power. But, if we are going to be honest about it and say that we support this proposal that the Government is putting up, we should be completely honest and say, `Henceforth, if this proposal is passed, there is no point in having a Senate at all. It is simply going to be a pale shadow of the House of Representatives. Indeed, there is no point at all in having States'. For that reason that proposal can fairly be described as being utterly destructive of the whole federal system which we not only support, I hope genuinely, but also have given acknowledgment to and recognition since 1901. Time is limited and I must press on. I say simply that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has really demolished the second proposal, the so-called one vote one value proposal, and in my view there is very little more that can be said about it. The only additional thing that can be said is that, even if the seond proposal of one vote one value, as it is called, is passed, it will not do anything to remove the so-called gerrymanders. A State will be quite lawfully entitled to say, `You criticised the boundaries of our State electorates. We have done what you have asked. We have State electorates of roughly equal numbers and therefore they are very democratic. But look at the way we have drawn the boundaries. We have drawn them for our own convenience'. So, anyone who thinks that this measure will get rid of gerrymanders is simply deluding himself, as this proposal is not going to achieve what its advocates maintain. I come back again, as I must keep coming back, to this: we have a federal system. It is no role of the Federal Parliament or the Federal Government to rectify what it sees as defects in a State system. It is up to the States. If we depart from that principle, I say again, we must start honestly to argue this question as to whether we need State governments and whether we want them at all. We cannot have it both ways. If we accept a federation and if we accept the desirability of States and State parliaments, we must leave to the States those matters that are properly within their province. So, that proposal likewise must be rejected. I want to address a few very brief remarks to the fourth proposal. Who could argue against freedom of religion? Who could argue against the importance and necessity of compensation when governments acquire property? Who could argue, in most cases, about the necessity for jury trials? Nobody on this side of the House argues against any of those propositions. When we had the big debate about the Bill of Rights we ourselves were great advocates of basic freedoms; for instance, the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what one decided. Of course the Government never went along with that basic principle. We are not opposed to these basic rights. What we are opposed to is dressing them up as constitutional guarantees and putting them into a written constitution, forcing them into a mould and then giving way on all responsibility and saying to the judges, `You fix it up. There is freedom of religion for you; put that into practice'. When we assume responsibilities, we do it properly, because if the people do not like what we do they show us the door at the next election; they kick us out. I have left this Parliament on two occasions, but then come back. That can be done. I have no complaint about that. That is called democracy. We are elected if the people approve of us and we are defeated if the people do not approve of what we or our party have been doing. Let us not pretend that we are representatives of the people if we put propositions such as these into the Constitution and then say to unelected judges who remain on the bench until they are 70 or 72-or in some cases until they die, if they want to stay there that long-`You fix it up'. This is the way the world has gone. It is very sad. We can divide judges these days into lawyers on the one hand and trendies on the other. They pick up causes and say, `This is a fashionable cause. We will expand this right; we will do this, we will do that. This Government has gone beyond what we as judges think is proper for it.' They never have to answer to the people. Judges are never answerable to the people on that sort of test. We say that if people believe in these basic principles-as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as we in the Opposition do-they should do something about it; they should put their principles into practice. But they should not go through this bromide nonsense of writing them into the Constitution and then washing their hands of the whole thing and leaving it to the judges. That is the easy way out and will achieve nothing. If it does anything, it will make the whole process much more complicated. How do we tell the judges what they are to read into freedom of religion, compensation, just terms? How do we tell them that? We leave it all to them. The Government will be sowing a harvest of chaos and uncertainty of enormous dimensions if it proceeds with this legislation. For those reasons we are opposed to all of the proposals before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(5.52) —In rising to support the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill, I wish initially to pursue a theme supported by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). When it became clear late on election night in July last year that the Hawke Labor Government had been returned for a third term, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the win, commented that, despite our differences, the things which unite us as Australians are greater than those which divide us. It is a sentiment which all Australians share. Despite differences in background, education, income, faith and political view, there are certain common underlying views which all Australians share-things such as confidence in free speech, the rights of each person to a fair go, and the inherent value of each individual. Many other nations, such as the United States of America, share these assumptions and have them recognised in their Constitutions. Other nations pay those values lip service, while others again are not ashamed to deny them altogether. In Australia, despite the fact that these rights are not espoused in any legal document-not even, as some mistakenly assume, in the common law-we have been fortunate indeed that, for the most part, Australian governments have exercised their powers within those associations. It therefore bewildered me when, after a phenomenally short period, the Opposition decided to oppose all four questions posed by this legislation. I find it puzzling because, with the possible exception of one, all four questions reflect elements of those underlying assumptions about the way we are governed to which all Australians would subscribe. I can understand why the Opposition would be opposed to the one vote one value principle. It is all right for the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party to cry out in support of true democracy in that State-after all, it has been unceremoniously dumped from any say in government by its National Party colleagues, who can govern on little more than 30 per cent of the vote-but its Federal counterparts must try to keep the coalition together at all costs, and the price of that alliance in this case is that they must compromise their integrity. I can understand that as a political necessity, even though I do not condone it. It is obvious that the Liberal members of this House will sell out their principles to hold together their shaky coalition with the National Party at any cost. The question of four-year parliamentary terms has widespread community support. The electorate has favoured it for the majority of State governments for some time. Business groups have expressed support since the suggestion was first mooted, and the Opposition itself even made positive noises about it. However, as we discovered last month with the media ownership rules, the Opposition does not always mean what it says. The Opposition is opposing this legislation because, it claims, we have tried to diminish Senate power at the same time as introducing four-year terms-this because full Senate elections will take place at the same time as House of Representatives elections. Before dealing with that problem, let me just look at an example of the real concerns that the Liberal Party has with overseeing the integrity and authority of upper Houses. There seems little need to recall its 1975 coup, when it abused the powers of the Senate to block Supply. This was not because it objected to any features of the Budget; no, it passed the Budget immediately it received word that it had what it wanted. Its real reason was that it wished to force an election at a time unfavourable to the Government. That is the Opposition's concern for the Senate. To the Opposition it is not the House of review but a means of forcing elections and thwarting governments. We do not need to go back 13 years to see the Liberal Party's true feelings for upper Houses. Only last month we saw the Opposition make a feeble attack upon the authority of the Legislative Council in New South Wales. Having failed to gain a majority in the Council, it proceeded to attack the President, Mr Johnson, calling for his resignation. Did years of precedent matter to the Opposition then? Did the tradition that Presidents serve their full term unless guilty of misconduct even enter the minds of members of the Opposition? The pathetic attempt to remove the President was made even more ridiculous by the arguments of Mr Pickering, the Government Leader in the Legislative Council. In a speech that sounded more like a testimonial to Mr Johnson's qualities of fairness, impartiality and integrity as a President, Mr Pickering could find nothing in the Constitution or in State history which would support his argument. `Nevertheless', he said, `Mr Johnson must go'. The Opposition did not have the numbers to achieve this, but if it did it would have successfully kissed goodbye to a precedent of Legislative Council management that the Labor Party had honoured when it first took power. That is the extent of the Liberal and National parties' concern for upper Houses. Their insistence on the authority of a House of review is paramount only when they control it. When they do not they sing a different tune altogether. The Leader of the Opposition has argued that he opposes the change because he does not want to see the Senate reduced to having its mandate controlled by the Prime Minister. If he honestly believes that, he is sadly out of touch with the practices of government in this country. The Prime Minister may control when an election is held, but he does not control who will win it. If this question succeeds, the only change to the Senate will be that the full Senate will be subject to the choice of the people at each election. There will be no hangers-on in the other place from a previous election. The people, not the Senate or even the Prime Minister, will determine who shall govern and with what impositions in the House of review. This must inevitably lead to the question: What are the conservatives frightened of? Why are they worried about extending the power of the people themselves to decide? As with the question of fair elections, we must ask: Are the conservatives really committed to the ideals of democracy? When we read the statements on this score by the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, we quickly see that the question is not merely rhetorical. The aspiring leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party is not enthusiastic about the people's say in government, to say the least. He has espoused the view at more than one public gathering that elections and franchise should be limited and that power should be concentrated into the hands of the few. It is this factor which makes the theme of the present Leader of the Opposition all the more puzzling. One would have thought that, in the desperate battle to be seen as a real leader, the honourable member for Bennelong might have been more attracted to proving his commitment to democracy. But he has lost his chance now. In making his pathetic plea for the powers of the Senate, powers to which I believe he and his colleagues by their actions have proven they are not committed, other than to exploit them cynically at opportune moments, the Leader of the Opposition has aligned himself with the old born-to-rule attitude of his conservative masters. I hope that the Australian electorate will see his sentimental appeal to the sanctity of the upper House for what it really is. The recognition of local government is another area which I would have thought enjoyed the universal approval of all Australians, not because it represents a fundamental human right to which all people subscribe but because local government is an intrinsic part of the history and political make-up of Australian society. A Constitution should reflect the attitudes, aspirations and institutions of the society which models it. Local government is a vital element in our society, dealing with the bread and butter services that directly affect people's living standards: kerbs and guttering, libraries, roads, fences, noise and, of increasing importance, the welfare areas. Certainly these may be less glamorous areas of interest, but they are vital nonetheless. Constituents may have strong feelings about Australia's links with Pacific nations, but the things that will bring them to action are whether their roads are properly sealed or their garbage cleared. Fail at the local level, and one can forget about winning the hearts and minds of the people at State and Federal levels. I cut my political teeth as an alderman on Canterbury City Council and finally had the privilege of serving as that council's Mayor. In that time I fought many a battle with conservative aldermen and when I think of the quality of people with whom I locked horns then and the type of people with whom I sometimes deal on the three councils that are within the borders of the electorate of Banks I wonder what those Liberal aldermen think of the Opposition's rejection of this question. Those who work in local government as elected representatives know only too well the time and effort they must devote to this service. Only they know of the irate callers at midnight complaining about neighbours' dogs, the deluge of calls every time there is a flood in the area and the time spent away from family and friends on council business. Honourable members not acquainted with the demands of being on councils might like to reflect that it is extremely demanding work with little monetary reward. To oppose this Bill shows a distinct lack of support and consideration for the job done by more than 8,000 elected representatives and 180,000 employees who serve our 836 local councils. It shows a certain mean spiritedness against this institution which guarantees that the people have representatives to provide them with basic services. In recent times in New South Wales there has been a tendency for Liberal Party candidates to advertise themselves as Liberals when they run for council and this is a welcome change from previous years when they ran under the veil of Independents. I should think now Liberals will be even less likely to declare their political affiliations to the voters. By its opposition the Liberal Party has told the Australian electorate, in no uncertain terms, that it does not think local government is worthy of constitutional recognition. It is not as if the conservatives can argue their way out by saying that the new provision will endanger present rights. If corrupt councils need to be eliminated by State governments, they can be. If amalgamations are needed or if boundaries should be redrawn, they can be. All this provision does is make local government a guaranteed institution under the Constitution. At present local councils are the creatures of State government legislation, able to be created, changed or eliminated at the States' pleasure. We, on the Government side, would like to make their position more permanent and prestigious. There is no question of the right to local government being threatened. There seems to be a belief that a constitutional amendment should be put forward only where a right is under threat. That is not my understanding of what a constitution should be. A constitution should not only protect rights; it should also be a statement to all the world of what we are, of what we cherish and of what we stand for. An excellent case in point concerns freedom of religion. It is undeniable that the principle is one of the underlying presumptions that unite us, of which I spoke before, yet the only reference we find to the belief of Australians in the principle is in section 116 of the Constitution, which provides inter alia in rather unenthusiastic language that the Commonwealth Public Service will have no entry examination based on religion and that no public holidays shall be imposed on the ground of religion. Apart from the fact that we offend this section every Christmas and Easter, surely this section does not go far enough. It does not adequately express the tolerance and respect for the faith of others that is a hallmark of Australian society. If we accept that a constitution should reflect what we are and what we aspire to, surely something more needs to be said. The same can be said of trial by jury. It is a right that all Australians take for granted. This should not be so when one considers the fight that took place to secure it. From the earliest days of the colony of New South Wales, free settlers and convicts were subjected to the same process of military justice. As more and more settlers in New South Wales became free, the home Government refused to change the system. Far from carrying with them the laws of their home as they applied to their new environment, which the common law presumed, these settlers were subjected to the rigours of rough military justice. With each new charter of justice, the people of the colony called for three things in particular: their own elected government, the elimination of the old court system and the establishment of trial by a jury of peers. The trial by jury represented to the colonists a recognition of their legal and political maturity. It was proof that they were responsible enough to deal justice out themselves without the imprimatur of the home Government. When finally granted, it was greeted with more enthusiasm by most colonists than the decision to allow for elected members of the council. By the same token the present Bill attempts to give constitutional validity to an institution that is a proud and valued part of the Australian legal tradition. We seek its incorporation into the Constitution not because it is under threat but because we want its value fully recognised. When one takes all the referenda questions together, one common thread appears-the commitment to increase the power of the people and the quality of government. By fair election, we would have all Australians voting with equal power, eliminating the farce of the Queensland zonal system. By longer terms we would give governments more opportunity of executing policy in accordance with their mandates while making the Senate far more representative of the views of the people. By recognising local government we are merely acknowledging the valuable contribution of that institution and ensuring in the Constitution the right of all people to have a say in the running of their lives at this basic level. Finally, the rights and freedoms Bill acknowledges principles and institutions valued by all Australians. The Opposition may do well to consider its stance on these issues, which I believe Australians as a whole support. It would be a tragedy if the questions raised by these referendum Bills were to be defeated because I believe they go to the heart of legally recognising the aspirations of all Australians. Opposition members who are opposing these measures will be seen as hypocrites by the Australian community. They will be seen as selling out on important democratic principles. We, on the Government side of the House, support democratic principles and, therefore, wholeheartedly support the Bills before the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.07) —Since 1215 and Magna Carta, through the Bill of Rights to Simon de Montefort's first Parliament in the halls of Westminster, the British common law tradition has established the basis from which we, in this Parliament, exercise the responsibilities that are part of the Parliament of Australia. In 1901 the compact between the federating States was such as to give to the Commonwealth for the first time an independent status. Since 1901 there have been few changes to that Constitution by way of referendum. This is not because there has not been advocacy for change but because the people of Australia have not been in a position where they have been able to see justification for the adoption of recommended changes. It is true not only that changes have been made by way of referenda-in a moment I shall say a little about the process of constitutional change through the courts-but also that the people of Australia know that when the Australian Labor Party is in government it, far more than any other party, seems to seek constitutional change. In 1973 under the prime ministership of Gough Whitlam the first Constitutional Convention was convened in Sydney. It brought together the three arms of government-local government, State government and Federal government. Through constitutional Conventions held over the years and through their committees, opportunities were provided for full and proper scrutiny of the provisions in the Constitution which were either anachronistic or not considered suitable for modern day requirements. The process of change through the conventions that allowed those who were the direct participants in exercising the responsibilities of government in this country were not good enough for the Hawke Government. It decided that it was not for those involved to have a say in determining change so the Government constituted the Constitutional Commission. In 1985 those few selected Australians were designated not because they represented a broad breadth of Australian opinion, for who among them represented the ordinary men and women, who among them represented the ordinary voter? However, they represented a diverse range of opinions and nearly $6m later they have produced a mass of verbiage. That is a reflection of it; it has produced three, six, eight volumes and the final report is still to come. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) did not even bother to wait for the final report before presenting to his Cabinet colleagues proposed legislation for the Constitution Alteration Bills. It is true that some modifications were taken into account as a result of the first proposition, which I shall come to in a moment, and that the Attorney-General has informed the House that he has taken note of the Constitutional Commission. But let us be realistic. The Constitutional Commission was selected by the Government to consider what it thought was the most appropriate means of changing the Constitution. The Attorney-General has not even been able to persuade it that the form of the referendum to be put to the Australian people in the first question is the right form. If he cannot persuade the Constitutional Commission that he is right, why the devil should all those Australians who will be called upon on the first or second Saturday in September to vote on these questions suddenly believe that the Attorney-General has it right and, therefore, that they should affirm the first proposition? I am concerned that the whole things smacks of Labor expediency. The Labor Party does not like the existing Constitution because of the checks and balances provided within it. The Labor Party does not like the fact that within the existing Constitution there is a capacity for a bicameral system, including the Australian Senate, which is probably one of the most independent Houses of review within the whole Westminster system. Australia's Senate is different from the Senate of the United States of America. Our Senate is different from the House of Lords; our Senate is different from each of the legislative councils where they exist around Australia. In our bicameral system, our Senate has particularly allocated for it specific powers and rights. Through it, each of the States of the Commonwealth is given an equal voice, although the Territories, of course, because they are Territories rather than originating States, have slightly different representation. The genesis of these proposals must generate suspicion in the minds of electors in Australia. There is no doubt that the Labor Party's intent to change the Constitution must generate in the minds of anybody a concern as to the validity behind it, not only on the basis of that intention but also in the way the proposed legislation is currently being pursued. As the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) said when he introduced the Opposition's case on the proposed legislation, the fact that the Government, immediately after the opening of the new Parliament House building, introduced the legislation in a special sitting and the fact that in the penultimate week in which we will meet in this House of Representatives chamber we have been called on to debate it smack yet again of the Labor Party's non-preparedness to allow adequate and full consideration of each of the proposals. I am quite sure we will have a fairly full debate tonight, but it will not be a debate that will allow every member from both sides of the House to participate. It will not be a debate where the people who will be affected will have any input. It will be a debate about a proposal that the Labor Party has put forward and which, as a result of consultations between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we know that the Government was not prepared to modify to accommodate what the Opposition parties believed was a valid point with respect to the first question. I refer to the proposal to extend from three years to four the term of the House of Representatives. The Government is not prepared to modify its present stance. This is a take it or leave it proposition and I believe, yet again, that the Australian electorate is being sold short and it needs to be careful when examining these four questions. From the point of view of the National Party of Australia, I have spoken to all its State parliamentary leaders around Australia; I have spoken to representatives of our organisation and not one of them supports any of the four propositions. In the brief time available to me tonight, I say to the people of Australia that if there is to be constitutional change, the objectives of that change must ensure that the electors of Australia will in some way see that government will be better and that the guarantees of their individual liberties, rights and privileges will be enhanced in some way. If not, there can be no reason for constitutional change. Constitutional change is not good just because it is proposed; it can have a valid basis only if it gives the people of Australia something that they do not now enjoy. I say to the people of Australia that as a result of the adoption of not one of the four proposals are the individuals within Australia-women, men or children-going to be any better off. If they are not going to be any better off, why on earth are we spending this large sum of money? Why on earth did we have the accelerated process of a special sitting of the House of Representatives? Why on earth are we going to have a special Saturday where, right around Australia, people will be called on to vote on proposals that will not enhance their rights and privileges or in any way improve their lifestyle or help to overcome the fundamental problems that affect their way of life in 1988? The reality is that, in the protections of our Constitution, and in the protections accorded by the British common law, we are already able to enjoy the privileges that this Government suddenly says in the fourth question we must somehow enshrine in the Constitution. Those three principles are already in the Constitution. All the Government seeks to do is to change their application. I want to say to the people of Australia that it is necessary that they understand that the Opposition does not accept that the short titles to each of the Bills-which will be the form of the questions to which they will be called upon to respond Yes or No-explain the contents of the Bills. Mr Cobb —They are misleading. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, they are misleading in the extreme. They do not reflect the contents of the Bills. Because the propositions themselves might sound in some way plausible, in no way do they reflect what will happen. As the honourable member for Flinders mentioned earlier, in a paper delivered by Gary Morgan and Michele Levine at the ninth Australian Statistical Conference at the Australian National University today, the following comment was made: There is no doubt that the proposed referendum questions are biased to try to obtain a `yes' vote. In addition the questions do not honestly convey the issues being asked. With the questions in their present form, the referendums will be rejected . . . The issue will become the questions not the content. Any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. With that as the basis for consideration of this debate, I say to the House that there is little doubt that the people of Australia need to be made fully aware of the nature of the questions and what lies behind them. In my brief time, I will attempt to do something about that. First, we should understand with respect to the first and second questions that the idea of the centralisation of power has always been alive and well in the Labor Party. Honourable members might recall that the former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, has expressed his point of view in a number of papers. As I understand it, that remains fundamental to the attitudes and stance not only of the Labor Party's constitution but also its platform and its policy. Regardless of whether that is the organisational platform and policy or the parliamentary platform, it is true that what Gough Whitlam has said on successive occasions remains true. For example, on 12 October 1961, with respect to new States, Gough Whitlam said: The Australian Labor Party is not averse to new States. It is however, averse to sovereign States. In a paper entitled `The Constitution Versus Labor', in the Chifley Memorial Lecture delivered in Melbourne in 1957, Gough Whitlam said: Labor finds itself confronted at every turn by a Constitution framed in such a way as to make it difficult to carry out Labor's objectives and interpreted in such a way as to make it impossible to carry them out. That is why the Labor Party wants to change the Constitution. We all know that there are problems in the application of the first question because it seeks to reduce the term of the Senate. Any reduction in the term of the Senate will inevitably generate a circumstance where there will be a double dissolution on every occasion that there is an election. That will certainly put the senators into a more subject position with respect to the will of the Government of the day than they have been in the past and it will meet the requirement of the Labor Party that the senators House or the States House, as the Senate should perhaps best be known, find itself subject in exactly the same way as the House of Representatives every time there is a campaign before the people. The National Party rejects the first proposition, for it does not believe that a reduction in the term of the senators, which is contrary to the recommendations of that expensive Commonwealth Constitutional Commission recommendation, should be endorsed. It will make the Senate more subject to the ordinary political factors affecting the day to day votes in this chamber. It will destroy much of that independence that has given to the Australian Senate the character which I think we all respect and which has given to it far greater independent status than most upper Houses. Accordingly, it is a question which the National Party certainly opposes. The second question is really designed, more than anything else, to apply to the States of Australia laws that the Commonwealth is not prepared to accept as being applicable to itself. If the same laws were to be applicable to the Senate and the House of Representatives, as all honourable members know, every State except New South Wales would have fewer senators, if the number of senators were to be based on the number of people, and, of course, Tasmania would have fewer than five members of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the principle behind this constitutional alteration does not apply to the Commonwealth; it applies to the States alone. As my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) said earlier tonight, it certainly will not ensure in any way that there will be fair elections, yet that is the question that will be put to the electorate. It will not prevent gerrymanders. It may ensure some apparent numerical equality, but that depends on the time at which one achieves that equality. As my colleague the honourable member for Richmond said, it will not remove the position where, for us to win the next Federal election, I am told, we will have to get better than 52.3 per cent of the vote and where, in New South Wales, the Liberal and National parties will need to win better than 52.7 per cent of the vote. The reality is that this Bill and this referendum question are not designed to do anything other than meet the requirements of the Democrats for their continued support of the Government in the Senate. This question does not provide for fair elections; it does not remove gerrymanders. What it does is ensure only the perpetuation of a system which this Government wishes to impose on the States of the Commonwealth. It is not a law relating peculiarly to Queensland; it is a law that will certainly adversely affect Western Australia and Tasmania, and probably other States as well. The reality is that this particular Bill, the referendum question supposedly for fair and democratic parliamentary elections, is to enshrine anything but fair and anything but democratic election processes around this country. The third question is in respect of local government. I had wanted to say a little about this. I was interested to note that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) contributed to debate earlier on this question. It is the very fact that when the honourable member for Reid was Minister for Local Government he tried to introduce amalgamated regional councils that makes us apprehensive of the consequences of this particular referendum question going through. We are not opposed to constitutional recognition of local government. Indeed, most States already have that. The point, as the Bill itself states, is that there is no enhanced authority. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, said that it would not give local government anything that the States do not give them now. What it is designed to do is to generate a climate where, yet again, I can see regional local government bodies-with the States reduced in their power-being built up in the way that the honourable member for Reid tried to do as Minister for Local Government in the Whitlam days-States being reduced in power and the whole structural balance of our three-tier system of government being prejudiced. In the National Party-and, indeed, in both conservative parties-we have a very real respect for local government. Anybody who suggests that in some way this will enhance the powers of local government ought to examine the City of Brisbane Act of 1924, which gives extraordinarily wide powers. I do not have time to read them to the House tonight, but the council can make ordinances on an extraordinarily wide range of responsibilities. Therefore, it is not a matter of giving power to local government; it is not a matter of constitutional recognition of local government. What is it? I suggest the Labor Party sees this as a very good opportunity to aggregate power through some new amalgam of local governments, perhaps in the manner of local government in the past. The fourth Bill relates to three questions. The fact that the three questions are put together makes me suspicious. In each instance, these rights are not new rights. There is already a right to trial by jury; it is in section 80 of the Constitution. It is not a question of ensuring freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is absolutely sacrosanct so far as every Australian is concerned. Nobody can say that in Australia today the provisions of section 116 of the existing Constitution have, in any sense, meant that people are prejudiced in their opportunity to practise whatever religious faith they wish. Contrary perhaps to the inclination of some of us on this side of the House, at the opening of the new Parliament House the other day we saw opportunities for the expression of attitudes towards the conduct of affairs in that new parliamentary building by representatives of faiths that were not represented at the time of the 1927 opening of this Parliament House. Nobody can suggest that in any way that will be changed. Indeed, I am very apprehensive that, because of the application of this particular law, it is likely that the freedom of religion will be inhibited and not extended. Finally, the acquisition of property on just terms, similarly, is within placitum (xxxi) of section 51 of the Constitution. I say to the Australian people: this whole referendum proposal is a hoax, and I urge everyone who is a voter in the referendum proposal to vote no four times to the four referendum questions. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Mr KERR(Denison)(8.00) —The tone of this debate has unfortunately been heated. That is sad because it seems to reflect what commentators are now saying is `confusion, sophistry and snake oil' about the nostrums that have been peddled by the Opposition in the debate. I shall quote from one of the most conservative commentators who write in the national newspapers. Speaking of the Opposition's problem in this debate, Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian said: The problem was revealed by the National Party guru, John Stone, in his recent column in this paper. Stone betrayed the constitutional mania of the Coalition by saying that he had read the proposals, that he didn't usually believe in conspiracy theories, but that there had to be a `hidden agenda' somewhere. The trouble was he couldn't find it. That is the reality. There is no hidden agenda in these propositions. They are simple, straightforward and commonsense. I suppose we need to start by looking at why we have a written constitution at all. Who better to quote in respect of written constitutions and why they are important than the founder of the Liberal Party of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies. He said: A written Constitution is an expressed scheme of government designed to give a basic structure in a changing world; not designed to inhibit growth in a growing world, nor to make the contemporary world subject to the political, social, or economic ideas of a bygone age. Starting on that basis, to give a framework to the way we think and operate within our political structure, the proposals reflect some of the most basic understandings we have about important elements of our democratic life. It is necessary to place those important ingredients into the written Constitution. I am aware that the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, has been quoted in this context. If I might paraphrase his remarks, he said that a written constitution cannot guarantee rights in a society which does not respect those rights. That may be so. Indeed, if we were a banana republic where the troops could move in and bail up the legislature and put it out under a coup, of course no written constitution could prevail. But those are extreme arguments, extreme situations. In the ordinary day to day world we are commonly faced with, we, like Sir Robert Menzies, say that we need a basic framework of laws upon which we can establish our basic conventions that make for our constitutional framework. It is not good enough simply to say that the common law will somehow make good the defects of not having these rights and understandings in the written Constitution. Sir Anthony Mason, the present Chief Justice of the High Court, said: . . . the common law system, supplemented as it presently is by statutes designed to protect particular rights, does not protect fundamental rights as comprehensively as do constitutional guarantees and conventions on human rights . . . The common law is not as invincible a safeguard against violations of fundamental rights as it was once thought to be. The passage from which I have quoted is from Sir Anthony's article `The Role of the Constitutional Court in a Federation' in the Federal Law Review, Volume 16, 1986, at page 12. Given that we want a written constitution to embody some of our fundamental understandings about what makes for a democratic and peaceable civil society, what are the proposals which the Government has put up? Are they extreme? Are they outrageous? Do they conflict with our understandings? Let us go through them. Firstly, we have a provision to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is a provision, I believe, that is supported by a majority of electors sickened by too frequent elections. Secondly, we have a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. It is not an extreme proposal. It is a simple spelling out of the basic democratic understandings we all have. Thirdly, we have a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government, which is hardly a socialist proposal. I will come back to that later. Fourthly, we have a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. These are not proposals which are the stuff of socialist dreams. These are the proposals that ordinary electors in Australia would regard as part of the commonsense ordinary running of government. What then do electors think of these proposals? The electors seem not to share some of the sophistry and snake oil nostrums that have been put up by the Opposition so far. Today in the Australian the referendum questions are said to have won wide approval. The article on the front page of the Australian states: Each of the four questions on constitutional reform to be put to a referendum on September 3 has received at least two-thirds support among Australian voters. . . . . Support was greatest for the change to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia, with 74 per cent approving of the change. . . . . In the Newspoll, each of the four questions received at least two-thirds support, with majority support for each question in every State. That is not surprising because these proposals reflect commonsense. We have seen in the debate today the difficulty the Opposition has had to find arguments that might be mounted against these proposals. That also is not surprising. Some of the proposals are, in fact, Liberal Party policy and were put to the people of Australia not 15 years ago, nor 10 years ago, but 10 months ago. They were offered to the people with promises that these very proposals would be put by way of referendum-Liberal Party initiatives. But, of course, when the proposals come from the Labor Party, suddenly, like Senator Stone, they smell a rat. There is no rat. They cannot locate a rat. But somehow, according to the Liberal Party, these must be suspicious proposals; they must be tainted in some way, because they come from the Labor side. That is very unfortunate because we do not have a good history of passing referendums in Australia. There is a real prospect that some of the beat-ups, some of the distortions, some of the lies that have been peddled about these proposals, might actually affect the way people vote. An opportunity for sensible constitutional reform could be lost. These are not just my views; these are views that have been expressed by some of the most conservative institutions in Australia. I have already referred to the article by Paul Kelly. I shall read again from his article which appeared in the Weekend Australian of 14-15 May. He said: The Hawke Government's referendums are modest, simple and lack ulterior motives. This is no Labor Party political fix. Labor may even lose in the Senate in the short term if the main question is passed. The proposals are a bid to secure moderate constitutional reform around a set of propositions that should have wide support. He went on to say that in the coming months we will see some of the most outrageous arguments possible mounted against the proposals. The editorial of the Australian of today, Tuesday, 17 May, has the heading `Coalition unity put before principle'. I read from that bastion of left wing thinking, the Australian editorial: It seems that the Liberal Party is so terrified of the prospect of upsetting the National Party that it is prepared to oppose the constitutional amendments that would strengthen liberal democracy and safeguard private property. Those are not my views; they are the views of those who make honest, proper judgments about the most callous approach by the Opposition to the truth on these referendum measures. Indeed, it is sad to see the debate degenerating in this way. The tone of the debate seems to be designed to distract people from the merits of these proposals and to turn the argument into one of Labor against Liberal. That should not be the way. We are looking at proposals to reform the Constitution-simple, sensible, ordinary proposals. They are not ones that have been put forward without consultation with a wide range of persons throughout Australia but are ones that have come forward after the most detailed consultations through the public processes and through the Constitutional Commission; they reflect the will of the majority of Australians and reflect their will in a way that unfortunately splits the Liberal Opposition. For example, in the Melbourne Herald of 16 May the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), is quoted as saying that the decision to urge a No vote to the extension of the right to trial by jury and the right to compensation contradicted the Liberals' existing law and order policy. When asked why this had happened the honourable member said, `I am damned if I know'. That is a very apt response because I am damned if I know and I am sure fellow Australians are damned if they know why the Liberals are opposing policies which they put to the Australian people as little as 10 months ago. Let us turn to some of these so-called `dangerous' proposals. Let us look at the local government proposal, which I think reflects how low this debate can go. This proposal was initially put forward not by the Australian Labor Party but by Mr Greg Percival, MLC, a member of the upper House of the New South Wales Parliament-a Liberal. He put it forward on behalf of the Australian Local Government Association. The proposal has the full support of the Australian Local Government Association and the Australian Association of Lord Mayors. In my State of Tasmania Mr Jim Mooney, the Chairman of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, has condemned the Liberals for their shortsighted approach to this very important issue of recognition of local government. Who is Mr Jim Mooney? He is a former Liberal member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly for the seat of Bass. I had the pleasure just three days ago of attending a meeting chaired by Lord Mayor Doone Kennedy of the City of Hobart. She said plainly that these proposals reflect a degree of cynicism and distrust of the ordinary people. She said that the proposal on constitutional recognition of local government ought to be passed. These are proposals that command the widest support throughout local government. It is not surprising that in this debate my Federal colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is not listed on the speakers list. He is a former warden of the Clarence municipality. Senator Paul Calvert also is a former warden of that municipality. I would be very surprised to find them in support of proposals that failed to recognise the important role of local government in our community. Indeed, I call on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to do the right thing. He has recognised that the Liberal Party in Queensland cannot bring itself to advocate a No vote for fair elections because in Queensland there is a rampant gerrymander, an unfair system of elections which the Liberals themselves are the victims of. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to exercise the same degree of democratic openness, to allow Tasmanian members of his Party to campaign for recognition of local government, to allow those who hold to the Liberal Party but who do not want to be stifled by this `confusion, sophistry and snake oil' that have been put about to campaign for what I am sure they believe in in their hearts: the right of the Constitution to recognise the important role of local government. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to release his Tasmanian members. It is one of the proud boasts of the Liberal Party that its members have a conscience vote. On this issue we have already seen the leadership of the Liberal Party rolled. The Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) have advocated Yes votes in the confines of their party room. They have not succeeded. But let us at least allow back bench Tasmanian members to go out and campaign for the recognition of local government, a proposal which is not politically controversial. I believe any fair and reasonable minded person would strongly support it. Finally, I turn to the one vote one value proposition. I am sure that will be distorted greatly. Electors in the south-eastern zone of Queensland-- Mr Snowdon —In the coalition it is one vote for the Liberal Party and four votes for the National Party. Mr KERR —I take the point. It certainly is a very distorted system. There are 19,357 electors in the south-eastern zone divisions. For a seat in the northern or western divisions the number is 9,386. Why does a voter in one division have a vote of far greater value than that of an elector in another division? In the Tasmanian Legislative Council there are also distortions. I suppose the greatest losers in this situation are the voters in the seat of Pembroke, which comes within the Federal division of Franklin. Again, this is another reason why the honourable member for Franklin is not engaged in this debate. There are 18,868 electors in Pembroke but in the seat of Hobart, which is within my electorate, there are 15,118 and in the seat of Queenborough, which also is within my electorate, there are 13,371 voters. There is a difference of 3,000 and 5,000 voters respectively. The value of the vote of a person in Pembroke is 25 per cent less. In the north of the State, in the seat of Tamar, there are 11,951 voters and in South Esk there are 12,641. That means a voter in Pembroke has a vote worth 50 per cent less than the value of the vote of someone in those northern seats. Why should these citizens in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Franklin who vote in Legislative Council seats in Pembroke be treated as lesser citizens than those who live in Hobart, Queenborough or, in the north of the State, in Tamar or South Esk? How can the honourable member for Franklin represent his people fairly without standing up for these people? Honest and concerned electors would say that this is not a fair situation. It is important that there are regular redistributions and fair electoral boundaries to make sure that Federal or State seats contain a similar number of electors. I remember that when I was a young man I made a contribution in a school competition by reciting a poem about the founder of the Australian Constitution, old Henry Parkes, riding in his carriage. But we do not live in a carriage age any more. Why should not our citizens in the States, for example, have the same rights to fair compensation if their property is acquired as they do if the Commonwealth acquires their property? Why should we not have equal rights to a fair vote? Why should not our politicians have the opportunity of serving a four-year term rather than the rapidity of elections that we have now? I urge all members of this House to adopt, as commonsense, the four sensible proposals that have been put forward. They are not political. They are straightforward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(8.20) —If ever four referendum proposals should be rejected by a vote of the Australian people it is these proposals. They strip the power of the Senate and emasculate its function. They violate States rights. They bring in a Bill of Rights to this country by the back door. The wording of the questions is fraudulent. It is different from the wording in the Bills, which is quite deceptive. We on this side of the House will be recommending a No vote to all four propositions. The poll that came out this morning showed that two-thirds of the people surveyed were in favour of the referendum proposals. That augurs well for us. I cast my mind back to the ID card proposition. Originally about 80 per cent of people were in favour of the ID card. As the weeks and months rolled by, people came steadily over to our side as they realised what was behind the proposition. We will see that happen again. Virtually all the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission are in line with the constitutional reform objectives of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) adopted at its last conference in Hobart in June 1986. The Constitutional Commission was established in December 1985. If one looks through its list of members one soon sees that it is stacked with ALP sympathisers, people such as Whitlam, Dunstan, Donald Horne, Jack Ferguson-for heaven's sake-Wheeldon, Beazley, Sir John Moore from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Rex Patterson, Peter Garrett and various other trendies, academics and trade union officials. There are a couple of token members from our side of the House but no National Party member, of course. One would not expect that. I was interested to read the comments of the Chairman, Sir Maurice Byers, on the front page of the Melbourne Herald yesterday. The article states: The chairman of the Constitutional Commission, Sir Maurice Byers, accused the Opposition of political motives in their decision to oppose all four referendums. `Their response to all questions is unfortunate. I'm suggesting the opposition to these proposals is prompted by some other motive' Sir Maurice said. Perhaps Sir Maurice Byers ought to spell his surname `Bias'. It is totally inappropriate for the Chairman of the Commission to be using this intemperate language. I turn to question No. 1, which proposes four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate. We welcome four-year terms for the House of Representatives, but certainly not this proposal. The Constitutional Commission recommended that the terms of senators be twice as long as those of members of the House of Representatives. That recommendation was ignored. It also recommended that the term of the House of Representatives be extended to four years with a minimum term of three years. That proposition was ignored. The Government is proposing that senators' terms be reduced from six years to four years and that the term of the House of Representatives be increased from three years to four years, but with no minimum requirement. All senators will go to election every time the House of Representatives goes to election. In other words, the fixed term for the Senate will be totally abolished. To me, that emasculates the Senate's role as an independent House of review. The rotational system, which has served us well since Federation, is now to be smashed down by this Government, which means that every election from now on will, in effect, be a double dissolution. We may as well do away with the Senate altogether if that is to be the case and extend the House of Representatives. I believe that the Senate has a vital role to play in this country. It has done some great things over the last year or two in stopping the Bill of Rights and the ID card. It is much needed as a watchdog for the people of Australia. This Government constantly talks of the will of the people. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) forgets that the people elected half the senators only in July last year for six-year terms. The Government is now asking the people to vote to reverse their decision, without the Government having to call a double dissolution. Question No. 2 proposes fair and democratic elections. At face value everybody in Australia would approve of fair and democratic elections. It is only when one looks at what is intended in the Bill that one sees how fraudulent is the wording. The ALP has stooped to using a dishonest device to implement a change in our Constitution to transfer more power to the Commonwealth in respect of State elections. As well as that, it is going to lay down terms and conditions for the States which it is not prepared to apply to its own Commonwealth elections. Mr Braithwaite —Absolute hypocrisy. Mr COBB —Indeed. It is hypocrisy. Apparently, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. These matters are properly matters for the States. But if the people vote this proposal in it will change how the State elections are held, particularly with regard to the upper Houses. In the Labor State of Western Australia the ratio is 11 : 1 in the upper House and 8 : 1 in the lower House. The Federal Government should get its own act together first. The Federal Government will not apply to itself the principle which it trumpets so loudly for the States because it knows the principle to be an absolute nonsense. If it applied this principle to its own upper House, the Senate, Tasmania would be reduced to having one or two senators and would even lose a member in the House of Representatives. In fact, every State would lose senators, with the exception of New South Wales. Mr Braithwaite —Do as I say, not do as I do. Mr COBB —Indeed. That sums it up exactly. The proposal will not stop gerrymandering or the rigging of electoral boundaries which the Labor Party has developed to an art form. I remind Government members that the Opposition in Queensland can attain government if it wins 51.4 per cent of the vote. That is not perfect. At the last State election in New South Wales we needed 52 per cent of the vote to get there. At the next Federal election we will need 52.3 per cent of the vote to get there. I am told that in South Australia we will need close to 54 per cent of the vote to attain the Treasury benches. If the Government is trying to stop cheating it should get its own house in order first before it starts imposing these things on the people of Australia. Question No. 3 proposes local government recognition in the Constitution. There are about 836 local government bodies in Australia which elect in excess of 8,000 members and employ some 170,000 people. The Government applies its own selective principle. It wants to apply to local government in the States what it will not apply to itself where it has jurisdiction, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. It is instructing the States to write this recognition into their constitutions which is a clear infringement of States rights. I remind Government members that four out of the six States already have local government recognition in their constitutions, anyhow. What this proposal is all about is whether the Commonwealth Government is going to be given power to force Tasmania and Queensland to write this into their constitutions. What Tasmania and Queensland do in this regard is their own business. If they do not want to do it yet, that is up to them. The Federal Government will not do it in the areas over which it has jurisdiction. What right do I have as a New South Welshman to vote on a referendum proposal that is not going to affect the people of New South Wales at all because it is already in our Constitution? What I will be voting for is whether I should have the right to force Tasmania to do it. That is totally wrong. The Government applies double standards. The ratepayers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, who already have this principle in their constitutions, have no greater or lesser rights-nor do the councils have any greater or lesser rights-than the people in Tasmania or Queensland because it does not mean a thing. New South Wales wrote it into its Constitution in 1986, Victoria in 1979, South Australia in 1980 and Western Australia in 1979. Local government councils really want adequate and secure funding, which they will not get under this Government. They also want protection against unfair dismissal and some sort of protection against amalgamation or regionalism, which this Government has tried to impose on them. All of these principles have been violated in recent years under a Labor government. None of these concerns are addressed by the referendum proposals to be put to the Australian people. I remind people of the record of the coalition Government. That Government introduced personal income tax sharing. This Government has changed those arrangements and has introduced another less favourable formula. It was the previous Government, under the ministry of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), which introduced the 2c a litre bicentennial road funding policy. This Government has tinkered with that scheme. We also introduced a forum so that local government could have a say. We did positive, meaningful things. We did not indulge in the sort of tokenism evidenced by this referendum proposal. Tasmania and Queensland do not want this referendum proposal. The Australian Labor Party has a long-standing aim of centralising power in Canberra and administering that power through regional councils. When Tasmania put forward its proposal to the trade and national economic management committee of the Constitutional Commission it said that it did not want the proposal because it was a State matter. Queensland also said that it did not want it, for a similar reason. It said that the Federal Constitution was supposed to be concerned with Federal matters and that what was not listed in that Constitution should be left to the States. It said that the proposal would also encourage the Commonwealth to bypass the States and deal directly, and that that would weaken the States. It was concerned about High Court interpretations which might be contrary to the original intentions. It also pointed out that local authorities already have a very strong statutory basis, that their existence is not under threat and that, therefore, it is difficult to justify an alteration to the Constitution which is only symbolic. Local governments are created by the State parliaments and, therefore, recognition of them should come from the State parliaments. Local governments derive their existence, powers and responsibilities from State governments and they are, legally and in practice, a subordinate form of government. We on this side of the House support recognition where it properly belongs, namely, in the State Constitutions, if the States want to put it in their Constitutions. It should not in any sense be forced on them. This local government proposal opens up a minefield of challenges in the High Court of Australia. We have already seen that, in the United States of America, as soon as these types of things are written down there are challenges. The courts in the United States are clogged with these sorts of challenges. This factor is totally unknown to us in Australia. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations has already flagged its intentions by saying that it does not see this recognition as symbolic and will try to expand it. It said that recognition will not be a purely symbolic gesture. It pointed out that, as Australia has supported the international declaration of local self-government in the United Nations, we should follow that up with constitutional recognition here. That opens up another minefield when we remember what happened with the external affairs power in the Franklin Dam case. There was a 3 : 2 High Court decision to give the Commonwealth power, via the external affairs powers, over States rights. States rights were smashed when that decision was brought down in this country by unelected High Court judges. More recently they have changed the clear meaning of section 92 of the Constitution. When people voice concern in this area it should be taken notice of. I would like to see the Attorney-General spell out clearly what happens to areas in Australia where there is no local government. Areas in my electorate of Parkes that lie west of Wanaaring have no local government at all. The people do not pay rates; they make their own roads and get about their business without a local government authority. If the States are forced to write this into the Constitution, could it be interpreted that they will be forced to create local governments in areas where they do not have them now? There is also a worry concerning what powers will be extended to Aboriginal local councils. There is some talk that when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill is brought down later this year another 52 Aboriginal local councils will be set up. It is not spelt out in the Bill what this will mean for them. It is a totally unknown area of which we should be mindful. It is informative to look at the evidence given to the distribution of powers committee of the Constitutional Commission. It received many submissions. One was from the Local Government Association of New South Wales, which wanted a separate chapter on local government in the Federal Constitution to provide for its existence-which this referendum is providing-as well as the exercise of certain powers, protection from unjust dismissal and a redistribution of powers between the three levels of government. None of those things has been granted. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations also endorsed a more expansive approach. I was pleased to see that the Country Women's Association of Australia and the Environment Law Commission opposed recognition because they believed it would lessen the power of State governments. The distribution of powers committee actually brought down a recommendation that there should not be any recognition because it was concerned about how the High Court would interpret this being written into the Constitution. It felt that the support for this referendum virtually came only from local government people and from no-one else. It also felt that the State should initiate it and that there was no threat to local government whatsoever. It also raised the point that there are in Australia some areas that do not have local government. It was also worried that the appointment of administrators could be made more difficult if this recognition was written into the Constitution. We on this side of the House are worried that, if this proposal is passed, local government could end up with more functions but without the necessary financial support to implement them. Lastly, I wish to deal with the fourth proposal, which is nothing more than a mini-Bill of Rights. We have been through this argument over the last couple of years. The Government is now trying to introduce by the back door what was clearly thrown out by the people of Australia. We already have the right to trial by jury and the right to practise religion. The right to just compensation is to some extent protected by common law. Mr Snowdon —What about justice? Mr COBB —If the honourable member wants to talk about just compensation, perhaps he ought to give a copy of this Bill to the ex-Federal President of the Labor Party, who ripped coal rights off the people of New South Wales. They had to throw out that Government in the end so that people could get compensation. Just because governments include these things in constitutions does not necessarily mean that they will be carried out. One has only to go to Russia to see that it has some very fine sounding things in its Constitution, but that the rights of the people in that country are trodden on by the Government. We should also remember that, once these things are written down, they are actually limited. It is best if they are protected by common law and not written down. As I said, if they are written down, they will not necessarily be observed. It is instructive to look at what is left out. For example, there is in this Bill no provision for freedom of association. No doubt the Government is worried that compulsory unionism, which this Government supports and which we oppose, would go by the board if the freedom of association provision was included. Let me briefly look at trial by jury. As the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) pointed out, this would allow the States to specify the number of jurors and to allow majority verdicts. This could mean very small juries, which may not be consistent with the concept of trial by jury. As to the proposal for just terms, there is no mention of appeal processes, which are very necessary. The freedom of religion proposal may actually validate extreme religious action in this country and could even be interpreted to restrict prayers in schools and prayers on public occasions, as has happened in the United States of America. In conclusion, the National and Liberal parties believe these referendum proposals are totally unnecessary. The cost of the Constitutional Commission and of holding these referendums is going to be $40m, which this country cannot afford. We believe that the Australian people should reject them. I urge everybody to vote no to all four proposals when they are eventually put to the Australian people later this year. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(8.40) —While I have been sitting here I have been listening to the Opposition's ramblings in this debate, particularly the ramblings of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who I notice is not in the House. I have listened to the shadow Attorney-General on a number of occasions, and on some occasions I must admit that he makes some sense. But what he said here today was only nonsense. What he has said-and this stance has been taken by at least some of the Liberal Party members and certainly by all of the National Party members-has been laughable. I think their stance will be shown as being completely laughable when these referendums finally come before the people in September. The Australian editorial today said it all. I will not quote it, but it virtually says that the Liberal Party of Australia is split on this and it asks what is wrong with the actual questions we are putting to the public. We do understand that the National Party of Australia has nowhere to go. It is against the referendums because it wants to be sure that it keeps the gerrymander going in places like Queensland; so I can forgive the National Party for taking this stance, because it has a motive. But I cannot understand the Liberal Party's attitude. Why? Because it seems obvious that it is only doing what the National Party wants it to do. It is as obvious as that. The de facto leader of the National Party, Senator John Stone, is the guru from Queensland. The Queenslanders want to keep the Queensland gerrymander and therefore they say no to all the Bills. It is as simple as that. The Liberals, as I said, are simply kowtowing to the National Party, and their position on this matter is nothing short of a joke. They have sold out their colleagues in Queensland completely. We have the ridiculous situation where the President of the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), will be campaigning in Queensland for a Yes vote on the one vote one value question; yet he is a member of the Liberal Party, which has decided it will not support it and will be advocating a No vote. What sort of position does that put the honourable member for Ryan in? Are the Federal Liberals suggesting that Angus Innes, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, is some sort of fool? They just do not understand that this fellow, along with the Liberals in Queensland, has had to put up with the Queensland gerrymander for 30 years. Because the Federal Liberals want to kowtow to the National Party of course they are going to go along with it and advocate, for tactical reasons, a no vote on all the questions. Even the shadow Cabinet agreed with at least some of the proposals. That is public knowledge. But it got rolled by the Opposition back bench. The shadow Attorney-General is forced to oppose what I suspect he probably agrees with. We had only to see him here today to see that. He reminded me of defence lawyers who sometimes have to defend guilty clients whom they suspect are guilty. We can see from the way such lawyers speak that they are trying to grasp at every little technicality they can. They have not got the heart to fight it, because they know and they really want to lose. That is exactly how the shadow Attorney-General was today. It was absolutely pitiful to listen to. The honourable member for Flinders said only today that the Government had directed the Constitutional Commission and the Commission had in fact done what the Government had said. He put out a Press release on 4 May, only a day before the Constitutional Commission put out its report, and he said: It is clear the Commission would drop its proposal for a fixed term which it announced in October, 1987. The Commission had proposed that the House of Representatives have a minimum life of 3 years and a maximum life of 4 years. The Government has indicated that one of the referendum Bills to be introduced next week would provide for maximum 4-year terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Mr Reith said he expected that tomorrow's report would indicate that the Commission had conveniently fallen into line with the Government. Mr Reith said that this would be yet another confirmation that the supposedly independent Constitutional Commission is in fact working hand in hand with the Government in an attempt to ensure that Labor's agenda for constitutional reform is achieved. That is an insult to the members of the Constitutional Commission and it is absolute nonsense, as Mr Reith's Press release indicates, because the very next day the report showed that there had in fact been no change in the Commission's recommendations. He put out a Press release the day before and that turned out to be wrong. His credibility in this debate is very tarnished. Mr Lavarch —Zero. Mr SCIACCA —It is absolutely zero, as the honourable member for Fisher says. What would we expect the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) to say? He has got to support his National Party colleagues. In fact I notice that for once he had all his National Party colleagues, particularly those from Queensland, listening to him. Of course they were, because they are trying to preserve that rotten gerrymander in Queensland. The Opposition is in complete disarray with respect to its position on this proposal. Only tonight, while I was having dinner, Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, sympathised quite strongly with his Queensland colleagues. In fact he almost went so far as to say that he really supported what they were saying. We then had the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) saying, `My position is what the shadow Cabinet said'. Of course the shadow Cabinet wanted to split two Yes, two No, so of course he has covered himself. I think he is going to help us. I notice the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the chamber. I think we have a lot of Liberals on our side on this issue and I think these referendum proposals have the best opportunity of being passed by the Australian public of any of the referendums that have been put over many years. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) also came out publicly with the statement that he was considering crossing the floor to vote with the Australian Labor Party. At least it is good to see that there are some men of principle in the Opposition, because this is only about political opportunism. It is a question of tactics. I will talk about constitutional recognition and local government later but, as I say, it is great to see that at least there are some people of principle. I suspect that as we go on we will not have the experience that we had in the identity card debate, like the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said, where the Opposition ended up getting all its members back. I think more and more Liberals will defect and eventually the clone of Senator John Stone in this House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), will have to turn his thoughts around and think about it again. These Bills represent a genuine attempt by the Government and by the Attorney-General to update the Constitution, which is now almost a century old. None of the proposals benefits any particular political party. This is not about States rights or getting rid of the Senate. Those are simply furphies which the Opposition is putting up because it knows it is so divided that it has to grasp at any straw it can find. Any suggestion that this will in any way advantage the Labor Party throughout this country is pure and unmitigated rubbish. The hypocrisy of the Opposition in this matter is frankly beyond belief. Let us look at the proposals. The four Bills address certain fundamental democratic rights. The first relates to the four-year terms. It relates to people's rights to a more effective registration of the mandate they give at elections through greater stability and responsibility of both Houses of parliament. What is sinister about that? The other one talks about free elections, about one vote one value. What is sinister about that? Where is the hidden agenda there? The next talks about recognition of local government. Again, what is wrong with that? There is talk about the fact that there is no necessity for it. If there is no necessity for it and if we want to make it a little clearer by putting it in the Constitution, what is wrong with that? It just shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Opposition's stance on this matter. Then to talk about trial by jury, and to say that people should vote No to that and No to fair compensation for land acquisition, is absolutely absurd. I ask those people listening to this debate, who will subsequently read about this in the paper, to take note of that. The fact is that those arguments are absolute rubbish. There is no good reason to say No to these referendums-none whatsoever. The two proposals I particularly want to speak about tonight are the questions of fair elections and the recognition of local government. A headline in the Age newspaper of December 1987 sums up the situation of unfair boundaries in Australia by saying: Western Australia has the worst gerrymander . . . but Sir Joh can claim that he has the best. That is in fact the position. Sir Joh is no longer there, and it will not be long before the other fellow that took over from him will not be there either, because I am sure the people are going to vote yes to these proposals. That will give us the mechanism to ensure that that gerrymander is gone once and for all. Queensland's hopelessly rigged electoral system is notorious. At every election six out of 10 Queenslanders effectively vote to end the gerrymander but the value of their vote is diminished by the very system they are protesting against. I shall give some facts on Queensland's gerrymander. As at December 1987 the seat of Logan had 25,398 voters, the highest number, and the seat of Roma had 8,256, the lowest number. The ratio is 3 : 08. In my electorate, the seat of Manly, which is the second largest, has approximately 24,000 electors. That is, the people of Roma have their voices heard three times as loudly as those of the people of Logan on the southern outskirts of Brisbane-a seat that is represented by the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Wayne Goss. Of course, they have three times the voting voice of the people in the State seat of Manly. To illustrate its effectiveness, four of the six largest electorates in the State are Labor held. The five smallest electorates are all National Party seats. Yet the National Party tells us in this House that there is nothing wrong with the boundaries in Queensland. The National Party won 55 per cent of the seats while polling only 39.6 per cent of the vote in the 1986 elections. The Australian Labor Party won 30 seats with 41.3 per cent of the vote. It would have needed 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win government. Although it is true that the Australian Labor Party while in office many years ago-approximately 30 years ago-introduced a zonal system, in fairness I point out that at that time zonal systems existed in most other States. That is no excuse but, if there is such a thing as perfecting a gerrymander, it has been done by the Queensland National Party and that has kept it in office for almost 30 years. It is all right to have excuses. The Nationals advance two main excuses for the gerrymander: the first is that it is a legacy of the Labor days; and the second is that the system reflects the principle that the country requires better representation. The fact is that people do not get fairer representation from having members sitting in the Parliament in George Street in Brisbane. We could say that the Labor Party voters in the industrial areas need to have three times as many votes as the people in country areas because of the particular concerns they may have. When our founding fathers drew up the Constitution almost a century ago there were no planes, no fast means of transport. The Constitution was written for the needs of those days and not today. Now one can travel to Brisbane in one hour whereas when the Constitution was drafted it took approximately six days by horse and cart. The Constitution needs to be changed and these moderate proposals are a way of doing it. I want to give one other stark example. If the problems of distance are really the reason for the zonal system, why is the town of Mount Isa in the provincial city zone, which gives it reduced influence, when it is larger than many rural zone electorates and further from Brisbane? Another example is that of the town of Warwick, which is within two hours drive of Brisbane and has an enrolment of approximately 12,000. Townsville, which is as far from Brisbane as Melbourne is, has an enrolment of 21,000. This problem could be solved easily by a number of physical measures such as increased office facilities and that sort of thing. One aspect that really concerns me is the refusal of the National Party particularly, which has spoken most strongly on this matter, to recognise local government. In my electorate of Bowman the Redlands Shire Council has been lobbying me since I became a member of this Parliament. The Council has said, `Mr Sciacca, you have to support us in the constitutional recognition of local government'. In case my friends in the National Party say, `Big deal', I inform them that the Council is held by conservatives. I am sorry to say that at the recent local government elections the Labor Party ran a team but not one of the 12 was elected. There is no question that the Council members are Labor Party inclined; they are conservatives. I should like the Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Parkes and other members of the National Party who will speak on the Bill, to go to Queensland and Tasmania. If they visit the local shires they will be eaten for breakfast. There is almost no opposition to the constitutional recognition of local government certainly throughout Queensland and probably throughout the whole country. The Liberal Party has buckled under to the National Party in this case. Senator John Stone is now calling the shots so far as the Opposition is concerned, whether it be on the question of immigration, a consumption tax, or these referendums. Senator John Stone is getting his way. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Mr Peter Fisher —Don't you worry about that. Mr SCIACCA —The honourable member should not worry about that either because the members of the National Party are not doing too badly. The Leader of the Opposition is doing exactly what John Stone is telling him. I should not like to be in the shoes of the present Leader of the National Party because things are not going well for him. Even the Liberal Mayor of the City of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, has said that she strongly supports the question on the recognition of local government. I have many quotes but I do not have time to read them now. However, the international conventions on political rights all say that we should have one vote one value. There is no question that that principle should be implemented in this country and put into the Constitution. That way we could get rid of the gerrymander in Queensland once and for all. It could right the wrongs. We all know there is a problem in Western Australia. That has not stopped the Government from introducing this Bill. It will advantage other parties as much as it will advantage the Labor Party. It will advantage everyone. It is fair. In conclusion, I point out that the Newspoll is already saying that approximately two-thirds of the population will vote Yes on these proposals. The Government will have support from the Liberal Party and from much of the National Party and conservatively controlled councils. We will win this fight, irrespective of whether the National Party and some of those that are left who still want to support the No vote continue with their campaign. I ask people to be rational about this question and not to be scared by the States rights argument or by the curtailment of Senate rights. I ask them to listen to the arguments quietly and patiently because they are voting for the right thing. I advocate a Yes vote. I congratulate the Attorney-General for introducing these moderate proposals. They deserve to be supported. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.57) —I was interested in the final comments of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) about being thoughtful, rational and mild mannered about a debate that will last for the next three months. I want to tell the Australian people that even if every electorate has exactly the same number of electors, a party can win government with 26 per cent of the vote. That is mathematically possible. Let us have a rational, sane and sensible debate about this. What is being proposed will certainly not stop any gerrymander. It will not stop gerrymanders in Australia because we can have equal electorates and with 26 per cent of the Australian vote a party can win more than 50 per cent of the electorates. Honourable members can check that out at home and do their mathematics, but let us debate this question rationally. The legislation is not to do with stopping gerrymanders because it will certainly not do that. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill are not about improving civil liberties, they are not about updating the Constitution, and they are not about providing more effective government. The purpose of the Bills is to divert and distract people's attention away from the woes of the Government. That is what they are all about. Government members-Oh! Mr MILES —It is interesting that we get such a reaction when the truth is told. We get the reaction then because it hurts. The Australian Labor Party is not so deeply concerned about the Constitution that it would run the risk of another electoral defeat. Have honourable members ever gone back through history and found any government that was down in the polls suggesting that it should go to the people with a referendum? Never. It is absolutely ridiculous. Rather, the legislation shows all the hallmarks of being the brainchild of a government desperate to maintain power. This is a government with a Treasurer who has ripped off the taxpayer by an abuse of his travel allowance and who does not put his tax return in on time. That is the sort of government Australia has. It is a government with a Prime Minister who consistently fails to match his rhetoric with action; a government with Ministers who leave a trail of disasters as long as a mile in meeting the basic needs of the Australian people. Some 100,000 people are waiting in health queues around Australia. In the housing area, I am often amused by the Minister for House and Aged Care (Mr Staples) parading around the Parliament saying that the Government has spent on housing double the amount of money that the previous Government did. It certainly has, but the queues are now 50 per cent longer than they were in 1983. Government members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Government members should cease interjecting, and I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Braddon that the Chair requires some relevance. I have allowed the honourable member quite a lot of leeway, but I ask him to get to the point at hand. Mr MILES —I am showing to the people of Australia the fact that this Government wants to divert their attention away from the real issues that should be addressed and that we should debate in this Parliament, issues such as homelessness, people who are sleeping in refuges and who need homes and the 700,000 people who have been forced into poverty. Parliament should be debating those issues rather than the issues that are before the House tonight, which have nothing to do with civil liberties, updating the Constitution or providing better government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Braddon may certainly draw a comparison, but he must not go into a debate on such issues because the House is debating the Constitution alteration Bills. Mr MILES —I appreciate that. The Government knows it has its back to the wall. Look at the strategy the Government has adopted to get out of this situation. Firstly, it has said to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he must get out and meet the masses. Secondly, it has passed its financial responsibility for its problems on to the State Premiers, and that was done last week. Thirdly, it has said that it must get the Press right. The Government has pressurised journalists, requiring that they be members of a union to report the Australian Labor Party Conference. Fourthly, it has developed legislation that will create a diversion, and that is what honourable members are debating-legislation that is a diversion from the real issues currently facing the Australian people. That is why the legislation is before the House. It is pure, unadulterated political manipulation with members of the Government saying, `Create a diversion; let's get the heat off the Government's record of burgeoning overseas debt, increasing poverty and high taxation'. What is the purpose of spending $6m on a commission whose report is basically obsolete and $34m on taking the people to a referendum based on political self-interest? That is what we are debating tonight-self-interest. The four Constitution alteration Bills are characterised by a reduction in the power of the Senate, centralisation of power in Canberra and strengthening constitutional law in contrast to common law. When the States were federated, a compact was established that the Senate would be a House of review established to protect the interests of the States and to ensure a continuity of experience. The first Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, establishes that a parliament could run for four years instead of three years-and I emphasise the word `could'-and that the term of the Senate should be reduced to four years. It does not mean that Parliament will run for four years; it does not guarantee four years in which governments can concentrate on running the nation without an eye to the next election. If the Government were serious about four-year parliaments, it would provide for a four-year fixed term. Instead of showing any conviction about four-year terms for the House of Representatives, the Government has shown its true colours by continuing its undermining of the powers of the Senate. Ever since 1975-and we have heard it again tonight-the Labor Party has steadfastly refused to accept the umpire's decision. It has maintained the rage. It is dedicated to breaking the power of the Senate because of revenge. The honourable member for Bowman mentioned that there are many furphies about the effect of the Senate. If the Australian people want to see the hidden agenda I implore them to get a copy of the Australian Labor Party platform, resolutions and rules, turn to page 36 and look under the heading `Constitutional Reform'. It is all about doing away with the powers of the Senate and, ultimately, doing away with the Senate. That is the agenda. The Labor Party's prime concern is not about updating the Constitution; it is not about having moderate government at all. If it were, the Government would hold a referendum for four-year fixed periods with maintenance of the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Where previously power had effective checks and balances by being distributed between the people's House, the States House, and the courts, if this referendum is passed, the role of the Senate will be significantly reduced. The goal of the Labor Party is to use the ancient dripping on a stone principle and gradually move towards the abolition of the Senate. The second referendum, if passed, would set the scene for the final phase of the strategy to be rid of the Senate. The Senate would then be the only House of parliament in Australia not elected on electorates of equal numbers. There are 13 major Houses of parliament in Australia and, if this proposal were passed, the Senate would be the only House of the 13 that would not be elected on electorates of basically equal numbers. It would then be only a matter of time before the people within the Labor Party put the argument that all Houses of parliament in Australia should be elected on the same basis. The days of the Senate as protector of States' interests would be numbered. Under those circumstances, the smaller States would be overwhelmed, outnumbered and ignored. I say to the people of Tasmania that, ultimately, 10 or 15 years down the track, the purpose behind this proposal is to give Tasmania two senators, South Australia six senators and Western Australia six senators. Mr Downer —At least we will get more than Tasmania. Mr MILES —The honourable member who mentioned that is from South Australia. The Newspoll in today's Australian fascinates me. I have been through the debate on the Australia Card and the debate on the Bill of Rights. Each time just after the proposals were put out, what did we find in the papers? It was only last night when I was preparing this speech that I wondered when we would see the first poll put out basically on behalf of the Government to try to mould the Australian people. A poll is out today indicating that the overwhelming majority of Australians at this stage are in favour of the proposals, even before they have heard the debates. When one looks at the way the questions have been put to the Australian people, of course they would favour them. However, honourable members should wait until the work has been done and the conservative people, the Liberal and National parties and their supporters around Australia, get to work and make sure the people understand what is involved. I assure the Labor Party that it will not win four States in Australia on these proposals. Setting the scene for a bitter and divisive debate between the small and large States is not what we should be doing in our bicentennial year, but that is what we are doing in this debate. It is not a legacy we should leave for our children. Not only is this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, indicative of the craftiness and social engineering techniques of the Labor Party but also it illustrates the Labor Party's double standards. The second referendum is directed only towards obtaining equal electorates in the States and not the Commonwealth. Why does the Government not apply the same rules to the Commonwealth as it does to the States? There is no answer. There is dead silence. There are no interjections. Why not? It is because Government members know they cannot take the risk. If the Prime Minister really believed in equal sized electorates as a fundamental principle of democracy he would apply it to the Senate at the same time. He is trying to override the States. Surely the electoral boundaries of a State are a matter for the people of that State. They are not a matter for the Commonwealth. How many constituents-certainly none in my State-have been complaining about the upper House? In Tasmania there is not a peep out of anybody about it. Only next week candidates in the smallest upper House electorate will be going to the people, that is, the people on the west coast of Tasmania, of whom there are about 6,000 in that electorate. I can tell the people on the west coast that if this referendum goes through they will not get an upper House representative for the west coast. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) did not want to tell them that. Nobody is clamouring for a reorganisation of boundaries in the upper House electorates of Tasmania. In September, Australians will not be making a decision primarily about the size of electorates. They will be making their voices heard on whether they want to give more power to Canberra or whether they would prefer government to remain close to the people in the States. A Yes vote is a vote for centralism. A No vote is a vote for strong States within the Federation. We must make a decision as a nation. Do we believe that we are a Federation or not? If we do, we will vote No against these proposals. Contrary to the rhetoric that this referendum proposal would stop the gerrymander, it would do no such thing. Why is it that at the 1987 Federal election the Government gained 58 per cent of the seats but only 45.8 per cent of the votes? No explanation is forthcoming from the Government. Not only that, the Government gained fewer votes than the National Party and the Liberal Party, yet it still won government; and yet Government members come in here complaining to us tonight about gerrymanders. It is absolutely ludicrous. We have the constant barrage of nonsense that this Bill would stop the gerrymanders. As I said earlier, the Government's first goal is to put in place an electoral structure that leaves the Senate as an oddball. That is what these proposals are all about. This Bill will not stop the gerrymander; it is not designed to, and it certainly will not do so. The third Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill, is typical of legislation brought forward by this Government. It wants the High Court of Australia to have more constitutional grounds to make rules on which it can continue to make judgments that weaken the power of State governments. That is what has been going on for years and years now: judgments being made by the High Court to weaken the power of State governments. It wants people to be more under the thumb of governments. Recognition of local government will ultimately mean higher taxes. That is the basic story that we will be telling the electorate: it will ultimately mean higher taxes, and a playing off of State government against local government. Not only will there be a Premiers Conference, but also there will be a lord mayors conference, followed by a mayors conference, followed by a shire presidents and wardens conference, each haggling for its share of the tax. There will be more government, more tax. I thought we had gone past that stage in Australia and that people had turned the corner and wanted less tax and less government. Instead of streamlining government, if passed, this referendum will create a financial, administrative nightmare. At present, the Commonwealth deals with State governments and State governments control local governments. That is how it should be and that is how it should remain. Why place in the Constitution the recognition of a third tier of government, the implications of which will be left to the High Court to determine? What will be the unintended consequences of this Bill? Will they be less government and lower taxes? Certainly not. Each time new government bodies are established or added recognition is given to government, there are bureaucrats who will find increased responsibilities that ultimately require more money. The people of Australia want smaller government and lower taxes. They will vote No to this third proposal. Finally, I turn to the last Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. As one of the people who campaigned vigorously against the Bill of Rights, I shall do the same on this proposal. I shall campaign vigorously against it, because the freedoms of the Australian people in regard to religion, their concept of having a right to a fair trial and the right to fair terms of compensation will not be protected by words in the Constitution or by governments. We have moved past that as a society. The reason why we have rights and freedoms in Australia is that the people in Australia are brought up on them. They believe them, they are part of their conscience, and we do not want governments parading around with nice sounding words, saying they will protect the freedoms and rights of Australian people. They certainly will not. Governments have never done that throughout the world and they will never do it in the future. In Australia people know what their rights are. The proposed legislation is redundant. There is no need for it, and I am sure the Australian people will vote against it. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.16) —There is a story going around the Parliament that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has offered a prize for the most original, most outlandish and most way-out reason for opposing the referendum. I suggest that he ought to read the record of the speech just delivered by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) because certainly he would be on the top rung when it comes to the prize. I suggest that if he ever leaves this place, which may be after the next election, he ought to give some thought to fairytales. However, while he is here, he ought to take upon himself a responsibility at least to read the legislation that is before this assembly. All those people who have listened to this debate have heard the honourable member for Braddon say that if this goes through, the people in some western corner of Tasmania will lose their representation. For a long time I have believed that the Constitution ought to be taught in secondary schools. It ought to be a compulsory part of a citizenship course. I now certainly believe that it ought to be taught to the Liberal Party and National Party members; they ought to start an in-parliament school immediately. The honourable member for Braddon said that we can, suddenly, somehow change the representation of Tasmania. Section 128 of the Constitution prevents that, unless the State agrees. Unless the State is willing to have such a change, it cannot be done. Therefore, it is blatant nonsense for the honourable member for Braddon to come forward and say that. To all those people listening to the debate, he then said that the proposed legislation does not affect the Commonwealth. I am amazed that the honourable member for Braddon would come in here and stand up and say that, yet the very first question on that part of fair elections says, `To provide for fair elections'-not just for the States but also-`for the House of Representatives'. For what? For the Commonwealth! Yet, the honourable member has the audacity to stand up in this place and try to tell those listening to this debate that somehow this is a misconstrued, misinformation piece of legislation that is determined to wipe out the States and which has no effect on the Commonwealth. What nonsense! What a lie! What a blatant untruth it is that the honourable member for Braddon should stand up here and say that when he knows it is untrue, when he knows that the Constitution protects the States, as I said, in section 128. I take up my point that the Constitution ought to be taught in schools, because it is not the politicians' Constitution as many people believe; it is not the lawyers' Constitution, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said when he introduced the proposed legislation. It is the people's Constitution, and it cannot be changed unless it is the will of the majority of the people and it is also the wish of the majority of the States. That has been proven since 1901, where there have been 38 referendums and only eight have been passed. It has been the will of the people when that has happened. I believe that the will of the people in 1988 will tidy up the Constitution to ensure that there are basic rights and freedoms. What we have from Opposition members is a statement that they do not want the Constitution changed. They do not want the Constitution changed, and so we must take it, and we can only believe, that they are opposed to the propositions. One of the propositions is to ensure trial by jury. As honourable members appreciate, trial by jury is binding on the Commonwealth. In fact, section 80 of the Constitution requires that, where there is a trial and the trial is on indictment for any offence against the Commonwealth law, there must be trial by jury. This proposition is to ensure that where that trial relates to State or Territory law there shall be trial by jury. So we take it that the Liberal and National parties are against trial by jury. The second point about freedoms is that there ought to be just terms for any acquisition of property. Again, had the honourable member for Braddon read the Constitution he would have known that section 51 (xxxi) clearly states that, where the Commonwealth is involved, there must be just terms. This will bind the States. I take it that the Liberal and National parties do not believe in just terms of compensation when acquisition takes place. That is what they are opposing. That is what they are against. Let members go out and say, `Where a State acquires your land we do not care if there are not just terms. We stand by the High Court decision that said that the States may acquire property on any terms which they may choose to provide in a statute, even though the terms are unjust'. The Liberal and National parties stand by that. They say, `We do not care'. I see in the chamber an Opposition member who I know is a practising Christian. He will vote against the right to freedom of religion. He will vote against the States not having power to prohibit religious practice. He knows that section 16 of the Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from having any sort of religious test for applicants for a job. But it does not prohibit the States. The States can have any sort of test they want. The honourable member is now saying that he opposes freedom of religion, that he opposes the practice of people pursuing their own religious beliefs. That is what he is going to do by voting against these matters. I say that it is disgusting. It is disgusting because time and again he has gone out on a platform talking about the rights of individuals, the rights of families and the rights of the churches; but when the time comes for him to put up, we find that he shuts up. I believe that Australians will vote against him. The same applies to local governments, which are not recognised within the Constitution. The Labor Party believes they ought to be. The 850-odd local authorities throughout this country believe they ought to be. The 134 local authorities in Queensland, mainly National Party controlled, believe they ought to be. But the Opposition says no. I ask Opposition members to go out and tell the elected local authorities that they should not be recognised within the Constitution even though it is the Local Government Conference position and the local government position right across this nation. If those opposite say that they do not believe it, I believe the people will treat them as they ought to be treated-with thumbs down. I move on to the issue that really interests me, that which relates to fair elections in which the people in country areas have a vote, not the sheep and the trees. That is what happens in my home State of Queensland where we have such a diversity and contrast in electorates that one starts to wonder why. It is not hard when one realises how the system works. There are four zones in the State: the south-eastern zone where there are 51 members; the provincial city zone where there are 13 members; the western and far northern zone where there are eight; and the country zone where there are 17. One only has to see the last election figures to realise what took place. At the last State election the National Party of Australia received 553,997 votes, or 39.6 per cent. For that it won 49 seats, which is 55 per cent of the Parliament. Under those boundaries a party can win 55 per cent of the seats with less than 40 per cent of the vote. The Labor Party received 577,000 votes or 41.4 per cent-and for that it got 30 seats and 33 per cent of the Parliament. It amazes me that the Liberals will oppose this proposal because they are in a worse position. The Liberal Party of Australia got 230,310 votes, or 16.5 per cent of the vote, but won 10 seats, which was 11.2 per cent of the Parliament-a gerrymander that works against the wishes of the majority of the people. We have a combination of almost 58 per cent of the vote being given to the Liberal and Labor parties, yet they won 40 seats out of a parliament of 89. Yet the Liberals in this House have the audacity to say that they will stand by that position. How disgusting! How politically immoral! There needs to be a change because of the way the system works: when an election begins the National Party starts off with at least 20 seats. The reason is that it has divided the State into four zones. There is a country zone, where the seats have been wound around the provincial cities. There are 17 seats in that zone. If we look at the number of people who vote in these areas we will find that they number 12,000, 13,000 or 14,000 voters. It is 25,000 voters in Brisbane, so a party needs twice as many people to elect someone in the city area as it does in the tiny boroughs that surround the provincial cities. Is it any wonder that the National Party wins? The total Parliament is 89 seats. A party needs 45 seats to have a majority. The National Party starts with 20. It starts with 20 because the 20 seats are so structured, so drawn, that they pick up all the strong little National Party voting areas and bring them together. I do not mind so much that in the far western and northern areas we have a great disparity in the vote because I know, having an electorate with 53,000 square kilometres, how difficult it can be, even with the support of the competent staff I have, to service such an electorate. I know what it is like to go out to Warrego and to the far west of Gregory and the far northern parts around Mount Isa. I can understand having a disparity there, a tolerance; but not in these little boroughs around the capital cities where most are within 50 to 100 kilometres of cities such as Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and Bundaberg. They are a stone's throw in terms of distance in Queensland, yet the seats are so structured that no-one but the National Party can win them. It is wrong; it must be changed. The only way in which it can be changed is through a referendum, because there is no way that the National Party of Queensland will want to change it. The only way in which it shall be changed is by changing the Constitution and saying to Australians that there ought to be fair elections at the Commonwealth level-which is something the honourable member for Braddon does not know about-fair elections at the State level and, I hope, one day fair elections for local authorities. If honourable members want a nightmare they should look at the voting system for the local authorities. I have in my area a shire called the Banana Shire where in one division 3,782 people elect two representatives and in another division 1,300 elect two representatives. That might sound bad, but in the Shire of Longreach 2,235 people elect three representatives in one division and 177 people elect three representatives in another. If honourable members think that is bad, they should look at the Shire of Mount Morgan, where 2,029 people elect five representatives in one division and 87 people in another division elect three representatives. As long as one knows the names of one's relatives, one's aunts, uncles and so on, one is guaranteed a seat. That is the sort of thing we have to change. We will not change it for the local authorities in this referendum, but surely we should do so for the States. The honourable member for Braddon says that this is some sort of exercise to get away from the real issues-issues, I might point out, such as health and housing, which are administered by the States. If he wants to hand those issues to the Commonwealth, I am sure there would be many honourable members who would agree with him because of the incompetence, in Queensland and Tasmania particularly, in those areas of administration. There is a need for change. There is a need for a review of the present voting system in Queensland, but that can be brought about only if we have a fair election concept and if we have requirements and provisions in our Constitution that demand that. When we go to the people on this issue, I believe the people will speak. It amazes me that the Liberals and Nationals for years have been talking about four-year terms, but when the time comes to do something about it they will not. However, it does not surprise me, when it comes to the fair election issue, that they are split. There are Liberals in Queensland wanting to do one thing. There is a Lord Mayor in Queensland, as the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) said, wanting to do the same thing, but the Liberals here do not know where they are going. They are like the old proverbial chook running around a chook yard with its head cut off and not knowing where to go. I believe the people will speak. They will demand a change in the Constitution for freedom of religion. They will demand trial by jury. They will demand just terms when their land is acquired by governments, be they Commonwealth or-- Mr Miles —They have already got that. Mr WRIGHT —That is not so. The Opposition does not understand. It did not understand before and it does not understand now. Certainly for the Commonwealth it is true-- Mr Hollis —They are thick. Mr WRIGHT —Yes, I take the point. Opposition members do not understand and they are opposing that point. People also want to see better economic management because of extended terms of the Parliament. They want to see the Constitution changed. They want to ensure that the Constitution meets the needs of the people today and the needs of the future generations of Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member for Capricornia early in his speech mentioned that a statement made by the honourable member for Braddon was a lie. I ask him to withdraw that. Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you saying to me it was not a lie, because it was an untruth? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is an unparliamentary term. Mr Wright —Oh, I withdraw the unparliamentary statement and say it was an untruth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.31) —I rise to speak on probably one of the most important packages of Bills brought before this House in its history. It is interesting that these Bills should be brought before the House in the closing stages of our occupation of this old Parliament House. I wish in my comments on this package of legislation to address three questions which are central to clarifying the context, politics and substance of the Government's constitutional reform proposals. I wish to place on record why I believe these referendum proposals have been drafted, why I join with my coalition colleagues in opposing each of the proposals, and why I believe there has been such a concerted attack on the coalition's decision by media commentators. It would be a mistake for voters to ignore the question of motive behind these propositions. The Government has a motive. In considering these proposals the first question any concerned voter should address is: Why has the Government pursued with such determination an agenda of extensive and fundamental revision of our Constitution? The reason is twofold. Firstly, socialist governments, no matter how moderate, find intolerable the constraints of constitutional government, bicameral parliaments and the rule of the law. Secondly, a government with the Fabian schooling and leadership which this Government boasts-there can be no denying that-has as a permanent agenda item the nurturing of an electoral mood conducive to the revision of the checks and balances of political power in Australia. Should people think that I am unfair in this regard, I refer them first to the 1979 Boyer lectures by the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In that carefully considered articulation of political ideology he described our constitutional arrangements as `anachronistic lunacy'. He declared that there was no justification for `perpetuating this dangerous anachronism'. In regard to the States, he first confessed, `I do not have any idea what ``States rights'' are'; then he argued that the concept of States rights was not positively relevant to our economic realities; and finally he called for the elimination of the States. I then refer them to the Prime Minister's description of his Government's `more general and deeper, long-range task' in an address to the Fabian Society four years ago tomorrow. That task, he said, was `the establishing, in the mood and mind of the national, pre-eminent acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of change and reform, as the authentic way of life'. So the answer to the question of why there is this determined pursuit of constitutional revision via the Constitutional Commission is this: the Government would prefer to be free of the constraints of constitutional government in a federal system, with a bicameral parliament, and it hopes that the Constitutional Commission strategy will produce an electorate which values constitutional revision as an end in itself. It becomes perfectly obvious, in this light, why these particular proposals have been put to the people as the first instalment. The reason these four proposals have been chosen from the comprehensive set of recommendations from the Commission is that they can be packaged as motherhood statements, opposition to which would expose one as reactionary and obstructionist. These proposals are the ones most likely to maximise opportunities to misrepresent opponents of constitutional revision. These proposals, therefore, are the best means of establishing a foothold for the process of extensive alteration of the Constitution still on the Government's agenda in this term of government. It has not finished yet: these four referendum Bills are only the beginning. I ask the questions: Who could possibly be against fair elections, especially in Queensland? Who could possibly be against fewer elections? Who could possibly be against giving local government the respect it is due? Who could possibly be against trial by jury? Now of course the question is not whether anyone is for or against such principles or goals; the question is whether constitutional alteration is the most appropriate or prudent means of supporting or achieving such principles and goals. Of course the answer is no. That brings me to the question of why my coalition colleagues and I are opposing these proposals. Mr Hollis —You are opportunists. Mr WEBSTER —That is a very cheap comment. The Constitution of Australia was designed by prudent, wise and therefore conservative statesmen, both Labor and non-Labor, whose judgment 87 years of Federation, stability and prosperity have proven was sound. It should not be altered for trivial reasons. The balance of power which it establishes between the Federal and State governments, between the parliaments and the judiciary, and between the House of Representatives and the Senate should be revised only with extreme caution, and I do not believe this has happened on this occasion, nor should ambiguities with uncertain consequences be introduced into its language, and that has happened. These are the grounds which the coalition has considered and which have convinced us of the weight of the No case. The local government recognition proposal amounts to dangerous tokenism and interest group pacification-nothing more and nothing less. The specialist Constitutional Commission committee, appointed by the Government to examine this proposal, was honest enough to say so. Mr Peter Fisher —It said no. Mr WEBSTER —It said no, but it was ultimately ignored by the Commission and the Government, both of which apparently felt it politically advantageous to win the praise of the local government lobby. Voters who want the role of local government strengthened or who have been concerned about the attacks of State governments on councils should be clear about this proposal. It will not prevent enforced amalgamations, wrongful dismissal or abolition of local government in parts of a State, for example, in the metropolitan business district of a capital city. But, as with any clause in a constitution, one never really knows how creative a reformist High Court Bench could be with even this token reference to local government. We might one day see the annual Premiers Conference followed by the mayhem of a mayors and shire presidents budget conference. At the moment, however, this proposal is designed for emotional effect rather than for strengthening local government or with any thought about future High Court hermeneutics. The so-called fair electoral systems proposal involves an intervention of the Federal Parliament in the electoral affairs of the States. It attacks the fundamental principle of State autonomy, championed, for example, by Labor Premier Brian Burke in 1985 when he opposed Federal intervention to alter Western Australia's electoral system. It pretends to deal with gerrymanders but deals instead with malapportionment, clearly indicating that it is intended for use against Queensland and therefore is a matter of pragmatism rather than principle. The four-year term proposal was introduced by the Attorney-General as a means `to a more effective registration of the mandate . . . through greater stability, responsibility and contemporaneity, in both Houses of the national Parliament'. That justification, in its specific wording, is important. Consider, for example, the Government's talk of its ID card mandate and its talk about the irresponsibility of a Senate which did not reflect the most recent electoral result. What this proposal aims at is the greater likelihood of an upper House mirroring politically the lower House in order to make life easier for the government of the day. The Government could have had a four-year term proposal without attacking the Senate in this way. It claims that the dollar costs of separate Senate elections and the longer term for senators would be the unacceptable result. But the dollar cost of our bicameral parliamentary democracy should not be given as a serious reason to weaken that form of democracy. And by the Government's own argument the past suggests that senators would serve in practice, not eight years, as the Government claims, but six years as intended by the founding fathers. In any event, the purpose of the Senate was not to reflect current majority opinion but to provide accountability of the Parliament to the States and the long term interests of the nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you ask me, what is worse-an eight-year term for senators and the dollar costs of Senate elections or an ineffectual Senate which politically mirrors the House-I would suggest the latter. The Government risks that latter possibility in its proposal and I therefore will not support it. The purpose of the bicameral arrangement in our Constitution is to provide a check on temporary majorities, momentary passions and short term electoral pressures. In the words of James Madison, architect of the American Constitution, which so influenced our own, the intention of our perhaps sometimes inconvenient bicameral Parliament is to secure the public good and private rights against the danger of a temporary majority and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government. Finally, the mini-Bill of Rights proposal suggests, as did the original Bill of Rights, that a deficiency exists in the common law protection of our rights, when it does not. It would introduce concepts whose interpretation would vary from High Court Bench to High Court Bench. For example, should High Court judges like the late Lionel Murphy be given the power to define `religious observance'? Finally, it champions rights compatible with current government priorities, but not rights whose constitutional recognition might embarrass it, such as the right to freedom of association in the face of compulsory unionism. Before moving to my last point, let me raise one question which highlights the dangers of the mini-Bill of Rights proposal in the last clause. Is not the prayer Madam Speaker prays each day to commence our business a Christian religious observance? Could Madam Speaker assure me that it might not be challenged in the High Court if this proposal were carried in a referendum? My last point concerns the concerted criticism by media commentators of the coalition decision to oppose all four proposals. The No cases for each of the proposals, considered separately, are reasonable, I believe, even if one disagrees with them. Why is it unreasonable, therefore, to decide to oppose them as a group? Many media commentators have simply revealed their own bias in their hostility to the coalition decision. They have suggested that political motives have overridden reasonable consideration of the merits of each proposal simply because they cannot accept that any reasonable person would not share their view. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all those in my electorate of Macquarie that that was not and is simply not the case. The debate in the coalition was fair, comprehensive and lengthy. The decision to oppose these proposals was taken in full knowledge that it would be politically difficult to oppose, for example, what appeared to be motherhood statements. The media commentators share the ideological bias of this Government and should be ignored. The frightening aspect of their commentary is their inability to recognise intellectual disagreement and their decision to interpret an opposing judgment as mischief. The coalition believes that these superficially attractive proposals are in fact imprudent and dangerous. We believe that they form part of a process designed to produce an extensive revision of our Constitution to fit the political needs of a Labor government. That is why we oppose this legislative package. That is why we are calling on people to give a great deal of time to considering the debate on these proposals before voting. That is why my colleagues and I will be campaigning tirelessly to achieve a No vote on each proposal. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.48) —I am pleased to make a short contribution to this important debate. It is appropriate that we are talking about the Constitution and amendments to the Constitution in these the closing days of our tenure of this provisional Parliament House. I join my colleagues in congratulating the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on bringing these important Bills before the House: the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. The debate has been interesting. It has been most certainly wide-ranging. It has had certain advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages has been to show how weak and shallow are the arguments of the Opposition. They are pathetic arguments. I could not believe that I was sitting in the Parliament of Australia when I heard some of the nonsense being peddled by the Opposition. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), a person for whom on a personal level I have a certain amount of respect, also peddled a lot of nonsense. He issued a Press statement today which happened to fall into my hands. He repeated some of the arguments in the speech that he has just made. The Press release stated: The prayers which precede each day's business in the Parliament would be unconstitutional if the Government's Rights and Freedom referendum was successful at the ballot, a Liberal MP claimed in the Parliament tonight. That is absolute rubbish. As the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said, the Opposition obviously has not read the legislation. It does not know what is contained in the legislation. No member has to be present during prayers. He can leave the chamber while prayers are being read. One would think that someone like the honourable member who makes a point of pushing his Christianity would be a little more accurate in some of the claims and comments that he makes. I have listened with a considerable amount of interest to Opposition members' speeches. In fact, I have been present in the chamber for a couple of hours. When I entered the chamber at 8 o'clock, I thought, `I will sit here, listen to the Opposition and try to find out what it is on about'. I have been trying to glean the reason for its opposition to the four proposals. I am afraid that I have not been able to glean it. I have three university degrees, so I do not think I am a slow learner, but honourable members opposite have not yet been able to persuade me by the power of their reasoning or the logic of their argument as to what they are on about. Of course, all the old scare stories have been trotted out yet again, such as, `Big Brother government is about to descend on us', and `centralised power'. They are pathetic arguments. The most pathetic of all was from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). The real reason for the Opposition's stand is that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is terrified of upsetting the National Party of Australia. I did not know that the people in cockies corner had so much power. I take off my hat to them. This is a desperate attempt to hold the coalition together at whatever cost. Stripped of all the cant, that is why the Opposition is urging a No vote and is opposing these proposed amendments this evening. The editorial in today's Australian stated: It seems the Liberal Party is so terrified at the prospect of upsetting the National Party that it is prepared to oppose constitutional amendments that would strengthen Liberal democracy and safeguard private property. It really is a sad comment on the Opposition. We hear a lot about the freedom of Opposition members to vote as their conscience dictates. They trot out this old line all the time. I actually saw the honourable member for Bennelong on television this evening. He indicated how much freedom Opposition members have on this issue, as did the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who said that any dissenting voters would be very quickly drawn back into line. I really cannot believe that all of those opposite-as I say, I have a fair amount of respect for most of them-are supportive of this stand. I urge them to use that freedom of choice that they so often tout-that they have the freedom to vote as their conscience dictates-and actually vote as their conscience dictates on this occasion. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) in his contribution made much about how people's minds could be changed. We have seen a few examples of this. I have absolutely no doubt that the Nationals will run quite a strong scare campaign on these issues. I was interested to find out why they are opposed to them. The first proposal is contained in a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. One must ask why the Opposition is opposed to this. People in the community tell us that there are too many elections. Most people would agree that it seems reasonable for the House of Representatives to sit for a four-year term. Most people in the community would find it totally unreasonable that any elected House in an Australian Parliament should sit for eight years. It is too long before the people can pass their judgment on those elected people. It seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal. We hear much about the Senate being a States House and a House of review. I actually wish that the Senate would occasionally exercise some of that power of review that it is supposed to have. It seems to me that it is not occupying that role. I hear much about the Prime Minister being able to force the Senate to go to the people. What about the Senate being able to force this House to go to the people, as it has done? Why should not the Senate for once be answerable for its actions? If it does force this House to go to the people, why should it not go to the people as well and have the people pass judgment on its actions? Members of the Opposition are very quiet on this issue. Do they think that the Senate should not go to the people and should not be answerable to the people for its actions? Is that their interpretation of democracy? If it is, it is an interpretation of democracy that is at variance with what most people understand about democracy. A lot of rubbish has been spoken in this chamber this evening-unfortunately it will continue during the evening-not least of which was by the honourable member for Parkes. He spoke about the Senate being a House of review. It is a pity that it does not exercise that power. This evening we have seen the Opposition in its real light. It does not want change. We can argue about a horse and buggy constitution for a jet age, but the Opposition, for reasons known to itself, opposes these proposals. I have already looked at the first proposal. The second is about fair and democratic parliamentary elections through Australia. My colleagues from Queensland have adequately covered this matter. I will not reiterate what they said. Let us look at it. Opposition members say that the greatest threat to democracy in Australia today is to have fair and democratic elections throughout Australia. Excuse me while I laugh, but it is a pathetic argument. The only threat that this poses is to the gerrymander in Queensland and that is what members of the Opposition are scared about. They should admit it. I will not talk much about local government now; I will come back to it. The same applies to proposal No. 4-a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury and to extend religious freedom. That is another great threat to democracy! The other part of the proposal is a classic-to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. It is a terrible threat to democracy for people to be adequately compensated if their property or possessions are taken by the Government! That is a great threat! I now turn to the issue in which I am particularly interested. I am delighted to see that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) is at the table. Proposal No. 3 relates to a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. Let us look at some of the statements which have been made. The right honourable member for New England said that they-I guess he means the National Party, but maybe he means the National and Liberal parties-have tremendous respect for local government. Well, I must say that they have a very strange way of showing it. The honourable member for Macquarie regards local government as dangerous tokenism. The honourable member for Parkes said that local government is a subordinate form of government. There are just over 800 local governments in Australia. Mr Peter Fisher —Nine hundred. Mr HOLLIS —Or 900. Let us not quibble about 100. Let the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who is writing all these letters to the Press all the time, write to all the local governments in Australia and quote what his three colleagues think of local government. I challenge the honourable member for Parkes to come with me to the next meeting of the Illawarra Regional Organisation of Councils and tell it that local government is a subordinate form of government. I also challenge his colleague at the table, the honourable member for Gilmore, to address that body with me. It held a meeting last Friday. I tell the honourable member for Gilmore that the Chairman of the Illawarra Regional Organisation of Councils, comprising five councils, was the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Throsby in the last election. He stood against me and lost. Mr Sharp —He got a big swing against you. Mr HOLLIS —But he lost. The Deputy Chair is the President of the Southern Highlands branch of the Liberal Party. There is another token Liberal on it. I do not know what the fourth is. There is only one Labor mayor in those five councils. That body has been writing to me, and also I suspect to the honourable member for Gilmore, for the last three or four years, demanding our views on the constitutional recognition of local government and asking us where we stand on it. I challenge him to come with me to the next meeting, or we will even convene a special meeting, and tell that body why he thinks local government is a subordinate form of government, why he thinks it is tokenism and why he will not support constitutional recognition of local government. The National Party is not only out of touch with its constituents; it is most certainly out of touch with local government, especially in New South Wales. I can only suspect that the reason it is so out of touch with local government is that it does not talk to local government. Opposition members-Ooh! Mr HOLLIS —Opposition members say, `Ooh!'. If they did talk to local government they would find that there is no issue throughout Australia that local government is more united on and feels more strongly about than the constitutional recognition of local government. Mr McGauran —You're a liar. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw. Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Mr HOLLIS —Local governments do feel very strongly about this issue. I do not care what the honourable member for Gippsland said, because I know how the local councils in my area and in my State feel, and this is the issue that they feel very strongly about. As I said before, the honourable member for Macquarie came in here, and when he had exhausted all the usual scare stories he suddenly started to blame the media. Well, he can blame whom he likes. We have to look at why the Government has found it necessary to look at the Constitution and to put up four mildly reformist questions. That is all they are. What are those four questions? We are now in 1988, we are coming to the end of this century, and we are still working with a Constitution, with all its strengths and weaknesses, that was brought in in a totally different Australia and a totally different situation. As I have said, we are dealing with a Constitution that came in to deal with problems of the horse and buggy era and we are now in the jet age. Some honourable members may think that, once something like that is there, it should remain forever and never be reviewed or changed. I suggest that out there, in voter land, the people take a different view. These questions will be put to the people and the people will decide whether they want these mildly reformist changes to the Constitution. Mr McGauran —For $38m. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member says that it will cost $38m. One of the groups that support his Party is pushing, through my electorate and many other electorates, to have referendums four to eight times a year at a cost of $38m a throw. That is one of the groups which support the honourable member's Party and it supports them. So, if he is going to throw these figures around, he must get his facts right. In this debate we have heard a lot of cant from the Opposition. The people will decide on this issue. I trust the people. I think the people out there have a lot of good sense. They will see the nonsense that is being peddled by the Opposition and I think that, with the usual good sense that the Australian people exercise, they will vote yes to each of the four questions being put in this referendum. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.06) —The contributions made by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) in this place always sadden me. He brings to the debate an unnecessary vindictiveness and he personalises the debate in very cruel terms. When genuine, sincere members put forward arguments the honourable member for Throsby fails time and again to resist the cheap temptation to respond in abusive terms. Yet he is the member who, at the commencement of his contribution, boasted that he has three university degrees. It was not until about the 10-minute mark in his speech that he finally addressed some of the fundamental issues of the debate at hand, and that lasted for a very short period, when he again turned to the vitriolic attack on members on this side of the House. That is what we have come to expect from the honourable member for Throsby. Who could ever forget those television pictures of the honourable member some years ago leading the charge up the front steps of Parliament House, bashing through the locked front doors, pushing aside security guards, and followed by a swag of Wollongong coal workers behind him? That action was a contempt of this Parliament, and the honourable member for Throsby now talks about his commitment to the parliamentary process. Wollongong is still trying to live down the actions of the honourable member for Throsby. Quite a bit of criminal damage occurred because of that demonstration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Mr McGAURAN —In any event, I will move on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable may not move on, if he offends against the Standing Orders; he may move out. I suggest that now he be relevant to the Bills. Mr McGAURAN —Let me say from the outset that the Opposition enthusiastically, indeed eagerly, takes on the Government in this debate. It is true to say that opinion polls already show-as much as opinion polls can be relied on-that a majority of Australians at first sight support these questions. Let us think back to the Bill of Rights. At that time there was an 83 to 85 per cent approval rating. Now the position is completely reversed; 85 per cent would be against any proposal for a Bill of Rights. The identity card is another example of how public opinion can be turned around. I remind the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that we have four months in which to educate the people and to put forward our arguments. We are going to do it unrestrainedly, unitedly and vigorously, because we believe very strongly in the No case. We believe that, should the Government succeed in foisting this supposed constitutional reform upon the Australian people, they will be the losers. The only winners in all of this are those who adhere and aspire to a centralist philosophy. Mr Hicks —To destroy the system. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling interjects, to destroy the often delicate balance in our federal system between the States and the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General, after a long and admittedly distinguished career in the Parliament, seeks by way of these reforms to leave his mark on future generations. I find it tragic that a man of his integrity and ability seeks to leave as his tombstone in this place reforms of this kind. Again we find that from the outset the media are opposed to the Opposition. I accuse them of only superficially examining the issues and not going into them in depth. Sufficient material is now being issued by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), indeed all members for that matter, for the media and for the public at large properly to understand the basis of our opposition to what appear, quite frankly, to be harmless questions. The honourable member for Throsby, like preceding Government speakers and no doubt those who will speak after him, will seek to portray the questions as harmless, mild, lukewarm reforms. That being the case, why are we spending $38m on such referenda? Moreover, why have we spent $6m on a Constitutional Commission which has not issued its final report? The total cost is approximately $44m, which, in my view and that of my colleagues, is a complete waste. When these referenda questions are defeated, there will be one certain result-a new Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) cannot afford a stinging electoral defeat on the scale which he already has experienced in 1988. He is on the downslide, and these referenda will simply confirm what the general public really judge him to be-a charlatan and a man of no substance. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) must have pushed Cabinet to support such referenda, knowing the Australian Labor Party had little, if any, chance of success, so the Prime Minister will have the final nail driven into his coffin. After the Port Adelaide by-election, the Adelaide by-election and the New South Wales election defeat, the Prime Minister will simply have no credibility; his authority will be destroyed overnight within the Labor Party. Let us now look at the four specific questions. The first is that which deals with four-year terms. The question reads as follows: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? I should think most members of the Liberal and National parties would agree to an extension of the three-year term for the House of Representations to four years. There is not much argument about that. If the Government had introduced a separate question on that, it would have had our support; but by trying to finally realise its ideological obsession with the independence and the power of the Senate, the Government has tied to that legitimate question in a sinister way the fixing of the term of the Senate to the House of Representatives. That means there will be a double dissolution; both representatives and senators will go to the poll at the same time. This question does not guarantee that there will be fewer elections. The only reason we have so many elections in this country is that Prime Ministers, through political opportunism, seek to go to the people at a time most favourable to them and in complete disregard of the three-year term already in place. Another aspect of this that concerns my colleagues and me is that it will destroy the independence of the Senate as a House of review and as a House that has always acted in our constitutional system as a check and a balance on the excesses of the House of Representatives. Another point is simply this: a double dissolution, in effect, by having the House of Representatives and the Senate at the polls at the same time, will dramatically reduce the quota necessary to elect a senator. It will bring the quota down to roughly 7 to 7.5 per cent of the vote. That will enshrine forever more that motley collection of unrepresentative ratbags who have come in here under the Democrats banner, as well as a loose collection of people against nuclear disarmament. Once the former Senator Wood, since the High Court has ruled-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I exhort the honourable member for Gippsland not to engage in personal reflections on honourable members and to contain his remarks in more appropriate language. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, a great many people in the country fail to understand why a small group of people who attract only an infinitesimal proportion of the vote Australia-wide have the power of veto over the three major parties in our system. The double dissolution proposal will bequeath them to us for so long as the Parliament operates. Members of the Government should ask themselves whether they really want to have to negotiate every time they want even the most harmless piece of legislation to be passed and enacted into law; whether they want to negotiate with the Democrats on the one hand and the people for nuclear disarmament on the other hand, one of whom wears a Star of Lenin on his coat lapel 24 hours a day. Let us deal now with the second question: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic Parliamentary elections throughout Australia? In effect, that really means more power to Canberra. I must congratulate the Attorney-General on the drafting skill he has displayed. At first glance I would also vote Yes for question No. 2. Of course, who is against fair and democratic parliamentary elections? No-one that I know, and certainly no-one who has a commitment to parliamentary democracy in this country. That question really means that there will be one vote one value. There are two major arguments against this: the first is that country electorates need some tolerance of votes between the number of voters a country electorate incorporates and the number in a city electorate. A few urban members of the Government tried to interject on that point, but I ask them to try to drive for six or seven hours, as I have to, from one end of the electorate to the other. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) drive much further. What quality of representation can they provide to constituents who never have an opportunity to visit them? Members of the Government who represent urban electorates can drive from one end of their electorates to the other in five minutes and their constituents have easy access to them. So long as we keep enlarging country electorates to keep an even number of voters, the quality of representation of country people decreases. In any event, one vote one value is mostly observed at the Commonwealth level. The second major objection that we have to this is that the Commonwealth is outrightly hypocritical because it is not requiring the Commonwealth electoral process to reflect the one vote one value principle. Tasmania with a population of 350,000 has 12 senators, the same number of senators as every other State, for example, New South Wales with its population of five million. Tasmania has five members in the House of Representatives, as guaranteed by the Constitution. I do not seek for one moment to upset that balance. I believe the smaller States need protection against the larger, more populous States, as was envisaged by the founding fathers. The Attorney-General cannot have his cake and eat it as well. He cannot require the States to have one vote one value, and not the Commonwealth. Let us differentiate between malapportionment, which is the differing of numbers between separate electorates, and gerrymanders. The Attorney-General should not try to tell us that the Party with which he is associated is not a past, present and probably future expert at gerrymandering seats. The Liberal-National Party coalition in New South Wales had to achieve 52 per cent of the vote to defeat the Unsworth Labor Government. At the Commonwealth level the two conservative parties will need to poll 52.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to defeat the Labor Government at the next election. We will do it! Referenda questions like these will assist us and make our task somewhat easier. Gerrymandering is very different from malapportionment. We need to separate them. The mere fact of one vote one value does not guarantee an equitable voting basis. Let us move to the third question, which reads: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? As previous speakers have said, this is a matter of some controversy within the representatives of the third tier of government. No-one on the Opposition side underestimates the importance of local government, but local government must understand two things: firstly, like it or not, it is a creature of State governments; secondly, this motherhood statement to be inserted in the Constitution does nothing to appease its basic concerns, which are protection against dismissal, forced amalgamation or the achievement of guaranteed financing such as for road funding. The honourable member for Throsby is delving into the realms of the ridiculous when he claims that local government regards constitutional recognition as its most important battle. It is not; it is road funding. The honourable member speaks about members on this side of the House being out of touch. I suggest that he go back and ask representatives of local government which they would prefer: some proper entitlement to road funding or constitutional recognition. This Government, in the five years it has been in power, has frozen road funding to approximately $1.2 billion. So over those five years in real terms road funding has decreased by 25 per cent, or $300m. How any member of the Government can offer this sop to local government and keep a straight face is beyond me. There are other worries associated with this question, such as the minefield it is opening up to legal interpretation. We do not know whether it will end in the High Court of Australia. However, given the experiences of the past few years, the High Court, relying on the foreign affairs power, is more than likely to extend the powers of the third tier of government in a way that will encroach on either State or Commonwealth governments. In any event, the concerns that the third tier of government has about being under threat-and to my knowledge it is not under threat from the Government; it is certainly not from the Opposition-and any fears it has about guaranteeing its future existence should be directed towards State governments, most of which have recognised local government in their own constitutions. I shall now refer to the fourth and final question: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by the Government? Regrettably, I have run out of time. As a lawyer, I would like to debate these issues with the Attorney-General-where they fit into our common law system and how they are an attempt to insert in the Constitution a Bill of Rights which has already been overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people, as the Attorney-General knows only too well. He was not the Attorney-General at the time, but he was lukewarm-in fact quite dismissive, if the truth be known-when that proposal was first put. In essence, these supposed rights already exist, firstly, within our common law-they are under no threat-and, secondly, within the Constitution. In summary, the Opposition will attack these referenda questions with great fervour because it believes strongly in the No case. Anyone who votes for any of these four questions is voting for a centralist government far removed from the daily concerns of all ordinary Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! During the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland the Chair was temporarily distracted while in conversation with the Clerk. I understand that the honourable member engaged in an unparliamentary personal reflection on the Prime Minister. I provide an opportunity for the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw for the record. Mr McGAURAN —I have no recollection of such a comment, but in deference to you, sir, and out of respect for the chamber, I certainly withdraw. Mr Lionel Bowen —`Charlatan' was the word. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair was aware of the word but was reluctant to give it a second airing. The honourable member for Throsby has approached the Chair seeking the opportunity of making a personal explanation on the score that he has been misrepresented. As the House is well aware, there is normally an opportunity in the proceedings of the House for such explanations to be made at a set time. However, under the circumstances, the Chair is prepared to extend its indulgence. The allegations were of a somewhat serious nature and the explanation, if it has substance, should be proffered at this stage of the proceedings. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —In the opening comments of his speech, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) repeated a claim he has made in the past, and in fact went further and said I was engaged in criminal activities. He said I led the charge through Parliament House in 1982 and that that is recorded on television. That is not so. Although I was here in support of miners and coal workers, I was nowhere near the door of Parliament House when it was breached. In fact, I did not enter Parliament House on that day. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(10.25) —I support the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill, and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. They are a package of reasonable reforms of the Constitution. There has been some criticism tonight that the Government has not awaited the final report of the Constitutional Commission. That criticism arises mainly from conservatives and cynics, who would have the Government float an entire raft of proposals that would be more radical than the ones the Government is putting to the Parliament tonight. It would be politically stupid and downright irresponsible for the Government to do more than it proposes in the four Bills. The conservative Opposition continues to tease the Government about doing more by putting more proposals to the people, but at the same time the Opposition is not able to put forward any sensible proposition or criticism of the four proposals. The Government has been sensible; it is taking it one step at a time. This is not an academic exercise. It is, as others have pointed out, a very expensive exercise and the Government intends to take it most seriously and ensure that each of the four propositions is successful. It is a measure of the success of a government that it puts proposals that it not only truly believes in but also believes will have every chance of success. The remarkable thing about this exercise is that our friends opposite really do not believe in their criticism of each of the four propositions. Recently the Opposition supported the position the Government is now putting. For instance, we already know that the Opposition front bench recommended support for the constitutional recognition of local government and of individual rights. We already know that the Opposition policy has been to support four-year parliamentary terms. We are already aware that the Liberal Party of Australia is seriously disadvantaged by malapportionment, especially in Queensland. We are already aware that the Liberal and National parties had an election manifesto in 1987 that called for the constitutional recognition of local government. We are quite aware from recent statements that the Liberal Party supports the right to trial by jury, religious freedom and compensation to individuals over land matters. It is a fairly recent turnabout that the Opposition now says that it cannot support these four proposals to alter the Constitution. Self-interest and political conservatism have won the day. It is nowhere more apparent than in the question of fair elections-the one vote one value proposition. It is that proposition that I especially want to target this evening. Coming from Queensland, I have had to suffer from a State electoral system that indulges in malapportionment and gerrymandering which has caused a diminution in support for the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party at the State level. One vote one value, or the gerrymander proposition, split the coalition in Queensland in 1983. It split the Bjelke-Petersen Government, and a fellow called Terry White, the MLA for Redcliffe-a seat which exists within the boundaries of my electorate of Petrie-was the prime mover in walking out of the coalition and tearing up the coalition agreement. One of the most important factors in tearing up that agreement was that Mr White and other Liberals demanded fair electoral boundaries. In recent days I have contacted Terry White and he has agreed to campaign with me for a Yes vote on this question. Terry White, the Liberal Party member for Redcliffe, and many other Liberals in Queensland will be campaigning for a Yes vote on the question of one vote one value. That must cause extreme embarrassment for Federal Liberal members of parliament representing Queensland electorates. Honourable members already know that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr JOHNS(Petrie) —The honourable member for Ryan, who is the President of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, a member of Federal Parliament, has stated unequivocally that he supports the concept of one vote one value. Mr Donald Cameron —On a point of order: it was not Terry White who tore up the coalition agreement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Donald Cameron —It was the National Party that tore it up. Do not make trouble. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Moreton. If he persists in overriding the Chair, I shall deal with him. Mr JOHNS —We were obviously watching different television programs in 1983 because I distinctly remember Terry White-- Mr Donald Cameron —You're lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Moreton. He has been here a long time and he must have an intimate familiarity with the Standing Orders. He seems possessed of a compulsion to ignore them. He does so at his peril. Mr JOHNS —The political drama of 1983 in Queensland is only just being avoided here in 1988. In other words, the split between the Liberal and the National parties in Queensland in 1983 is only marginally being avoided here, because the National Party of Australia has won the day on these propositions. It has convinced the Leader of the Opposition that he should vote No on all four propositions, even though he does not believe in that No position. It is simply a matter of the tail wagging the dog. The National Party has won the day and, for a short while, a split has been avoided. That did not happen in 1983 in Queensland. The National Party and the Liberal Party split. There is still great bitterness, and the Liberal members in Queensland will be supporting this proposition. I think it might be sweet revenge for Terry White, in particular, and I will be an interested observer, I must admit. If our one vote one value proposition succeeds in Queensland, as it surely will, those political turncoats, Don Lane, Brian Austin and Beryce Nelson, who initially sat in the Parliament of Queensland as Liberals and now sit as Nationals, will be defeated once we are able to redraw the boundaries in Queensland. I have done my best to search for arguments to defend the notion of the gerrymander or, indeed, to criticise our proposition. It has been somewhat difficult because there is not always a great deal written down. I suppose it is hard, when one is simply rationalising a position of political interest, to produce arguments of some substance. Nevertheless, I can draw from the minority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters One Vote, One Value. That minority report, which was introduced earlier today, raises seven arguments which are supposed to be against the notion of introducing a referendum on one vote one value. I will also draw on extracts from a book by Alan Metcalfe entitled In their own right: The rise to power of Joh's Nationals. Alan Metcalfe, however inadequately, attempts to put some arguments in favour of malapportionment, so I shall peruse those arguments with some interest. Firstly, I come back to the minority report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The first proposition is that the minority believed: it inappropriate for any constitutional referenda to proceed without it first being considered by a conference of elected representatives of the Commonwealth and the States, i.e., a Constitutional Convention. It is well known that we tried, and that it was Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen who took his people out of the last Constitutional Convention, ransacked it, ruined it and refused to sit down and negotiate reasonable proposals to be put to referendum. It has been tried before. It does not appear to have worked. What the Attorney-General was able to do for the people of Australia was to arrange for a Constitutional Commission. That Commission was able to move widely around Australia, and I understand that it took over 4,000 submissions. I believe that it is a far more powerful mechanism for understanding the needs, wishes and desires of the electorate than are even the elected members of various State parliaments and the Federal Parliament. I say that because we already understand the views of Federal and State parliamentarians. Therefore, the first point in the dissenting report is simply out of date. We tried the Constitutional Convention and it did not work; it was ruined by the National Party of Australia. We took the alternative line and produced some excellent propositions arising from the Constitutional Convention. The second point of the dissenting report is: It is not appropriate to recommend a referendum on a matter which would alter not only the Commonwealth Constitution but also the relationship between the States and Commonwealth . . . In this case, we come up against this old proposition that somehow we are interfering in the Federation-the relationship between the States and the Commonwealth. The truth is that the question of one vote one value-that is, changing electoral boundaries in a State-has no impact whatever on the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. It is a proposition to place State elections on the same basis as a Federal election. So the second point of the dissenting report is wide of the mark. The third point states: The proposal will not ensure fair and democratic elections. That is followed up in the fifth point: The majority report of the Committee acknowledges that: (i) the enactment of electoral laws limiting enrolment differences between electorates to an arbitrary 10 per cent would not prevent or eliminate the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries for the political advantage of one group. We all agree that we may not knock out gerrymandering by this proposition, but we can certainly knock out malapportionment. Nobody would pretend that we can solve all the problems of providing fair boundaries through the means of one vote one value, but we can certainly go part of the way. And I still have not heard from the Opposition a proposition that would enable us to knock out gerrymandering. The fact that the Opposition does not put forward such a proposition reveals its true position: it is simply not interested. Therefore, it should not criticise us for not doing enough. We are doing the best we can. We have put forward the proposition of one vote one value, and it will stop malapportionment. If the Opposition has a better idea, it should tell us, but I suspect that it will not tell us as it is not at all interested. As for our trying to solve all the problems relating to fair voting with the proposition of one vote one value, we never claimed that we would do so. A point mentioned before is that it is possible to have an imbalance between the number of seats held by a party and the percentage of the vote. We all know that. Under a single member electorate system it is possible for a party to hold a bare majority of the vote but have a greater majority of the seats. There is no doubt about that. My Party has been fortunate enough in the last three elections, despite the fact that our popular vote has decreased a little, to have the number of seats we hold increase. That is not a problem. The fact is that we are able to hold critical seats at the margin. Under a fair system of electoral boundaries, if the Government holds a majority of the vote there is no problem if it perhaps holds more than a majority of the seats. The fact is that when a party slips marginally below that majority of votes it almost invariably loses government-the majority of seats. So we do not pretend that the one vote one value system will solve all the problems of gerrymandering, but it will certainly solve the problems of malapportionment. Point 5 (ii) of the dissenting report states: The Australian Constitution itself does not provide for one vote one value in that each original State is guaranteed 12 senators and at least 5 seats in the House of Representatives, irrespective of population . . . It is argued that this has introduced some sort of malapportionment for the Senate and the House of Representatives in Tasmania. I hope that the conservatives are not arguing that we should have fewer seats in Tasmania as they would be at a serious disadvantage if that were so. We understand that there is a guaranteed number of seats in Tasmania. We understand that there is a guaranteed number of senators for each State, but that is part of the Federation, that is the way it is. That is the agreement that was written many years ago and we are not seeking to change that now. It would simply be too much. Again, the Opposition teases us to do the impossible when, in fact, we seek to do the possible and the right thing. Is it an argument that we should be changing the federal system and the Senate system when we are seeking to bring the States, as far as possible, into line with the important House in this system, the House of Representatives. I would like to present a few points made in Alan Metcalfe's book. Metcalfe attempts, very bravely, to put the essential argument in favour of malapportionment. About one vote one value he says: At first hearing, it sounds a totally fair proposition to the average, not-so-interested voter. Everyone's vote should be equal; that's what democracy is all about. The reality of life in sparsely and unevenly settled Queensland . . . makes it impossible for votes to be equal in value. It is true that each vote can be counted only once. It is not true, however, that the value of each person's vote can be the same in Queensland if based on demographic grounds alone. It is simply not true to suggest that the value of the vote of a person living in a remote area of the state such as Burketown, Windorah or Coen is equal to the vote of the person living in the suburbs of Brisbane or the Gold Coast. It is akin to saying that a hundred hectares of land in Burketown is worth a hundred hectares of land in Queen Street, Brisbane, or downtown Surfers Paradise. Both are the same size- this is the key bit- but the return from each area is vastly different. Built-in economic protection for these areas such as adequate and indexed zonal tax concessions and across-the-board compensating additional expenditure to equalise the degree of disadvantage, would alleviate the disparity . . . Here is the essential confusion between political weighting and economic weighting. There is already a myriad of cross-subsidy between the city and the bush. We have subsidies on all sorts of things such as roads, telephones, postage stamps and petrol. That is a question for the economy but we do not weight political considerations based on economic considerations. We have the Loan Council and the Inter-State Commission, the concern of which is to equalise on the basis of economic disparity. Who could possibly answer the question of who should determine political weightings? If political weightings are made equal we will all have an equal opportunity to influence the polity. But economic weighting should never be built into the Parliament itself. I will quote again from Metcalfe's book what I suspect is the underlying rationale for the Opposition's argument. Metcalfe says: With most to lose from the implementation of such a system the National Party has been beaten hands down by the Labor and Liberal parties media-sell campaign on the ``gerrymander''. In the areas that it affects must, such as central, northern and western Queensland, it should have been a crushing electoral winner for the Nationals. These areas would lose several parliamentary seats to the heavily populated south-east corner of the state and, as every politician worth his salt should know, you don't win votes taking things away from people. So Alan Metcalfe, a very senior member of the National Party in Queensland, puts the true proposition, that it does not want to miss out. It is all about self-interest. It has built itself a cosy little system which gives it a head start and it will make sure that it hangs on to it. That is what it is about. Forget the rationalisations and the attempt to make debate; it is about self-interest. Let me complete my speech with a final extract from Metcalfe's book. Metcalfe argues: . . . it is obvious that under any democratic system of Government some consideration has to be given for the less fortunate. Who are the less fortunate? Are these the people that he said created all the wealth out in the rural areas? Are these the less fortunate people? Surely the less fortunate are among the unemployed, the migrants, the women and the Aborigines. Perhaps we should give two votes to each person in those groups. Would that be fair weighting? They cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they want to receive weighting because they claim to be the most productive people but, on the other hand, they claim to be less fortunate and therefore in need of political weighting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.46) —I enthusiastically support the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in opposing the Constitution alteration Bills before the House. I think this is another situation where the Government is facing difficulties in the Labor heartland. The Adelaide by-election was a big defeat for the Government, the Victorian State election is imminent and, of course, we know the New South Wales election result where the right wing machine of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was routed by the Liberal Party of Australia. Of course, the great victory in Groom was another triumph for the conservative forces. The recent Premiers Conference was another indication of the difficulties facing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government today. Of course this proposition diverts attention away from the real issues facing Australia, including our massive overseas debt of $110 billion. We would spend another $30m to conduct this referendum and we have already spent $6m on the Constitutional Commission where some of the arguments have been developed over a great length of time. The Government is adopting a napoleonic approach-`Let us divert the enemy; let us get away from the real problems and have an argument about the Constitution that has served us so well since 1901'. Honourable members should recall the debate on the identity card where the Opposition began with a number of commentators and a number of our own supporters questioning our argument. In fact, some members of the Press even wondered why we adopted the position we did. However, everyone knows the result. After the Federal election, debate on the ID card really hotted up and the Opposition won the argument convincingly-so much so that even some of our own supporters are on record as asking why we did not get into the debate earlier and present the facts of the case on the long term effect of the ID card and how it would affect every Australian. Likewise the Bill of Rights carefully camouflaged a proposal that would have affected our democratic rights. It was put forward by the Labor Government as it moved quietly through the Australian community. That proposal was also defeated through intelligent application of the arguments about the consequences of the Bill of Rights. The proposal for the referendum has only just been presented to Parliament and the debate is now on. Of course the tone set for the debate is portrayed in two articles produced over the weekend. The first article, by Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian, was mentioned earlier in the debate this evening and it uses words such as `confusion', `sophistry' and `snake oil'-different words which none of us quite understand. All we know is that Paul Kelly is setting the tone that the Opposition is opposing the referendum simply for the sake of opposing it. Likewise in the Sydney Morning Herald Maximilian Walsh uses terms such as `Howard's Way' and `opposing for the sake of opposing'. I am sure that the referendum proposal will be defeated on the strength of the arguments put forward because, just like the debates on the ID card and the Bill of Rights, the Australian people will understand the depth of the argument and the long term consequences if the referendum proposals succeed. Let us look at the proposals and the questions that have been developed. Even today Mr Gary Morgan, who has spent a lifetime developing questions to obtain the right answers, has questioned the slanting of the questions and their preparation for the referendum. Mr Gary Morgan places great emphasis on the way that questions are asked in his public opinion polling to obtain the correct answers. He raised today the issue that the very simple questions that are going to be put to the Australian people in fact prejudge the outcome. The first one refers to an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for a four-year maximum term for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The little word `both' is in there. It does not refer to the Senate. The question asks people, `Do you approve of this proposition?'. It is all very simple, straightforward and encouraging. The second question refers to an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. Again, it is all very simple and straightforward. I am sure many people throughout Australia would accept this on face value as being a reasonable proposition. The third question refers to an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. Again, this is a straightforward sort of proposition: it seems reasonable enough. Of course, the fourth question has a few points in its hidden agenda, which I have referred to as the Bill of Rights type approach. It refers to an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury-most of us consider we have trial by jury-and to extend the freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government, either Federal or State, we presume. They all seem quite reasonable and straightforward until one looks at the arguments behind them. Of course, the Opposition has no qualms with the proposition that four-year terms would be good for the House of Representatives and for government in general. Indeed, a great deal is to be said in favour of four-year terms, as was outlined by other members and in the report of the Constitutional Commission, which claimed that the extra year would give government more time properly to implement economic policies and not to be continually recovering from or preparing for an election. That is reasonable, especially having in mind that since 1946 the average term of government has been 2 years and 2 months. The Constitutional Commission stated that the short electoral cycle tends to place pressure on governments to adopt expedient short-term measures for the purposes of electoral success. However, we have repeatedly reminded the Government that we support the corresponding increase in the term of the Senate. The coalition opposes the same four-year term for senators instead of, under the bicameral system, extending the term for senators to eight years. To introduce a four-year term for senators would reduce the power of the Senate, exactly what the Government is trying to do. It goes against the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission. This proposal effectively enforces permanent double dissolutions and removes restrictions on a Prime Minister from calling early elections. Other members on this side of the House have referred to this in the debate tonight. Half-Senate elections with an election for the House of Representatives require a quota of 14.3 per cent of the vote for election to the Senate. In a double dissolution, brought about by the blocking of Supply or a multiple rejection of Bills, the quota required for election to the Senate is reduced to 7.7 per cent. Again, these two figures have been referred to by members on this side of the House. It is a proven fact that a double dissolution favours minority parties, which do nothing but stall the legislative process. Take the last election for instance: the Australian Democrats were rescued from political oblivion by the calling of a double dissolution at the last moment. They were able to recover their electoral position. The argument that the public would never accept eight-year terms is quite ridiculous. In Victoria, members of the Legislative Council, the upper House, are elected for eight years after the change of terms in government in 1985. So it is untrue to say that the Australian people would not accept senators for eight years. Personally, I see some problems in having senators elected for such long periods, but if the Government wants to put forward the proposition that the parliamentary term be extended to four years it has to go along with the proposition that senators be elected for eight years so that the role of the Senate is preserved as a House of review in a bicameral structure and that the Senate not change automatically on the change of the House of Representatives. Of course, the role of the States would be preserved under the Opposition's proposal. It must be remembered that the diminution of the power of the States is a slap in the face for them. The Senate is a States House and it has been the Australian Labor Party's policy in its platform for many years to abolish the Senate, and with it the States rights. Mr Miles —It is still there. Mr McARTHUR —Yes, as the honourable member for Braddon says, it is still in the ALP's platform. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is not there. Mr McARTHUR —It is there by implication. Honourable members opposite are on record as trying very hard to reduce the role of the Senate; they will do anything they possibly can to achieve that. This proposal will reduce the role of the Senate. Honourable members opposite may have removed that from their platform by taking the words out, but the intent is still there. They seek to achieve the same result by other means. This means a fixed, short term, aligned entirely with the House of Representatives, with the principle of rotation being abolished. The independence of existence of the Senate is the prime factor in our Constitution and on this side of the House we support the independence of the Senate and its role in our Federal parliamentary system. Without it, many of our fundamental rights and liberties would not exist. The most recent example was the role of the Senate in rejecting the Australia Card legislation. I now turn to the one vote one value proposition. Most of the arguments in this chamber tonight have been directed at Queensland. If one looks at the historical perspective in Queensland, one sees that it was the ALP that set up the zonal system back in the 1930s in order to gain electoral advantage. Of course, it was not one vote one value that was the key element in that proposal; it was the boundaries within the zonal system which allowed parties on both sides of politics to gain advantage. The National Party in Queensland is taking advantage of the ALP's earlier electoral arrangements to gain the advantages of government. It is interesting to note also that the Labor Party abolished the upper House in Queensland. It is paying the price for this lack of control of one House in that State. Of course, one vote one value did not loom large in the arguments in Victoria when the Government wanted to expand the Legislative Assembly for its own electoral purposes. Likewise in New South Wales, the Wran Government saw fit to expand the size of the Legislative Assembly to its own electoral advantage, so much so that if the Greiner Government is to have a fair election on the next occasion the size of that House will have to be reduced so that one vote one value will operate. Here at Federal level, the present Government saw fit to expand the size of this House for its own electoral advantage. The 10 per cent variation, which has been referred to by other members, is acceptable to all political parties in order to take account of community of interest, geography and the ability of members to service their areas. If, by chance, we agree to this strange proposition, I wonder how the Federal Government will implement the one vote one value through every State electoral commissioner. Under what mechanical, legal arrangement could this Parliament, for the implementation of its constitutional requirement, force the State electoral commissioners to implement its particular proposals? Would every redistribution by State governments be challenged in the High Court of Australia on the basis of the boundaries and the voting patterns? There is enough argument anyway about redistributions in every State and in this place. I challenge the Government to explain to the people of Australia how we could implement this change. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is in the Bill. Mr McARTHUR —Yes, but I am interested to know how we will do it on a practical and mechanical basis so that every State government will be able to meet those requirements. I turn to local government. I support the view that this is a token proposition and that constitutional recognition will do nothing for local government. The section 119 which has been put forward does not even mention the word `Commonwealth' and the design of this amendment is to look after two States which are not mentioned as being operated under their own State government administrations. Everyone in this Parliament is aware that State governments administer local government and they organise the way in which they operate under local government Acts. The funding arrangements and the extra powers are State obligations. In Victoria, would the amalgamation proposals that were rejected by the people come under Federal jurisdiction? That is most unlikely. The Federal grants that have been directed to local government through State governments are matters for State authorities. If this proposal were agreed to, there would be considerable argument as to the legality of the Federal Government's role in local government. I support local government-it does a very good job at the local level-but I see no merit in this proposal and can find no argument to support it. Moving to the fourth question, again a range of arguments worries most people. Trial by jury has been with us in Australia for a long time. It goes back to Magna Carta in 1215. Every Australian presumes that trial by jury is his automatic right and privilege. There is no need to have it incorporated in the Constitution. The religious freedom that everyone enjoys is a right enjoyed without legal definition, and that is the way it should be. As with the Bill of Rights, the drawing up of legal constitutional rights brings with it difficulties in interpretation. Everyone in Australia enjoys religious freedom. There is no question that this is the way it should remain-under the present arrangements. In regard to property rights, the Federal Government wishes to legislate that State governments do the correct and proper thing in paying due amounts in property acquisitions. This constitutional change will not help to overcome the difficulties in arbitrating the value of the property of landowners when either State governments or the Federal government acquire land for public purposes. Finally, I add my support to the Opposition's position. We will vigorously oppose these referendum proposals. We will fight them everywhere in Australia. We will win the fight because our arguments are sound. People understand that if these changes take place their lives will be affected, the power of the Senate will be reduced, and the centralisation of power to Canberra-a long term Labor Party aim-will be achieved. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(11.03) —I do not think I have ever heard a weaker case put against reform than the case that has been put in this House tonight and is being put in the community, unless it was on the last occasion when these same questions were before the Australian people. This is not the first occasion. What does the Opposition really find objectionable in guaranteeing all Australians, through all parliaments, the right to freedom of religion? It is guaranteed by the Commonwealth Constitution that the States have no such inhibitions and could pass, if they were so minded, legislation to establish a religion, to ban a religion or any other practice which they so desired. Members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are in this House tonight. They have told us a dozen times that they will vigorously oppose the right to freedom of religion in Australia, for all Australians under all jurisdictions. Mr Sciacca —Incredible. Mr SCHOLES —It is quite incredible. The Commonwealth Constitution provides the right to trial by jury, but no such inhibition exists in respect of the State parliaments. This would entrench in the Commonwealth Constitution the same binding right of a person to a trial by jury as now applies to Commonwealth legislation. The Liberal and National parties are opposed to the Australian people having this right. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) said that it is a right that we have. It is not a right that we have. It is a right which we have currently in alterable legislation within State jurisdictions. It is not an entrenched right in Australia as it applies only to the Commonwealth Parliament. The Liberal and National parties say that this is a disposable right, like a paper towel. If a government which happens to be elected at some future time decides to dispose of that right in the States and to change the freedom of religion provisions which we would think are permanent but are not necessarily so, the Liberal and National parties say that that is all right; we should not have in the Constitution any provision which guarantees that right under State law. I should remind this House that the great body of law covering the Australian people in respect of matters of that nature is State law, not Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth Constitution also provides a right to fair compensation should the Commonwealth seek to acquire or take over a person's property. No such rights exist in respect of the State parliaments. It is a power limited to laws made by the Commonwealth Parliament. One wonders what the National Party's argument would be should a State parliament go back to past practices and invoke provisions which existed not that long ago in Victoria where the valuation of property which was acquired was backdated 10 years; when land was acquired in Victoria in the 1960s, the valuations were at 1951 values and the people who owned properties were robbed legally. The Liberal and National parties are saying that we should not have a provision in the Commonwealth Constitution-the Constitution which would govern all governments in Australia-to provide the right to fair compensation for the owners of that property. There are recent examples of State governments not providing fair compensation. They have an absolute right to legislate in any way they desire. There are no constitutional rights for the Australian people with respect to fair compensation in the acquisition of their property. It applies with the Commonwealth. The Opposition says that it should not apply where the great bulk of acquisition takes place-at a State level. I wonder what the justification for such a stand can be. There is only one-political opportunism of the worst type. A political party which says that it represents the free enterprise system, which says that it is opposed to big government, which wears its religious fervour on its shirt sleeves as a badge-it has to show it because it does not have much conviction-and which says that it believes in the rights and freedoms of the community, is going to the electorate to oppose the freedom of religion as a right, fair compensation and trial by jury. What a fraud it is. There is no other word to describe it. This is not the first time the question of recognition of local government has been put to the electorate. It was put in 1974 in a different form and in much more substance. Tonight honourable members brushed this question aside on the basis that it does not provide any real powers. It certainly does not-as some honourable members opposite have suggested-provide for the Commonwealth Parliament to take over legislative responsibility. That is and will stay a State responsibility. It guarantees the right of existence of local government-no more and no less-and does not give the Commonwealth legislative authority, as some would suggest. What did we do when this question was before us previously? It was then a more substantive question; nevertheless it was a question on local government. These sorts of statements were made: `This power will put the power of control over local government in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament' and `the Commonwealth Parliament will be able to bribe local government'. That is what was said in 1974 by honourable members opposite. It was a totally specious, politically opportunist argument because the State governments of the day, all conservative, did not want any inhibitions on their right to manipulate local government in any way in which they so desired. The honourable member for Corangamite suggested that the Victorian Government was seeking to manipulate local government. Opposition members campaigned for a referendum only a few years ago to protect the right of State governments to do what they liked with local government. They are still saying the same things. They have no commitment to local government. They have a commitment to some people who have influence in the community and can deliver to them the political influence that they desire and desperately seek to restore to themselves. I come to the major question in these referendum proposals. The first and, I must say, probably the least important is that for four-year parliaments and four-year terms for senators. We debated this question a few years ago. The Liberal and National parties have regularly sought to portray the Senate as a States House. But when the question of one vote one value comes up, they argue that it is not really a States House and that it should be treated in the same manner as the House of Representatives. So that there can be no argument about the Senate's basis of operation, I inform the House that the Australian Senate was derived from the United States Senate on the basis of representation of the geographic areas of the various States. In the United States there has been a Supreme Court ruling on one vote one value in respect of representation in the lower Houses of the state legislatures and the House of Representatives. Representation by senators varies from under half a million electors in Delaware and Vermont to a figure approaching 50 million electors in California and New York. That variation is accepted because the Senate is not considered to be the same as the House of Representatives, but a House that is structured differently to represent different points of view. The last comparison with the United States Senate disappeared when that method was chosen, because the Australian Senate has never, since Federation, acted as a States House. Since the introduction of proportional representation in 1949 the Senate has been totally a political House and has voted on political lines on every question which has come before it in that entire period, other than on those few questions which have concerned matters of conscience and free votes. The Senate is a political House. The majority of senators for the major parties are appointed, not elected. If a person is No. 1 or No. 2 on the Senate ticket for one of the major parties in any State in mainland Australia, he will be elected as a senator. It is immaterial whether the term is eight years or four years. The facts are that if a person gets the nod from the executive of his party, the electors have no say in whether he is elected. Every member of this House ought to be honest enough at least to acknowledge the truth of that matter. Senators do not vote in blocs as States. They have not done so other than on those occasions before the introduction of proportional representation when on several occasions the Senate had all members of the one political philosphy representing a State. There was an occasion when there was only one Opposition senator. We have heard the argument about simultaneous elections and half-Senate elections almost ad infinitum. It is always put as a plot to destroy the power of the Senate. What utter rubbish! In the last 16 years no senator has served a six-year term. The last senator to complete a six-year term completed it in 1967. Every Senate election since that time has taken place at the same time as the House of Representatives election. There have been three short terms of the House of Representatives in modern times to bring it back in line with the Senate following a double dissolution or a dissolution of the House of Representatives for opportunistic reasons by the government of the day. They occurred in 1977 and 1984. It will continue to occur while we have separate sets of circumstances relating to the terms of both Houses. In Victoria at the last occasion of simultaneous elections the government of the day opposed them because they demeaned the upper House. It had passed legislation at the time of every election since 1961 to have simultaneous elections. But in some way simultaneous elections are supposed to diminish the power of the Senate. Is any honourable member prepared to say now that the power of the Senate is any less today as a result of having at the last two elections a House of Representatives and half-Senate election and a double dissolution respectively while the election before those was a double dissolution and the two elections before that were half-Senate and House of Representatives elections? Is any honourable member prepared to say that that has in any way diminished the power of the Senate at all? Of course it has not. Simultaneous elections are a matter of fact. The one thing I would like to say in addition to that is that we have heard some specious argument that by bringing the House of Representatives and the Senate into simultaneous election mode we will in some way bring about a situation which is different from that which exists when we have a fixed term for the Senate. On every occasion when the Senate has gone to an election on its own, the public has treated that election as a joke. That has demeaned the Senate and the minor parties have won seats in almost every State in Australia. The argument put up by the Opposition has no validity whatsoever in fact. In regard to the argument for an eight-year term for senators, how many honourable members really think that a senator elected in 1980 is relevant to current political thought when, in fact, the term of such a senator under an eight-year term would not be due to expire until the middle of next year? There is no reason why senators have to be fossils to function properly. In fact, they may well function a lot better if their terms were fixed to that of the House of Representatives and they faced their electors every four years. Under the proposals the Opposition is putting forward with an eight-year term and the automatic replacement of a senator who ceases to function, resigns or such-for example, Senator Wood-such a senator's replacement could serve 15 years in the Senate and face only one election. One election in 15 years-fossils! Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard the No case for simultaneous elections at the 1984 referendums. I do that because I think it is important that the Australian community-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I think the guidelines that successive Speakers have outlined are that it can only be tables or such things that cannot be read into the record. The honourable member might wish to read his document into the record and that would solve his problem. Mr SCHOLES —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to read the whole thing into the record. I think that the House would understand the basis of the campaign put forward by the Opposition against simultaneous elections in 1974. These are the major points of a major constitutional reform debate. The first is runaway inflation. The Opposition did not want simultaneous elections because of runaway inflation. The other points are: absurdly high interest rates, staggering tax payments and irresponsible government spending. That is the most opportunistic, most dishonest type of argument which could possibly be put to the Australian people. It has nothing to do with the question at all and it is political opportunism. The one other item which is on the paper is democratic elections. I ask: Why are the conservative parties in this country afraid of the electorate? They have always been afraid of the electorate. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) acknowledged, when he answered an interjection, that he is happy to win elections by any means, including rigging. If the conservative parties in this Parliament and in this country cannot get elected under a system where every Australian is treated as equal and is given the democratic rights to which he is entitled, they are not entitled to power. For the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to say that he believes in the States, and that where there is a gerrymander of the type that exists in Queensland, it can be altered only by the electoral defeat of a government which cannot be defeated at the polls because of the gerrymander, it is a cop-out; no more and no less. The real reason the Opposition is opposing these referendums is not for any high principle, not for any protection of the Australian people; it is because it has not got enough guts to stand up and be counted in the name of democracy. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(11.21) —In this debate I wish to speak solely to the so-called Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. There are two concepts here that are very often confused. The first is that of equality and the second is that of fairness. Equality in electoral terms relates to malapportionment and it relates to how different numbers of people may exist in different electorates. The concept of fairness relates to the way the boundaries are drawn and to what bias might exist towards one party or the other. Effectively we have a two-party system. Over 90 per cent of the people in this country vote for the party of their choice and not for an individual candidate. Fairness is deemed to be where a party that wins 50 per cent of the vote plus one is entitled to form the Government. What sort of relationship is there between fairness and equity? Two examples stand out in Australian history since the Second World War. The first is the Commonwealth. In 1962 a redistribution was disallowed by the Federal Parliament. The last redistribution before that applied before the 1955 election. So when the 1966 election came around, we had the most malapportioned boundaries for any election in Australia since the Second World War. That 1966 election was the fairest election that this country has had since the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia, because the bias that existed in the two-party system was the least we had had in 40 years. So while the numbers of electors were different, there was very little bias to one party or the other. There was a redistribution in South Australia before the 1956 election, and there was not another until 1968; 12 years later. In 1968 South Australia had the most malapportioned boundaries for any State or Federal election in Australia since the Second World War. Yet that 1968 election was the fairest that South Australia had had since the Second World War. It was fair because there was no bias in the system towards one party or the other. The party that got the majority of votes formed the Government. Equity and fairness are two totally independent areas. So what exists today? Three States and the Commonwealth have so-called one vote one value. I would like to read out what the Liberal Party of Australia would need to win government in those States. In Victoria the Liberal Party would form government with 51.3 per cent of the vote; in South Australia, 52.2 per cent; and in New South Wales it formed government with 52.8 per cent of the vote. In the Commonwealth it would need 52.5 per cent of the vote to form government. So in these States and the Commonwealth that have so-called one vote one value, the Liberal and National parties need an average of 52.2 per cent of the vote to form government. Where is the fairness in that? I ask honourable members to compare that with the two States that do not have so-called one vote one value. In Western Australia the Liberal and National parties would form government with 47.8 per cent of the vote. In Queensland the coalition would form government with 48.7 per cent of the vote. That is an average of 48.3 per cent. So in the so-called one vote one value States there is a bias of 2.2 per cent. In the States without one vote one value there is a bias of 1.7 per cent. So equality has nothing to do with fairness. I have heard a lot tonight about the gerrymander in Queensland. The criticisms made do not stand up to the facts. Over the last five elections in each State and the Commonwealth the bias was as follows: in Queensland there has been an average bias of 1.5 per cent; in Victoria, 3.3 per cent; in New South Wales, 4.3 per cent; in South Australia, 4.9 per cent; in Western Australia, 3.5 per cent; and, for the Commonwealth, there has been an average bias of 3.2 per cent. Unquestionably and consistently over the past 15 years, Queensland has been the fairest State in this country for the Australian Labor Party. Anyone who asserts anything different just has not looked at the figures. There is no question that there is a bias in the Queensland system against the Liberal Party and, being a member of the Liberal Party, obviously that is of concern to me. The fact here in Australia and overseas is that any party's representation in parliament is not a function simply of the vote it gets; if anything, it seems to vary with the third power and with the proportion of the vote it gets. That means that a small party will actually get a very small percentage of the representation. It affects the Liberals adversely in Queensland and it affects the Nationals adversely in Victoria, and there is really very little that can be done about that. I would like to speak specifically about some points that honourable members have raised in the debate tonight. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said that our stance was simply an attempt to hold the coalition together. As a member of the Liberal Party I have consistently argued strongly against the legislation because it will do nothing to increase fairness in elections and, if anything, will make elections manifestly more unfair. He also talked of the freedom of choice that we in the conservative parties often tout, and suggested that perhaps we might exercise that freedom of choice. When the votes are taken the honourable member for Throsby will indeed see some members of the coalition exercising that freedom of choice. Perhaps he might contrast that to the case of a former member of his own party. When former Senator Georges from Queensland exercised his freedom of choice he was forced to leave the Labor Party. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) said that everyone's vote should be equal. Where is the equality when 52.8 per cent of the people in New South Wales have to vote for the Liberal Party for it to be elected to government? The honourable member for Petrie also said the Government does not attempt to pretend that this proposal will solve the problem of gerrymandering; it will solve the problem of malapportionment. That is absolutely correct. It will not solve the problem of gerrymandering; it will make it worse. Maybe it will solve the problem of malapportionment but I would strongly argue that no problem exists because what malapportionment does exist if anything serves to make elections fairer. I give an example of Western Australia. In seeking to solve the so-called problem of malapportionment, with a 15 per cent tolerance in the size of electorates, the Liberal Party in Western Australia will now need 53.1 per cent of the vote to win government. If this Bill is passed and the limit is reduced to 10 per cent, the Liberal and National parties in Western Australia will need something approaching 55 per cent of the vote to form government. Where is the fairness in that? The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) said that the Opposition was afraid of elections and that it could not be elected by people having equal votes. We are certainly not afraid of elections but, no, we cannot be elected when Bills are introduced that will bring in a gerrymander in this country so that in every State and in the Commonwealth it is necessary for the Liberal and National parties to gain significantly more than 50 per cent of the vote to win government. I have spoken tonight because I wish to place on record my strong opposition to this Bill. I also wish to go on the record as saying that I am totally committed to the concept of fair and democratic elections. But where is the fairness when there is significant bias to the Labor Party in every State in Australia? Where is the fairness when this Bill will significantly increase that gerrymander in Western Australia and Queensland? How is democracy served by severely disadvantaging the Liberal and National parties and helping the Australian Labor Party win with a minority of the vote? I believe the Bill will be defeated at the referendum. The Opposition is not afraid of the voters and for that reason is taking an unpopular decision and is prepared to put its case to the people. Debate (on motion by Mr Snow) adjourned. House adjourned at 11.33 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Langmore to move- That, in view of the massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, conventional and other types of weapons and of the continued technological escalation of the arms race, notably into space, this House calls on the Government to use every possible means to encourage disarmament through measures which would enhance global security including: (1) continuing to advocate a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; (2) continuing opposition to research on, or deployment of, space weaponry; (3) supporting establishment of a permanent, effective international verification organisation; (4) supporting strengthening of international dispute settling procedures through mediation or adjudication under international law; (5) supporting establishment of permanent United Nations peacekeeping forces; and (6) seeking permanently reliable sources of revenue to fund these activities. Mr Punch to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Film Commission Act 1975. Madam Speaker to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Service Act 1922, and for related purposes. Mr Punch to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 15 March 1988, namely: The construction of bus shelters on the landbridge between the new Parliament House and the provisional Parliament House. Mr Beazley to move- That this House authorises: (1) the Speaker to make arrangements for all or part of the ministerial statement concerning economic measures to be made by the Treasurer on 25 May 1988 and all or part of the reply to that statement by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (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 Beazley to move- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remaining of the sittings this week; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988; and United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 May 1988: Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1988- No. 6-Export Control (Fresh Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment). Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). National Health Act-Principles formulated under subsection 40aa (7), dated 30 March 1988. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determination-1988/3-Chairman and Members, Board of Inquiry, Australian National Railways Commission. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees and/or charges for the purposes of the following Ordinances- ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education, dated 13 April 1988. Canberra Institute of the Arts, dated 13 April 1988 (2). Motor Omnibus Services, dated 5 May 1988. Ordinances-1988- No. 19-Meat (Amendment). No. 20-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 6). No. 21-Financial Institutions Duty (Amendment). Regulations-1988- No. 4 (Meat Ordinance). No. 5 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instruments, dated 24 March 1988, varying- Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Treatment Principles. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 97) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) Is it a fact that when the World Heritage Committee at its meeting in Sydney in October 1981 included Kakadu National Park in the World Heritage List it (a) noted that the Government intended to proclaim additional areas in the Alligator Rivers Region as part of Kakadu National Park and (b) recommended that (i) such additional areas be included in the site inscribed on the World Heritage List and (ii) the environmental protection measures specified in the relevant legislation continue to be enforced in the region. (2) Are the environmental protection measures still being enforced. (3) Have proposals been made to the Government to change the environmental protection measures; if so, what was the (a) nature, (b) date and (c) source of the proposals. (4) What steps have been taken to (a) proclaim additional areas as part of Kakadu National Park and (b) include them in the World Heritage site. (5) How soon is it expected that the (a) proclamation and (b) inclusion will take place. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Environmental protection measures for the Kakadu region are being enforced through provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 and other Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation. (3) The Government has received a great many representations from organisations and individuals proposing changes of some kind to the environment protection measures for the Kakadu region. In view of the excessive time and resources it would take to compile, I do not propose to list the nature, date and source of these representations. (4) (a) The Hawke Government proclaimed Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park in February 1984. Approximately 65% of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases was added to Kakadu National Park, as Stage 3, in June 1987, with the remainder of the leases being proclaimed a Conservation Zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Government is currently considering re-defining the boundary of the Conservation Zone to take more detailed account of the natural and cultural values, and further geological information. The boundary changes would also correct some minor anomalies and inaccuracies in the original proclamation. A re-definition of the Conservation Zone boundary could result in some areas of the Conservation Zone being added to Kakadu National Park and some areas of the Park being added to the Conservation Zone. Under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, any proposal involving removal of areas from Kakadu National Park is subject to a 60 day public review period and approval of both Houses of Parliament. (4) (b) In September 1986 the Government decided to take immediate steps to seek the addition of Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park to the current World Heritage site, and made a submission to the World Heritage Committee. Australia requested deferment of the submission by the World Heritage Committee because of legal action taken in Australia by Peko Wallsend Ltd and associated companies. This legal action eventually ended in favour of the Commonwealth and the Government then reactivated the submission. The World Heritage Committee, in December 1987, decided to include Stage 2 in the site inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Government is not in a position to consider possible additions to the World Heritage site until the boundaries of the Conservation Zone have been finalised. (5) (a) Subject to any necessary parliamentary processes revisions to the Conservation Zone boundary of Kakadu Stage 3 may be expected early in 1988. A five year exploration and resource assessment program will be conducted in the Conservation Zone to help determine, by the end of that period, which further areas should be added to the Park. The Government's intention is that ultimately as much of the Conservation Zone as possible will be incorporated in the Park and that only mining projects of major economic significance, not merely economic viability, will be excluded from the Park. (5) (b) See (4) (b). It should be noted that the Government can only nominate areas for World Heritage listing. The decision on whether or not the nomination is included on the World Heritage List is a matter for the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO. In making its decision on Kakadu Stage 2, the World Heritage Committee encouraged the Australian authorities to consider further extending the World Heritage site to include Stage 3 of the National Park and to modify the boundaries of Stages 1 and 2 in order to protect the entire catchment area, and to include the cultural values to the East of the present National Park. (Question No. 135) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Are letters from the Minister's Department forwarded to individuals and corporations marked ``postage paid'' without date stamping; if so, are there significant revenue savings from these measures. (2) If letters are not date stamped, will the Minister ensure all letters are appropriately date stamped. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Envelopes weighing more than 100 grams are forwarded as bulk postage without date stamps on the envelopes, but appropriate date details are recorded on a consignment note and file copies retained. Significant cost savings are available using the bulk mail process. (2) As the labour required for date stamping would negate the cost advantages of the bulk mail process and the fact that the correspondence itself is dated, Australia Post advises they do not consider any changes to existing arrangements necessary. (Question No. 587) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) With regard to the consultancy contract for the Australian pavilion at Expo 88 awarded to Ken Bennett and Associates of Kingston, A.C.T., which was announced on 18 February 1987, were tenders for the contract called for publicly; if so, how many tenders were received. (2) If tenders were not called for, what procedures were followed which led to the award of the contract. (3) What work has been done pursuant to the contract. (4) What payments have been made by the Commonwealth under the contract. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. (2) The usual procedures for the commissioning of public relation consultants were employed. Finance Regulation 52aa (2) exempts Public Relations Agents and Management Consultancy services from the requirement to obtain quotations or publicly invite tenders. Notwithstanding this regulation, submissions (not tenders) were called from a list of consultants with relevant expertise. Three firms made submissions and were interviewed by a panel of departmental officers and, as a result of this process, Ken Bennett and Associates were selected. (3) Ken Bennett and Associates prepared strategies, provided advice and undertook preliminary negotiations to obtain State Government participation in Expo 88 and to secure corporate sponsorships of aspects of the Australian Pavilion at Expo 88. (4) The following payments were made on behalf of the then Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism: 13.2.87...$5,999.40 18.3.87...$8,023.90 14.4.87...$5,332.80 TOTAL...$19,356.10 (Question No. 643) Mr Kent asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) What is the attitude of the Government to the proposal by a private consortium to build a Very Fast Train line between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne? (2) What steps will the Government take to ensure that the route does not pass through environmentally sensitive areas such as Wolli Creek near Sydney which lies on the consortium's proposed route and which has been identified as environmentally sensitive by the NSW Government's 1979-80 Kirkby Inquiry? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Federal Government's position is that the Very Fast Train (VFT) is a private sector venture which should stand or fall on its own commercial merits without Federal Government resource involvement. (2) I am advised the precise alignment of the VFT line has not yet been determined. However, the VFT will be required to comply with all relevant State and Federal Government environmental regulations. (Question No. 754) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) Prior to 1987, was the ``ABC Sports Award of the Year'' presented at functions held in the ABC studios at Gore Hill in Sydney; if so, were studio functions frugal affairs with a simple supper served at the conclusion of the presentation. (2) Was a function held in January 1988 at the Sydney Intercontinental Hotel Captain Cook function room, to effect provision of the award. (3) How many persons attended the function at the invitation of the ABC. (4) Did the function include a dinner comprised of smoked salmon, supreme chicken with tomato basil coulis, cheese platter, petits fours, coffee, drinks including Australian red and white wines and mineral water, as well as a jazz band, printed menues and invitations. (5) What was the cost to the ABC for the use of the ballroom and the provision of food, beverages and entertainment. (6) Were additional costs incurred in providing staff and outside broadcast facilities, beyond those necessary to record a studio presentation. (7) Were any of the costs incurred recovered from guests. (8) What fringe benefits tax was paid in relation to the function. (9) Has the ABC recently complained of a shortage of funds provided by the Government for its ongoing operations, and complained of prospective future cuts in its operating costs. (10) Has the ABC ceased televising various sporting events during 1987-88, including the bowling program ``Jack High'' on the pretext of a shortage of funds. (11) Will the Minister comment on the priorities of the ABC. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) The ABC Sports Award has been held at various venues, including ABC Studios, the Drama Theatre at the Opera House, the Chandler Weightlifting Centre in Brisbane and the Parmelia Hilton in Perth. In recent years food and beverages have been provided for the ABC's guests. (2) Yes (3) 206, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition and the Federal Shadow Minister for Sport. (4) Yes (5) Cost included: Ballroom for set-up rehearsal, production $6,000 Food, beverages (including pre dinner drinks) $14,490 Band $400 (6) Detailed costing for a studio production has not been prepared. However, crew requirements for OB and studio coverage of events of this nature are similar. Nor is there extra cost for OB facilities which are part of the ABC's inventory of equipment. (7) No (8) Nil. The ABC pays Fringe Benefit Tax on entertainment expenses incurred on behalf of its own employees. (9) Yes (10) Funds are one of several factors taken into account when the ABC establishes its sporting production priorities. (11) The ABC Board is responsible for determining the expenditure and program priorities of the ABC. (Question No. 842) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) Which Department or authority proposed the construction of the building known as the Deakin Offices, Australian Capital Territory. (2) Which Department or authority became responsible for the building when it was handed over by the builder. (3) Which Department or authority is presently responsible for the building. (4) What was the original estimated cost of the building. (5) Has the building been sold; if so, what was the sale price. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Telecom Australia. (2) Telecom Australia. (3) Department of Administrative Services. (4) The estimate of cost referred to the Public Works Committee in 1975 was $13.5m. However, in 1977 a contract for the construction of the building was let for $10.2m. (5) No. The acquisition of the building by the Department of Administrative Services in September 1982 was part of a transfer of assets between the Department and Telecom. (Question No. 860) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 April 1988: (1) How many, and what classes of, warships of the Soviet Union were sighted in the Southern Pacific Ocean in (a) 1983, (b) 1984, (c) 1985, (d) 1986 and (e) 1987. (2) What is the estimated number of ship days spent in the Southern Pacific Ocean by each warship. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Soviet naval vessels rarely visit the South Pacific. Other than the activity referred to in the response given to Question No. 17 (Senate Hansard 16 February 1988, page 75), there has been no significant Soviet naval activity in the South Pacific since 1982, as described in the answer to Question No. 160 (Hansard, 6 September 1983 pages 439-40). (Question No. 879) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 14 April 1988: (1) What measures have been taken by the Australian Customs Service to protect people from the consumption of imported foods contaminated by the radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. (2) What screening procedures are in place to check radioactivity in imported foodstuffs. (3) What has been the result of the screening so far. (4) Have any shipments of foodstuffs been rejected. (5) What are the details of the code of safety practices covering radioactivity in foodstuffs, including details of the permitted levels of radioactivity in the listed foods covered by the code. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following assessment, by officers of the then Department of Health, of overseas information regarding the extent of contamination, an IDC, chaired by the Department of Health recommended that a program be implemented to check foodstuffs from countries suspected of being contaminated by fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. These countries were grouped into two lists. List 2 countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Turkey and USSR) are those countries close to and including the USSR, where the radioactive fall-out was highest and the potential for food contamination was greatest. List 1 countries (Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia) are those where the fall-out was much lower and which were known to impose limits on the contamination in food for the domestic and export markets. The Australian Customs Service, on advice from the Australian Radiation Laboratory of the Department of Community Services and Health, has developed profiles on goods and countries which may have been contaminated. These profiles are designed to flag targeted importation and allow Customs to assess whether the requirements of the Australian Radiation Laboratory are being met. (2) All food consignments from List 2 countries are required to be accompanied by certificates giving the caesium-137 concentration in them. If this concentration is less than 100 becquerels per kilogram, standing arrangements with the Department of Community Service and health provide for the foodstuffs to pass through Customs without delay; if greater than 100 becquerels per kilogram, a permit to import is required from that department before Customs will release them. Permits are issued if the risk to health is assessed as negligible. Special clearance is not required for foodstuffs imported from List 1 countries. Apart from the certification referred to above, foodstuffs imported from List 1 and List 2 countries are subject to a computer directed random sampling and testing program. In this program, the consignments undergo a pre-screening check for radioactivity, samples from the shipment must be submitted to an approved Australian laboratory for analysis and certification. Clearance procedures through Customs are then the same as for imports from List 2 countries. (3) My colleague, the Minister for Community Services and Health informs me that, up to the present time, moist foodstuffs coming into Australia, whether caught in the random sampling program or accompanied by certificates have shown zero or very low levels of radioactivity (i.e. much less than 100 becquerels per kilogram). Only a few items, such as hazelnuts and some herbs have shown levels higher than 100 becquerels per kilogram, but they have not posed a risk to health. They are often used in processed foods, e.g. hazelnuts in chocolate, herbs in tomato sauce and the concentration in consumed foods would then be very much less than 100 becquerels per kilogram. Because the levels in most foodstuffs have been found to be very low, resources are better spent in checking particular commodities and the program has been adapted to do this. This approach allows for checking foodstuffs which may have originated in affected countries and which have been transhipped into and re-exported from other countries, either after further processing or not. (4) The Australian Radiation Laboratory advises that no shipments of foodstuffs have been rejected. (5) The Australian Radiation Laboratory also advises that the there is no code of safe practice covering radioactivity in foodstuffs in Australia, but standards for this are under consideration. Maximum permitted levels, if set, would differ with the various types of foodstuffs, the consumption rates and the radionuclides. At a World Health Organisation meeting held in Geneva last September, a working group prepared harmonized standards of radioactivity in foodstuffs for universal use. For caesium-137, these standards were a few thousand becquerels per kilogram in major dietary components such as herbs and spices. These standards are many times greater than the levels found in foodstuffs after the Chernobyl accident. (Question No. 898) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) Where did the concept of a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or Civil Aviation Corporation (CAC) originate? (2) When was the CAA or some such similar body first proposed or discussed within the Minister's Department? (3) What consultation has taken place between the Minister's Department and the industry concerning the CAA? (4) When did industry consultation commence? (5) When was the Government's intention to establish the CAA or CAC first announced publicly? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) It is difficult to identify where and when the concept of a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or similar body originated. I am advised that prior to the Hawke Government's election to office, a suggestion was made for the establishment of some form of independent corporation to operate the air traffic services system in Australia, and that this suggestion is understood to have originated outside the then Department of Transport. In November 1984, the then Minister for Aviation the Hon. K. C. Beazley, MP, in an address to the Annual Conference of the General Aviation Association raised the possibility that following establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation, remaining elements of the then Department of Aviation in due course might be placed outside the Public Service framework in a body akin to the US Federal Aviation Administration or the UK Civil Aviation Authority. (3), (4) and (5) In October 1986 I announced, as then Minister for Aviation, that the Government had taken an in-principle decision to set up a Civil Aviation Corporation to provide and operate the civil airways system in Australia. Detailed proposals were to be brought back to the Government for consideration after consultation with industry and staff associations. Whether regulatory responsibilities should reside with the Corporation was one of the issues to be considered. Consultation with the aviation industry was initiated by me in November 1986 in a meeting with the Aviation Industry Advisory Council (AVIAC). I also initiated consultation with staff associations. Subsequently a senior officer of the former Department was seconded to hold consultations with interested parties and obtain their views on the functions, composition, etc. of the proposed Corporation. A discussion paper he prepared was considered by a meeting of the Committee of Advisers to AVIAC in April 1987. The Government's decision to proceed with establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority, which was to include safety regulation among its functions, was announced by the Minister for Transport and Communications in Parliament on 7 October 1987. (Question No. 899) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) Was Mr Willoughby of the Minister's Department seconded in 1986 to head a task force to examine options for the establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); if so, did Mr Willoughby produce a draft or final report? (2) Why were the task force reports never released to the public or staff associations for comment? (3) If the task force report was not finalised, (a) why not and (b) on what basis did the Government make its decisions concerning the final structure of the CAA? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An in-principle decision by the Government to establish a Civil Aviation Corporation was announced by me, as Minister for Aviation, in October 1986. In subsequent meetings with the Aviation Industry Advisory Council (AVIAC), and separately with a number of staff associations, it was indicated that consultation on the functions, composition, etc. of such a body would be undertaken through a task force located within the former Department. This proposal was not proceeded with in its original form because a sufficient number of suitable officers could not be released from normal duties at the time. Mr Willoughby, Regional Director for Victoria/Tasmania, undertook consultations with interested parties. While the description of ``task force'' was retained, Mr Willoughby was the sole member. (2) and (3) An initial report prepared by Mr Willoughby was discussed with the Committee of Advisors to AVIAC in April 1987. Consultation was suspended after national elections were called, and it was subsequently decided to proceed with establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority on the basis of consultations already held. This decision was announced by the Minister for Transport and Communications in October 1987. The Minister later met with a number of staff associations and discussed with them the rationale for the Government's decision.