Monday, 28 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m. and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the house that the Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Willis, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions on aviation, broadcasting and telecommunications matters should be addressed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support, Mr Punch. The Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, Mr Robert Brown, will take questions on transport and shipping matters. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Last Wednesday the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) asked me to consider the possible application of standing order 85 to Question Time and I undertook to look into the matter. Standing order 85 states: The Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech: Provided that such Member shall have the right to require that the question whether he be further heard be put, and thereupon such question shall be put without debate. Members will note that the standing order refers to debate and a member's speech. The records of the House reveal that this rule has been applied only to debates, never to answers to questions. Where the meaning and application of the rule is explained in House of Representatives Practice, at page 456, there is no mention of answers to questions. Chapter XI of the Standing Orders contains detailed provisions in respect of questions and some provisions in respect of answers, and provides the main rules. But it must be acknowledged that the Standing Orders in chapter XI do not provide a complete statement of all the rules governing Question Time. For example, the sub judice rule applies but it is not mentioned in the chapter. In addition, there is no mention in the chapter of the rule on interjections, yet it is only sensible to read that rule as having general application. I also note that at page 488 of House of Representatives Practice it is recorded that the content of questions must comply with the general rules governing the content of speeches. This statement is also to be found in May's Parliamentary Practice; there is no mention of answers. I also remind members of the final provision in standing order 85 to the effect that, if the Chair directs a member to discontinue his speech, the member has the right to require that the question of whether he be further heard be put, and this question must be put without debate. I would be surprised if members wished to have such a right enshrined in so far as Question Time is concerned. Madam SPEAKER —Last Thursday the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) asked me whether it was correct to say that Question Time was a privilege extended by the Executive. The honourable member quoted from House of Representatives Practice on the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament and on the importance of questions on notice and questions without notice in so far as the capacity of the House to call the Government to account is concerned. I am sure all members would agree that Question Time is an important practical, as well as symbolic, manifestation of the constitutional relationship between the House and the Executive. Despite its importance, the period's status in technical terms is, in a sense, and has always been slightly tenuous. Whilst standing order 142 states that `questions may be put to a Minister' and so on, and standing order 101 provides for questions without notice in the routine of business, members will be aware that the duration of question time is traditionally a matter for the Government to determine. It is also established practice that Ministers cannot be compelled to answer questions. I note that it was not until the adoption of permanent Standing Orders in 1950 that questions without notice were included in the standing order governing the routine of business. This is despite the fact that questions featured in proceedings from the first Parliament. It illustrates, I think, that, in a procedural sense, Question Time had a slightly unofficial but conventional standing. Despite these considerations, the question period, to my knowledge, has always been regarded by honourable members as a vitally important proceeding of the House. It has the well-known function, mentioned by the honourable member, of enabling the Executive to be called to account. I would commend to all honourable members a reading of pages 479 to 482 of House of Representatives Practice, which give a short history of questions and Question Time. We might all reflect on the situation we have arrived at over recent years, and perhaps ask ourselves whether Question Time does not warrant a more businesslike and less confrontational approach with regard to both questions and answers. Mr PEACOCK —I preface my question to the Treasurer by reminding him that I have yet to receive an answer to a question taken on notice by the Acting Treasurer on 13 October 1988 concerning the after-tax real rate of return on savings deposits. In the meantime, I ask the Treasurer whether he estimates that a rise in mortgage rates to 15.5 per cent would reduce the number of new housing starts by approximately 20 per cent. If not, what is the Treasurer's estimate of the impact of a rise in mortgage rates to 15.5 per cent on the number of new housing starts? Mr KEATING —I can only observe that, in terms of empirical evidence, we now have the strongest level of housing starts in our history-that is, nearly 160,000 from a base of 105,000 which existed in the last year of the coalition Government to which the questioner belonged. That has been accommodated in part by the deregulation of the savings bank system which the Government to which the honourable member belonged did not have either the interest or the courage to do. That flow of funds to the housing sector from a proper working and functioning of the banking system has allowed this level of housing starts and, for the first time in its history, the Australian housing industry is not facing the kinds of changes in prosperity that it once faced, given the fact that banks can take deposits, buy deposits off the market and lend them at a commercial price-that is, lend them outside the area of regulation. That guarantees a flow of funds to the banking system which it has not had before. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party asked me whether an increase in housing interest rates would have a certain effect on the number of loans advanced and housing starts. The capacity of the industry to build houses is a finite one. Regardless of the level of housing approvals, what we would see otherwise would be the industry bumping up against the capacity constraints which both labour and material supply impact upon that industry. Were that not the case, that demand would simply spill over into prices. If it spills over into prices there is less advantage to people seeking a home loan, particularly for a first home, or, more generally, housing accommodation. I can only observe that, regardless of the implication and point of the honourable gentleman's question, we are now building houses in this country at a rate faster than ever before while running up against capacity constraints. Mr KENT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Following the unfortunate incident at the Yugoslav Consulate in Sydney over the weekend where a teenage demonstrator was shot by a security guard, will the Government ensure that the matter will be investigated fully and that the person or persons responsible will be dealt with according to Australian law? Will the Government remind our ethnic communities that, as Australians, their responsibility is, first and foremost, to Australia and not to events which occur in other parts of the world? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Hotham for his question. I can say to him that the Government views the shooting of Josef Tokic at the Yugoslav Consulate-General in Sydney on the weekend as intolerable and totally unacceptable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has made it clear to the Yugoslav Ambassador, Dr Cizelj, and to the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry in Belgrade, that this Government expects complete cooperation from the Embassy and from the Consulate-General in dealing with this matter. We do not believe that this is a matter for which any reliance on immunity in any form is appropriate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has said, and I am sure that honourable members would agree, that he expects that the law in this case will follow the normal course. The Yugoslav authorities have confirmed today, in response to our representations, that they will cooperate by, firstly, making the person concerned available for interview by the New South Wales police; secondly, handing over the firearm; and, thirdly, ensuring that the person involved would not seek to leave Australia before the matter is dealt with. The Government accepts fully its responsibility to protect the personnel and premises of diplomatic and consular offices in Australia. I have noted the claim that security provided at the Consultate-General yesterday afternoon was inadequate. We are examining this aspect. I emphasise that whatever the provocation involved in the intrusion on the Consulate grounds and the attempt to pull down the Yugoslav flag, the use of firearms in response is totally indefensible. Australia is a multicultural society and, in it, people have the right to remember with respect and honour their own traditions and cultures. We want them to do that. People in this country also have a right to demonstrate peacefully and to express their views, but any actions must be within the law. As I said on Friday, we do not want to see Australia become a battleground in terms of people trying to live out and act out ancient rivalries that may still, to some extent, bedevil their places of origin. Our policy of multiculturalism presumes an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia in which people see themselves first and foremost as Australians. Mr MOORE —I refer the Attorney-General to the decision of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) to conduct a private hearing into the affairs of Rothwells Ltd and associated companies because of the Commission's belief that `offences that involve fraud or dishonesty . . . may have been committed'. Is there any obligation on the Commission to make public all evidence obtained at the inquiry? If not, in the interests of the fullest public disclosure of this financial scandal-and the major role played by the Burke and Dowding governments-will the Attorney take the initiative at this Thursday's meeting of the State and Federal Attorneys to direct a special investigation? If not, why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable gentleman would know, Rothwells is incorporated in Queensland and, of course, any encouragement for a special investigation certainly would be moved by the Attorney-General for Queensland. An order has been made in the Queensland Supreme Court to appoint a liquidator. According to the reports that I have read, obviously he will be making some report in the second week of December. The honourable member asks whether the NCSC has made any recommendation in this matter to the Ministerial Council. It has not done so. Of course, I am anxious that it will be able to tell us something about it when the meeting takes place on Thursday of this week. Mr Moore —What about your initiative? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable member knows, because of the scheme being the way it is-which the coalition took credit in designing-- Mr Moore —You have all the powers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No; not all the powers, at all. We would be involved only in the case of some special national proposition that the Ministerial Council felt could not he handled. For the life of me, at one point the honourable member represents Queensland and the Queensland Attorney-General has not raised the issue; at another point he represents the National Companies and Securities Commission, which has never raised the matter. So, apparently, because the Attorney-General in Queensland does not do his job or, apparently, according to the honourable member's records, the National Companies and Securities Commission does not do its job, it is time that the Federal Government did something about national companies. I will do it by bringing in Federal law. We will then have some chance of some accountability. It is no good honourable members opposite waffling on about the need for something to be done. There was an obligation for this Parliament to do something about it by acknowledging that this Parliament has some accountability and some legal statutory basis. We do not have the power to act in the sense that honourable members opposite think we have. That power could only be used if the Ministerial Council felt it should be. It has never been in that position. I am just as anxious as honourable members opposite to get a report from the National Companies and Securities Commission, which at the present time is saying-this is quite understandable-that the matter is still under investigation. The National Companies and Securities Commission has some evidence which obviously will be given to the Attorneys-General when they meet on Thursday. Whilst ever we persevere with the scheme on the basis of its having no national accountability, no parliamentary accountability, no parliamentary scrutiny, is it any wonder that the honourable gentleman is dismayed with the sorts of answers he now gets? Mr MILTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice. Is he aware that anti-nuclear peace activist, Dr John Dixon Jenkins, who is currently on a fast and near death outside Parliament House, has called on the Federal Government to intervene on his behalf and request the Victorian Government to pardon him for charges relating to activities he has carried out in an effort to bring attention to the world nuclear threat? Given Dr John Dixon Jenkins's weekend state of health and impending death, is the Minister prepared to intercede on Dr Jenkins's behalf and plead leniency with the Victorian Government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The only information I have is that the gentleman certainly has been the subject of a number of warrants issued in the past. Apparently, one of these warrants was not executed. That related to an incident alleged to have taken place in Canberra. I understand that the gentleman was recently in Canberra and was intercepted on what was deemed to be an alleged traffic violation. In accordance with the investigation of the violation, it was discovered that there had been an unexecuted warrant which goes back some years. I will do whatever I can to assist the honourable gentleman, which means getting in touch with the Minister for Justice. It is true that there have been discussions over a period of years with the gentleman concerned. He has had a career which seems to be related to bomb hoaxes to highlight the opposition to nuclear proliferation. As everybody would know, bomb hoaxes cause a fair amount of concern to the community. Naturally, it is a matter of regret that this sort of mechanism was being used by the gentleman. However, to assist him in the inquiry properly made by the honourable member, I undertake to have the matter drawn to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Justice. Mr TUCKEY —Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he has not in any way sought to influence the Gold Coast City Council in relation to the business affairs of Mr Eddie Kornhauser? Mr HAWKE —Let me say these things very simply and directly: first, I have made it clear in public statements that the statements attributed to Mr Egerton are defamatory and untrue. Mr Moore —Sir John. Mr HAWKE —Well, yes, he is Sir John. The statements are still defamatory and untrue. The fact that he is a knight does not make them less defamatory or less untrue. Secondly, as I have indicated, I have instituted legal proceedings which have been issued this morning. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say anything on that. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I will restrain myself from making the sorts of observations about this collection of ratbags opposite that they deserve. I have repeated-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Those on my right will come to order. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the Prime Minister might be requested to withdraw that word. It is unseemly and inappropriate. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Ministerial will withdraw. Mr HAWKE —I will withdraw it. I regard it as inadequate; so I withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —You withdraw it without qualification. Mr HAWKE —I have withdrawn it without qualification. Those who have listened to me here have heard me say that the statements are defamatory and untrue. Having said that, I have then said that legal proceedings have been initiated and it is inappropriate to say anything more. That produced this roar of stupid laughter from those opposite, having said that they are untrue and that they are defamatory. I simply want to make this point: if the honourable gentleman who asked the question would like to make any statement at all outside the privilege of this place that he uses as his coward's castle, I will accommodate him in the courts as well. Mr LEE —Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether the Government's legislation to provide fair trials to those accused of committing war crimes poses any threat to Australian ex-service men and women? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for the question. It is certainly appropriate to reiterate that there are no charges, no allegations at all, of war criminal activity against any Australian ex-service man or woman, particularly relating to the Second World War, to which the legislation refers. I might say that a fair amount of concern has been created amongst the ex-servicemen of Australia by an Opposition suggestion that an amendment needs to be carried to ensure that those allegedly guilty of any misconduct would be exempt. The Government cannot accept that sort of situation. I might add that this legislation was sent to the Senate in November of last year and has been the subject of an inquiry by a Senate committee, which reported in February, but we still have not been able to get the Bill debated in the Senate. Mr Moore —Bring it on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are very anxious to bring it on, but I understand the appropriations debate is going to take the whole of the week. That is a matter for the Senate. I notice that honourable members opposite are speechless when I say that. Mr Howard —Are you going to bring it on this week? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be of interest to my constitutional friends opposite that the Senate spends so much time on Estimates committees and the appropriations when it has no power to amend or reject a money Bill. Mr Howard —Are you going to put it through this year? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I wanted to put it through earlier this year. Mr Howard —Are you going to put it through this year? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a matter for the Senate. I want it to be brought on and, if we can get the business of the Senate arranged, it will be brought on. I would like members of the Opposition to understand that the suggested amendment that people be excluded because they may be indicted for war crimes-- Mr Howard —No, because they served under Australian military law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting and heed the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No; that is the point. The Canadian legislation makes no such exemption; nor does any other legislation in the world. Nor does the Geneva Convention from the point of view of allowing in the case of grave breaches for any exemption on the basis of nationality. It would have been far better and would have alleviated a lot of the concern of the ex-servicemen if the suggestion was that there had to be this amendment to save them. I make the point that there is not a tittle of evidence or any accusation against any Australian service man or woman. That is where the strength of this legislation lies. To be suggesting in the international sphere that some Australians need to be protected from war crimes does not do anything for the honour and integrity of the armed forces. That is the point and that is the issue. Mr Howard —Oh! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Attorney-General will wait for one moment. The Leader of the Opposition continues to interject and refuses to heed the Chair. I suggest he now cease his interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government is most anxious to bring this legislation into place because a number of allegations have been made, investigations have taken place, and if matters are to be pursued in terms of the Director of Public Prosecutions at least it would allow for a fair trial under Australian conditions; that is, a trial by way of committal proceedings and also a trial by way of an Australian jury in a Supreme Court of the relevant State. I think that then would be guaranteeing the world that Australia is fulfilling its obligations under the Geneva Convention. It goes right back to the issues of what are called crimes committed in war. The issues we are now facing are of allegations of the extermination of innocent men, women and children in concentration camps in Europe. They were allegedly committed during the Second World War. Again allegedly, people escaped from Europe and came here. That is the intent of the investigations. That is the reason for the legislation. It is a shame that side issues have been dragged in on the basis that there might be some guilt associated with Australian ex-service men and women. I reiterate: there is not a tittle of evidence; nor will there ever be. It is on that basis then that the honourable member should understand that Australians have nothing to fear-nothing at all. To suggest that we have to pass legislation in case something happens would make us the laughing stock of the world. No other country has done it. Canada has not done it. The Europeans do not do it. The issue is that we might be assisting people because we are not favouring extradition, as the Americans do. The Americans extradite these people; I do not see the Opposition suggesting that at this stage. Mr WHITE —My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer him to his answer to the honourable member for O'Connor. I make the observation that this question has nothing to do with Sir John Egerton. I ask: Is it not a fact that on 16 April 1980 the Prime Minister attended a luncheon comprising Mr Eddie Kornhauser and members of the Gold Coast City Council Health and Planning Committee? Is it not a fact that Mr Kornhauser's Paradise Centre proposal was discussed during the luncheon? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister told the members of the committee at that luncheon that the Gold Coast City Council should approve Mr Kornhauser's proposal? Is it not a fact that at one stage the Prime Minister said to the Council members that they should `look after Eddie'? Mr HAWKE —I do not accept the statement that has been made. I do not accept the statement put by the honourable member for McPherson. I repeat: the observation and answer that I gave previously to the honourable member for O'Connor of themselves have no compliance and complete reliance on the fact that it was Mr Egerton that had made the statement. What I am saying is that the issue that has now been raised by Mr Egerton and reported in the media has been repudiated by me and is now a subject of legal proceedings. Mr Howard —It never happened? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —It is a matter of legal proceedings. Mr Howard —It never happened? Madam SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. If he continues to interject across the table I will deal with him. Seven interjections are quite enough. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I am saying that, as I have now initiated proceedings on this matter, it is inappropriate to make any response. I repeat what I have said on this issue: the allegations that have been made are defamatory and dishonest. I am going to proceed with this matter. Anything that has been said by the honourable member which goes to this issue, whether it is said in this House or outside, will be pursued in those proceedings. It is improper that any further statement should be made by me. I make the point that I am more than happy that in the appropriate place, now that this matter has been made subject by me to legal processes, the whole of this issue should be investigated. Those people who have been involved in the allegations and innuendoes will be dealt with. I repeat: if any honourable member opposite wants to take the opportunity of getting into this act outside the protection and privilege of this place, I will be prepared to accommodate him. Having initiated proceedings in this matter, as I have, it is improper-and I am so advised-for me to make any further response. That is quite clear. I want this matter to be proceeded with in the only place where it is capable of being proceeded with. I will ensure that it will be so proceeded with. Mr White —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I seek leave to table a copy of a statement signed by a former alderman of the Gold Coast City Council. Leave not granted. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. I do not think the Prime Minister could have heard the honourable member because the honourable member said that his question did not relate to Sir John Egerton. Sir John Egerton is the subject of the proceedings that the Prime Minister has issued. Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is not a point of order. The Prime Minister answered the question. Mr Spender —No, Madam Speaker, what he said was that he was not going to go into it-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney does not have a point of order. He is debating the Prime Minister's answer. Mr Spender —With respect, Madam Speaker, I was pointing out that the Prime Minister's answer was based on an assumption that the question related to Sir John Egerton. It did not. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister answered the question fully. The honourable member is out of order. He will resume his seat. Mr Beazley —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker, on the subject of frivolous points of order. Nothing was raised by the honourable member that in any way, shape or form related to Standing Orders. He debated the question. The Standing Orders protect the House against frivolous points. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has already ruled that way. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.32) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for McPherson tabling the letter from Mrs Diamond which states: During drinks before lunch, we were joined by Mr Bob Hawke . . . who was staying with Mr Kornhauser. Mr Hawke stayed for lunch at which Mr Kornhauser's Paradise Centre was discussed-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member be not further heard. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question is that the honourable member be not further heard. Mr TUCKEY — including his request for approval of certain proposals then before the Gold-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The question is that he be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.40) —Madam Speaker, I rise to second the motion- Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the right honourable member be not further heard. Mr Uren —Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance. At what stage will the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor after ignoring your ruling be recorded by Hansard? Madam SPEAKER —I cannot answer that at the moment. I will find out and let the honourable member know. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the negative. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister advise the House on the progress of the Child Support Agency in assuming responsibility for the collection of maintenance payments throughout Australia? What impact will the actual receipt of maintenance payments have on the living standards of children in the estimated 70 per cent of sole parent families previously legally entitled to maintenance but not actually receiving any payments? Mr HOWE —I think honourable members will recall that there are three aspects of the child support scheme: the changes to the Family Law Act to improve the level of maintenance; the introduction of the agency to collect maintenance liabilities; and the changes to the way maintenance is assessed in the social security system. Stage one is working quite well. The courts, as I understand it, are now beginning to award rather more realistic levels of maintenance. The Agency, as of last Friday, had received more than 12,000 applications for collection of maintenance, benefiting nearly 17,000 children. A significant proportion of those orders was made before the start of the scheme where the liable parent had persistently failed to pay. To date, the Child Support Agency has been unable to locate only 64 out of nearly 9,000 non-custodial parents who are the subject of register order arguments with the Agency. In the period from late June to 17 September the number of sole parent beneficiaries fell while the number with maintenance income increased from 63,095 to 69,994, and the average amount of maintenance for each of these sole parents increased. In summary, there is an emerging pattern of more adequate levels of maintenance, more effective collection of maintenance, leading to sole parent families being better off, and better coverage of the pensioner population leading to a reduction in outlays on sole parent pensions. May I say in addition that the automatic deduction from salaries and wages began as of 1 November, and as of 25 November the Tax Office had contacted some 300 employers about maintenance deductions from salaries or wages. This scheme is a complex one. It involves several agencies of the Government. It represents a quite fundamental change in terms of a national scheme to collect maintenance. It is one that undoubtedly will have its teething problems, but so far we are pleased with the progress that has been achieved towards the objective of ensuring that, along with the family assistance program, we address the issue of child poverty in Australia. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Does he deny attending a luncheon on Wednesday, 16 April 1980, with members of the Gold Coast City Council Health and Planning Committee at Mr Eddie Kornhauser's private quarters in the old Surfers Paradise Hotel? Specifically, does he deny the assertion by former Alderman Betty Diamond that the Prime Minister listened to these discussions, made it clear that he would like to see the Council agree to Mr Kornhauser's request with respect to the development of the Paradise Centre on the Gold Coast and, specifically, that at one stage said that the Council should `look after Eddie'? Mr HAWKE —For reasons which I would have thought were obvious to every member of the House, I repeat the answer I previously gave: I have been advised, for obvious reasons, to make no comments on an issue which is now the subject of litigation. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. The Government has recently received a report from the Cement Industry Tripartite Committee which was established by the Government to identify impediments to improving the competitiveness of the Australian cement industry. Can the Minister inform the House of the major findings of the report and the steps the Government is taking to address the recommendations of the report? Mr BARRY JONES —The Cement Industry Tripartite Committee's report was forwarded to the Government last week and was released publicly on 22 November. The Committee conducted its deliberations in parallel with but independent of two anti-dumping investigations of the industry by the Australian Customs Service and the Bureau of Industry Economics. Submissions were also provided by State governments, and other interested parties were consulted by the Committee. The Committee believes that the Australian cement industry is fundamentally healthy. However, the report suggests that the recent competition from imports has created some uncertainties in the industry. The report, therefore, makes a number of recommendations which it suggests both State and Commonwealth governments should address to ensure that the industry is in a position to meet competition from fairly priced imports. My colleague Senator Button has already written to State and Territory governments informing them of the reports and asking them to consider the recommendations that fall within their responsibilities. The Commonwealth Government will address the issues relevant to its responsibilities and Senator Button has already written to the appropriate Ministers. I want to add that the Committee members devoted considerable time and energy to their preparation of the report. They are to be congratulated on their efforts and the cooperative spirit in which they approached the difficult task with which they were confronted. Mr COWAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support and it refers to the disappearance of the vessel Pantenella off the New South Wales coastline and reported missing on or around 19 November. Is the Minister satisfied that everything possible has been done to locate the boat with four occupants aboard, including two young men from Taree in my electorate? Also, can the Minister say whether there are any suspicious circumstances involved? Mr ROBERT BROWN —In answering this question, I first acknowledge the immediate response which the honourable member for Lyne made to this matter when it was brought to his attention, and the speed and the concern that he showed in his inquiries. I believe sufficient has been done in connection with the loss of that schooner, in the light of the information which was available to the Sea Safety Centre. I think the honourable member for Lyne is aware of the fact that the ship sailed from Portland on about the third of the month. The last that was heard of it was on the eighth, when it indicated to the OTC Sydney coast radio station that it was tacking to seaward outside the heads of Sydney and that it intended to come back into Sydney Harbour the next day to refuel and pick up supplies. Nothing else was heard of it. It was not until the nineteenth of the month that any concern was expressed to the Sea Safety Centre regarding any fears that may have been held for that craft. The Sea Safety Centre immediately brought it to the attention of other craft in the area and, as well as that, to aircraft that would have been flying over that area. The difficulty is that a period of about 11 days had elapsed between the time it was last heard from and the time that any concern was expressed. I understand that during that period the area in which the Sea Safety Centre would have been required to man a search would have been something like 200,000 square kilometres and have involved about 120 aircraft. That would have been an impossible task. I think that that places in perspective the difficulty that the Sea Safety Centre had. I think the Sea Safety Centre did all that it could. In the light of the experience and professionalism of the people at the Sea Safety Centre, it was decided that nothing further could be done. It was interesting though that on Friday-I know that this was one of the things that precipitated the honourable member making inquiries about it as well-one of our Royal Australian Navy submarines indicated that it had seen a flare off Kiama on the east coast of Australia. The Sea Safety Centre pursued that because the only vessel which had been indicated as possibly being lost was the one to which the honourable member has referred. A private plane was chartered to investigate and two vessels which were in the area were advised to keep an eye open for it. I understand that some flotsam was found, but there has been no evidence of any vessel at all. In relation to the last part of the honourable member's question, the only comment that I can make is that some information has been brought to the attention of the Sea Safety Centre and the Sea Safety Centre has referred that to the Australian Federal Police for inquiries. 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- The Pipeline Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Bluefin Exporters Pty Ltd-dated 11 October 1988-section 9c of the Fisheries Act 1952. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-Annual Report 1987-88-section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Audit Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Seanorth Pty Ltd-dated 25 October 1988-section 9c of the Fisheries Act 1952. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and KKFC Proprietary Limited-dated 31 October 1988-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. International Monetary Agreements Act-Annual Report 1987-88-section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947. Review '88-Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922-including a report of the operation of the Adult Migration Education Program-section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 and a return which is required by section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Annual Report 1987-88-section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEDDALL —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEDDALL —On Thursday last week I was contacted by Mr Laurie Oakes of the National Nine network advising me that he was in receipt of a memo from the British High Commission to the British Foreign Office that alleged that I was not an Australian citizen when elected to this Parliament. I wish to point out to the House-I am greatly angered by this action-what transpired. Earlier this year my office approached the British High Commission to obtain a copy of my British birth certificate so that I could acquire an Australian passport. It appears that an officer of the British High Commission assumed that I was trying to backdate Australian citizenship and therefore alleged that I was sitting illegally in this Parliament. I totally reject this allegation. I would like to place on record the circumstances surrounding my taking Australian citizenship which occurred in 1982. I acquired a certificate of citizenship on 23 November 1982. I took the affirmation of allegiance on 17 January 1983. The certificate was signed by Mr Glenn Shailer, the Mayor of Logan City, and by Mr John Hodges who was then Minister for Immigration in the Liberal Government. I doubt very much that a former Liberal Minister would facilitate the backdating of Australian citizenship. I was elected to the Federal Parliament on 5 March 1983. At that time I was a duly constituted Australian citizen, and proudly so. Therefore, I place on record the facts surrounding this incident. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUFFY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr DUFFY —I refer to an article in the Age of 26 November 1988 under the headline `CAI attacks Duffy for omitting manufacturer'. The article referred to the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) criticising the Federal Government for not including a manufacturing representative in Australia's delegation to next month's Montreal trade talks. The article stated: The chairman of the CAI's national manufacturing council . . . said yesterday the Confederation was extremely disappointed by the decision by the Minister for Trade Relations, Mr Duffy. I want to outline how that decision was made. In determining the representation of the business community at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks in Montreal, the Government sought and acted upon the advice provided by the trade negotiations advisory group. The membership of that group includes a member of the CAI, who was present when the decision was taken by the group on the representation of that group in Montreal. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —In this morning's edition of the Australian there was a headline on page 1 and a subsequent article under the byline of Mr Robert Hadler which suggests quite the reverse of a comment made by me on the Face to Face program: that in some way I had said, and I quote the headline, `Ahern's Nationals repugnant . . .' Not only did I not say that but also, in the course of my remarks on the Face to Face program, I commended Mr Ahern for the efforts he has taken to try to ensure that if there is any misbehaviour or inappropriate ministerial actions, they be brought to notice. It is not only in the headline but also in the first two paragraphs of that article that the Australian has taken quite the reverse of the intent of my remarks. In fact, I said: The behaviour of some Ministers of the Bjelke-Petersen Government as being repugnant to the concept of the party of which I am the leader. I said: Let's face it, it's not peculiarly the Queensland Government which has got into these troubles. Rex Jackson is serving a gaol term because of his behaviour within the Wran Government. I continued: The National Party at least has been prepared, and Mike Ahern in particular, to take all the odium to make sure there is a proper examination which is far more than Neville Wran, after all, was prepared to do within his Ministry. Later I said: . . . and the only good thing that I can say about it the moment, everybody would know that when the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Ministers were in government they weren't exactly my strongest supporters. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.59) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for O'Connor moving forthwith the following motion of censure: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his misleading of this Parliament in that he denied that he sought to influence the Gold Coast City Council on behalf of Mr Eddie Kornhauser, contrary to the signed evidence of Mrs Betty Diamond. The evidence is, of course, a statement by Mrs Betty Diamond in which she states, `On Wednesday . . .'-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. L. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Jull. D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.07) —I second the motion. This motion goes to the core-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: The the right honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The question is that the question be now put, that the motion be agreed to. Mr Beazley —That the question be now put. Mr Spender —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question was that the motion be agreed to. Mr Spender —No. The question he put was that the question be now put. It is not that the motion be agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —To which the Leader of the House has moved that the question be now put. Mr Spender —No, he did not do that. Yes, right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat for a moment-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, are we to have no opportunity to debate a question which goes directly to the Prime Minister's veracity in this House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member will resume his seat I will explain-- Mr Spender —Are we not to have that opportunity? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —Will he not come into this House and tell us what-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Resume your seat. I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. The question before the Chair was that the motion be agreed to and the Leader of the House has moved that the question be now put. I am now putting the question that the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.McArthur, F. S. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, E. C. Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Jull. D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Baldwin, P. L. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.Katter, R. C. Kerin, J. C.Downer, A. J. G. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure in this Parliament. During Question Time the Opposition sought to obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) an answer to a question which related to a statement the Prime Minister made outside the Parliament and also a statement he repeated inside the Parliament. The reason we sought to question the Prime Minister is that we have in our possession-- Mr Keating —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to debate these matters. Mr HOWARD —I am asking a question. Mr Keating —It is a debate. Mr HOWARD —Knocked it back, against ALP rules. We are not rorting your preselection; we are asking a question. Mr Keating —Say that outside and I will sue you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might quickly get to his point. Mr HOWARD —I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. We sought to question the Prime Minister regarding a statement he made. The reason we sought to question the Prime Minister is that we have in our possession a document which, if it is to be believed-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is not in a position to give procedural advice to members. Members have House of Representatives Practice and other documents. Mr HOWARD —So you are not, as Deputy Speaker, prepared to advise me? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not in a position, I do not think, to offer you any advice. Mr HOWARD —Are you not prepared to allow me to finish, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am saying that members have the advice of the Clerks or House of Representatives Practice. It has not been the position of the Chair to offer advice to people from the floor. Mr HOWARD —I seek leave to table the document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not intend to offer the Leader of the Opposition any advice- Mr HOWARD —I table the document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —except to tell him to resume his seat. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Went- worth (Dr Hewson) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The crippling tax burden on Australian families. 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- Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(3.30) —I see that again, as I start to speak, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has decided to leave the House rather than take this matter of public importance. It is becoming indicative of the standing of this bloke that every time we ask him a serious question or we offer him the opportunity for serious debate he disappears. He is a man of absolutely no substance when it comes to the economic debate. He is not prepared to put it on the record in here and to chance his arm in a substantial debate. We are seeing all sorts of stunts now as the Treasurer starts to run scared. He does not take questions from us seriously, nor answer them. The only questions he answers are dorothy dixers from his own side. It is getting to the stage where there is one every day. He takes a dorothy dixer to bucket the doctor. There is always a question in the House directed at me, yet he will not get up and debate me. The other day we had the most ludicrous situation of all when we had the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill before the House. The Treasurer actually introduced that Bill, one of the few Bills he has introduced into this Parliament. He sought in Question Time, on the basis of a dorothy dixer, to try to add to the debate on that Bill, yet when it came to the debate that evening he was nowhere to be seen. The subject of today's matter of public importance is the crippling tax burden on Australian families, which is a subject that the Treasurer, more than anyone else, ought to be concerned about, because it is the best barometer we have of the abysmal economic management of this Government. I am staggered that we have not had a tax revolution in this country. The tax burdens that have been imparted on the average Australian in the course of the last four or five years have been absolutely staggering to the point where nearly anybody can identify several aspects of the burden of taxation. Everyone knows how the level of taxation has gone up, but this Government has also significantly increased the complexity of the tax system and compounded the uncertainty associated with the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and now we have a procedure of almost enforcement and harassment by the Commissioner of Taxation to back it up. The average Australian family has been subject to a very significant increase in the tax burden in all four of those respects. Every Australian will be able to tell you that his standard of living has fallen by the equivalent of about $56 a week. Every Australian will be able to tell you that a tax Act of 3,500 pages is getting beyond the comprehension of most professionals, let alone the average person. Indeed, we have the ludicrous situation in which pensioners are now being forced to hire tax agents to put in fairly basic and simple tax returns. We have this procedure for uncertainty-legislation by announcement. An example of that is the superannuation tax, which was introduced and became effective in July. Yet we read in today's press that perhaps the Bill will be coming into Parliament in the course of this week. But I also read today that it will only partly deal with the issue of superannuation tax-a ludicrous situation. It requires fund managers and superannuation fund owners and participants to act under a law that they yet have no idea about. It will be substantially different to what was announced in the May statement. Yet the Treasurer treats the matter lightly and walks out of the House. Finally, there is increasing evidence that the Tax Commissioner himself is on the warpath. The Treasurer fully supports the kind of ludicrous behaviour we are now seeing in a number of quarters from the Tax Commissioner, as we were told by him, in interpreting the law in a particular way. The Government should be challenged on its record on tax, because it has one of the most abysmal records. This Treasurer goes around, particularly overseas, trying to give the impression, as he did in London recently, that `our first tax package in 1985 comprehensively reformed our personal income tax system'. There is no reform whatsoever. He paints these fictional pictures when he goes offshore, yet when he is in the House he is not prepared to take a debate on that record. The record speaks for itself. Tax as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), the measure he should use, is at 25.7 per cent in 1988-89, which equals the peacetime record achieved last year. That compares with average ratios of 19.9 per cent in the 1950s, 18.6 per cent in the 1960s and 20.8 per cent in the 1970s. That is 25.7 per cent of GDP. He does not face up to that number. He prefers to use numbers such as total government revenue to GDP which include such things as profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia. When he runs down the take from the Reserve Bank, he makes that number look better. That is the sort of innovative accounting that this Treasurer prefers to base his record on. He is never prepared to face the sort of objective criteria that anyone else would list. We have a situation now in which many families on average earnings have seen their tax take increased by about 90 per cent since March 1983. The marginal tax rate for most low to middle income taxpayers is now 40 per cent-it was 30 per cent in 1983-and nearly 50 per cent of all taxpayers face a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent or more. Moreover, the average tax rate has now gone up to 21.6 per cent compared to 17.5 per cent in 1983. Over and above that, the Government has abolished rebates on concessional expenditure, health insurance and housing interest. The dependent spouse rebate has been reduced by 25 per cent in real terms. Family allowances have been frozen since March 1983. So that has been significantly eroded in real terms. Single income families have been about the hardest hit under this Government. A recent study by the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which the House has had its attention drawn to on several occasions, reveals the extent of some of the `poverty trap' problems being caused by the interaction of this Government's so-called tax reform policies and social security policies. Some families in this country, on 75 per cent of average weekly earnings, faced an effective marginal tax rate of about 90 per cent last year compared with 30 per cent in 1982-83. Yet this Treasurer now has the hide to stand up and suggest that this kind of taxation burden does not sap incentive, that it does not reduce the inclination of Australian families to work to increase their income and advance themselves and so on. Of course it does. It is precisely the wrong sort of tax system for a country like Australia. The key point in terms of personal tax revenue has been that most of it has been collected in recent days through inflation. Despite the Government's tax cuts in 1986-87, by the end of this financial year it will have increased tax through `bracket creep' by nearly $10 billion. If tax scales had been indexed from 1986-87 onwards, $10 billion less would have been collected by this Government. It has collected $10 billion alone through bracket creep. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the Treasurer and others have spent a lot of time trying to paint over that picture and ignore it. The Prime Minister was reported in the Australian Financial Review in August of this year as saying that Budget revenue forms a lower share of GDP this year than last year. But he is using those fudged statistics again. He is throwing in other forms of government non-tax revenue. Government tax revenue as a proportion of GDP is exactly the same as it was last year-a historical high. Apart from these grounds, one can list a lot of new taxes that this Government has introduced: fringe benefits taxes; capital gains taxes; entertainment taxes; the initial removal of negative gearing provisions, which have since been restored; the original foreign tax credit system, which has since been modified; the original lump sum superannuation tax, which has since been partially removed but is still there in essence; increased company tax; new wholesale sales taxes; increased petrol excise from 6c to 20c per litre; automatic biannual indexation of produce excise rates; a wine tax; an excise tax on intermediate and new oil; the tax on superannuation fund income; the gold tax; the graduate tax and so on. This is a staggering number of taxes and tax increases over the life of this Government. No Australian family is in any doubt as to the magnitude of the burden of increased taxation experienced under the Hawke-Keating Government. Yet, as economic circumstances in recent days have deteriorated, a number of key Government spokesmen have been at pains to convince people that they will deliver tax cuts from 1 July next year. They are now saying on a regular basis that we should not be in any doubt that they will deliver tax cuts from 1 July next year. Even though economic circumstances seem to be slipping through their fingers, it is interesting to note the way that they are staying with that particular commitment. One of the answers is attributable to an explanation given by the Treasurer at the time of the May statement when he was briefing some of his colleagues. He went in to assure them and, as quoted by Geoff Kitney in the Australian Financial Review of 27 May, he stated: Well, here it is folks. All you people who thought you were going to lose your seats at the next election, this will save you. This will get us back into Government. Here we are now seeing that his tax cuts are the key element of the forthcoming electoral strategy of this Government. While there is no doubt that that is the case, I think the average Australian should be in no doubt about a number of other things as well. The first of these is that despite the fact that the Government says that the tax cuts are in the bag, it is interesting that it has given no indication as to how big those cuts will be. Honourable members should be in no doubt about the fact that as economic circumstances proceed, as they move against this Government, the magnitude of those tax cuts will be dragged back. The second thing there should be no doubt about is that people will have to give up a wage increase in order to get these tax cuts. The Government is putting a lot of weight on a wage/tax trade-off. The key point is that the only way we will get the promised tax cuts is actually to forgo a wage increase this year and next year. The third thing there should be no doubt about is that we shall have to live with higher interest rates now in order to get those tax cuts. As the Prime Minister said in a recent press conference, on, I think, 18 November 1988: We need to manage the Australian economy in a way which is going to ensure that we have the greatest capacity by the middle of next year to bring in sustainable tax cuts. He then went on to describe how we have to live with tighter monetary policy and higher interest rates now in order to get those tax cuts. Let us look at what that means. Nobody should be in any doubt as to precisely what that means. We should recognise, for example, that a one per cent increase in home mortgage interest rates costs the average Australian who has a $25,000 mortgage about $40 a month. What the Prime Minister is saying is that he will have to pay an extra $40 a month from now on-it is an open-ended sort of statement-in order to get tax cuts from 1 July. It is important to recognise the following point: let us say that the Government gives the $15 per week tax cut from 1 July, which Bill Kelty has been talking about. Do honourable members know how long it would take for them to break even? They would not get in front, matching that increase in house loan interest costs against those tax cuts, until December 1990. So more Australians will really be running behind for the best part of the next 18 months in order to pull out that sort of increase. Mr Howard —That's the Kelty option. Dr HEWSON —Yes, the Kelty option. Mr Howard —That's the one that will happen. Dr HEWSON —It is the one that is most likely to happen, as the Leader of the Opposition says. It should also be clear-there should be no doubt on the part of anybody-that people will get only part of what has already been taken in terms of bracket creep. If we do the sums as to how big next year's tax cuts will be, and if we assume that the Government will stay with its commitment of a zero public sector borrowing requirement, the tax cuts next year will not cost much more than $4 billion, $4 1/2 billion or maybe $5 billion at the outside. That is about half to two-thirds of the size of the tax cut that the Government gave in 1986-87-hardly `the biggest tax cuts in our history'. Even on that basis, people will get only about half of what the Government has taken through `bracket creep' alone in the last four years. By any standard, or stretch of the imagination, it is a fairly miserable performance on the part of this Government when it comes to taxation. It has massively increased the size of the tax take, the range of new taxes and the complexity of the tax system, and it has got the Commissioner of Taxation out there banging on doors and chasing people in a way that is now causing enormous discontent; yet the Treasurer is walking into this place, around the country and overseas saying, `We are going to give fantastic tax cuts next year'-and we are all supposed to have a warm inner glow as a result. The fact is that people will get back only a small part of what the Government has already taken; indeed, in some cases it has taken it several times over. And they will have to pay for it by giving up their wage increases this year and beyond, and they will have to live with higher interest rates and higher home mortgage costs. I am fascinated to see that the Treasurer is more concerned about his image and about the Australian Labor Party leadership. I suggest that he worries more about his electoral appeal than anything else. He worries, in particular, about his `recognition factor' in the polls and elsewhere. I can assure the Treasurer that while people in this country may have some doubt about what he looks like-and while they may have some uncertainty as to which particular brand of Italian suit he wears-they have absolutely no trouble identifying his hands, because it is his hands that have been in the pockets of every Australian. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(3.45) —What we have heard yet again is a re-run of the paper presented by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), as I understand it, as an address in the Hyatt Hotel, Melbourne, on 27 October 1988 on Australia's economic outlook. I gather that it did not get much press coverage, and so it was felt necessary to run it again today. But, once again, he has missed the boat because it is a non-broadcast day. The honourable member has made a number of points here which clearly have no basis in fact, as is the wont of those on the other side of the House. Over the past 5 1/2 to 6 years we have seen that members of the Opposition are totally bereft of any sort of policy whatsoever and certainly, when it comes to the economic issues, they are not prepared to debate them, despite what the honourable member for Wentworth had to say about the Treasurer (Mr Keating) not wanting to be here. Rather, members of the Opposition want to bring up slime motions in this Parliament under parliamentary privilege and drag the names of honourable members of this place through the mud, rather than to sit down and debate the issues at hand. They will become known for that, not because they are an Opposition with any sort of semblance of policy, commitment or decency. Since 1985 this Government stands in stark contrast with those opposite in terms of what it has been able to achieve in terms of taxation. The honourable member for Wentworth said that we have not had a tax revolution in this country. I ask: Where has he been since Reform of the Australian Tax System came out in 1985? Where has he been since this Government has totally reformed the taxation system? Where has he been since we introduced a range of taxation options to tidy up a totally messy system that was in existence here? What did he mean when he went through a list of the different tax changes that have been introduced to clean up that system and to get out of the Australian economy a fair share that, in the past, was not there? Dr Charlesworth —To broaden the base. Mr MARTIN —Indeed, as my colleague the honourable member for Perth suggests, to broaden the base of the tax gathering mechanism so that it does not fall on the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer, on the low to middle income earners, and so that the burden is spread equally towards the people the Opposition would like to support in big business, who go around employing tax consultants, lawyers and accountants so that they can minimise their losses every time and pass that on to the ordinary taxpayers of this country. Where does the Opposition stand on issues such as that? We have seen, for example, the introduction of the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. Why not? Why the free lunches? Why should they be protected all the time? Where have we seen this question of the sales tax avoidance scheme? Where did the Opposition stand on that? Where was all that in the years of the paper schemes that were around when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer trying to get through Cabinet all this legislation that would attack the people who were rorting the system? He did not get it through the Cabinet too successfully under Malcolm Fraser either. This Government has attacked the tax haven areas by legislation introduced recently. It will deal with goldmining income-although one member on the Labor benches would deny that that is a reasonable way to proceed-and will introduce an enhanced tax file number system. Who can quibble about that? Who can quibble about trying to get to the people who have ripped off the system and made those at the lower end of the scheme pay? What we are seeing on the other side is this heart-rending nonsense that will be delivered in Parramatta-the manifesto will be delivered at Parramatta next month, a Sydney western suburb-about what the Liberal Party stands for: God, mother and country. That is just terrific; that is just great-but what will it do for the low income earners? What will it do for the ordinary PAYE taxpayers who have had to suffer until this point? Frankly, I am appalled by the constant attack on the Commissioner of Taxation being led by the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, now by the honourable member for Wentworth, the shadow Minister for Finance, when he referred to `the ludicrous behaviour of the Tax Commissioner'. I refer honourable members to an article that appeared in the Sun-Herald on Sunday, 20 November 1988 under the heading `Tax Purge on Top Companies'. It stated: Thirty-three of Australia's best known companies are having their books investigated in the latest phase of a major crackdown on tax avoidance. How terrible. Shock, horror. The Tax Commissioner and the Australian Taxation Office are cracking down on tax avoidance in big companies! Is that not dreadful? The honourable member for Wentworth thinks so. He thinks it is dreadful that the Tax Commissioner is doing that. The Tax Commissioner, Mr Boucher, has disclosed that in the last financial year about 40 audits have been conducted of Australia's largest firms. Guess what? They yielded $197.2m in taxes that those big companies were attempting to avoid. What a dreadful man Trevor Boucher is! The Opposition would say to him, Don't you do that again. Don't you get into those big companies that are employing tax lawyers and trying to take funds away from ordinary people. That is not very good. You just look after the people at the bottom end, and don't you worry about the big boys'. We have seen the reaction to these audits by the Tax Commissioner. For example, and this is interesting, the same edition of the Sun-Herald of 20 November stated in its editorial under the heading `Big boys must pay their tax': There were loud howls last week about the role of the tax man from Elders chief John Elliott and the Business Council of Australia. Mr Elliott-Who is also Federal president of the Liberal Party-claimed that the tax-gathering activities of the Taxation Office represent a threat to democracy. There you go. Getting people at the big end of town to pay their fair share of tax and not rip off the system is an attack on democracy! What absolute nonsense. Let us talk about what this Government has done for families. How quickly those opposite put down the measures this Government has introduced in tidying up the tax system and broadening its base so that the benefits can be passed on to the ordinary Australian. How quickly they pass over the fact that 1.2 million jobs have been created in this country since this Government came into office. What is the greatest thing that families can expect to get? A job-someone in that family, a breadwinner, earning money so he can meet his commitments. What a dreadful thing the Hawke Labor Government has done once again. It has created 1.2 million jobs in this country! Shame on the Government. What a dreadful government to do that! We looked at low income earners in this country and said that there was a need for assistance so they could draw themselves out of the poverty traps that exist. We introduced the family allowance supplement, which is totally tax free. It is unfortunate that there is not a money tree that grows outside the office of the Treasury from which we could pluck money all the time to put in programs. We must pay for them. If we are to look after the needy in this country we must be able to meet those commitments. This Government has done that. As I have indicated, the family allowance supplement goes part of the way. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced in Sydney's western suburbs on Saturday, that supplement is being increased yet again by this Government. The supplement is totally tax free to those people who qualify. It is available to them to spend totally on their families. What else has this Government done? It has introduced a revamped Austudy so that people at the lower end of the scale particularly can keep their children at school longer. People might say, `That is very commendable, but what does it have to do with economic circumstances and improving people's lives'? I will tell them what it has to do with it. Those people can now keep their kids at school longer so that they can qualify for higher education. Rather than being forced out into the marketplace to try to get jobs, with no qualification at all, those kids can stay at school longer and compete equally with those who come from more privileged backgrounds-families whose kids go to private schools. That is what this Government stands for and that is what it is all about. People conveniently overlook the fact that, since 1985, this Government has introduced tax cuts-in fact, two rounds of tax cuts. Why is it that people such as the honourable member for Wentworth conveniently forget that when those opposite went out of government in 1983-and incidentally we must remind ourselves that the honourable member for Wentworth was, I think, economic adviser to the Treasurer at the time, the present Leader of the Opposition, so his credentials certainly need to be examined-the highest marginal tax rate was 60c in the dollar. This Government has phased down all those marginal tax rates through the taxation changes we have introduced. The honourable member says that the tax changes announced for next year and their magnitude are illusory. That is not the case. When this Government, unlike those opposite, makes announcements and put policies into practice, it can pay for them; the economy does not suffer. I take honourable members back to the last election campaign in 1987. Who will ever forget the $8 billion worth of unfunded promises made by the Leader of the Opposition in his cynical grab for votes in that election? The Treasurer does not need to pass any tests. The Treasurer handed over the list of those promises that were made in that election campaign and challenged the Leader of the Opposition to put up or shut up, to show where those cuts could be made. Did he do so? No. Did he show how they could be funded? No, he did not. This whole question of cuts is very interesting. Once again, people such as the shadow finance spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition run around the country saying, `The Government must continue to cut expenditure'. Let us look at that as an issue. I refer honourable members to the table on page 34 of the document Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays 1989-90 to 1991-92. That interesting little table shows the resultant cuts in programs necessary to achieve a one per cent decline in total government outlays if certain programs were excluded from funding. Firstly, if we excluded public debt interest and age pensions, a 1.2 per cent reduction in the remaining programs would be necessary, amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars. What about public debt interest, defence and all personal benefit payments? Excluding the defence forces-the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will be pleased about that-and taking public debt interest which has to be met and all personal benefit payments, the resultant decrease would have to be 2.1 per cent of all remaining programs, amounting to billions of dollars. Finally, if we excluded public debt interest, defence, all personal benefit payments and financial assistance grants to the States-in other words, if we do not knock off what the States get to fund education, health, police forces and so on-we would have to slash 3.3 per cent of the remaining outlays on other programs. Where would that come from? I am a little interested in this because there seems to be something of a contradiction in the comments made by the honourable member for Wentworth on this issue. In a speech on Australia's economic outlook that he gave to the 1988 Annual Conference of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration at the Hyatt Hotel in Melbourne, he referred to illustrative figuring on tax cuts and said that he would have to look at cuts in government expenditure once again. He talked about the magnitude that would be necessary and said: And about half of it could have to go on a ``Cass style Rolls Royce'' package for pensioners. He was talking about where the tax cuts would be going. He said: So watch the Government's rhetoric on tax cuts. Look, at most, for a small first instalment in July 89; That is nonsense to start with. More importantly, later on the 7.30 Report, when he was questioned about necessary cuts in government expenditure he was asked: If we have the sort of mega-cuts that you imply, doesn't that mean a recession for Australia that hurts the battlers? The shadow spokesman for finance replied: I'm not advocating mega-cuts. I was just saying that if you were to go into the expenditure side, that is one of the options. What is he saying? Is he saying that we must cut expenditure, or what? The people of this country will suffer because of this nonsense. As I have demonstrated by referring to the Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays, clearly those sorts of cuts would have devastating effects on pensioners and those people who are caught up in the social security system who need our support-not just from those on this side of the House but right across the board. What would the Opposition do about them? How would it fund all these things? Quite clearly, it is a nonsense and simply an untruth to suggest that what the Treasurer and this Government have done has not assisted those on low incomes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.00) —As the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) said, it is significant that whenever the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has an opportunity to come face to face with a reasoned argument on taxation and the economy, he darts out the back door and leaves it to the fourth graders. Today we have heard from one of the fourth graders-from one of the apologists. In 15 minutes the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) mentioned the family just twice. Today we are debating the declining standards resulting from the burden of taxation on the family unit. We should never forget that the endangered species under this Treasurer and under Labor are the productive sector, the taxpayer and the Australian family. There has been an attack on traditional and institutional values. We hear about tax avoidance and tax cheats. Tax is being avoided at the moment by some people who do not want to work and who do not want to have a family. I was told the other day of a couple being married in a church and their two-year-old daughter being the flower girl. When asked why they were taking this step now, they said, `It just so happens that we could not afford the deposit on a house unless the de facto, the mother, was able to draw a single parent's benefit'. In this way they were able to accumulate money and then afford to get married. We should never forget that we are fast becoming a nation of people who will not work, who are not productive and who do not want to marry mainly because of the policies of the Treasurer and the Government. Many people are being sacrificed as a result of Labor's policies. I remind the honourable member for Macarthur that Labor had no policy on taxation or anything else when it came to office in 1983. All it had was an accord. Labor now has the hide to tell the Opposition that it has to have its policies in order so that it can criticise them. Within 12 months of the Treasurer's claiming that the 1987 policy on company tax could not be implemented he wholeheartedly adopted those rates, notwithstanding those comments. Sacrifices have had to be made on Labor's high altar for excessive expenditure increases. I think expenditure has increased by 68 per cent since Labor has been in government. Taxation collections have increased by a record 74 per cent. There have been record Budget deficits of $25 billion in four years. There have also been record trade deficits. We should never forget that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is a major ingredient of this Government. We should also take into account Labor's double standards. The family has been sacrificed and is being subjected to a growing burden of taxation. I think it has been well noted that between the time Labor came to office and the end of 1988-89 there has been a decline of $56 per family unit in real levels of income. During that time, a 50 per cent increase in the consumer price index has been more than matched by the tax burden that has been imposed on families. An additional taxation burden has been placed on the family. I might just remind the Government that the dependent spouse rebate has not been indexed. This has meant a real drop in the rebate of some $610. The level of the family allowance has not shifted in that time and this, again, has resulted in a real decrease in living standards for its recipients. Although the Government's business mates, the Bonds and everyone else, have flourished, the poor family itself does not rate a mention in the policies that Labor espouses. When I talk about the place of the ACTU in this Government, I need only remind the people of Australia of the Government's extravagant gesture to the ACTU about two or three years ago when, in order to get it to agree to the indexation guidelines, an ACTU delegation of six members was sent overseas at taxpayers' expense, at a cost of $86,000. I always believed that a family was a group in which one spouse stayed at home to look after the children. Let us look at what has happened to these people under Labor. Such families exist on a single income. The Government has not allowed any income splitting for taxation purposes. This has meant that there has been not only a decline in living standards but also an increase in taxation for those people who want to do the right thing by the family and have someone at home to look after children so that they can be brought up to be proper Australians. The spouse rebate has been pegged at $1,030. This is a real decrease of $610 in its value. This rebate has been available to de facto families as well as a de jure families. Twenty years ago the tax margin came into effect at a rate of 14 times average weekly earnings. Today it is payable at 1.19 times average weekly earnings. As a result, the family that the Government is supposed to be considering so well is being taxed almost at the marginal rate-as the honourable member for Wentworth said, at about 40c in the dollar. That is the sort of consideration that the Government is giving to families. The 300 new tax initiatives and measures introduced by this Government mainly penalise the family and the taxpayer. The Medicare levy has resulted in an inferior service at a greater cost to the family man. Indirect taxation, which one might call a de facto consumption tax-- Dr Charlesworth —Oh! Mr BRAITHWAITE —If the honourable member wishes to interject, he might explain to us the reasons for the growing queues outside the general hospitals right throughout Australia. I think we are paying a very heavy price for the Medicare levy that is being imposed at the moment. A de facto consumption tax has been imposed in the form of a sales tax on such things as citrus juice and flavoured milk. The excise on beer and cigarettes and, more importantly, on petrol has also been increased. There has been a tremendous increase in the burden placed on the family as a result of these increased taxes. I could also mention Telecom Australia and Australia Post and the high interest rates that are now being applied to housing loans. I should also mention the substantiation rules under which many cases of legitimate expenses cannot be supported by a family taxpayer and are not allowed. I also want to talk about the double standards displayed by the Government in respect of its taxation promises which were supposed to be in place by 1 July 1989. Those reforms are now in some doubt. The Government should understand that the family man who is paying taxation looks at the double standards of this Government and this Treasurer. I will mention a couple of them. The treatment given to the Treasurer in respect of the late lodgment of his taxation return was not given in an identical situation, to a family taxpayer in my home town who was called upon to pay $1,300. Mr Howard —Was that a fine? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It was a fine. He had to pay this amount in extra tax, and was not subject to the same standard that was applied to the Treasurer. The Treasurer, without any justification whatever, is claiming living away from home allowance and is being taxed accordingly. Despite trying to get some indication from the Commissioner of Taxation, that point has never been answered. The Treasurer comes into this place and explains his tax policy by way of dorothy dix questions and through press releases. He is not prepared to come in here and say what is required. A further uncertainty is being imposed on families which is a burden additional to what has been mentioned in respect of direct taxation. Family members who are trying to provide for their own retirement are uncertain about what this Government is doing and what it is planning. There is terrible uncertainty about where children eventually might be educated, particularly if the family just misses out in terms of the Austudy income test. That is another area of concern. I have also mentioned that about health. The honourable member for Wentworth mentioned the complexity of the law. The Commissioner of Taxation has made ludicrous statements that the complexity of the law is no worry to him; he will make his own rules and guidelines and expect the taxpayers of Australia to abide by them. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(4.10) —Has the Opposition gone right over the top? Is it really suggesting that this Government has an anti-marriage taxation policy? Is the only family which can be a proper Australian family one in which one person works and one is at home? Would the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) explain to all those people out there in the work force, all of those families who have two people working, why it is that the only way they can be proper Australians is if they stay at home and look after the kids? The world has changed and the world continues to change. If the Opposition continues to live in the Dark Ages, we will never have advancement in this country. People want to work; they demand the opportunity to work and they take that opportunity. This Government supports them in doing so. It improves the efficiency of the economy. There are many benefits as a result. If honourable members opposite are to be consistent, can they realistically suggest that this Government is supporting the Alan Bonds of this world and, in the same breath, complain about the Commissioner of Taxation going to the big companies in Australia, auditing them and collecting? As the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) suggested, last year an extra $197m was collected from the big fat cats in Australia as a result of 40 extra audits. Are honourable members opposite seriously suggesting that this public servant, Mr Boucher, who is collecting that amount of tax which is reasonable and fair according to the structure set in this country by a democratically elected government, should not be doing his job; that it is ludicrous that he be doing his job? What are we going to do? Honourable members opposite suggested that we set up a group of businessmen and that they would do it fairly. For years and years these guys were rorting the system. When I came to this place I thought that we would have to do something about the taxation system when we came into government. People and families in Australia deserve a fair, decent system. For years and years the oppressive marginal rates that had been allowed to continue for 30 years by the Opposition-it did nothing about it for 30 years-screwed down taxpayers. Indeed for 30 years we paid 60c in the dollar and the Opposition did nothing about it. Now that we have brought some decency to the marginal rates, honourable members opposite are complaining. There were loopholes and inequities everywhere-the free car, the free lunch. It was said, `We'll pay some of your private expenses; we'll provide school fees for the kids'. All of the things that we thought were unfair when we were on the other side of the House we have now removed. There were gaps in the system. Every other country has a capital gains tax but Australia does not have one. Another attitude is, `We will support speculation; we will not support profit'. Gold tax is another area. Was it fair that one section of the community have a distorted tax system which directed investment in an unreasonable way? We can go on and on-double taxation on dividends for companies. How did that support business? How did that support profit? This Government has tried to remove some of those inequities and provide a system which is fair so that families, when they pay their taxes, know that they are paying a reasonable rate; their fair share. Mr Ian Cameron —Twice as much as they were five years ago. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I do not need to hear from the Opposition. I just mention the gold tax because it is topical and recent. John Hyde is a former member of this House-he would have been on the other side-and someone whose views I might not agree with all the time but he is at least consistent. What does he say about honourable members opposite voting against the gold tax? He says: If the Federal Liberals really believed in what they did, there would be much less reason to worry about them. It seems, however, that they opposed the gold tax to gain advantage in the coming Western Australian election, and to spite a leader they will not support but cannot replace. Such pettiness and spite merely demonstrate their unfitness to govern. This article is entitled `Tarnished gold tax vote shows Libs can't rule'. Honourable members opposite do not have any vision; they do not have any consistency. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the old mate over there? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa should not be interjecting. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Honourable members opposite do not have a philosophy. When we came to government we had to pick up the bits and pieces and make some sense out of them. If one looks at the business area, one sees that exactly the same occurred. There was a distortion of investment in business because of the tax system that the Opposition had set up. Again, marginal rates did not encourage profit; they encouraged speculation. This Government acted on that. It provided dividend imputation to remove the double tax on dividends. It provided the opportunity for businesses-small and large-to churn profits back into their businesses and to grow and become more productive. We have supported this. Again, I do not have to ask for support from this side of politics. I turn to Australian Business. In the 2 November edition John Gilmore-certainly not one who would be seen as a supporter of left wing views in the economy-under the heading, `It pains one to praise the World's Best Treasurer too much, but credit where credit is due', wrote: Successive governments-particularly those tired Tories who have postured as supporters of free enterprise- he was talking about honourable members opposite- created a tax monster that penalised profit but encouraged speculation. He went on further to say: It pains this page- he was talking about this column- to give too much credit to the World's Best Treasurer. . . . But the Keating taxation reforms have won . . . They have eliminated double taxation on company dividends, enabling small companies to plough profits back into their enterprises without penalty. They have ended the preference for speculation by placing capital profits on a similar footing to trading gains. They have indicated a sympathy for business by providing companies with the best tax rate available. They have created a climate for enterprise. That is what we have done. That is what enables families to make money, to do better and in fact to have a reasonable tax system in which they can have confidence. Taxation is only part of the equation. In this debate we are also talking about how to manage the economy. People have to remember that we came here with a projected deficit of $9.6 billion. In five years we have turned it around to a surplus of $5.6 billion. We are talking about a massive turn around in how this Government spends its money. If the housekeeper or the ordinary person in the street is thinking, `What do all these massive figures mean', they mean that one cannot spend more than one earns. With the opposition in government Australia was spending more than it earned. This Government has now turned it around. We are making a profit. Because we have been so successful in that, next year we will have substantial cuts in taxation as a result of good management of the economy. We have managed the economy by looking not only at the revenue but also at the outlays. As the honourable member for Macarthur suggested, we have cut outlays significantly three years in a row and in project five years. Even on the existing cuts five years of outlays decrease. That is a significant record and one which is important. This Government needs to be congratulated on it. When managing the economy it is a case of having a fiscal policy, a tax policy, a wages policy and a monetary policy which fit together and make some sense. Honourable members opposite complain about interest rates. But if we say, `What are you going to do?' they do not have a solution. Of course, interest rates are rising as a result of overheated domestic demand. Some honourable members opposite are saying that there is too much demand on the domestic economy; others are saying that there is not enough. They are never happy. If they are to be consistent, they have to tell us how they would manage the economy. We are waiting for the Parramatta disclosure; we are waiting for the mandate for Liberal government from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). This matter of public importance refers to families and how they are affected. If we want to talk about families in this country let us look at what has happened. Per capita household disposable income, during the time of this Government, has risen every year except for one. The cumulative effect of five years of government has been an increase of 4.4 per cent in per capita household expenditure. We see an increase. In spite of the fact that there has been wage control and the necessity to tie down wages, household disposable income has increased. The introduction of Medicare-it was mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson-is a significant social reform. It makes the position of families in this country safe. Do we want the same situation as that which exists in the United States where it is impossible for 20 per cent of the population to pay for its health costs? Last week the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) mentioned that the Opposition opposes every national wage case. If that were taken through to its logical conclusion, $132 would be lost by every taxpayer on average weekly earnings. They have opposed every national wage case in the last five years. That is the sort of thing we are up against. On the one hand they are saying, `We have to spend more, do this and do that', and on the other hand they are complaining about us because we are trying to manage the economy fairly and in a reasonable way. Pensions are now at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. This Government has done the job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senator Jenkins to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in place of Senator Coulter, discharged. Assent to the following Bills reported: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988 Income Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax File Numbers) Bill 1988 Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.21) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following proposed works be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Infrastructure development at various federal airports. The motion refers to the need of the Federal Airports Corporation to undertake infrastructure development in support of terminal developments being planned by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines at various Federal airports. In October 1987 the Government announced that long term leases were to be negotiated with Ansett and Australian Airlines which would allow the airlines to develop future terminal facilities for domestic aviation operations. Under the terms of the leases signed in December 1987, both airlines are required to provide facilities for new air service operations after the two-airline policy ends in October 1990. This is an essential element of the Government's announced policies for the domestic aviation industry. The Federal Airports Corporation is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the lessor under these leases. In accordance with the timing required under the lease terms, Ansett and Australian Airlines were required to submit by 30 June 1988 indicative development plans for terminals and proposals for satisfying their obligation to provide access to new air service operators. Both airlines have met this timing. Ansett submitted detailed plans and indicated it needs to proceed immediately after 31 December 1988 in order to achieve completion by October 1990. The Federal Airports Corporation had until the end of October 1988 to indicate its broad proposals for providing the additional infrastructure necessary to service the airlines' planned developments. It is also required to respond by 31 December 1988 with firm plans setting out the manner and timing of the infrastructure works. The work will include aprons, taxiways, engineering services, roads and parking. To varying degrees they will be required at Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Coolangatta, Hobart and Launceston airports. The latest estimate of cost by the Corporation for the various works is about $115m. If, under the terms of the lease, the Federal Airports Corporation cannot provide a firm commitment and plans for the infrastructure works by December this year, the airlines could argue that they are being unreasonably delayed. The process associated with the public hearing and Public Works Committee consideration would almost certainly prevent the Federal Airports Corporation from meeting the December time frame and would also impact on a subsequent detailed planning, commitment and completion of works by the end of October 1990. Exemption is therefore warranted on the grounds of urgency. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning of construction can proceed with confidence. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.25) —It really is outrageous that the Government should come into this place on such an important matter and seek the House's agreement to it without providing any significant details or without referring the matter to the appropriate committee of this Parliament. The whole history of these terminal agreements has been irregular and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) in his statement has highlighted the irregular nature of the matter. He said that in October 1987 the Government announced that long term leases would be negotiated. If my memory serves me correctly, in May 1987, some considerable time in advance of that, the Government announced it was going to establish the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC), which would be responsible for running airports. We then have a reference to the terms of leases signed in December 1987, which was only a matter of days before the FAC was constituted, which was on 1 January 1988. The FAC is responsible for complying with its obligations under these leases which were entered into by the Department of Transport and Communications prior to its coming into existence. The Minister goes on in his statement to say that both airlines have met their obligations under the terms of this agreement. What he fails to say is that the Government has not met its obligations under the terms of this agreement. I think it would do the Government credit to provide more detail to the Parliament about what it actually proposes in terms of this structure. It is not as if it is not a controversial matter. We have had reports from people involved in the industry of their disquiet about the implications of this terminal expansion. Whilst I would be the first to acknowledge the need to provide greater facilities at Australian airports as outlined in the statement, albeit ever so generally and without any detail, I think it is incumbent on me to say that there are many people, particularly those people who seek to enter the industry, who do not believe that the Government's intentions are in fact all that meets the eye. I would like the Minister to provide more details to the Opposition about the Government's intentions, rather than this rather bland and, I believe, inadequate statement. It has been indicated by some people who seek to enter this industry that the terms of the lease agreements entered into with the two existing domestic carriers are such that they will be a major encumbrance to anyone who seeks to build his own terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. We do not have any plans; we do not have any basis for examining what the Government has agreed to. We do not know what areas of land have been set aside for the existing concession holders. We do not know the terms of the leases. Although we have a freedom of information request in for those details, I am sure we will be told that it is a commercial undertaking. We have a situation in which the Government has all the cards closely held to its chest and it is walking into this Parliament and saying, `Approve this expansion. Give us the right to spend $115m and trust us'. I would not trust this mob two inches. I really think that if the Government is fair dinkum about having a deregulated airline environment it should provide more information to the Australian Parliament and the Australian people. The whole issue, as I alluded to earlier, has been irregular from day one. The terms of the consultancy for the drawing up of the leases did not go to public tender. The leases were drawn up by the Department almost on the last few days of its authority over this area and we have yet to see any details of those leases and we have yet to see an adequate and comprehensive response from the Government to the criticism made of it by people who seek to enter the industry as a third and additional domestic airline. I believe if the Government is to go any way to restoring its credibility in this area it should provide this detail, particularly in terms of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I would like an assurance that there will be no restrictions placed upon the ability of a third airline to develop its own terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and that there will be an option other than being a tenant of an existing airline operator. I realise that there are other members of the House who wish to speak on this motion, so I will curtail my remarks. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. I do so to allow the Government to prepare more information on these matters for presentation to the House. Question put: That the motion (Mr Blunt's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Ronald Edwards) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Millar, P. C.Blunt, C. W. Peacock, A. S.Brown, N. A. Porter, J. R.Burr, M. A. Reith, P. K.Cadman, A. G. Ruddock, P. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Shack, P. D.Cameron, Ian Shipton, R. F.Carlton, J. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Connolly, D. M. Smith, W. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Spender, J. M.Edwards, Harry Sullivan, K. J.Fife, W. C. Taylor, W. L.Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. W.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.Katter, R. C. Kerin, J. C.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.40) —In the absence of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I feel bound, as Vice-Chairman, briefly to acquaint the House with some of the attitudes of the Committee, and I can speak confidently on their behalf. In the first instance might I say that the Committee understands that from time to time circumstances arise in which it may be expedient and prudent for the Parliament to have a project initiated without referral to the Public Works Committee. The Committee is aware that in that situation the action may be attributed to some notional inescapable delay by the Committee addressing itself to a formal referral. Naturally the Committee would take exception to that suggestion on the basis that the record proves it has dealt with its referrals most expeditiously. The other matter in this program, which was initiated in 1987 in an embryo way, is that the theme of urgency has been rather stressed. With that in mind the Committee provided an opportunity for the Department of Transport and Communications officers and representatives of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) to meet with the Committee on 1 November and give it an informal briefing as to their respective objectives. I simply want to say now that the urgency expressed in the presentation of 1 November with the Public Works Committee is somewhat difficult in the minds of the Committee to reconcile with the fact that it is now four weeks later that this matter has come before the Parliament. In short, in the whole process of implementation of capital works, if time should be the critical element, the Public Works Committee's traditional and important functions should not be the only casualty on the altar of expediency. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support)(4.43) —In the absence of my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications, (Mr Willis), I would like to take this opportunity to shed a little light on the issue for the benefit of the House. In formulating the comprehensive series of initiatives for deregulation of the aviation industry, the Government has recognised that the success of any such deregulation will be very much dependent on the ability of new operators to gain access to airport facilities which in the past have been tailored mainly to meet the requirements of the two airlines policy and the two airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines. The leases held up to the time of the renegotiation generally gave Ansett and Australian exclusive rights to their terminals until 1993, well beyond the start of deregulation in 1990. Following a basic assumption of common sense, the Government decided that in the absence of other available facilities it would be necessary to renegotiate the leases held by existing airlines to provide access to the terminals for other operators. The new leases were concluded with the airlines for the terminals at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Coolangatta and Launceston. The key conditions of the leases provide for a redevelopment and expansion of terminal facilities by the airlines to allow them to more effectively meet the public's needs, access for future entrants to the industry, and continued access for existing small carriers. The airlines are to pay greatly increased rentals and to accept responsibility for maintenance and operation of their entire terminal facilities, the cost of which was previously borne by the Government. As a minimum, these leases set out what will be provided for new operators at the airport. I say `as a minimum' because it is by no means the full extent of what will be available for new entrants to the industry. From November 1990 operators will have access to gates within Australian and Ansett terminals at each airport where common use facilities are not available. As well as providing access to the new entrants, the leases recognise the commercial needs of existing airlines and require Ansett and Australian to undertake significant expenditure on future terminal developments, with the FAC providing complementary infrastructure. Australian and Ansett will each be required to make available two aircraft gates at Sydney and Melbourne and a gate each at Coolangatta, Adelaide and Perth. Launceston will have one gate in the Ansett terminal. The FAC has alternative facilities available at both Brisbane and Hobart. Under the terms of the leases the airlines have submitted redevelopment proposals to the FAC which commit the airlines to spending well over $300m redeveloping their terminals over the next two years. Additional development is planned for subsequent years. The proposed redevelopment will accommodate the growth of the industry. It will provide significantly improved terminal facilities for the travelling public and will assist the existing airlines and new entrants to cope with the demands of the deregulated environment into the 1990s. The timetable on this issue is binding. In line with the Government's determination to ensure that access to terminal facilities will be available for new entrants immediately the industry is deregulated in November 1990, the leases contain a specific development timetable which is binding on the airlines and the FAC. I am advised by the Chairman of the FAC that to support the airlines' terminal developments it will be necessary to provide complementary infrastructure estimated to cost $114.7m. The majority of this amount of expenditure will be required at Sydney and Melbourne, the respective figures being $72.7m and $24m. Expenditure at the remaining airports is estimated at $7.8m at Adelaide; $4.8m at Perth; $4.5m at Coolangatta; $700,000 at Hobart; and $100,000 at both Brisbane and Launceston. Expenditure is required prior to November 1990 and generally covers provision of aprons, taxiways, roads, car parks and essential services. Further details of the necessary works at each airport can be made available to honourable members, and I suggest that any honourable members who have an interest in these matters should approach my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications, who is responsible for this. The FAC has also advised me that it would not be able to meet time frames embodied in the leases if this work were to be subject to the Public Works Committee process. A tight timetable is necessary, as I have already said, to ensure that the airlines and the FAC are able to complete the work by the end of 1990. Indeed, I understand that Ansett, for instance, is ready to call tenders on its development proposals as soon as it receives advice from the FAC on the provision of the infrastructure, $107m being the immediate work projected by Ansett. The FAC has discussed the circumstances associated with the domestic terminal leases with the Public Works Committee, as has already been said by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), and the importance of this I have stressed to the House. I would like to deal very quickly in the time available with a couple of issues raised by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). The first was why the FAC was not left to renegotiate these leases but rather the Government doing it before the FAC took up operations on 1 January this year. The answer is very simple. The two-airline policy is being ended by this Government. The deregulation initiative is a government initiative and it is therefore appropriate that it be the Government that negotiates such a crucial element of this deregulation and not the FAC. The negotiation quite properly was done before the FAC took up its reins. The second issue raised by the honourable member for Richmond related to the leases. I should advise the honourable member that Senator Evans publicly released the leases in July this year. The terms are 20 years, plus 8 plus two. I mention that for the honourable member's clarification. The third issue relates to what additional facilities will be available. I should point out to the honourable member for Richmond and other members of the House that the FAC has just finished placing national advertisements calling for expressions of interest for additional facilities, applications for which closed on 4 November. To date it has received 11 firm expressions of interest and a total of 18 inquiries in one form or another. Fourthly, the honourable member sought assurances about access for other carriers in the deregulated environment. I should mention to him that other airlines will be able to develop their own terminals where space permits. He specifically asked about Sydney. I can inform him that the latest advice that the Minister for Transport and Communications has on this issue is that the FAC is looking to build a common user terminal at Sydney. Having gone through the very elongated process of deregulation of the aviation industry the Government is committed to making sure that the nuts and bolts of that deregulation fall into place. That relates to the domestic terminal leases and the central importance that they have to the whole process. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the motion of the Minister for Administrative Services and I urge honourable members to support it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.52) —The National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1988 has been introduced into the House without very much notice. However, I am able to say at the outset that the Opposition is happy to accommodate the Government in this regard because the matter seems to be of some importance. As I said, we have not had a great deal of notice of this Bill, nor have we had a great deal of notice of the amendments which the Government proposes to move in the committee stage of the proceedings. Nevertheless, having discussed the matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and having read his second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum to it we have no hesitation in saying that the measure is one which should be supported, promoted and proceeded with promptly. We were told in the second reading speech that the whole matter started off with a request from the South Australian Government. That Government has been concerned that additional members should be appointed to the National Crime Authority for specific investigations. It would appear that there is to be a proposed South Australian reference to the National Crime Authority concerning certain allegations of criminal activity and corruption in South Australia. We have also been told that the South Australian Government will bear the costs involved in this exercise. That is only appropriate. We have no criticism to make of that. Briefly, the structure of the proposal is that there will be what one might call ad hoc appointments to the National Crime Authority. The persons appointed to the Authority will concern themselves with specific matters and will not be at large to pursue the general work of the Authority. Likewise, it is not very surprising to find-and it seems to follow logically-that the appointments will come to an end when the deliberations of the Authority on the particular reference have come to an end. That likewise is appropriate. I have said to those who have asked my views about this way of doing things, so far as the National Crime Authority is concerned, that clearly we should support this particular measure. However, it must be said that it is not really desirable, as a general principle, to appoint people to bodies of this sort to deal with specific references. It was not in the mind of the Government when it set up the National Crime Authority. It is something that has come about because of unique circumstances. Because of the unique circumstances which have arisen we support the Bill and we will be watching it very closely. We do not hear a great deal about the National Crime Authority. A parliamentary committee has been set up to oversee it, but the Authority, by virtue of its very nature, must work largely behind closed doors. It is judged on its results. From time to time matters come into our minds which we think should be looked at by the National Crime Authority. There is one which I believe the Attorney-General should at least give consideration to. I am not for one moment saying that the matter is conclusive or final but simply that the Attorney-General should from time to time, because he is responsible for all these things, look at particular matters of public interest which are raised and conclude what should be done about them. We will not be moving specific amendments to the Bill as the Government will be doing. I should say, by way of a sideline, that the Government will be moving some amendments which are part of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill which is fixed for later deliberation. We are happy to accommodate the Government if it wants to put part of that Bill into this particular Bill and remove it from the other legislation later. I return to the point that I was making. From time to time there are matters which we believe should be investigated. There is one which forms the basis of a second reading amendment that I wish to move. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —May I inquire as to whether the second reading amendment has been circulated to members? Mr N.A. Brown —It has not been circulated in the normal sense in which amendments are circulated here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is it intended that it will be circulated at this point, as you are moving it? Mr N.A. Brown —It is intended to follow whatever the appropriate forms of the House are. I have not had time to have it printed, if that is what you mean, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will require that the House be informed as to the substance of the amendment and that it be available for circulation. Mr N.A. Brown —All that I propose to do at this stage is to move the amendment. Having consulted, the appropriate course may well be for formal changes to be made to it at a later time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will hear the amendment and then consider its admissibility. Mr N.A. Brown —I am quite happy for that course to be followed. The second reading amendment states: That all words after ``that'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Attorney-General give consideration to referring to the National Crime Authority the statement made by Mrs Betty Diamond on 28 November 1988 the text whereof is as follows: 28th November 1988 STATEMENT BY MRS BETTY DIAMOND FORMER ALDERMAN-GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL On Wednesday, 16th April, 1980, I as a member of the Gold Coast Health and Planning Committee-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will interrupt the honourable member for Menzies at this point. As I foreshadowed it is clear that the honourable member is going to some substantial matter. It may be that it is not admissible in the debate. However, I think that the best way to deal with it is to allow him to continue his remarks. The Chair will consider whether it is substantive to the debate. I advise the honourable member for Menzies at this point that in the absence of its being circulated it may not be able to be debated as a substantive amendment. However, I will deal with it in that way. Mr N.A. Brown —I will take it one step at a time. I will conclude the amendment for a start. In foreshadowing the amendment, it is a matter for me to include what I wish in it. It may be a matter of form which has to be pursued later. I think that is really what you are saying, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is quite correct. Mr N.A. Brown —I will just go back to the beginning of that sentence, and this, of course, is part of the amendment because it is in fact the statement which is incorporated in the amendment: On Wednesday, 16th April 1980, I as a member of the Gold Coast Health and Planning Committee, with other members of the Committee, undertook an on-site inspection of the Paradise Centre, then being built in Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, by Mr Eddie Kornhauser. After the inspection, the Health and Planning Committee went to Mr Kornhauser's private quarters in the old Surfers Paradise Hotel where we were to have lunch. During drinks before lunch, we were joined by Mr Bob Hawke, then president of the ACTU, who was staying with Mr Kornhauser. Mr Hawke stayed for the lunch at which Mr Kornhauser's Paradise Centre was discussed, including his request for approval of certain proposals then before the Gold Coast City Council. Mr Hawke listened to these discussions and made it clear he would like to see the Council agree to Mr Kornhauser's request. At one stage he said the Council should `look after Eddie'. Betty Diamond. It is, therefore, apparent that what I am doing is moving, without declining to give the Bill a second reading, which I make clear, that the Attorney-General should give consideration to referring that statement to the National Crime Authority. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —At this point, I advise the honourable member for Menzies that the Chair has heard his amendment. As to its admissibility, I will not call for a seconder at this stage. The Chair will consider the matter and advise the honourable member and the other members. Because the Chair is dealing with it in that way, I will ask other members to confine their remarks specifically to the second reading debate whilst the Chair is considering the matter that the honourable member for Menzies has raised. Mr N.A. Brown —Perhaps those remarks should be addressed to others rather than me, because I have finished. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —They have been addressed to others. Mr N.A. Brown —I simply want to say that I do not know at this stage exactly what is meant by `admissible'. One can propose, with respect, that the Attorney-General consider something. It may be that when he considers it, he will conclude that it is not a matter for the National Crime Authority. That is an entirely different question. What I am doing is moving an amendment calling upon the Attorney-General to give consideration to something, and that must be reasonable and within the terms of the Standing Orders, especially as the Opposition has given the Government a lot of accommodation on introducing the Bill itself and some amendments which the Government is now going to introduce in the committee stages. So we ask the Government to at least give consideration to the matter contained in the amendment. Finally, we will be watching with great interest this unusual procedure so far as the National Crime Authority is concerned. We understand that there certainly is a matter of substance that has to be pursued by the National Crime Authority in South Australia, and that there is, therefore, a need for the Act to be amended in this way. We will be watching with very great interest the unfolding work of the National Crime Authority once it has this additional power and once it gets its teeth into the specific South Australian reference which is on the way. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(5.04) —It is true to say that when important matters are debated in this place we can rely on the Opposition to bring them down to a lower level. When we are discussing the future conduct of matters of corruption in South Australia, a most severe and depressing matter for this nation, we can be guaranteed that members of the Opposition will bring it down to the level of the gutter, where they bring down most matters of debate in this place. Once again, they have proved their capacity for doing that. I find this a very valuable amendment to the original legislation of the National Crime Authority (NCA). Members of this House are no doubt aware that over the last several years, particularly in the past 12 months, there have been considerable allegations raised in South Australia concerning matters of corruption, in particular involving members of the South Australian police force. More recently, there was a very senior member of that police force, Moyes, convicted of serious drug and corruption related matters and sentenced to a very heavy period of imprisonment. Allegation have been raised in both State and Federal Parliament, and Senator Hill has been most diligent in raising what he sees as being important matters involving corruption in South Australia. I find this addition to the function of the National Crime Authority a very important one, and it is a great pity that other States have not considered using the centralised facility and the intelligence gathering organisation of the National Crime Authority in tackling matters involving State crime and State corruption allegations. We see in New South Wales, for example, a star chamber. That is the only way to describe it. It was established by the Greiner Government. It is an organisation that is not subject to any parliamentary review, and it has the most horrific powers of investigation and is almost uncontrollable now it has been created. On the other hand, we see the South Australian Government having a centralised body such as the National Crime Authority, which has been effective already in tackling areas involving corruption in South Australia, moving, in conjunction with the Inter-Governmental Committee, to strengthen the powers of the National Crime Authority to investigate within South Australia. I hope that other States which have similar problems would adopt this course of action rather than try to establish their own star chambers. It is not suggested that these amendments will fundamentally change the powers of the NCA. Rather, the amendments give a specific function to an individual to be appointed for the sole purpose of investigating a specific reference. That could be expanded in the future into references other than the one that the South Australian Government is seeking. It is not a matter which requires a great deal of discussion. I am pleased that, apart from the cynicism with which the Opposition had approached this-which is a pity-it has received the support of the Opposition, as well it should. May I say very briefly, as the Chairman of the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority, I am pleased to see this expanded function of the NCA. As a committee, we have concerns about the ever-increasing spread of corruption through our State police forces, and it is no secret that it is not limited to South Australia. The spread of organised crime continues and the tentacles of corruption throughout this great nation are expanding, and it is only through bodies such as the NCA that we have any hope of mounting a major attack on them. I am sure the amendments will be supported by my Committee when it meets tonight. I congratulate the Government on the speed with which it has acted to get this enabling legislation before the House. I also congratulate Mr Sumner, the Attorney-General of South Australia, who has taken the right approach to this matter in establishing and using an existing facility. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.09) —It is not a pleasant prospect, speaking for the interests of one's own State, when one considers the special action that has to be taken as regards the scene in South Australia, the scene of the operations of the police force and the criminal element, such as the creation of another position on the National Crime Authority (NCA) in order to pursue the question in my own State. It is not pleasant because we have 3,500 police officers who have a proud record of service to the community, a proud record of public relations with that community. There is not the slightest doubt that the large majority of those police officers are honest and maintain a situation of the highest integrity in relation to the performance of their duty. It must be said that, in relation to the number who may be corrupt, one is looking at a very small number indeed. However, there is a wider community in which the criminal elements flourish, and they flourish because of changed attitudes in the world. South Australia is not immune, as no other State is immune, from those changed influences. There is an increased capacity on the part of the criminal element to perform as against those who seek them out. We have a problem with the proximity of Asia, which provides the base for many of the drugs that enter Australia. There is a special need. I am sorry that that is the case, but we have to recognise it. South Australia has descended from the high level of morale which was established in its police force years ago and which resulted in a very large degree from the stewardship and leadership of Brigadier McKinna, who was for many years the Commissioner of Police and who established very high standards of training and leadership in that force. Since then we have had some indeterminate actions. There is no doubt that the obtaining of the services of Harold Salisbury from Britain by the previous Premier, Mr Don Dunstan, and his sacking by that same Premier, contributed to an enormous degree to the lack of morale in the State police force. I will not go through that well ventilated episode but it seemed to lead to a drop in force morale which has not yet recovered. In addition, police forces today are aware that they do not get the financial resources from governments that they require to combat properly the criminal elements in the community. That has an effect within the force. I guess the one good thing about this legislation is that at least it is being done with the full cooperative efforts of the Police Commissioner and the hierarchy of the police force in South Australia, the South Australian Government and the Inter-Governmental Committee, which have all agreed to take this move. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), in the second reading speech, stated: This Bill's genesis is a request from the South Australian Government that the National Crime Authority Act 1984 be amended to enable the appointment of additional members to the National Crime Authority for specific investigations. The South Australian Government has indicated that such an amendment would allow the appointment of an additional member to undertake a proposed South Australian reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the South Australian Government has formally agreed to fund the establishment of a National Crime Authority office in that State. The impetus for this has grown over the last several years, but particularly over the last several months. The National Crime Authority has looked at the scene in South Australia and reported in August this year when it stated: Allegations canvassed, if true, demonstrate that an unacceptable level of unethical practice has been in existence in the SA Police for a considerable time. Without the NCA's investigations these allegations may not have come to light. There had been a lack of resolve and perhaps even a reluctance by police to take effective measures to enable the allegations to be brought to the attention of a permanent and independent investigatory unit. Further to that, we have had the very wide allegations made by Mr X, which have already resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of a high level policeman in South Australia. It is interesting that that material was provided by the Advertiser, the morning paper in South Australia, for the first time publicly. It seemed to come as a surprise to the police force that this material existed. An article in the Advertiser of 22 October stated: The Mr X material provided to the SA police by The Advertiser last Friday has provided a ``tremendous amount'' of intelligence to a special police taskforce. The head of the taskforce investigating the illegal Adelaide drug trade, Commander Bruce Gamble, said this last night. However, the public should not be under any illusion that there would be quick arrests or swift breakthroughs in what could be a difficult, protracted and complex enquiry. The article went on to state: The complexity of the matters raised in the Mr X transcripts meant `investigations are very much a joint operation with interstate police forces, supported by the NCA'. The Leader or the Opposition, Mr Olsen, renewed an Opposition call for the Government to consider a Royal Commission into corruption allegations. While I fully approve the move of this legislation to establish a higher level of investigative activity in South Australia, I do not for a minute believe that the call by the South Australian Leader of the Opposition, Mr Olsen, for a royal commission was fanciful. If one wants the most effective revelations of crime in Australia, does one go to the police forces to find this out or does one go somewhere else, to the media or to a royal commission? I remind the House that in Queensland the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct was brought about by Mr Phil Dickie's persistent pursuit in the Courier-Mail of crime, and by his personal devotion to combating crime wherever he found it. We know of a number of major instances in Australia where the lead has been given by dedicated operators within the media. These have been followed by royal commissions which have opened up scenes which none of us would ever have felt could exist in Australia. One may pay full tribute to the likes of Mr Dickie for the work that he has done on behalf of us all. Whilst internal investigations and the sort of undercover work that no doubt the NCA will conduct as a result of this new inquiry are essential components of chasing criminals, I believe that as much as possible, commensurate with the efficient conduct of that investigation, should be made public. It is from the publication of criminal activities, and the leads that come from such publication, that the successful pursuit of criminals is carried out. Let us remember the case of Mr Whitrod in Queensland when he had to leave. He stated pretty fully his reasons for leaving and we knew from those reasons that something was dramatically and drastically wrong with the Queensland police force. What happened? The situation plunged to greater depths of depravity, as we now know from the Fitzgerald inquiry. The policeman was not believed. There needs to be full public exposure, with politicians put at risk by such exposure, to be successful in getting at the roots of crime in this community. Whilst the second reading speech may indicate that this is the best alternative for pursuing organised crime in South Australia, it may still not be the best method overall. I would have liked to see a royal commission investigate this matter. I believe the State police force has very little corruption in depth but there may be a significant-odd police officer. I would have liked to see the matter opened up publicly so that leads could have come from the public and the community in which we know that criminal elements exist and operate. I do not believe that this is the be-all or end-all of the pursuit of the criminal element in South Australia. It is a good move; it is a cooperative move, and one has to give it support. I make another plea for proper economic support of the police in doing their job. One has only to talk to acquaintances in the police force to know how limited are their funds to carry out their investigative work. We may think we are busy in the field of politics, but the life of a policeman who is dedicated to his job is a busy one. He is harried from every quarter. When the resources are not sufficient to support him or her in every way, the job is even more invidious. In supporting this Bill, I end by making a plea for as much public exposure of the results of the investigation as is commensurate with the proper conduct of that investigation and I make a plea to all concerned to provide the police forces of Australia with the resources necessary to pursue criminals. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.19) —I rise to second the amendment, which I understand is under some dispute. Of course, it is a requirement that it be seconded promptly even in the circumstances-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Does the seconder wish to speak now or reserve his right to speak? Mr TUCKEY —I would prefer the opportunity to speak, to convince you, Sir, of the need for this amendment to be part of today's proceedings because I think there are good reasons why that should occur. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should just bear with the Chair for the moment. Advice is being taken on the amendment and the Chair is not in a position at this stage to rule on the seconding of the amendment at this time. I believe that the acceptability of the original amendment is still being considered. I took the chair at that time, and that is my belief. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With your approval, and taking note of the remarks made by the previous occupant in the chair that he wished the seconding of the amendment to be withheld until such time as a ruling was obtained, may I reserve my right to speak and ensure that the debate continues. I do not think our amendment is of great importance and the arguments at least should be heard to assist the chair in deciding whether or not it is out of order. I will reserve my right to speak at this stage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair appreciates the cooperation of the honourable member. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.21) —I rise to speak on the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill. As I think has already been made clear by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), this Bill results from a request from the South Australian Government that the National Crime Authority Act be amended to enable the appointment of additional members to the National Crime Authority for the undertaking of specific investigations. We all understand that the South Australian Government has indicated that such an amendment will allow the appointment of an additional member of the Authority and that it will enable the Authority to investigate allegations of criminal activity and corruption in South Australia. Of course, the South Australian Government has agreed to fund that matter and has indicated that it is thought that the Authority is a more appropriate body to investigate those allegations in South Australia than a royal commission. I remind the House that the Minister for Veteran's Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who read the second reading speech on behalf of the Attorney-General, observed: The Authority was established, in part, as a viable alternative to the then growing proliferation of Royal Commission-type inquiries . . . and in particular various aspects of organised criminal activity. He went on to say: The Authority's independence, coercive powers, knowledge and expertise in the fight against organised crime together with its focus on the gathering of admissible evidence make it the best alternative to deal with allegations of criminal activity and corruption of the kind being made in South Australia. I am not a South Australian and I am not privy to all the allegations made in South Australia or to the breadth of those allegations-whether they relate more peculiarly to criminal-type activity or to a broader corruption of the type that we have recently become aware as being very prevalent in other parts of Australia. From the comments of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who spoke before me, we do know the nature of some of those allegations. Other than that, I do not come in here with a brief to make allegations about what has been happening in South Australia. However, from what I had heard of the Bill and from the Attorney-General's explanation of it, I did want to highlight the way in which the National Crime Authority itself says it works and my concern as to whether or not it is altogether the most appropriate body to investigate the sorts of allegations that are being made in South Australia on the basis observed by the Attorney-General. I notice that in the report of the National Crime Authority for 1986-87 the Authority had some comments to make about the way in which it undertakes investigations. The report reminds us all of the following: The National Crime Authority is empowered to investigate only that criminal activity which is considered `relevant' in terms of the enabling legislation. I do not think that this enabling legislation takes the definition of `criminal activity' any further. It deals with the nature of the appointments to be made and the terms of reference that can be made within the legislation that we have already on the books. In relation to section 4 (1) of the National Crime Authority Act, the report states: Section 4 (1) also defines `relevant offence' as meaning an offence which involves two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; is of a kind of offence ordinarily committed in conjunction with other like offences and that involves theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, bribery or corruption, bankruptcy and company violations, harbouring of criminals, passport forgery, armament dealings, or importation or exportation of fauna into or out of Australia. It excludes certain matters specifically, such as offences committed in the course of industrial disputes; where the time for prosecution has expired; or where the punishment is less than imprisonment for three years. The Authority in its report had some quite relevant comments of its own to make. One might have thought that a definition of `relevant offence' was wide and all-embracing, but clearly there is a range of matters of the sort that have come out in Queensland in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct that will not be able to be raised in this investigation and certainly are unlikely to come to public knowledge by the way in which the National Crime Authority is charged with undertaking its own inquiries and investigations. The National Crime Authority has this to say: A considerable number of people write to the Authority requesting it to investigate allegations of particular offences. More often than not these allegations fall outside the `relevant' offences which the authority is able to investigate and all the authority can do is refer the person on to the appropriate agency. In addition, frequently there are calls from the media and elsewhere for the Authority to investigate particular allegations. It must be stressed that the Authority is limited by its legislation, and of course its available resources, to investigating only those matters which fall within its charter. There is a tendency in some quarters to view the authority as an avenue for the investigation of all crime. This is a role which the authority simply cannot fulfil. Mr Justice Stewart and his colleagues in writing about the way in which matters are referred to them for investigation make a point about its functions. As to the purpose of each of these investigations, they state: (i) to ascertain whether any and what relevant offences, including-any offences suspected to be directly or indirectly connected with, or part of, a course of activity involving the commission of relevant offences have been or are being committed against laws of the Commonwealth or of a Territory or of the relevant State; (ii) to identify the principal offenders; (iii) to assemble evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of offenders; and (iv) to furnish that evidence to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of the relevant State or to the relevant law enforcement agency for prosecution of those offenders. So honourable members can see that we have an Authority which says that it is limited to investigating only those matters which are relevant offences. The definition of `relevant offences' is, of its very character, narrower than the range of matters that are often raised in relation to corruption per se. We have an Authority whose functions limit it to an investigatory role essentially in private where it assembles evidence and ultimately offers it to a body which has the responsibility for conducting a prosecution. On page 13 of the report the Authority states: Criticism has been levelled at the Authority because of its reluctance to make public information concerning its current investigations. It should be stated that Authority officers are bound by the secrecy provisions contained in the National Crime Authority Act. The Act provides that it is an offence for a person to make a record of any information or divulge or communicate to any person any information acquired in the course of his or her duties under the Act. The Attorney-General acknowledges that the Authority was established as an alternative method, but we need to understand that we have an Authority that has a very precise method of operation. I do not offer criticism of the Authority. I believe that it has undertaken its task with a great deal of enthusiasm. I believe, when I look at annual reports, that it is obtaining some success in referring matters to Attorneys and seeking to have prosecutions brought. I notice that the National Crime Authority's annual report records that, as a result of its investigations from its establishment to June 1987, 194 persons were charged with 540 offences and, in the financial year 1986-87, 143 persons were charged with 406 offences. So obviously it is having some success but, broadly speaking, in the area of corruption and the sorts of matters which have been raised in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland, I do not believe that we have seen an inordinate amount of success from the Authority in alerting the Australian community as to what is happening. If we look at the nature of the Fitzgerald inquiry, those matters are much more prevalent than we would want to believe. Whilst I have no personal knowledge of the matters that have been raised in South Australia and cannot add to those allegations in any way whatsoever, it seems to me that the National Crime Authority is not the body that is likely to bring about revelations of the sort that we have seen in Queensland. If one were concerned about the sorts of allegations that have been made in South Australia and whether they will be properly and fully investigated, one needs to have regard to the nature of the definition of what is a relevant offence. One needs to have regard to the extent to which the Authority has to fulfil specific functions and to its method of operation. If I were a South Australian concerned to know whether there had been extensive corruption of the kind that we have seen in Queensland, I would be concerned that this was the route that was being adopted. I do not raise that matter because of any lack of confidence in Mr Justice Stewart or his colleagues. Rather, it is a concern that when such allegations are made they should be exposed clearly. They ought to be able to be seen and people ought to know whether their government is tainted in any way. I suspect that what we have before us is a form of investigation the information on which the South Australian Government intends should not be brought to light and should not be viewed clearly, in the public eye, and in the way in which the Queensland Government has been prepared to allow a proper investigation and exposure of all the allegations that have been made so that people can make a judgment about what is going on in their State. It is in that context that I raise these matters quietly but in a way which I think is supportive of the comments of the honourable member for Boothby, because it seems to me that the Authority is not the appropriate route to take, as the Attorney has suggested. I do not see it as being the most appropriate method to adopt. The alternative that was proposed originally was questioned by the Opposition. We saw a much more activist authority as one that ought to be in place. I have not changed by mind on that. To that extent, and having regard to the nature of the allegations, in South Australia, I am disappointed that the South Australian public will not know the nature of the inquiries that are undertaken and will see a result only if and when any prosecutions emanate ultimately from the Authority's inquiries. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —When the debate on the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill was resumed, the honourable member for Menzies sought to move a second reading amendment which contained a lengthy quotation. As a second reading amendment must only contain a proposition on which the House can reach a decision, it is not in order for the amendment to include a lengthy quotation. The Chair is prepared to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member up to where the quotation begins. Therefore, I propose to call the seconder to the motion: That all words after ``that'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Attorney-General give consideration to referring to the National Crime Authority the statement made by Mrs Betty Diamond on 28 November 1988.'' Under those circumstances, I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.36) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion in the form that you have just read. It brings to the attention of the House the statement of Mrs Betty Diamond which, although it has been brought to the attention of the House a couple of times today, is still of great importance to Opposition members and, we believe, the House. Consequently, it is worth referring in my speech to Mrs Betty Diamond's statement, which was: On Wednesday, 16th April, 1980, I as a member of the Gold Coast Health and Planning Committee, with other members of the Committee, undertook an on-site inspection of the Paradise Centre, then being built in Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast by Mr Eddie Kornhauser. After the inspection, the Health and Planning Committee went to Mr Kornhauser's private quarters in the old Surfers Paradise Hotel where we were to have lunch. During drinks before lunch, we were joined by Mr Bob Hawke, then President of the A.C.T.U. who was staying with Mr Kornhauser. Mr Hawke stayed for the lunch at which Mr Kornhauser's Paradise Centre was discussed, including his request for approval of certain proposals then before the Gold Coast City Council. Mr Hawke listened to these discussions and made it clear he would like to see the Council agree to Mr Kornhauser's request. At one stage he said the Council should ``look after Eddie''. That was signed by Betty Diamond who was a one-time alderman of the Gold Coast City Council. As our amendment proposes, we think that the matter should be referred to the National Crime Authority because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has displayed some embarrassment about links that he may have had in that regard. One of the first was in relation to remarks by Sir Jack Egerton. The Prime Minister told us today that he has taken legal action against those statements attributed to Sir Jack Egerton. One wonders why the Prime Minister feels so embarrassed about remarks that appear, on the face of it, to be so simplistic. At the beginning of Question Time the Prime Minister was very arrogant when he attacked my question, which was in the broadest terms. I was just seeking an assurance to the Parliament that he had not been involved in the way that had been alleged. He then threatened me with remarks to be made outside the Parliament. One might wonder why he was so sensitive on this issue if it was not a matter of concern and, in fact, links with Mr Kornhauser were not matters which could cause him embarrassment. When he takes to account why they might cause him embarrassment, no doubt he is reminded of the remarks of Mr Ron Gibbs, a Labor colleague in Queensland. On 2 March he told the Queensland Parliament in a debate on the casino licence in that State that Gold Coast entrepreneur Mr Eddie Kornhauser had been involved in `laundering money'. A newspaper article reports him as having said that Kornhauser's dealings with `dirty money' demonstrated his unsuitability to be granted a casino licence. He also said: It's a downright disgrace to allow a person with this type of background to get to the stage of being one of the applicants for a casino licence. He went on to say that Mr Kornhauser worked with large amounts of money and then claimed 25 per cent interest paid as a `tax lurk'. He said: I believe it's on file that at this time Kornhauser and Saffron are in partnership in a hotel in Western Australia. Mr Gibbs said that if the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, had nothing to hide, he could make available a list of companies showing a conclusive link between Stang, Saffron, Kornhauser and Jack Rooklyn. Of course, all those names have arisen with frequency in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland. That was the level of concern of Mr Gibbs, but there was another authority available to the Prime Minister-namely, Mr Keith Wright, who was then a member of that House and is now a member of this House. The newspaper article also stated: Mr Wright (ALP, Rockhampton) said Kornhauser and Saffron had been linked for more than 30 years. He told Parliament Kornhauser also had connections `with a Minister in this chamber.' He apparently considered that that was bad news. I guess some of the revelations to the inquiry regarding some of the `loans' that Mr Kornhauser made to Mr Hinze may be in some way the matter that he was referring to at the time. The article continued: He said he had a copy of a confidential South Australian police internal report which linked Saffron with this organisation with drugs, prostitution and the laundering of money. The article went on: `The Kornhauser application should not have been considered. I ask the Police Minister and the Deputy Premier to release reports of details of casino investigations,' he said. `There should be no further decision until a Royal Commission is held.' These are the views of a member of the Labor Caucus on whether or not it is worth consorting with Mr Kornhauser. Of course, Mr Gibbs became so concerned about the association between the honourable member for Wills and Mr Kornhauser that on 9 March he sent a telegram to the Secretary of Caucus, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). Gibbs said that he was lodging `the strongest of protests at the unwarranted interference by one of your Caucus members, namely R. J. Hawke, on the Queensland casino licence issue'. He went on to say: Following exhaustive discussions with people in Melbourne, and having perused the findings of the 1954 New South Wales royal commission on Liquor Laws, I laid certain information relating to one of the applicants, Kornhauser, before the Queensland Parliament. He went on to say: I find it absolutely extraordinary that a prominent member of the parliamentary Labor Party should then come to Queensland to attempt to coerce the State secretary, State president and State parliamentary leader to use their influence to shut me up. Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I cannot see how this can have relevance either to the amendment that has been moved or to the motion that is before the Chair, which deals with the National Crime Authority. The amendment itself deals with a specific statement related to a meeting involving, I think, an Alderman Diamond. The suggestions that she has made go in no way to the discussion that the honourable member for O'Connor is now engaging in. Mr Tuckey —I would like to speak to the point of order. The amendment states: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Attorney- General give consideration to referring to the National Crime Authority the statement made by Mrs Betty Diamond on 28 November 1980. One is entitled in debate to give supporting evidence and argument to one's amendment. I am doing just that. I am reminding the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) of the views of some of his Labor Party colleagues on the propriety of the Prime Minister, as he now is, mixing with Mr Kornhauser. We think that is of relevance to our amendment which, of course, is to draw the attention of the Attorney-General and the National Crime Authority to matters of great concern which have been concerning his colleagues in the Labor Party, like Mr Gibbs and Mr Wright, for a number of years. They saw other links. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member is moving away from the point of order. There is no point of order as such. But I would ask the honourable member to limit his remarks to the subject of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill. He should not wander too far away from the subject matter of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking as the seconder of the amendment which has been moved. I am speaking more to the amendment than to the Bill and I presume that I am entitled to do that. Of course, a former alderman, Mrs Betty Diamond, has drawn the attention of this Parliament and to the public of Australia that the Prime Minister is not particularly to be trusted. The Prime Minister has made statements to the Press. For instance, the Sun of 28 November stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday blasted claims in a Brisbane newspaper by former Gold Coast Deputy Mayor Sir Jack Egerton. Mr Hawke warned the media- and, of course, a couple of other warnings were issued today- they risked being sued if they repeated claims made by Sir Jack . . . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not impugn the reputation of the Prime Minister unless there is a substantive motion before the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Well, I did not think I was. I am just reading a report in the paper of what the Prime Minister said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The imputation is still there. Mr TUCKEY —I would certainly not impugn the reputation of the Prime Minister. I am just drawing the Parliament's attention to the circumstances surrounding this issue. I am reading from what has already been published in a paper. Mainly, I am saying that the Prime Minister was at great pains at the beginning of Question Time in this Parliament today to deny that at any time he had been associated in trying to influence the activities or the decision-making of the Gold Coast City Council, particularly as it related to Mr Kornhauser. Of course, I have now read to the Parliament a statement by a then alderman who was present at a time when she was convinced, at least, that Mr Hawke, in his then capacity as President of the ACTU and a very well known Australian, did just that. It is in contrast with the Prime Minister's public statements and his opening statements today. By the end of Question Time he was sort of deciding that maybe it was not in his interest to go into the witness box. He was looking for solutions of a legalistic nature because of the very clear evidence that he did involve himself. I am astounded that he chose not, consequently, to take the opportunity of a censure motion to come into this place and properly clear his name. I do not know when we last did not have a-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not want to reduce the honourable member's time, but it was made very clear in Question Time today that litigation is now in process. Therefore, it is important, as people are going to be involved in giving evidence and their views, that that not be done in this House. That is the position and I think the honourable gentleman might bear that in mind. There is no question of anybody who is going to be a litigant trying to make an explanation in advance as to whether he was right or wrong. That comes under the sub judice rule. The honourable member is wandering off the point by referring to what he thinks other people should have done. It has been made very clear that if litigation is pending, one does not get the opportunity to colour a case by making a statement under the privilege of Parliament. For that reason, anyone who is going to be a witness in litigation cannot participate in a censure motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point is taken. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention page 465 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, which states: Matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court shall not be referred to in motions, debates or questions from the time the case is set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, not from the time a writ is issued. So, of course, the point of order raised by the Attorney-General is not correct. Mr N.A. Brown —And the Prime Minister did not rely on that either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion between honourable members has a certain interest to the Chair. But I must rule that strictly speaking it is not under ultra vires, as I understand it. But I would again remind the honourable member for O'Connor that he should take note of this and the matters raised by the Attorney- General in his point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In attempting to be more specific to the amendment, which I am seconding at this time, I was really trying to stick to those remarks because it appeared that my previous remarks relating to Mr Kornhauser's suitability to be a close associate of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister's obvious attempts on past occasions to assist Mr Kornhauser to obtain approvals from the Gold Coast City Council, which no doubt represented a huge profit to him-the recent Fitzgerald inquiry drew to our attention that Mrs Hinze apparently made a $1.8m profit without even making an investment, so, of course, if that is associated with Mr Kornhauser-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member shall not impugn the reputation of people either within the chamber or without the chamber. I ask the honourable member not to proceed along those lines. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition has moved this amendment because we see serious implications in these circumstances. They are doubly serious because the Prime Minister has attempted to claim that they did not exist. He has made those public claims. He has also threatened people with prosecution of a civil sort if they continued to make certain remarks. He came to the Parliament today and took a very aggressive position. Of course, he was then confronted with the evidence that the Opposition has produced and repeated in the last few minutes. We have to wonder what the Prime Minister has to hide in these circumstances. As such, that is the reason for us suggesting that it is now a matter for the National Crime Authority. I rest my case on that point. I remind the House that not only members of the Opposition have expressed concern about the Prime Minister's association with this but also the Queensland Parliament Hansard records the words of Mr Gibbs and Mr Wright, both of whom of course are members of the Labor Party; one is now a member of the Federal Parliamentary Caucus. Mr Gibbs actually telegrammed the Caucus and said, `I want this man Hawke out of this place. He is acting in a manner which is unsatisfactory to us as we try to ensure, as an Opposition in Queensland, that only fit and proper people get the licence for a casino'. At no time has the Prime Minister denied that that telegram was sent. When the press article was published he was queried at the time and said that he would not comment on that but then made other admissions that he had in fact met with people on the matter. This is an area of concern for the Opposition; it is a concern for certain Government backbenchers and certain Opposition frontbenchers in Queensland. They are the reasons why it is essential that we have this matter properly referred as we cannot get to the bottom of it in this place. The Government will not accept the censure motion. Apparently, the Prime Minister does not feel he is able to defend himself in this place. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(5.51) —In opposing the second reading amendment, I want very briefly to reply to the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The Opposition draws a very long bow indeed with this proposition, suggesting that those rather inconsequential remarks of Mrs Betty Diamond should be referred to the National Crime Authority (NCA). It is pretty fair evidence of an intention to create mountains out of molehills or nothing at all. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it quite clear in Question Time today that he was operating under legal advice to say no more as he intended to engage in litigation on both the absurd handling and the content of the particular story that appeared over the weekend, I think in one of the Queensland newspapers. That inhibited his capacity to make further remarks in this place. If he had additional legal advice to the contrary he would have absolutely no difficulty in dealing with it. When one looks at what Alderman Betty Diamond is supposed to have said, one sees that nobody would have any difficulty with it one way or another. The suggestion that it ought to be an appropriate subject for the attention of the National Crime Authority is obviously completely absurd. Even if the facts were as outlined by Mrs Betty Diamond, nothing in it at all implies or contains anything that is either criminal or even improper in any shape or form. It is simply a pattern that is now established by the Opposition in this place in so many instances to attempt to smear without substance. The matters referred to go to a period when the Prime Minister was neither Prime Minister nor a member of this place. If the statements were made, they were neither criminal nor improper and are not appropriately dealt with by this amendment in any shape or form. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.54) —In response to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) I point out that it was under his leadership of the House today that the matter raised was not allowed to be pursued. Perhaps if, in future, such matters under his leadership could be pursued at the time they were raised he would not be facing second reading amendments such as this. He cannot bully the House as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) attempts to do. Sooner or later the facts will come out one way or the other. The National Crime Authority Amendment Bill really came about because, amongst other things, my colleague in the other place, South Australian Senator Robert Hill, has been actively crusading over many months for the establishment of a National Crime Authority (NCA) office in Adelaide to investigate allegations of widespread police corruption and evidence of the existence of organised crime in that State. Senator Hill is of the opinion that the corruption in South Australia, while very serious, takes the form of isolated pockets of criminal activity and corruption rather than being of an institutionalised nature. Obviously Senator Hill being from that State has a closer appreciation of the situation there than I do but I point out, as he has, that there has been a sequence of revelations leading to the establishment of the NCA unit which is very disturbing and justifies high level investigations of the calibre able to be offered by the NCA. A former South Australian Attorney-General, now the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), has claimed that he first raised the question of police corruption in 1981. He of course suffered at that stage for so doing. In 1985 a former South Australian police officer broke a 13-year silence on the drowning in 1972 of a homosexual university lecturer, Dr George Duncan. As a result of his evidence, the case was reopened and two former vice squad detectives charged with Dr Duncan's death. In the course of assisting the National Crime Authority in this case, other allegations were made in relation to other police officers, including several who were still serving and had reached high rank. The allegations suggested links between South Australian police officers and a major drug crop at Coffs Harbour and irregularity surrounding the shooting of a drug addict informer. Subsequently, a Crown witness, known as Mr X, had implicated the then Detective Chief Inspector Malcolm Moyse as a major police source for the supply of heroin, amphetamines, cannabis and cannabis resin. As we all know, Moyse was subsequently convicted in August of this year and sentenced to 27 years gaol with hard labour on 17 charges involving the sale, possession and supply of drugs. The senior position held by Moyse in the South Australian police force was serious in itself, but more so because he had also been responsible for the 1986 Operation Noah in South Australia and as such had appeared publicly on the media warning of the dangers of drugs. There were other aspects of the Moyse case which were also of great seriousness, particularly the fact that he had obtained those drugs from the property section of police headquarters by falsifying disposal records. In effect, drugs were being apprehended and confiscated by the police and then being recycled back into the drug community through corrupt police for their own personal gain. In the course of the NCA's preliminary hearings into the Moyse case, revelations were made that the NCA had been given the name of six other senior policemen involved in drugs. It was alleged that a South Australian businessman was involved and that he had been able to blackmail at least one of these policemen into this position through the existence of video recordings taken of him in compromising positions at a brothel. All these sorts of allegations made great grist for the media mill. But the Mr X tapes which are of great and serious concern indicated very serious levels of corruption through all levels of South Australian society-lawyers, policemen, businessmen, public servants and public service departments. There was also the allegation of possible political involvement. Given these sorts of allegations and the charges which had been laid and proved and convictions obtained, obviously there was a case for further investigation of many of the allegations and some additional ones. I am pleased that the Inter-Governmental Committee working together with the NCA has come up with the suggestion that this amendment that we are now debating be brought forward to the National Crime Authority Act to allow, from time to time under specific circumstances and with the unanimous, as I understand it, agreement of the Inter-Governmental Committee, for a person to be appointed for a specific reference. That seems to me to be a fairly cost effective way of dealing with the serious allegations of this nature. I note also that, because the request has come forward in the way that it has, the South Australian Government will be paying the costs associated with this operation and, therefore, it will not be an additional cost to the Australian taxpayer as such or the Federal coffers. However, we also will have a situation in which if, as a result of the reference, further allied investigations need to be made, the person who is appointed to this temporary position will be able to carry out those additional investigations if they can be demonstrated to be tied in with the original purpose for which the person was appointed. As the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) states: The powers and functions of the additional member are limited to the original reference or any related references. The Bill provides that an additional member ceases to hold office upon the withdrawal of the original reference in relation to that member or the completion of the original reference or any related references. I think that that is, on the face of it, a sensible way of dealing with what is obviously a very real problem in South Australia. We will be able to see the effectiveness of this method of dealing with allegations of this nature and of dealing with requests such as that made by the South Australian Government through the Inter-Governmental Committee. Another aspect of the Bill which appeals to me is the fact that the person being appointed must be the unanimous choice of the Inter-Governmental Committee. I think that does away with any criticism that may have been made about special people being chosen for special jobs and being expected somehow to brush things under the carpet. I would not think for a moment that that would be the case, but I think the provision that it be a unanimous resolution or agreement of the Inter-Governmental Committee negates that potential criticism. In contrast to my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) I think it is a relevant way to deal with the problems being brought forward by South Australia. It is correct for the NCA to have charge of this investigation. It certainly is more correct for the NCA to do it rather than an internal investigation, which was originally suggested for dealing with the allegations that have been brought forward. I believe the NCA has established or is in the course of establishing a reputation for some independence of approach in these matters and I think that is a good thing. It has now gained some real degree of expertise in intelligence gathering which is not available to any other organisation of which I am aware. It has this expertise, as I say, and it also has the knowledge obtained from its dealings with the Moyse case. So, in all those aspects of the situation, it is utterly proper that the amendment to the Act as put forward should be supported; but again it is in the nature, as is so much associated with the NCA, of an experiment. I would hope that the experiment succeeds because if it does we can have a way by which special investigations which may be required from time to time, coming from various States, can be dealt with in an expeditious manner without the development of a huge bureaucracy within the NCA. For those reasons, I join my colleagues on this side of the House in agreeing with the proposition being put forward by the Government in relation to the amendment to the NCA Act. I might also say, as I mentioned to the Minister for Defence after his intervention in the debate, that it would not have been necessary for the Opposition to have taken that line of action if he, in his position as Leader of the House, had been more attuned to and aware of the needs of the people of Australia to believe that this House of the Parliament, the House of Representatives, is the proper place for discussions on matters such as were brought forward and are being brought forward by the Opposition. Attempts by the Government to choke off proper debate, to stifle any allegations which may or may not be made about members of the Government in the way that has been done, will only lead to further difficulties for the Government in getting its legislation through the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.05) —I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I am surprised that it has taken so long to get to the issue for which we had such great cooperation from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). I thank him for it because, without his cooperation, we might not have been able to do these things we are talking about now. Let me make the point that this matter has come about because South Australia sought the assistance of this Parliament and the honourable gentleman was kind enough to allow the legislation to be introduced before I could actually get the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee, which I obtained virtually by telex. The meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee did not actually take place until after the legislation was introduced. It was foreshadowed. This is not something that South Australia wants to avoid. In fact, I pay high tribute to the Attorney-General, Mr Sumner, who was very anxious to get this proposition put forward. I had to say to him, `Look, we will need to get the approval of Parliament. We will need to get the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee. It is not an easy matter'. He said, `It is very urgent and I want you to do it'. It has been done on that basis because the South Australian Government took the initiative of saying it ought to be done. If honourable members look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) they will find that the South Australian Government had some evidence from the National Crime Authority on what were called `certain South Australian investigations during 1986-87'. The NCA had given the information, which was appropriate, and honourable members will see that the South Australian Government has readily reacted to it. The significant point about this whole debate is that it shows the limitations, if one wants to use that word, or the inability of the Commonwealth to say it will do whatever it likes in matters of investigation. The States have very clear ideas of what should be done from the point of view of investigation. For example, the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland is dealing with matters related to Queensland problems, many of which, I suppose, could well have been dealt with in Government circles but were not. However, it would not be for the NCA to venture off and have an investigation of its own into matters in Queensland. Marrying that to this amendment of the Opposition, I must reject it for this very reason: simply because eight years ago somebody in Queensland, as a member of a local government authority, said something happened is no justification for the NCA saying, `We will also have a look at this issue'. It certainly concerns a very colourful personality who is well known, but I do not know that the man has any criminal convictions. He has certainly been named here today as though he has. It is a bit unfair. The issue surely is one for either the Fitzgerald inquiry or the Queensland Government to do something about in Queensland. As to what might have happened in regard to a local government application for approval, anybody who has served in local government knows full well that it would be dealt with by a council in open proceedings and knows full well that a local government Minister can deal with the matter if he thinks there is something wrong. Simply because somebody made a statement about a matter eight years ago and the person concerned is now a colourful person who has been the subject of recent mention in the Fitzgerald inquiry, it is quite improper and unfair to say, `I want the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to have the NCA investigate it'. I assure honourable members that it could not be done. Mr N.A. Brown —Why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There would have to be some evidence of what we are about. Mr N.A. Brown —What about the statement? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The statement contains no evidence of any criminal activity. If it did, would not one think the Queensland Government would do something about it? It has a representative on the committee. As a matter of fact, we are very anxious to have it put forward anything it likes but it has been taking the stance that this is a matter for the Fitzgerald inquiry, and that is where it ought to be left. I think we should get to the issue that we are about here, namely, that there are two factors that we will be dealing with in the committee stage. They relate to the fact that there is an error in the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill concerning the fact that one can only talk about filling a vacancy within three months after the occurrence of the vacancy. On this occasion we are dealing with the issues that we want to talk about in the form of an amendment which overcomes that difficulty and we are substituting the words `the recommendation period for'. It is impossible to wait until we have a vacancy before we do something about it. We have to do something about it before then. The other amendment we propose to move concerns the original reference in the Bill to the Special Minister of State. That is no longer the appropriate reference. We will be deleting that reference and referring to the Minister of State of the Commonwealth who administers the Australian Federal Police Act. I do not want to delay the House because we want to go into Committee. However, I make the point that the National Crime Authority is spending a fair amount of money-I would say over $20m. It is doing a first class job and I pay tribute to it. However, we must not overlook the fact that the States are making a pretty substantial contribution. In fact, I would say to my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), that if the National Crime Authority did not have the assistance of the New South Wales Police it would not function as well as it does. The police authorities have to second their police to the National Crime Authority and they do that in great numbers. I must say that New South Wales makes a greater contribution than any other State, I suppose because it has the resources. We have to realise that there is a joint effort between the States and the Commonwealth in sitting down together and looking at the reports of the investigations that are taking place. They look at the costs they all have to meet, the great brunt of which are borne by the Commonwealth. I think we would be picking up $17m of the $20m, which is a not insignificant sum for the relatively few references made to the National Crime Authority. However, the results are very promising. That fact is, however, that there still needs to be an understanding that at times the States say they are not going to refer a matter to the National Crime Authority on the basis that they will conduct the inquiry themselves. In this case the South Australian Government has asked for assistance and that request should be granted. The Inter-Governmental Committee has agreed on the basis that South Australia pays the cost. Should the inquiry extend beyond the boundaries of South Australia, that State obviously will be back to say that it will not pay the cost of investigation in other States. That will create the usual problems-similar to those we have at Premiers Conferences at times-of who pays what. Mr N.A. Brown —Are they signed up? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have not got them signed up at this stage. I can tell the honourable member for Menzies that we are safe because we are paying only for the South Australian reference; we do not have to pay any more. I thank honourable members for their contributions. For the reasons I have mentioned, the Opposition's amendment is not acceptable. I hope that those matters will be left to be dealt with in the courts rather than the Parliament. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr N.A. Brown's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Bilney, G. N. Klugman, R. E.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blewett, N. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Scott, L. J.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Burr, M. A. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Jull, D. F. Webster, A. P.Lloyd, B. White, P. N. D.McArthur, F. S. Wilson, I. B. C.McGauran, P. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. G. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.21) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, after paragraph 4 (b) insert the following paragraphs: ``(ba) by omitting from paragraph (7) (b) `3 months after the occurrence of' and substituting `the recommendation period for'; (bb) by omitting paragraph (8) (b) and substituting the following paragraph: `(b) within the recommendation period for the vacancy: (i) the Minister of State of the Commonwealth who administers the Australian Federal Police Act 1979; and (ii) the Ministers of the Crown of the participating States who are responsible for matters relating to the respective Police Forces of those States; unanimously recommend a person for appointment to the office; and';''. (2) Clause 4, page 2, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph and subclause: ``(d) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(11) In this section: ``recommendation period'', in relation to a vacancy, means the period beginning 3 months before, and ending 3 months after, the day on which the vacancy occurs.'. ``(2) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) (ba), (bb) and (d) apply in relation to a vacancy occurring after the commencement of this section.''. The amendments were originally to be in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, but to ensure their passage during the current sittings because of the time factor in the Senate, they are being moved now and will no longer be pursued in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The amendments relate to when the recommendation for the appointment of a member of the National Crime Authority can occur and the insertion of a reference to a Minister of State of the Commonwealth who administers the Australian Federal Police Act. The purpose of the amendment in respect of the appointment of a member is to put beyond doubt that the recommendation for the appointment of a member to the National Crime Authority may be made before or after the occurrence of a vacancy, whereas at present it can be made only after the occurrence of a vacancy. Amendment (1) amends clause 4 by inserting paragraphs 4 (ba) and 4 (bb). Paragraph 4 (ba) replaces in paragraph 7 (7) (b) the words `3 months after the occurrence of' with the words `the recommendation period for'. On that basis amendment (2) also amends clause 4 by adding paragraph 4 (d) subclause 4 (2). The amendments are in accordance with the request of the South Australian Government that an additional member be appointed. This has had the concurrence of the Inter-Governmental Committee and therefore the Bill is in accordance with the recommendations of that committee. As I stated, the amendments relate to the machinery defect in the original Bill, which meant that one could recommend the appointment of a member only after a vacancy had occurred. They overcome that problem. Also, no longer is there a reference to the Special Minister of State because that is an inappropriate designation of the Minister concerned. I thank the honourable member for Menzies for agreeing to have these matters dealt with. It enables the matters to be dealt with and sent to the Senate within the time constraints the Senate places upon us. When the Senate deals with the Bill, it will become law and enable the appointment to take place. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 8 p.m. Consideration resumed from 10 November. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Government has always considered the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to be one of the outstanding legacies of the Whitlam Labor Government, one which the Fraser and Queensland governments wisely built on and an issue, I hope, that will continue to receive bipartisan support. There have been notable achievements in the 13 years since the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the commencement of work on the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: The Great Barrier Reef region and all of the islands within it have been inscribed, with Queensland Government support, on the World Heritage List reflecting the importance Australians attach to this area; The entire Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been zoned with the zoning plan for the last section, the Mackay-Capricorn section, taking effect on 1 August 1988; The establishment of a management approach which allows multiple use, while ensuring that the conservation values of the marine park are not devalued; and Strong cooperative arrangements have been developed with Queensland to ensure a complementary approach to the management of Queensland lands and waters adjacent to the marine park and thus add to the protection of the reef. The practical experience gained from managing the marine park during this period has highlighted the desirability of amending provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to ensure that these positive developments continue. Honourable members will be well aware of the increasing level of commercial and non-commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef. The number of visitors to the reef has been steadily increasing; it is one of Australia's main tourist destinations. There has been an expansion of commercial fisheries further offshore; an increase in recreational fishing; an increase in private boat use; an expansion of the number of tourist facilities, including resorts, pontoons and the world's first floating hotel. Tourism activities include diving, scenic cruises, helicopter and aircraft services and day trips to islands and coral cays. The relatively recent introduction of high speed catamarans, which can move several hundred people each trip, has opened up the more remote parts of the marine park to tourism. This growth has increased pressure, not only on the environmental quality of the marine park but also on the marine resources, scientific research and general use of the marine park. There is also a growing concern that this pressure, whether by accident or deliberate act or omission, will result in damage to the marine park. Therefore, given the scale of commercial activity and the limits to management resources, it is essential that there are incentives for users of the Great Barrier Reef to comply with marine park zoning plans. It has been some time since the penalties applicable for breaches of the Act have been reviewed. With the increased level of activities in the marine park and the substantial profits to be gained, it is obvious that the existing penalties are inadequate to deter breaches of the Act. To rectify this situation it is necessary to transfer the main offence provisions from the regulations to the body of the Act. This transfer will allow the applicable penalties to be increased. The Bill provides generally for fines up to $10,000 for natural persons and $50,000 for corporations, although higher penalties apply in relation to some specific offences such as the discharge of waste, which incurs a penalty of up to $250,000 for corporations. This compares with penalties of up to $5,000 which apply currently in the regulations. The Bill provides for the transfer to the principal Act of provisions dealing with offences in zoned and unzoned areas, contravention of conditions of permissions or authorities issued by the Authority in respect of entry into zones, contravention of directions issued by the Authority, the removal of property in the marine park, the discharge of waste in the marine park and the use of vessels and aircraft in the commission of offences. I am sure honourable members will agree that these offences can be serious as they could cause damage to this unique natural resource. Consequently, there should exist appropriate penalties. It should be noted that the transfer of penalties from the regulations to the Act will require a revision of the regulations. The transfer provisions and the associated increase in penalties therefore will not come into effect until these regulations have been revised and passed by the Parliament. The policing of the marine park is a complex and time-consuming task. The Great Barrier Reef is an enormous area of over 350,000 square kilometres, which is an area larger than Victoria and Tasmania combined, and the resources necessary to supervise the use of the marine park must therefore be used effectively and efficiently. However, there is some concern, shared by the Government, that marine park inspectors presently have insufficient power to pursue, search and apprehend people suspected of committing offences against the Act. For example, an offender, once outside the boundaries of the marine park is not at present subject to the authority of inspectors. The Government believes that it is essential to the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and its ultimate protection that inspectors have the necessary powers to enforce the Act. As a consequence the Bill provides for a number of amendments, including extending search and seizure powers to include aircraft and providing for the search of people, vessels and aircraft should offenders be apprehended outside the marine park. The Government recognises that the extension of police powers to marine park inspectors should be limited. The Bill therefore only extends these powers where a police officer is unavailable and only where there has been an uninterrupted pursuit of the offender from a place within the marine park to a place outside the marine park where the offender has been apprehended. In addition, there have been circumstances in the past where an offence against the Act has resulted in damage or has posed a threat to the environment of the marine park. The Act, as it now stands, does not provide explicitly for remedial or preventative action to be taken nor can costs for any clean up be billed to the offender who caused the damage. As mentioned, the risk of environmental damage posed by increased use of the marine park has significantly changed since the Act's inception. There is, I believe, a need to deal with this risk effectively. The Bill therefore provides for the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the Act, provided there are reasonable grounds for believing an offence has been committed against the Act, to take such steps as are necessary to remedy actual damage or prevent possible damage to the marine park. Provision is also made for the Minister's powers to be delegated to the Authority or the Chairman of the Authority, subject to the directions of the Minister. As an adjunct to the clean up or prevention of environmental damage provision, an amendment is proposed to allow the reasonable costs of the clean up to be recovered from the offender once a conviction has been obtained. The Bill also provides for the court, at the time of the conviction, to make orders concerning the payment of the debt, so as not to place the burden of another hearing on the judicial system. In meeting this objective of conserving the Great Barrier Reef it is essential that the Authority be given the full range of management tools to ensure the effective protection and management of the marine park while providing for reasonable use. One deficiency in the current Act is that obtaining a conviction does not necessarily deter future contraventions by the offender, nor does it undo the environmental damage resulting from the offence. While the Bill provides for remedial action to be taken, there may be circumstances where it would be preferable to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of the offence. The Bill therefore provides for the Supreme Court of a State or Territory to grant an injunction where there has been or is likely to be a contravention of the Act. I should emphasise, Madam Speaker, that the court may grant the injunction on the application not only of the Authority but also on the application of a person whose interests have been or would be affected by the conduct in question. This new provision allows individuals to protect their interests while at the same time enforcing the provisions of the Act. This will facilitate a far more effective enforcement of the Act without incurring additional Commonwealth expense. The Authority's education expertise and its experience in natural resource management is recognised worldwide and is the subject of many requests for assistance. Honourable members will recognise the valuable work the Authority has undertaken to inform and educate Australians, particularly users of the marine park, of its value and the need to use it wisely. Indeed, honourable members will be interested to hear that the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, the Authority's major education and intepretive facility, has attracted over 320,000 visitors in the first year of operation and has won an award for the best Queensland tourist facility. The aquarium plays an important role in the Authority's education function and was funded with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government, as a bicentennial project, the Queensland Government, the private sector and the community of Townsville. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, recently had the opportunity of addressing the Sixth Coral Reef Symposium in Townsville, which was attended by 650 scientists and managers, the majority of whom were from overseas. The aim of the symposium was to promote global understanding of the growth and maintenance of coral reefs, which are important natural resources to many countries, particularly small developing island nations in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Often, many of these nations do not possess the scientific and managerial infrastructures to work by themselves to understand the complexities of coral reef ecosystems and to plan for the wise management of these important natural features. At this symposium the Government took much pride in the fact that Australia, through the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, mainly as a result of support from the Federal Government, is in the vanguard of coral reef research and management throughout the world and has much to offer these smaller nations. However, at present the Act does not permit the Authority to provide assistance to international organisations or individuals unless it directly concerns the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australians should be proud of the reputation of the Authority and would, I am sure, want to share the Authority's expertise with other countries. As a consequence the Bill amends the Act by permitting the Authority to assist other institutions and individuals in environment management issues. To ensure that the assistance provided does not detract from the Authority's prime responsibility to manage the marine park, requests for assistance will be subject to ministerial approval. Provision is also made for the recovery of costs of providing such assistance. The Bill also introduces a number of other measures to streamline and enhance the administration of the act. These relate to the disclosure of pecuniary interests of members of the Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, application of the Audit Act 1901 to the financial, audit and reporting functions of the Authority, the jurisdiction of courts in respect to offences against the Act and the updating of the Act to reflect current drafting policy. In conclusion, the Bill will be a significant step in assisting marine park managers to meet the new challenges that now exist while enhancing the protection of one of the world's greatest natural assets, the Great Barrier Reef, for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.13) —Tonight I represent the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who would normally be representing the Opposition in this matter. This morning he had the glad news that his wife has delivered him another child, and as a consequence he has had to return to Adelaide. He has, therefore, asked me to make the Opposition's representations in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. Mr Holding —Send his wife a cheerio. Mr SHARP —We shall. I thank the Minister. I am sure that all members of the House join us in sending our congratulations to Alexander and Nicki Downer on the birth of, I think, their fourth child, a girl. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill; indeed, we support it. It is important, in order to establish the reasons why we support the Bill, for me to state what this amendment to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act is all about. The Bill has been introduced for several purposes. First, it increases the level of penalties for offences which are already in place but the penalties for which have not been reviewed for many years. Secondly, it transfers the definitions of various offences from the regulations into the principal Act. Thirdly, it allows inspectors, who are generally officers of the Government of Queensland, to pursue offenders outside the limits of the park, provided that the pursuit commenced within the park and provided that no regular police officer is available, thereby extending the doctrine of hot pursuit on the high seas. Fourthly, it permits the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to take remedial action to repair damage done to the park and then to recover the cost of such action from any party or corporation which may have been responsible for causing the original damage, and to have the capacity to enforce this repayment through the courts. Fifthly, it allows the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to invest its surplus funds, which will come primarily from the operations of the aquarium at Townsville, in investments which have been approved by the Treasurer. Finally, it allows the Authority to provide its expertise to other bodies or institutions, subject to the approval of the Minister, and, if appropriate, to provide them on a commercial fee for service basis. Those are the basic elements of this amendment to the Bill. As I said a few moments ago, the Opposition is supporting them. We are particularly pleased to see amongst those amendments that penalties for infringements have been increased to represent punishments equivalent to the value of the dollar today. For example, the maximum penalty for an individual is now $10,000. The maximum penalty for a corporation is $50,000. In circumstances where it has been proved that there has been dumping of proscribed matters or dangerous wastes, then corporations can be fined up to $250,000. Those penalties today would be sufficient to deter most people from engaging in activities which every Australian would find abhorrent and would not approve of. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that the Opposition is supporting this Bill. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the vital elements of Australia's tourism industry. Mr Braithwaite —Brightest. Mr SHARP —Brightest-as the honourable member for Dawson reminds me. I am pleased that the honourable member is in the chamber tonight, because he has a very extensive knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef, coming from that area and representing a large portion of an interesting, exciting and beautiful part of the Queensland coastline, and, of course, doing it in a most admirable and proficient manner. The Great Barrier Reef is the jewel in the crown of Australia's tourism industry. Overseas tourist operators will tell one that the things that represent Australia in the eyes of foreign tourists are the Great Barrier Reef, Sydney Harbour, Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and Ayers Rock. They are all symbols that represent Australia in the eyes of international visitors. It is, therefore, in our vital interest to ensure that we protect this jewel in the crown of Australia's tourism industry. The tourism industry is the fastest growing industry in Australia today. It is undoubtedly booming. It is the shining light on Australia's economic horizon. It employs approximately 6 per cent of the Australian work force-about 450,000 people in the last financial year; and by 1990-91 it will employ 630,000 people. We also know that about 2 1/3 million international visitors will have flocked to Australia in 1988. It is being said that there will be 7 million to 8 million by the year 2000. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the key attractions that brings those people from overseas. If one speaks to them, one realises that they all want to go and see the Great Barrier Reef-and no wonder, because the Great Barrier Reef is one of the wonders of the world today. People travel to the Great Barrier Reef not just because of the pleasant climate, not just because of the coral, but because the tourism industry has developed an infrastructure that gives great service to those who travel there. It is now possible for people to travel out onto the Great Barrier Reef, as mentioned by the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) in his second reading speech, in the new catamarans, which can travel at great speed and can have 300 or 400 passengers on board. They can whisk out from Cairns, Port Douglas and Townsville and-- Mr Braithwaite —MV Quicksilver. Mr SHARP —In MV Quicksilver, as the honourable member for Dawson says. All of these ports now have day trips to the Great Barrier Reef emanating from them. People go out to these diving platforms, these pontoons, which are anchored on the reef. They don swimsuits, snorkels and masks, and dive on the reef to witness one of the great natural wonders of the world. Feeding off the Great Barrier Reef are a large number of island resorts. These island resorts employ thousands of people and are hosts to hundreds of thousands of Australian and international tourists every year. One can rapidly see just how important the Great Barrier Reef is not just to Queensland but to Australia and the world, as is witnessed by so many people from around the world who visit it each year. One of the things that has been disturbing in recent times is the reports in the press about the increase in the damage being done by the crown of thorns starfish. There have been conflicting reports. On the one hand, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority comments that there is nothing to be concerned about and that what activity is occurring at present is normal. On the other hand, we get comments from other people who say that the amount of damage being done is excessive, has increased dramatically in recent years and that we are being misled as to the true situation. I hope that the Minister can take this up with his colleague Senator Richardson in another place so that we may have this situation clarified and the truth known. I am quite sure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is correct, but it would be good to have a categorical statement from the Minister tonight clarifying the situation so that every member of this House and all Australians can rest secure in the knowledge that one of the great wonders of the world is not being destroyed by the crown of thorns. If reports from some sectors were true, it would be a calamity equal to, say, foot and mouth disease coming into our country because, if we lost the Great Barrier Reef, we would lose one of the great facets of our tourist industry. All the hundreds of thousands of jobs it offers would be adversely affected and our foreign exchange earnings would be reduced. We earned about $4 billion from tourism in this last financial year and it is increasing at a rate of about 27 per cent per annum. That growth would be set back substantially. Talk of damage to the Great Barrier Reef is of great concern to Australia, not just from a recreation and aesthetic point of view but also from the economic and employment point of view. Another thing that often concerns people in the tourism industry is that there are some unscrupulous operators who advertise their resort or operation as being actually parked right on top of the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, this is not so, and I just hope that the industry is careful to ensure that any person seemingly giving the impression that a tourist facility is parked right on the Great Barrier Reef is brought into line because such things can do only great harm to Australia's tourism reputation. In recent times we have seen new developments on the Great Barrier Reef. One of the most interesting has been the establishment of a floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef, about 72 kilometres from Townsville. This is the first such hotel of its type in the world. Of course, with any innovation such as this, there are a lot of teething problems. We can rest assured that the floating hotel off Townsville has had tremendous teething problems, but I am sure that it will sort those out and that it will be one of the great facets of our tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef. Perhaps in the years to come there will be similar operations along the coastline. I know the former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), was interested in a similar operation in the Antarctic. Whilst I do not initially say that we should do that, it certainly indicates the potential that exists for this type of operation. Whilst the increase in the number of visitors to the Great Barrier Reef is good for our tourism industry, it also brings home to us as a parliament that we have the responsibility of protecting this national asset and of ensuring that we do everything we can to minimise the effect and potential damage that an increase in tourism can have on the Great Barrier Reef. The increase in people brings potential for damage. It behoves the Parliament to ensure that that damage is non-existent or, if there is any, that it is minimised or overcome through proper remedial action. For that reason, it is very important that we update legislation constantly, such as in the Bill before us tonight. As things change, which they do so rapidly in the tourism industry and in matters of nature, it is important that the Parliament constantly updates legislation to ensure that we are doing everything we can to minimise damage to the reef and to maximise its longevity for the benefit not just of nature but of Australia and our economy. One of the pleasing things to note in this amending Bill is that it allows inspectors increased powers to detain persons suspected of having committed an offence. If persons have left the boundaries of the park, the legislation allows those inspectors to pursue and to capture them. The Opposition is pleased to support this because we recognise that in reality it is not always possible for inspectors to capture people whom they suspect of having committed an offence within the boundaries of the park. It must have been very frustrating in the past for them to have seen somebody commit an offence, to have caught up with them and then found that, because they had crossed some imaginary boundary, the inspectors were no longer able to apprehend them and bring them to justice. This Bill corrects that situation. I am pleased to say that the Queensland Government, whose employees make up most of the inspectors in the park, are giving their support and cooperation to this legislation. One of the things that the Minister did not elaborate on in his second reading speech was the fact that the Queensland Government is doing everything within its powers and resources to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Quite often one hears that the Queensland Government is all for knocking things down and so forth. These things are not true. The Queensland Government has a very impressive record when one looks at such things as the Great Barrier Reef. It is working extremely hard to ensure that the reef is protected for the future. Another point that is worth making from our side of the House is that the previous Liberal-National Party Government also had an excellent record of protecting the Great Barrier Reef and the marine park, and areas such as Fraser Island. The former Liberal-National Party Government had a tremendous record of working to save the environment for future Australians. It is important to make those points-that the Queensland Government is cooperating in supporting this legislation and that the former Liberal-National Party Government worked just as hard as this Government is doing to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is saved for Australians to enjoy in the future. I am also pleased to note that the Bill allows the Authority to clean up damage that has been done on the reef and to charge the cost to those people whom the Authority believes are responsible for causing that damage. We had a very vivid example of that not so long ago when a gentleman built a floating island, some sort of pontoon arrangement which was towed out to the reef. No sooner had it been towed out there than it smartly sank and is now parked on the reef. This is not good for the reef. This Bill allows the Authority the initiative to remove this sunken island from the reef and to charge the full cost of that to the persons responsible for allowing it to be there in the first place. That is another good measure that the Opposition is pleased to support. Another aspect that we are pleased to support is that the Authority, which is now recognised around the world as one of the greatest authorities on matters such as barrier reefs and coral and marine life, is now able to act as a consultant and to advise governments and organisations throughout the world on what they can do to match the performance of our Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and, in the process, to charge at a commercial rate for the services that it provides. This is recognition not only of the great work that the Authority has done in the past but also of Australia's pre-eminent position in this area. It is also pleasing to see that the Authority's aquarium at Townsville is doing so tremendously well. I think it was last year that the aquarium was voted the best tourist facility. Having been through it recently I can vouch for that. It is an outstanding example of what can be achieved. As the Minister pointed out, some 320,000 visitors went through it in the last 12 months. I am convinced that that is just touching the margin of the potential number of visitors who may go to that aquarium. The Bill also allows the Authority to invest funds that it earns from the aquarium in investment areas approved by the Treasurer. This gives the Authority the same status, flexibility and autonomy as so many other authorities within our Federal Government today. I congratulate the Authority on the way it has handled its aquarium and promoted it. It has been successful. The Opposition is enthusiastic in supporting this legislation. We are pleased that the legislation is being brought up to date, that penalties are being made more severe and kept in line with current day money values. We are pleased that the officers who work within the Authority and the park are to have extended powers to apprehend people outside the park. We are pleased, too, that the Authority is being recognised around the world as an expert in terms of handling things such as reefs, coral and marine life. It is with pleasure that the Opposition supports this Bill. We hope that the Government and the people who work for the Authority will be able properly to utilise all the resources this Bill gives them. We look forward to continuing debate in the future on this type of national asset in order to keep our legislation up to date. We also look forward to a categorical statement from the Minister assuring all Australians that our national treasure, the Great Barrier Reef, is not being destroyed by the crown of thorns, as is reported by some people, that the situation is under control and that the Great Barrier Reef will be here for Australians into the next century and the one beyond. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.32) —In supporting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1988, I note that many of the clauses and amendments are actually regulatory requirements changing and upgrading, if you like, the penal provisions and providing a number of other regulatory requirements which I think are absolutely essential if the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is to be properly controlled. So it has my full support. I would like to say something about the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst members of this House may be aware of its great wonders, I am a little worried that some of my constituents who have heavy mortgages probably have not had the opportunity to travel up to the Great Barrier Reef to see what a wonderful place it is. Mr Braithwaite —They are missing out on a real feast. Mr MILTON —They are absolutely. Hopefully, we will be able to keep mortgage rates down and perhaps they will be able to afford to travel to this wonderful area. It is one of the great natural wonders of the world and it is a very valuable tourist attraction. It is also a valuable commercial and recreational fishery, and this is sometimes forgotten by many tourists who go there. I suppose between two-thirds of a million and one million people visit the reef annually. A good many are involved in snorkelling, diving and taking trips in glass-bottomed boats and coral viewing from semi-submersible vessels, but a lot of people go there just for the pleasure of a holiday on one of the resort islands. There are 22 major island-based resorts in the reef area. Only three coral cays have resorts on them. There are about 200 tourist boats and very small ferries, ranging through to huge catamarans, and they are moving constantly throughout the waters of the reef. There are approximately 2,000 commercial fishermen and about half are skippers and crews on prawn trawlers; the remainder fish for reef fish and for mackerel, crayfish and scallops. In addition to the commercial fishing fleet, there are about 15,000 privately owned recreational fishing boats which are used in the reef waters. The importance of the reef as a fishery resource is undoubted. One of the important research projects being undertaken is the estimation of the economic value of the reef. It has to be derived by very complicated analytical techniques because there is no market as such for the amenity and productive value of the reef, as there is for agricultural land, for example. It is that value which is being threatened by the crown of thorns starfish, and I would like to say something about that a little later. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) talked about the problem of floating hotels. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, of which I am Chairman-- Mr Dobie —And a good one. Mr MILTON —I thank the honourable member very much. Mr Webster —A very good one. Mr MILTON —I also thank the honourable member for Macquarie. I know that honourable members appreciate the value of the work I am doing. As honourable members all know, we are involved very heavily in environmental protection. The bulk of the members of the Committee do a very good job in supporting me in that work, not least the honourable member for Macquarie and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). We have been very concerned about the floating hotel off the Brewer Reef. We have made inquiries about it and we understand that it is presently in the process of being sold to another buyer and eventually will be towed away from the reef. We are hopeful that any damage that might have been caused will be remedied. One thing we are concerned about is that sufficient money is provided for operators, for entrepreneurs, to be able to meet those costs should any damage occur to the reef. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the development of the Great Barrier Reef aquarium, which was opened in Townsville in June 1987. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore, mentioned the aquarium. I know that all members of this House, if they had the opportunity to see the aquarium, would be very impressed. Recently members of the Committee were involved in a land degradation inquiry inspection in Townsville and surrounding areas and we had the opportunity to experience the wonders of the new aquarium. I was particularly impressed with the artificial waves which are generated in the waters of the aquarium to simulate the movements of the sea and to ensure that the natural growth of the marine life in the aquarium is maintained. Natural lighting has also been introduced which precisely replicates the background environment of the Great Barrier Reef. The aquarium contains the world's largest living coral reef ecosystem on land and new corals and fish are added on a monthly basis. The staff of the aquarium are carefully monitoring the ecosystem to ensure that the marine life is kept in balance. Prior to the visit by me and other members of the Committee, one of the larger fish in the aquarium had been removed because it was disturbing the natural order of life in the system. So the staff have to keep monitoring these things to ensure that there is no imbalance. As proof of the uniqueness of the Wonderland Aquarium, as it is known, a mass spawning of the hard corals populating the aquarium took place on the evening of 10 December last year. This unique event was a first for any public aquarium in the world. The mass spawning of hard corals occurs some three to six nights after the full moon in summer on the Great Barrier Reef itself, which confirms that the conditions in the aquarium tank are close to the natural system. I quote from the Reeflections publication of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which described the mass spawning event most eloquently: About 8.30 pm, the corals packaged their eggs and sperm into small bundles, then these were slowly extruded through the mouths of the polyps. The bundles float to the surface where they break up, and if they are lucky, the eggs are fertilised. The spawning event also aroused the interest of many of the Aquarium's fish who were observed feeding on the eggs. The small larvae produced after fertilisation float and swim in the water for 4 to 7 days before seeking a place to settle. A special set of removable settlement plates have been added to the tank to record the number of types of corals that have completed their reproductive cycle and established a new colony in the tank. The aquarium biologist, Dr Jan Morrissey, described the event as a `spectacular sight'. She said: . . . we are delighted with the extent of the spawning. She said she hoped that in the future it will be possible for the general public to view the mass spawning as a regular special event. Another matter to which I refer relates to the research work being undertaken by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS); that is, the plague outbreaks of the crown of thorns starfish. That was also mentioned by the honourable member for Gilmore who spoke previously. Those who read Hansard will be interested to know that the crown of thorns is a comparatively large multi-armed starfish which is found on coral reefs throughout the tropical regions of the Indian and Pacific oceans, including the Great Barrier Reef. It feeds on coral polyps but normally occurs in such small numbers that it does not seriously reduce live coral cover. It has been found in plague proportions on some reefs. In such cases live coral cover can be reduced significantly. The first plague levels which occurred on the Great Barrier Reef were found in the early 1960s on reefs near Cairns. During the 1970s these early infestations declined, but some outer reefs and others further to the north and the south were affected. More recently, some reefs have been re-infested and, during the mid-1980s, it was claimed that plagues of starfish were again seriously damaging the reef. It was at that point in November 1985 that the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, with myself as Chairman, tabled a report entitled Protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The report dealt in part with the crown-of-thorns problem. The Committee found that the level of scientific uncertainty and arguments surrounding the issue meant that it was not possible to quantify the rest of the reef, but concluded that the level of probable risk was unacceptable. The main scientific arguments concerned the actual distribution of the starfish, the level of damage and whether or not the rapid but localised population increases were natural phenomena or were triggered by some man-made disturbance factor. The Committee recommended that additional funds be provided to implement a research program; that the crown-of-thorns starfish advisory committee be reconvened; that surveying and monitoring be extended; that priority be given to developing a research program for more efficient population control techniques; that zoning plans be modified, where necessary, to facilitate population control programs; and that a community-based response to population outbreaks be evaluated and, if practical, established. I am glad to say that the Government's response was generally favourable. Funding was provided for a research program and the advisory committee was re-established. The community-based control program was assessed and regulations were amended to allow mass collection of starfish in appropriate circumstances. I think that all members of the Committee were pleased that the Government made such a good response to our report. Research reports have been produced. The latest findings on the crown-of-thorns starfish were discussed at a special session of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science entitled `Science and Life in the Tropics'. The research reports which were submitted at that session covered evidence of past outbreaks, effects of the starfish on long-lived corals, distribution of outbreaks, possible predators and biological control, as well as the effects on reef tourism. The lessons were clear. The crown-of-thorns starfish issue raises fundamental questions about coral reefs, one of the most complicated of all ecosystems, and requires a broad-based, long term program of research to find solutions for marine park management. It is in that context that I take the opportunity of saying to the Government that I, and I am sure all members of my Committee, believe that it is absolutely imperative that the Government continue to provide research funding for this work. I note that in the issue of Reeflections to which I have referred that request is made. Also, in the copy of the latest publication issued by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority about the crown-of-thorns starfish it is said that some $800,000 per year for an intensive four to five-year coordinated research program on the starfish is presently being provided. That program is being conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Scientists from the James Cook University have discovered that the whole of the ecosystem on the Great Barrier Reef is extremely complicated and that it is absolutely essential to be able to understand how all the animals and the coral reef react one with the other. In that sense, it will be necessary to carry out the research for a longer period than was envisaged originally. At this stage it is thought that there is not just one reason for the crown-of-thorns starfish plague but many reasons. In fact, it could very well be that the influence of human beings on the Great Barrier Reef is one of the causes, but there could be others. I understand that evidence has been produced which shows that in the past there have been crown-of-thorns plagues. When I say `in the past' I mean some thousands of years ago. So it could be an actual phenomenon but the only problem could be that because of human influence those outbreaks are occurring perhaps more rapidly than before. Obviously in such cases there are differences of opinion among scientists about the problem of the crown-of-thorns starfish. Perhaps the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not given the same significance to the outbreaks that have occurred on the reef, as have some of the scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. That was clear from a program on The World Today on Australian Broadcasting Radio on 14 November 1988. Dr Bradbury of AIMS was interviewed on that occasion and it was clear that there is some difference of opinion. As I understand it, he believes that these outbreaks are perhaps more significant than the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has indicated so far. There is a lot more work to be done in this area. I ask the Government to ensure that funding is made available for this work. I have spoken a number of times in this House about the fact that the Government has reduced research funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities and the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Again, I stress that I believe that that approach is shortsighted. I think that we should restore this funding to all those bodies. One of the most perfect examples is the crown-of-thorns starfish and other problems on the reef. The reef is a great money spinner for Australia. Tourists flock there in their hundreds of thousands. It is a natural environmental area of great beauty and great wonder and it is something which we should continue to protect. Mr Braithwaite —The eighth wonder of the world. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member for Dawson, who is at the table, says, it is the eighth wonder of the world. I think that that is a fact. Mr Braithwaite —I am the ninth. Mr MILTON —I am not sure that I would agree with the last statement. I think that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill and the regulatory requirements which are part of its amendments are absolutely essential if we are to continue to control the Great Barrier Reef. I am pleased to note that the Queensland State Government is continuing to work with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I hope that the cooperation continues into the future. It is perhaps a pity that there have been some breakdowns in certain areas, as we have noticed with regard to the dredging operation on Heron Island. We must be very careful in how we operate the various islands on the reef, because they have a profound effect on the whole ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef. Having said that, I believe this is one of those areas where it has been shown that the Queensland Government can cooperate with the Federal Government. Mr Duncan —They were not very cooperative on the Daintree. Mr MILTON —This is not an impossible thing to do. Unfortunately the Queensland Government does not cooperate in many other areas. I do not want to get off the point, but Daintree rainforest is a perfect example of this. I believe that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has seen some of the problems associated with the Daintree rainforest which also affect the fringing reefs and, in turn, affect the Great Barrier Reef. In closing, I heartily commend the Bill and I hope that it is approved by this House. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(8.52) —As the chairman of the coalition committee on the environment and also a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, of which the previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), is the Chairman, I am delighted to be able to stand tonight and to say that the Opposition parties strongly endorse not only the contents of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1988 but also its purpose. Having been a member of this House for 20 years-I was first elected 22 years ago-and having first worked in north Queensland in the Great Barrier Reef area some 40 years ago this year, I have had a long and continuing interest in the problems that affect and have been affecting the Great Barrier Reef. I get great pleasure tonight to stand in this House and to realise that right across party barriers, and hopefully factional barriers, we are all agreed that the Great Barrier Reef is a phenomenon that not only must be maintained in its natural state for the present generation but also reserved for future generations of Australians and all other people. I guess the problem when one is concerned with ecology and the environment is that people race to put banners on other people. One is either a greenie or one is not a greenie; one is an environmentalist or one is a developer. Mr Duncan —You look pretty green to me. Mr DOBIE —I am pleased to hear the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), whom I count as a friend, say that I look pretty green to him. It is called eternal youth. One of the constant problems with a major area which we are trying to protect is to maintain it in a natural format while at the same time allowing people to enjoy it. I guess one of the great problems we are having with the Barrier Reef today is that with the growing affluence of Australians, their capacity to travel and their demand for high class deluxe accommodation, we are seeing threats to the Barrier Reef as great as any that have been experienced. Not everybody has the same ideas with regard to the development of the reef and its sightseeing opportunities. For example, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has been a very strong and enthusiastic supporter of the building of floating hotels on the reef. I must confess that I do not share his enthusiasm; but I am watching their development with great concern. I am also aware that many of the things that are said about these hotels are stuff and nonsense. But legislation of the type that has been introduced tonight shows that all of us, no matter which party or State we are from, have to be very careful to see that we maintain a strong control over those who use and control the reef. We have to make certain that we do not allow people to abuse it. I was particularly pleased to see that the penalties are to be increased to more realistic levels. I was also very pleased to see that the powers of `hot pursuit' for inspectors have been extended. This sounds like a television commercial, but I wonder how many people have actually gotten away from the reef without being apprehended. Obviously, it is easy to get off the park and on to land adjacent to that vast long area of the reef. Although I am reluctant to support a growing police power, I think this is something that has to be brought in. I support most strongly the proposal that people be pursued from the national park if they have been observed and recorded as having abused the delicate ecology of the Great Barrier Reef. These problems did not exist when I first visited the reef regularly, 40 years ago. The great problem in those days was the possibility that a large oil tanker would founder on the reef and pollute the reef with its oil. I forgot the name of the massive ship which did just that off the far north of-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Oceanic Grandeur. Mr DOBIE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the assistance of the Chair. There was great concern throughout Australia when this happened. The debate in this House followed the line: what would have been the result if this had happened, say, 500 miles further south? I believe that the danger today would be just as great if a vessel such as the Oceanic Grandeur foundered on a reef further south. I believe that the commercial craft in the reef area have to be very carefully supervised in terms of the oil that they discharge. I wish the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority success in its efforts to see that this practice is not allowed to develop into a real danger. In looking through some notes when preparing my speech on this legislation, I was very pleased to find that most of the criticisms that have been levelled at the hotel that has been built on the reef have been denied by the Authority itself. But that must not mean that this House can forget its duty to see that scrutiny is continued. I strongly support the previous speaker, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, in urging that funds be made available for the tremendous amount of work that is being done not only at the Australian Institute of Marine Science-a body that was established in Townsville by the then coalition Government-but also at the James Cook University, another body that was established by the coalition Government of the day. These two important organisations, which are carrying out investigation and research, are worldwide in their reputation and universal in their importance. I believe it is incumbent on any government, whether it be the present Government or the next government, which will be a coalition government, to say that research programs in the north must be continued at an ever-increasing rate because of their importance, firstly, to the north and, secondly to the world ecology. There is not much to say in a debate when one totally agrees with what the Government has put forward. But let me just say- Mr Duncan —Let us hear praise. Mr DOBIE —The Minister at the table wants praise, and he is going to get it. According to the outline the Bill gives effect to improved management by providing for appropriate penalties for breaches of the Act and additional remedies to improve the policing, management and protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That says it all. It is something that I hope more people in this chamber and more people in the Senate will be aware of. It is far too easy to dismiss environmental issues as kinky things on the green side of politics. It is far more fundamental than that easy description permits and suggests. I hope that we will see stronger debates in this place. Before I sit down I should like to do two commercials. One is that only this afternoon I received Reeflections which is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority publication. I was impressed that two people were given awards. One was Graeme Kelleher who is in fact the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In doing so, I would like to pay a tremendous tribute to the work this man has done for a very long time, often at the end of great political criticism from both sides of this House. I believe we should be paying tribute to this fellow because he has dedicated himself to this fine work and has achieved so much while he has been Chairman. It is also interesting to see in the same photograph in this magazine that an award has been given to Barry Paul who is the managing director of the Kern Corporation. It was he who conceived the Great Barrier Reef Wonderland project and it is very interesting to see that the Marine Park Authority is paying tribute to him along with its own Chairman, because this is the story of the Barrier Reef. The story of the Barrier Reef is of the families who have gone there to make a living off it and once they have got there they have realised that the only thing they want to do is to see that the Barrier Reef should itself be protected. The second thing I would like to do, which also came in the mail today, is to promote Sea Week 89 which is a way of increasing the public's understanding of the sea, to encourage safe and sensible use of all of it, and what it has to offer in recreation, employment and quality of life for Australians. This is an attempt between 15 and 23 April next year to have primary and secondary schools throughout Australia find out more about the sea that, as our national anthem says, girds our country. Having a seabounded electorate myself in Sydney with, of course, some of the loveliest beaches in Australia but also some of the most sensitive ecological waterways in Australia, namely Botany Bay and Port Hacking. I believe that the mood that has been created by the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and this Bill that we are all agreeing to support tonight in making it more realistic, in making the penalities more appropriate, in making the management more effective, is something that will spread beyond the Barrier Reef and go around the whole of the Australian coastline to protect those areas which are threatened ecologically. If we can do that, we will have gone a long way to making the quality of life in Australia truly appropriate. I have great pleasure in supporting not only the Bill but also the actions and motivations of the Government and the Opposition in agreeing to agree on this important matter. Mr KERR(Denison)(9.05) —It is quite a pleasure to be able to stand in a debate in which the previous speaker has said that the Opposition totally agrees with the Government. I thank him for his frank and warm support for this measure. Mr Duncan —Such a rare event. Mr KERR —It is a rare occurrence, but a delight nonetheless. This measure has a number of points which deserve some mention in this debate but I shall pause to cover only a couple. Firstly, there is a very substantial increase in penalties. Penalities have been increased from a maximum penalty of $5,000 to penalties of $250,000. They reflect the reality that environmental damage, oil spills, degradation and acts of vandalism against the reef could incur such significant costs to the environment that penalties in the order of $5,000 are simply not sufficient to deter that kind of conduct. Given the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is part of Australia's natural heritage, part of its treasure and part of its environment, appropriate penalties up to $250,000 are a very sound and sensible response. Secondly, the Bill provides that where environmental damage is caused, there is possibility of civil recovery so that the cost of clean-up can be recovered against those responsible for that environmental damage. That is something, I believe, that we should build increasingly into all our legislative measures in the field of environmental control. It is something that this Bill recognises and builds in. It means that the public will not be left to carry the cost of necessary environmental clean-ups but that the offender who has been identified as being responsible can be brought to account for the costs that his or her actions have incurred. Finally, a point that is worth mentioning-I understand it has not been covered in debate previously-is that the Bill allows the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to extend its work and expertise internationally. It has become one of the leading authorities on coral reef environments and there are many countries which cannot afford institutions such as this which would benefit from the Authority's learning and experience. I note, for example, just to the north of Australia, Papua New Guinea has very substantial and most beautiful reef structures which may in time come under some of the same kinds of threats that the Great Barrier Reef is subject to. The capacity for the Authority to make its expertise available to Papua New Guinea and other such nations will be of value to those countries in the future. There are important measures in this Bill which go towards improving the regime of environmental protection that the Government and the previous Government have extended towards the Great Barrier Reef because this is landmark legislation. Today we take it for granted that the Australian nation will preserve environmental monuments such as the Great Barrier Reef and protect them for future generations of Australians. That comfortable certainty that we have now is a relatively new phenomenon. Only 10 or 15 years ago the idea that the Australian nation could intervene to protect these from desecration was a new and somewhat troubling idea for many in this Parliament. I understand it still troubles the occasional backward looking member of the Opposition from time to time, raising spectres of States rights and central control. However, at least on some of the fundamentals we have now reached the position where there is bipartisan support for protection of at least the most significant parts of Australia. As I say, that is a relatively new phenomenon and an important one. It is my responsibility, responding to the warmth and kindness of the Opposition in this debate, to say that the Australian nation owes a considerable amount of respect to the work of the previous Fraser Government in the field of environmental protection because, of course, it was the Fraser Government which carried through the landmark, epoch-making moves of the Whitlam Government to protect and to maintain protection for significant areas of Australia's environment. That record has been picked up, carried on and expanded by the Hawke Government. A recognition that the Australian nation has a responsibility to protect sites of great national significance in Australia has been a growing one. Of course, I come from Tasmania, where I guess we have been at the cutting edge of a number of debates and arguments about the extent of the national Government's responsibilities to protect the natural environment of Australia. The Government made courageous decisions on the Gordon River. It prohibited developments which would have destroyed that most beautiful river system for the sake of a power development that the Tasmanian Government's own advisory body, the Hydro-Electric Commission, now says was unnecessary, not required, and surplus to industry needs. The national Government also has taken a strong position in relation to the protection of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. That was a controversial decision but, nonetheless, the Australian Government took a tough, correct, hard decision. It has done so recognising its responsibilities to protect both jobs and the environment. The national Government has ensured that measures are put in place so that the economic interests of the State of Tasmania and those dependent on the forest industries are protected and looked after while at the same time its responsibility for protecting the environment is given proper weight. The background for the debate today is, I suppose, of interest given the decision of the Helsham Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in Tasmania. When the question of protection of the Great Barrier Reef first arose the Government commissioned a group of experts to advise it. That group, by a majority decision, recommended the possibility of oil exploration and exploitation of resources under the Great Barrier Reef. Looking back, I think we can say-this is a view shared by both sides of the Parliament, made obvious by the debate today-that nobody in this House would wish such an attack on the fundamental wilderness values of the Great Barrier Reef to proceed. However, we can be comfortable with that view only in hindsight. At the time there was a considerable and lively opinion, particularly expressed by the State of Queensland, that oil exploration on the Great Barrier Reef must proceed. It took a considerable act of political courage for the national Government to stand by its guns and protect that reef in the national interest. The same situation has applied in regard to the response to the Helsham Inquiry. The national Government was confronted by a majority report which recommended that a significant portion of the Southern and Lemonthyme Forests be made available to the timber-getting industry. The Government was faced with some difficult conundrums and decisions in reconciling its twin commitments to the environment and the protection of jobs and industry. I place on record my own view that the Government has made a very sound and well-balanced decision-in the end rejecting the majority recommendations of the Helsham inquiry but proceeding, appropriately, to protect those who depend on forest resources for their living. At the same time it has ensued that the vast wilderness areas of particular heritage value in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests are protected. I note that today there are ongoing discussions between the Tasmanian Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to that matter. I have not yet been advised of the outcome of those deliberations and discussions, but the framework for making sure that both jobs and the environment are adequately protected has been established by this Government. That is something that I believe we on this side of the House have reason to be proud of. Our attitude towards attacks on and degradation of the environment is slowly changing. It was the case that many years ago we assumed that our environment was boundless; that it could suffer almost endless damage without suffering irreversible harm. Tasmania is an instance of some of the legacies of those earlier views coming back today to haunt us. For example, the Derwent River is suffering from years of neglect. It is a very sad experience for me to go along the foreshore of the river at Claremont, where I grew up as a young boy, and see the sludge that has been washed along that foreshore. The sludge is about 18 inches to two feet thick. It has a very strong and unpleasant smell and has a tarry, thick, treacly texture. I am told that it consists of various sediments mixed with wood products. It is believed to be the residue of materials discharged into the river from a papermaking factory. I understand the theory is that that material stayed on the bottom of the river for a number of years-some 20 or 30 years-but has now, over the course of time, with the action of chemicals, waves and various other forces, broken loose. Great scabs of this sludge-like material have come downstream and lined the river banks. What I am saying is not being said in order to cast aspersions on the particular industry that was involved; although, of course, in hindsight, it is appropriate to say that the environmental controls that permitted those kinds of discharges and build-ups obviously were not adequate. My comments are more a reflection on the fact that in earlier days we really believed we could continue to treat rivers as open sewers and that they would absorb all the materials that we could throw at them. We believed that because the rivers discharged out into the seas there would be no significant environmental build-up. We look around us now and see that those judgments have been proved to be incorrect. It is a particular sadness of mine, having grown up in Claremont and remembering those river banks where as a young boy on hot summer days I used to dive into the river and swim, to know that the State Government now suggests that it is not safe to swim and urges people not to eat the trout they catch in the river and certainly not the shellfish that can sometimes still be found. The Derwent is one of Australia's largest and most beautiful river systems. For it now to be in such a condition I think reflects the kind of re-evaluations we have to make in terms of our responsibility to the environment. Of course, it is not just the River Derwent that is affected. In northern Tasmania there are real concerns about the factories that were built along the coastline and discharge directly into Bass Strait. In southern Tasmania there are real concerns not only about the paper factory, which obviously has some difficulties in terms of its discharge, but also other industries which discharge their effluent directly into the Derwent. In Tasmania we have a number of steps to take in order to protect our environment. It is not surprising that in Tasmania we give this issue very considerable priority. I believe we are the gem of Australia. None surpasses Tasmania in beauty; in such a small compass it contains some of the most beautiful scenery, most rugged countryside and most delightful old buildings that any State could possibly contain. We have a great understanding of the need to get away from a reckless approach to our environment and to look instead at planning so that we can develop our State within sustainable and long term achievable economic constraints. We cannot continue to hack and chop and dig without any concern for the future. That brings us back to the content of this Bill. Australian governments both Labor and Liberal have said of a number of important Australian natural heritage areas that they are the responsibility of all Australians. The Great Barrier Reef was one of the first areas-I believe it was the first-where that kind of attitude was taken by the national government. It is pleasing that not only was this landmark legislation but that the legislation continues to have the support of both sides of the House and continues to be improved to make sure that the Great Barrier Reef, which is one of the great natural wonders of the known world, is protected for all generations into the future. Those who follow us into this Parliament over the next 40 to 100 years will look back on the 1970s and 1980s and will see the steps we took to protect the natural environment-faltering at first, more confidently as we moved on into this decade-as moves which justified our role as national parliamentarians. If federalism means anything, it means that sometimes the interests of those at State level have to be subordinated to the interests of all Australians. It is not simply a question of States' rights. It is a question of recognising that some parts of our environment and our heritage are so important that they require the protection and the intervention of the national Parliament. That recognition has slowly come and is now broadly accepted on both sides of this House. Those are important developments of which we, as members of the Australian Parliament, have a right to be proud. We also have another responsibility towards those who look to work, who look towards an economic future, who look towards the right to develop their skills and potentialities within the Australian society. Our attitude cannot be-I believe that is true of both sides of this House-an attitude simply of protection and preservation without regard to the interests of workers, those affected by the decisions we make. It is always important to make sure that the balance is right, that we maintain the interests of those who look to us to protect their jobs and to make sure that they have an economic future. It is crucial to get that mix right, to protect both jobs and the environment, to make sure that those who work have a right to look forward to our continued interest in their welfare and future. Those are difficult decisions sometimes and difficult balances to make but it is crucial to Australia's future that we continue to get that balance right, and particularly in relation to this Bill it is pleasing to see that both sides of the House are as one on the balance to be struck in this instance. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.24) —Tonight we are witnessing, as all speakers on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill have said, a measure that is supported by both sides of the House. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) made a very strong point of this and during a bit of banter made the comment that there would be a lot more bipartisan support if the Government were to bring in lots of sensible legislation as it has done tonight. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) mentioned the Daintree and the wonders of that area of Australia, in north Queensland; a beautiful part of our country that must be protected at all costs, like the reef we are talking about tonight. He mentioned that some of the actions by the Queensland Government in allowing certain things to take place, were leading to damage being done to the reef from run-off from a road constructed through the forest. In actual fact there is no evidence to suggest the reef is being damaged. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) made some very good points and he too highlighted the fact that it is very good to have bipartisan support for this Bill. He talked about his State of Tasmania which is also fiercely spoken about in a protective way by all honourable members from Tasmania, not the least being the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) who is here tonight and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). We know his views on Tasmania and the views of the former honourable member for Denison who fiercely fought for that great State which he represented for so long. The present honourable member for Denison commented that it was very good to see these regulations coming in, as strong as they are. He talked about the forests in Tasmania. It gives me an opportunity to compliment the Tasmanian Government because that Government is one of the only State governments, if not the only State government to imbed in legislation the forest preservation protocol, the rules and regulations with regard to how forests are to be treated, restored and so on. There are not too many States, if any others, where that has been done. Tonight I have much pleasure in taking part in the debate, as deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, which has a very special interest in this Bill. I know you Mr Deputy Speaker, not so long ago were also a member of that committee and took a great interest in the preservation of our environment. As I have said before, earlier speakers on the Bill have already outlined the details of the amendments, which are proposed to improve the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is one of the greatest environmental wonders of this whole earth, not just Australia, for which the people of Australia have a very profound responsibility. Three of the proposed amendments have to do with deterring and sanctioning irresponsible action which harms the fragile environment of the reef. Penalties are to be increased. For example, someone or some group of people responsible for dumping waste on the reef can now expect to face fines up to $250,000. That brings the message home. The power of park inspectors to pursue and apprehend such vandals when caught in the act are widened. That is a provision they will surely welcome and which is long overdue. The power of the Minister to require such people to pay for remedial action to repair the reef is also to be boosted. That is another important ingredient in protecting the area. I mention these three areas of amendment not just because I support them but-it may seem odd to say it-because I do so with deep regret. It is to our great shame that there are still some members in our community who need to be deterred from damaging such wonderful areas as the Great Barrier Reef. Some of the pressures facing the reef's environment have to do with the volume of tourists and recreational activity within the park today which is ever on the increase, it seems. These amendments, however, remind us of the awful truth that there are people with no sense of responsibility concerning the environment. They are determined to damage fragile areas of the environment in pursuit of personal gain. It is almost impossible to believe but the sad fact is that those people do not seem to care. Perhaps these new amendments to discourage such activity will be effective. They remind us that our environmental responsibilities include resorting to force and punishment where necessary to protect those areas or those animals which face destruction. I make those comments because there are some in the community who are critical of the powers being assumed by government in the area of environmental protection. The fact that we have to legislate to protect what is without doubt an area of unique and crucial environmental value to the world simply reveals that the development of such powers by the Government, on behalf of the majority of citizens, is in response and in proportion to the irresponsibility of a minority of citizens. It is simply another case where, in Edmund Burke's words, `their passions forge their fetters'. This means that an extension of governmental power occurs when a few irresponsible people provoke a collective response to restrain and sanction their actions. It would be a great thing if such necessities were not needed in this society in which we live but, unfortunately, they are. Having indicated my support for this Bill, and having commented on why the Government's proposals are necessary and appropriate, I want to make some comment on the way the positive aspects of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park highlight the negative and counterproductive approach of the Government concerning newer areas proposed for World Heritage listing. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), when introducing this Bill in the Senate, identified as notable achievements that the marine park had been inscribed in the World Heritage List with the support of the Queensland Government and that strong cooperative arrangements had been developed with Queensland to ensure a complementary approach to management of adjacent lands and waters. The keys to the park's success and to its listing on the World Heritage List were a complementary approach to management responsibilities and the support of the State Government. To identify these two factors is to beg the question: Why has the Government rejected these two factors in its approach to proposals for World Heritage listing which have been developed since it assumed office? One of the other notable achievements identified by the Minister was the establishment of a management plan which allows multiple use while ensuring that the reef's conservation values are not devalued. Once again this begs the question: If multiple use is so compatible with the reef's conservation within the management plan, why can it not be an objective of management plans being proposed by the Government for other prospective World Heritage listings? State support, complementary management responsibilities and multiple use of the environmental asset are the three keys to the success of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the very three factors missing, it seems, from the Government's approach to negotiations with the States on proposals for World Heritage listings in 1988. Without doubt the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park needed to be listed as a World Heritage area. I do not think anyone would argue with that. Without doubt we need constantly to review the legislative tools at our disposal to ensure that our powers to protect the reef are effective. I therefore support this Bill and commend the Government for bringing it before the House. I simply ask the Government to look at the success of the park and its management and to realise that were it to change its confrontationist and centralist approach on World Heritage matters there could be success stories similar to the reef throughout Australia in the years to come. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.35) —I wish to comment briefly on the remarks of the last speaker, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), in relation to World Heritage listing and the fact that some of the States may agree to this proposal and there should not be a confrontationist attitude. One has only to look at what has happened in the past in relation to Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Wherever the Federal Government has put up anything that affects, so the States believe, their rights and their control over that particular area, they have opposed it, especially those States led by Liberal or National Party governments. I think it is important that we as a Commonwealth government take in the interests of all the people of Australia, not just the interests of the people in a particular State. I am firmly of the belief that the environment is definitely an issue for all Australians, not just the people of Tasmania or Queensland, or even the people of New South Wales, where I believe the Greiner Government is looking closely at changing a few things. It is interesting to note that many world leaders have come around to putting the issue of the environment in a position of importance. I remember that only 15-odd years ago the environment was not on the agenda of any Australian political party. It has come from nowhere to be in the top five or six issues in any political campaign. This is great. I believe it should be right on the top; however, I am little biased, being a conservationist. To be in the top group is very important. I am quite certain that children, the future voters, will thank this Government for the actions it has taken in proclaiming World Heritage areas and looking after them, especially in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I have been fortunate enough to have been there on two or three occasions. I can assure all those people who have not been there that it is worth while visiting. I was interested in an article in the Australian Financial Review in October of this year in which the subject of conservation was found to have reached some very conservative parties throughout the world. There have been some very conspicuous converts, including President-elect Bush. He has pledged his allegiance to clean water. Perhaps more surprisingly, Mrs Thatcher, previously happy presiding over one of the least controlled industrial climates in Europe, has also spoken strongly on the need for accelerated environmental concern. Maybe this comes about from the pressure of countries in Europe telling her that they do not want the dirty air from England's coal-fired power stations. They do not want to be at risk from the United Kingdom as one of the polluters of the North Sea. World leaders who have been very conservative on this matter and who have not worried about it in the past are beginning to take note. They are beginning to recognise that the world is a finite planet-it is not infinite-and we are doing a lot to destroy it. However, we can take remedial steps. I urge people who read this speech or who are involved in conservation to play their little part in making certain that our environment is looked after. The green or environmental movement has raised real concerns to governments. It has put the issue to the forefront, which has not been the case in the past. There are a few on the fringes of that movement who have ratbag ideas, but on the whole the majority of the environmental movement is very responsible. What they are concerned about is real and it is here now. They know that it will affect the future. We have to make certain that the quality of life of all those here is put before some of the resource projects that are mooted around the place and the quality of life for our future generations is looked after. It is very interesting to note that just recently the coalition's environment policy was released. One of the areas that they have put forward for change is in relation to the World Heritage List: The World Heritage Listings could be freed by a coalition government for other uses, the Opposition's environment spokesman Senator Puplick, said yesterday. He said a coalition government would not withdraw from the World Heritage Convention, but it would examine areas listed without the consent of State governments to see what other land uses, now prohibited by the Federal Government's World Heritage legislation, could be allowed. This raises the prospect of allowing the timber and cattle industries into the North Queensland `wet tropics' rainforests. At present these are protected by an interim World Heritage nomination. It could also allow some sort of mining on the Great Barrier Reef. It could allow some removal of the forests in relation to Tasmania. It could allow more mining in Kakadu. These are the real things we have fought for, that the environmental movement have stressed are important; but already the coalition has said that they may change these things. They are being very cagey in all their policies. They are not saying they will do it, but that they may. They are attempting to balance off those in their party who want open slather on resources and those other people who vote and think about the environment. There was an article in a magazine called News Weekly, which I do not often read but happened to read on this occasion because of the headline. It makes some interesting comments. It says: `Federal Liberals: the born-again ``greenies''.' This is amazing. The article reads: The political wisdom of the flagship of the Fairfax media interests, the Sydney Morning Herald, is approximately equal to the financial wisdom its owners displayed in buying Melbourne's Channel 7, and then disposing of it at a loss of some $150 million. In other words, the level is not high. It praised Mr Howard for his post-election discovery that the Liberals have to come to terms with the environmentalists, because it no longer does them much good in terms of votes to claim that powers over legislation affecting the environment should be left with the states. Mr Howard regrettably advanced no principle to justify this change of position, since there is no principle which makes a bunch of federal Cabinet Ministers and federal civil servants located in Canberra more likely to make correct decisions in relation to any particular environmental question than a bunch of State Cabinet Ministers and State public servants in any State capital. Mr Howard's conversion is, therefore, not related to principle. It is relate solely to the fact that, in the recent federal election, the ALP successfully concentrated on the `yuppies' . . . And it goes on to denigrate certain people and certain papers. It is true that the environmentalists, the green movement, the protection of the forests people and the Wilderness Society came out and worked hard in the last Federal election. I must say that my electorate, the most marginal Federal Labor seat in Victoria, was helped considerably by the work of the members of Wilderness Society. They did a good job and worked extremely hard for their cause, and their assistance helped me to win the seat. I think that Peter Coaldrake, of Queensland University, even acknowledged that. It is pretty unusual for a statistician in political analysis to recognise that they did play a part in the last Federal election. I am very proud to be associated with them, because what they have done and what they continue to do is make certain that the environment is high on the list of priorities of the Australian Labor Party, in particular, and all other parties. In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, there has recently been concern in respect of the floating hotel, which is I think still owned by Barrier Reef Holdings. It is up for sale. I have raised in this House, even when the Sea Installations Act was being discussed, my concerns about what would happen if it sank and who would remove the remains lying on the seabed. We have got a good example of that concern at that moment. A recent press release stated: A $1 million man-made island on the Great Barrier Reef off Townsville broke in half and sank. Fantasy Island, moored just 800 metres from the Four Seasons floating hotel, broke up in heavy seas about 11.30 p.m. on Monday night and finally went under about 4 p.m. This was some months ago. From what I can tell, Fantasy Island is still sitting on the bottom. No one knows when it is going to be removed. Whose responsibility is it to remove it? It is probably the owner's responsibility, a Mr Tarca, who actually took it out there. But when will he remove it? No-one really knows. It has been sitting there for some time. I believe there are discussions going on between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and himself. But what would happen if something did go wrong with this huge hotel that is sitting on a magnificent piece of the reef called John Brewer Reef? I imagine that these questions will be resolved in the courts in the future. Perhaps Doug Anthony, who is one of the directors of Barrier Reef Holdings, will move in fairly rapidly and see whether he can fix it up. I know that he was involved during the construction of this hotel in Singapore when it was not to be released from the shipyard due to the work force claiming that they had not been paid enough. I believe that he was involved in negotiations in getting things moving there. I also believe that, as a director, he was involved in the sale of this particular floating hotel. There are many more proposals to build floating hotels. There is a proposal to build one on the Barrier Reef. I believe there is a proposal to build a hotel and tow it down to a bay in Antarctica. This is a novel approach. It appears as if, at present, people have not flocked to them in the numbers that one would have expected. It appears that the management of the floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef has abided by all the conditions. I notice that one of the amendments was in relation to waste. I believe that it has been responsible in protecting the reef. However, I can only ask again: What happens if something goes wrong? What happens if it does sink and vanishes beneath the waves, as Fantasy Island did? Who will clean up the mess? Who will pay for it? I believe that one of the conditions that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority puts onto floating hotels is a bond in relation to cleaning up any damage. Is this enough? These are the questions one should be looking at in the light of the Fantasy Island experience. There are also many other plans for developments on and around the Great Barrier Reef. One of the them is for a resort that is planned near Fraser Island National Park. It is in the same area, a little to the south. It is a $700m tourist resort on the Sunshine Coast. It will go ahead within the next few months-pending the review by Mr Ahern. The press report I have goes back to July, so I am not certain what has happened there, but there are many of these types of proposals that have been put forward which will put a lot of pressure onto the Great Barrier Reef. It will also put a lot of pressure onto the staff and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Perhaps the Authority should be looking at upgrading the people working for it and some of its regulations in the light of what has happened with Fantasy Island. All these things-the pressure of tourism, et cetera-are making it harder for developers not to press ahead with new and exciting ideas for the Great Barrier Reef. We should be aware of what could go wrong all the time, but let us hope that nothing does go wrong. The amendments that are being put into the legislation this evening will assist in making certain that the Government can rectify some of the problems before they happen. They are good amendments. In the light of what has happened in the past we should look at these amendments all the time and keep the legislation up to date. The Great Barrier Reef is a wonder of the world. We must at all costs protect it. We must not permit the Liberal and National parties to change the World Heritage policy to allow some other activities within these areas. We must not allow them to go ahead with drilling, as Sir Joh wanted to do some time ago. We must not allow them to change the actual conditions and permit mining and logging to go ahead in our national park. These areas are put aside for everyone, not just for the people of those States. Australia is a very rich country. We can afford to put these areas aside. We do not really need to log or mine them. What we are doing is looking up-- Mr Nehl —When was the last time you logged the Great Barrier Reef? Mr CHYNOWETH —We are locking away these particular areas for future generations, and that is good. Mr Nehl —But you don't log them. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member says that we do not log the Barrier Reef. He is quite correct, but one of the leaders of his Party wanted to mine it and drill right through it. Let us have a look at these things. That is wrong. That was something that the National Party wanted to do. The National Party had a leader called Johannes Bjelke-Petersen who was a heavyweight of the Party. He wanted to make certain that poles were put right through the middle of it. Just imagine what would happen if oil were found there and there was an oil spill. So what? I get no answer from members of the National Party. They are not particularly concerned at what would happen, but I assure honourable members that it would be devastating to all life on the Great Barrier Reef. We do not need that oil and we do not need to know what is underneath. Maybe another 100 years in the future there will be technology that can drill on an angle from 50 miles out and it will be okay to get the oil, if there is anything underneath. But at present we do not know how to handle it and I think the wisest thing to do is what this Government is doing; that is, making certain that nothing happens in those particular areas. These amendments go towards determining that nothing will happen to these excellent places within the world. I am quite certain that many other areas in Australia could be listed as World Heritage areas. I hope those areas will be explored by the Government and nominated in the future. We have to get them now before some changes to the State governments come about. Maybe in another 10 years there might be a change in the Federal Government and it will allow these sorts of things to go ahead. That is why we have to do these things now and make certain that these areas are saved, not just for the people of those States, but for the whole of Australia and the world. Mr BURR(Lyons)(9.54) —I am disappointed with some of the comments just made by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). We have chaired committees together, as you and I have, Mr Deputy Speaker, and have taken an interest in the Great Barrier Reef. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Dunkley made a partisan comment during his contribution. He intimated that in some way the Liberal and National parties would desecrate the Great Barrier Reef in violation of the natural heritage of that area. I remind the honourable member for Dunkley that the Liberal and National parties during the Fraser Government period established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Fraser Government put in place those things that would give greater protection to the Great Barrier Reef. The Fraser Government in its single-minded determination decided that the Great Barrier Reef would never be violated by unnecessary development that was not in keeping with the protection of the unique natural heritage of that area. I remind the honourable member that in no way would any future Liberal-National Party government ever violate the natural heritage of that area because we believe that it is one of the world's unique natural heritage areas and that it should be protected for future generations of mankind. For the honourable member to suggest that in some way an incoming Liberal-National Party government would have, as part of its policy, the violation of that great unique natural heritage is to give a completely false impression to the people of Australia. That is not part of our policy and I assure the honourable member that it never will be. I remind the honourable member that a unique feature of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill is that it has bipartisan support from all parts of the House. I hope that the debate can continue on a basis that this Bill and the provisions of this Bill are supported by all parts of the House. All of us in this place-and I think all the people of Australia-believe that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the world's unique natural areas. We, as Australian citizens, have a responsibility to protect that area, not just for future generations of Australians, but for the world. It is unique. I believe that all of us, regardless of which party may be in government, will do that. The Bill before the House is designed to give greater authority to those people responsible for the administration of the reef to enable them to police the regulations and to impose penalties in support of protecting the reef. That is why this Bill has the bipartisan support of the House and of the Parliament. Dangers to the reef have been posed not by Australian citizens and not necessarily by development projects that may have been proposed in the past, but more particularly by foreign intrusion and foreign invasion of the reef by citizens from other countries. That is why this Bill is necessary. Firstly, it increases the penalties for poaching and for other violations of the reef. That is necessary, unfortunate though it may be, because while I believe that Australian fishermen and other Australian citizens who may conduct activities on the reef are conscious of the natural heritage with which they are dealing, unfortunately that same consciousness and the same determination to protect the natural environment have not been shown by citizens of other countries, particularly foreign fishermen who may from time to time visit the reef. It is necessary that adequate penalties be imposed to be able to protect the reef from such violation. This Bill does just that: it increases the penalties and it gives greater scope to officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to enforce those penalties by pursuing intruders beyond the normal boundaries of international law. But it also allows the expertise of the Marine Park Authority to be used for a much broader range of activities. We are very conscious of the body of expertise that has been built up within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I compliment Mr Graeme Kelleher and the other scientific experts and marine biologists on his staff, who have, over the years with the breadth of their experience, established a very broad body of experience within the Marine Park Authority. It is pleasing to see that the Marine Park Authority wants to make that depth of experience available for use in other fields than simply the protection and development of the Great Barrier Reef. I compliment it on doing that. I hope that its experience can be used in a broad range of activities, particularly the protection of natural marine parks and natural environments in other waters around Australia. Hopefully its expertise can be made available to other areas of the world. The Australian public is becoming increasingly conscious of that delicate balance between the natural environment, which we are beholden to protect for this generation and must pass on to future generations, and the demand for development. An intriguing debate is taking place in our community as to what is good, what might be best for the protection of the natural environment as against development for future generations. I do not think that this debate has ended: it will continue for some considerable time. The fact that it is taking place is good. I do not think any of us would presume that all development is good development. We must always be conscious of future generations and how best we can protect and pass on our environment and heritage to them. We must always accept that the Great Barrier Reef is one of those great natural heritages which we as Australians have been given the obligation of protecting, not just for future generations of Australians but also for the world. I commend the management structure developed for the reef. I think that common sense has prevailed to develop for the Great Barrier Reef a structure where both State and Federal governments have been involved in putting together a management plan for the protection of a world heritage national park. This is the first time that such a management structure has been developed in Australia. It is a model that should be passed on for the protection and management of world heritage national parks everywhere. I compliment both the Fraser and the Queensland Bjelke-Petersen governments of that time on having the courage and the commonsense to combine their expertise to come up with such a management structure. It is also of great credit to the officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Queensland conservation authority that they were able to come together and cooperate on the protection of what all of us believe is a common heritage, and that is the Great Barrier Reef. What has developed from that is not a conflict between two levels of government but a cooperation between them to protect the Barrier Reef and provide a management plan for the future development of the reef. Credit should go to previous governments-the Fraser Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government-and the officers of the authorities at both levels for being able to cooperate and develop such a plan and bring it together in the form of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. One of the continuing problems that the Authority faces-it will continue to be debated not only in the scientific community by marine biologists but also in the general Australian community, because it concerns all Australians-is the infestation of the crown-of-thorns starfish on the reef. Many Australians are a little bemused, if you like, or concerned because of the different scientific viewpoints and scientific evidence with which they are confronted. I think all Australian citizens would want to see the reef preserved for future generations. There is conflicting scientific evidence from so-called experts, some of whom believe that the crown-of-thorns starfish will despoil the reef forever, while others believe that it is a passing phenomenon, that it will not last for very long, and that the reef will eventually recover. Mr Hunt —No-one quite knows. Mr BURR —As my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir says, no-one knows. It is impossible for any so-called expert to be able to say conclusively that it will destroy the reef or that it is a passing phenomenon. As my colleague says, no-one knows. I am concerned that the Australian media, apparently for the purpose of instant headlines or instant sensationalism, presume to go to the Australian public and claim that the reef is being despoiled forever because of the infestation of the crown-of-thorns starfish. The media do not know that. They cannot be certain of that, just as the scientific experts cannot be certain of it. It is a great shame that a lot of emotion is being stirred up within the Australian community by a sensationalist media who do not know what they are talking about. It is most unfortunate that an expert body such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is prepared to take legal action for defamation against media organisations. Mr Hunt —They ought to clam up. Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague; they should clam up. That is a most appropriate term. It is most unfortunate that sections of the media in Australia are prepared to go to such sensationalist lengths to make their story, because it is totally misleading. They do not know, because the scientific experts cannot be certain, what the long term impact of the crown-of-thorns starfish will be. I do not presume to be able to say what the long term effect will be because the marine biologists, the scientific experts, are not able to say. But as Australian citizens we have an obligation to allow the scientists, the marine biologists who are the experts in this field, to undertake their own scientific pursuits to their full extent before we start to draw conclusions. I know that all those experts, irrespective of whether they are part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, have one overriding ambition, and that is to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for the long term, to protect it for future generations and for mankind. In that we wish them well. However, although experts may have different views about the long term impact of the crown-of-thorns starfish, I do not believe that the long term benefit to the reef can be pursued by stirring up emotive sensationalism through the media. I condemn anyone who pursues that course of activity, because I do not believe that that is the best way to get action that will protect the reef in the longer term. I am delighted that the Opposition supports the measure before us. We believe that the legislation is necessary to give officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority more authority to be able to pursue those people who may violate the marine park and its environs. We agree with the Government. Because the legislation seeks to protect one of our great natural heritages, which we all have a very keen interest in protecting for future generations, the Opposition is delighted to support it. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(10.10) —in reply-In summing up the second reading debate, I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate. I suppose that, if one looks at what has happened in this House over the last month, one can see that this is one of the rare and happy occasions on which there seems to be total consensus. We have the fairly unique position of honourable members on both sides of the House being unanimous in their support for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. More important-and I think this bodes well for the future control of the Great Barrier Reef-is the fact that all members who spoke showed a genuine concern for the problems which clearly have to be tackled and approached. All were unanimous in the view that present and past Commonwealth governments and the Queensland State Government had reached a level of administrative consensus in respect of the reef. Some honourable members indicated their concern about continuing pressure on the reef which will flow from increased tourism. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the great wonders of the world. It is true to say that the Government is dealing with the problem by introducing this legislation. A number of honourable members who have spoken in this debate indicated their concern about how one tackles the problem of the crown-of-thorns starfish. I would dearly love to assure the House, as I know my ministerial colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) would, that we have the scientific knowledge, that there is a consensus view and that we now have the procedures to resolve this problem. The reality is, of course, that one cannot do that at this stage. There is obvious concern on the part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Minister and the Government about this problem. Resources have to be made available to control outbreaks of infestation when they occur to ensure that sections of the reef are not permanently damaged and die. I hope, as do my ministerial colleagues and obviously members of this House, that the application of scientific knowledge will solve this problem. Certainly, the Minister and the Government will do whatever they can to accelerate and facilitate that very important development. I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I make the very simple point that the general unanimity that was expressed on both sides of the House can be interpreted as indicating that this House is concerned to continue the level of consensus which has led to a very close and continuing liaison between the Commonwealth, the Queensland Government and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This legislation is seen to be an important structure in preserving and developing the important heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef not merely to Australia but to the world. On that basis, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on the motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 November, on the following paper presented by Mr Hawke: Joint Defence Facilities-Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1988 and on the motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the House take note of the paper. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.15) —The House is resuming debate on a very important statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the joint defence facilities. This is the second such statement since the election of this Government in 1983. It is important because information about the joint facilities at Nurrungar and Pine Gap in particular-information about North West Cape was not included in this statement-is being revealed to the public. Indeed, very much more information is being made available than was ever envisaged or contemplated by previous governments right up to the election of this Government. This Government, in conjunction with our partner the United States of America, is determined to illuminate and enlighten the people of Australia in regard to the operation of these joint facilities. These facilities are very important. As I said, they were clothed in great secrecy until the last few years. Unfortunately, this sent a lot of hares running and a lot of very factual material, basically from Des Ball, was put into the public arena. Some people made assumptions as to what the joint facilities were all about, and some of those assumptions were not 100 per cent correct, as is the case now. But one thing is absolutely certain: for the first time we have truly and-I think I can say-genuinely joint facilities. At the managerial end-that is at the hard end of the joint facilities; not just in the overall employment terms-we have a fairly substantial number of Australian personnel. In managerial and operational terms we are talking about 40 per cent of Australian personnel at Nurrungar and 30 per cent at Pine Gap. So overall we are looking at about one third, if not more, of Australian operational and managerial personnel at the joint facilities being Australian. That is very important, because of the functions that these joint facilities perform. Nurrungar is a ground station which is used for controlling satellites in the United States defence support program. These satellites supply information about ballistic missiles, early warning, and other details that are related to missile launches, surveillance and the detonation of nuclear weapons. The surveillance role carried out at Nurrungar has been known for a very long time. Nurrungar plays a very important role in the arms verification area, in early warning and the whole disarmament regime. Pine Gap, which is the other facility referred to in this statement, is a satellite ground station whose function is to collect intelligence data which supports the national security of both Australia and the United States. Of course, intelligence collected at Pine Gap contributes importantly to the verification of arms control and disarmament agreements. I chaired a subcommittee of this Parliament, the Subcommittee on Disarmament and Arms Control of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, for three years on the subject of disarmament and arms control. We reported in 1986. That report was distributed throughout Australia and was sent around the world. I think it was very well received by the United Nations (UN) and various other peace institutes. The report contained a lot of very useful information and this Government picked up many of its recommendations. Indeed, many of those recommendations were related to disarmament and the verification of many of the agreements. Verification is a particular problem and a discussion point among the superpowers and anyone interested in the disarmament regime. According to reports that have been made since the Prime Minister's statement, Pine Gap plays a very important role in respect of spying. It is worth noting the political comments that have been made in the national press. Notably, Paul Kelly wrote an article in the Australian of 25 November in which he talked in very favourable terms about the Government's statement. He said, as I mentioned before, that the Government had brought forward many things that had not been available for public comment. We have talked about the agreement that we have had, the quite significant number of Australian personnel in the hard-nosed end of the operations. Thus we have joint facilities which are not only used for global operations and American interests but are also now used for Australian interests. I turn to Geoff Kitney in the Australian Financial Review of 23 November when the headline was `Bases now spy for Australia'. It is quite an interesting change in public perceptions about the bases when even some people who were against the bases originally are now saying that if we are using them to spy for ourselves, if we are using them for our own intelligence, if we are using them for our own defence capabilities-which I will elaborate on in a minute-then it is okay. Indeed, it has been this Government that has moved in that direction. Mr White —You have a long way to go. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member's party spent 30 years on that side doing nothing. In fact, for the last 20 years or so, when the joint facilities have been in place, we heard absolutely nothing. In fact, former Prime Ministers of this House, John Gorton and Billy McMahon, when they were Prime Ministers, did not even know what was happening there. In fact, many Prime Ministers did not know what was happening there and did not want to know what was happening there when the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) was a member of Australia's defence forces. It was only when this Government came into office that we demanded that we start to renegotiate. It was under this Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that we renegotiated the leases and the terms of the lease, and it was under this Minister for Defence that this statement was able to be made last week by the Prime Minister. That would never have happened with the Opposition. The Opposition was `All the way with LBJ'-`Let us go to Vietnam!' Mr White —What did your Prime Minister say 10 years ago? Mr CHARLES —`We do not mind 500 young Australians being killed'-that was the coalition's policy. It was all right at the time. Australians have a different perception now but that was the Opposition's policy. It was `All the way with LBJ; don't ask questions'. What utter rubbish! The Opposition knows it would never have got the agreements we have got now. It knows it would never have got 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the hard-nosed personnel at the business end of the operation, because it would have caved in every time. All the old defence people on the coalition side of the House would come into defence debates time after time, changing Opposition defence policies every day, every week. The honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) came in and started sprouting about defence personnel, but the Opposition shuts up pretty quickly when one talks about defence housing, for example, or when I say the fact is that the Opposition was there for 30 years and it created the problem with defence housing, not the people on this side of the House. The Prime Minister's statement is very important and one that is significant in the sense, historically, that we have been able to go as far as we have. Obviously-and I think both sides of the House would agree-there are some things that we are unable to divulge and never will be able to divulge because of the intelligence aspect of the bases. They would be totally useless. Indeed, we hear criticisms from some people on the disarmament side. Senator Vallentine says, `No, let us have the bases under UN control'. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. Under UN control, there is no such thing as bases. We are looking at some fairyland, an Alice in Wonderland sort of thing that does not actually operate in the real world of politics. It would be all right to have it under UN control if all the other bases all around the globe had a similar situation. Of course, that is never going to occur. Indeed, these bases have a direct impact not only on the surveillance in regard to Nurrungar but, in the case of Pine Gap in regard to research and intelligence and not only on the US interests and globally but also on Australia's interest. It is very significant that this Government has moved to put Australia's interests up front in regard to the joint facilities; that they are very genuinely joint facilities and we have a direct say in what happens, in what is collected, et cetera, at these bases. Indeed, we would argue on this side of the House that it is significant that it is in our interests to keep these bases and the Americans at these bases for quite some time to come. As I said earlier, no-one could envisage, until 1983, when this Government came in, the information that this Government has now made public, because up until then it was all very hush hush and no one said anything about the facilities at all. I do not believe, apart from the very top secret intelligence, that is the way to go. The more people understand about the general aspects of what they do in the disarmament area and defence capability area for this country, the more people understand and believe they are very much desirable. That is something of which I am very proud. I believe the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has done a magnificent job in regard to this magnificent statement before the House by the Prime Minister. The statement will obviously be debated for some time but it has been received extraordinarily well, as shown by the press that it has received and the fact that we are moving not only to genuine joint facilities but also Australian operations, Australian control, Australian say in what is collected, what is proposed, et cetera. I think that is a very significant aspect of the statement by the Prime Minister, most of which, of course, was negotiated under the auspices of the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, over quite some time. That is about all I can say. I support the statement by the Prime Minister. It goes a very long way to bringing the functions of the joint facilities to public debate, to the public arena and to the knowledge of the public. I hope there will be some more information let out. Mostly our American friends will not let it out, but I hope that in the not too distant future we can let out some more information. That in fact is in the public arena already. We can make that official and that will again, for the safety of Australia and debate and reception of these facilities, be very important for us all. In summary, it was an important statement. It is a quantum leap forward. We have seen a magnificent leap forward to Australian control, increased interest at the hard-nose end, the business end of these facilities. We have seen an incorporation, shall we say, an interest in the Australianisation of these joint facilities for our purposes as well as those of the United States and the global interests of the Western world. That is something to be applauded. The Minister for Defence, who has negotiated this, should be applauded in this House. I support the statement by the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being approximately 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.30) —On Friday night I attended a function in the municipality of Clarence in my electorate for the sportswomen and sportsmen on the eastern shore. I sat opposite a very nice couple. Their names were John and Beverly Fysh. In discussion they said to me, `Bruce, do you know that our daughter is the only person from Tasmania who has ever won a gold medal at the Olympics?' I thought for a while and said, `Of course, she is'. I thought, `She has not got very much recognition'. Even though she was only an emergency for the hockey side, even though she did not participate in all the matches, she was still a gold medallist and the only Tasmanian-I note that she is a woman-who has ever won a gold medal. I thought that she deserves a bit of praise. That is what I intend to do for a couple of minutes tonight. First of all I want to congratulate her and congratulate her family. She is a local girl. She lives on the eastern shore of Hobart; she has lived there all her life. She attended the Rose Bay High School and then the Rosny Matriculation College. She is a very nice girl, held in very high esteem by everybody who knows her. I would like to pay my respects to her tonight. I would also like to give the municipality of Clarence, which has just become a city, a little bit of a prod. How about a civic reception for this girl, Tasmania's only gold medallist? Why do we not have a civic reception for her? Why do we not take her through the streets of Hobart. She is the only Tasmanian to have won a gold medal. It does not matter that she was a reserve. That means nothing. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) would agree with me that that is what we should do. I intend to take the matter a bit further when I go back and ask the new mayor of the City of Clarence to have a reception for her so that the people of Hobart can show their appreciation and their pride for a young lady who has become a gold medallist at the Olympic Games. Mr Humphreys —What about the Premier? Mr GOODLUCK —I think the Premier gave her a bit of a reception but I think he invited the nobs. I do not like all these nobs, because they go everywhere. I want a few of the ordinary people of my electorate to see her; and the ordinary people who know her-their friends and family-instead of some of those darned politicians who love to go everywhere and receive all the attention and glory. Thank God, I do not. Back to the serious matter now. I know that my esteemed friend the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) will be saying a few words tonight so I will not get involved in that argument. The part of my electorate which now contains the Huon Forest Products company used to be the home of the apple industry. Now it has the highest unemployment of any area in my electorate. I inform the honourable member for Braddon that I read with dismay today that all the Federal Labor members of Parliament-I cannot remember their names because we never hear much about them; I know the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) is one who supports them-are saying no to the flitch mill. They are siding with the greenies, the conservationists, the people who get all the publicity in Tasmania. These are not the sensible, ordinary people who depend on the industry for their livelihood. Honourable members have the audacity and the hypocrisy-I use the word `hypocrisy' in the nice sense-to keep talking about unemployment and jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we have an opportunity. I notice that a reporter whose name is Darby-he might be a stringer for the Hobart Mercury-writes for the Sydney Morning Herald and he wrote an article with big headlines asking what we were doing to the forests in Tasmania. It is the same as the dams episode. Those on the mainland are killing us. People hope that they will win seats. However, the regrettable part is it is killing the ordinary, decent hardworking Tasmanians who depend on the industry for their livelihood. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.34) —The issue I want to raise is a serious one which concerns the misleading of the Australian people by the Opposition in regard to immigration policy. Recently, we have had a few statements from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and other honourable members saying that the Opposition's statements earlier in the year were taken wrongly and were not promoting a racist immigration policy or one that was based on discrimination. The Opposition got away with that for a certain period. However, on Sunday, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in an interview, clearly stated that, firstly, he had not been rebuked by John Howard for the comments that he had made earlier in the year in relation to Asian immigration and, furthermore, that he in fact stuck by those comments and did not resile from them. That is what he is saying at the end of November after the newspapers had reported that the Leader of the Opposition had in fact distanced the Party from the Sinclair position. What do we now have? We have the Leader of the National Party saying that he does not resile from those comments. After the statement made by the Leader of the National Party on 12 August this year, the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement in which he said: The impression created by the remarks of the National Party leader, Ian Sinclair, yesterday goes beyond the draft immigration policy to be considered by the Coalition Joint parties room. I have told Mr Sinclair that. That statement was interpreted universally as, in fact, Mr Howard rebuking the Leader of the National Party. The Canberra Times headed an article, `Immigration: Howard pulls Sinclair in'. What do we then find? Mr Sinclair said, in relation to that matter, that on neither occasion did John Howard rebuke him. When he was asked whether Mr Howard had issued an instruction that he not speak on immigration matters he said that no, he had not, and that that was not correct. He was asked by Kerry O'Brien: Are you able to speak openly on immigration policy? The Leader of the National Party replied: Of course I can. I can speak openly on anything, Kerry. This was despite what Mr Howard had given this House and the Australian people to understand, which was that it would only be the shadow Minister for immigration and himself who would be making comments on immigration. However, we then had Mr Sinclair saying that he had not resiled from his comments at all. He said that he had in no way resiled from remarks that he had made in Perth. He said that he did not see that it was necessary to keep on repeating things in which he believed. That is what Mr Sinclair said. For the benefit of the House I will repeat what he said on Sunday. He said: What we are saying is that if there is any risk of undue build-up of Asians as against others in the community, then you need to control it. He continued: I certainly believe our policy says that. I certainly believe that at the moment we need to by changing the balance between skilled migrants and family reunions, reduce the number of Asians and encourage more migrants to fit within the overall balance of our Australian society. What does the Leader of the Opposition have to say in relation to this very serious matter, given the fact that the Leader of the National Party as late as yesterday in the interview said that he did not resile from his comments, that he was entitled to speak on immigration matters and that he was entitled to speak on behalf of the National Party which was part of the coalition? What are we to believe in relation to the Opposition's position on this crucial question of discrimination in immigration policy? I raise this matter because only a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition was objecting to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) having again raised the question of the discriminatory nature of Opposition immigration policy. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Prime Minister ought to get off this issue. However, the fact is that this issue is alive. The Opposition parties have to sort out their position. I call on them to do so. Mr Sinclair should clarify his position, as should Mr Howard, on this very important issue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Calwell when he is speaking again to address members of the House by their position and not by their name. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.39) —I wish to comment on an article on page 3 of today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled, `Out of Africa: Hawke called in after clashes on MPs' tour'. The article was written by Pilita Clark and puts the position of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who was the leader of the parliamentary delegation of which I was a member and which visited Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe in June and July of this year. As honourable members may have heard there has already been considerable talk around the Parliament about the difficulties encountered during this trip arising out of the bizarre behaviour of its leader. Unbeknowns to me, before we had even left Australia the honourable member for Throsby claimed that he had approached the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Duffy) to see whether action could be taken to stop my going on the trip. The Minister, as the article records, quite properly refused to have anything to do with his extraordinary requests. However the honourable member for Throsby clearly had it in for some of us before the trip had even started, and his campaign of extraordinary vindictiveness and distortion continues still. His version of what occurred during the trip as related in this article is so clearly at variance with the truth that some explanation is warranted. Firstly, my wife's expenses for the trip did not come out of the taxpayer funding for the delegation. They were funded entirely out of my own pocket and entitlements, as the honourable member for Throsby would well know. Secondly, there were not numerous clashes between the leader and my wife, as he claims. The one incident that I do remember followed a meeting early in the trip with the Revolutionary Ethiopian Women's Association at Addis Ababa, after a particularly long session of haranguing by some revolutionary women's representatives about how the women of Ethiopia had been liberated since the `Glorious People's Revolution'. Supporting comments were made by the Government members of our delegation, including statements such as this nonsense. I hope that you don't make the same mistake that we make in Australia where pregnant women are forced to have their babies in hospitals delivered by men under clinical conditions. Throughout the whole of this my wife sat up at the back of the meeting, saying nothing and reacting to none of this, just as she had done throughout the whole trip. However, outside the building after the meeting she innocently quipped to a couple of us, in a quite innocuous and light-hearted manner, `Oh, you dreadful men, oppressing we women back in Australia'. In an extraordinary display of overreaction, the honourable member for Throsby turned on her, swearing at her, and from then on set out to persecute her in every way possible for the remainder of the trip. He banned her from attending every official function in Mozambique, even though the host country expected her to be at the meetings and had a chair and place tag set out for her where it was appropriate. The honourable member for Throsby even resorted to inventing stories to prevent her from accompanying us on trips. For example, before we went to the African National Congress training college in Tanzania, mentioned in the newspaper article, he called me aside the morning before and told me that only two cars would be available for this excursion and that Margaret would have to stay behind, since there would be no room for her. When I checked this out I found we were taking two mini-buses and the government officials told me there would be tons of room. When confronted with this information, he immediately changed his story, saying he would not allow her to come anyway, on the ground that her name had not been previously forwarded to the training college. When I offered to ring them to ask if it would be all right for her to join us, he refused point blank, knowing they would have no objection. In fact, I checked with them the next day when we were there and was told that they would have been delighted to have had her along. His story was just a fabrication. Also, my wife did not `sulk in her room' following this incident, as the newspaper article claims, but spent the day with Swedish friends in Dar es Salaam and shopping in the city. Our delegation leader did everything but lead. His behaviour was appalling and his use of four letter words beginning with `F' in front of women-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not be casting aspersions on another member of the House. He can give his own opinions of what happened but I ask him to please stop short of casting aspersions on the leader of the delegation. Mr COBB —My opinion is that his behaviour was an embarrassment to our country. He would introduce us all at the beginning of meetings as `comrades'. On occasions he would not even use the word `Labor' when giving his party affiliation-- Mr Humphreys —I take a point of order. It is customary that when an honourable member is attacking another member, he notifies that member. I hope that he has paid the honourable member for Throsby the courtesy of doing that. Madam SPEAKER —It is not actually a point of order; it is a point of courtesy. Mr COBB —His attack on our delegation deputy leader, Bruce Goodluck, at Maputo Airport was possibly the worst incident of all, done as it was in full view of all the Mozambican Government officials. It is not true, as this article says, that our eating was done separately throughout the trip and embarrassed our hosts. This was never done at public functions and, when it was done in private, it was as much the choice of the honourable member for Throsby as it was ours. I believe he proved to be a most unsatisfactory and unprofessional person to lead a delegation. I hope that in future the Government will select someone more suitable. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.44) —I raise again the matter of the critical continuing shortage of Hansard reporters and the plight of their employment conditions. I raised this matter in the House on Thursday, 11 October, and I received letters on your behalf, Madam Speaker, in your absence, dated 20 October and 2 November. Whilst you recognised that the salary and conditions of Federal Hansard reporters were the lowest in Australia, notwithstanding that their hours of work were almost double those of the staff of most State Hansards, all you stated was that consideration would be given to the matters raised. Although that was the first occasion that I had raised the matter, I am informed that successive Presidents of the Hansard section of the Canberra Branch of the Australian Journalists Association have raised this matter with Hansard management over many years. Therefore, you will not be surprised to know that I, and the Hansard reporters, have little faith that these problems will be properly addressed on this occasion. The casual engagement of interstate reporters from other Hansard staffs, who already enjoy higher salaries and better working conditions, was implemented as a short term solution when the present staffing difficulties first arose. This practice has now been in existence for some years and was no doubt considered by Hansard management to be the panacea to the critical shortage of reporters. This shortsighted, blinkered approach to staffing will undoubtedly lead to long term industrial problems, possibly as soon as tomorrow, when Hansard staff reporters attend a union meeting to discuss the perceived inaction by management in addressing staffing and other matters. Federal Hansard reporters have never previously engaged in industrial action which has resulted in industrial stoppages, but present staffing difficulties could result in their patience finally running out. Since raising the matter with you in the House on 13 October, I have received unsolicited correspondence from both former and current Hansard reporters which not only confirms the gravity of the present situation but highlights the problems that have caused reporters to resign. As I have previously stated, it is a sad fact that hitherto loyal staff who have never engaged in industrial stoppages are now considering such action because of their continued dissatisfaction with inaction by Hansard management in regard to resolving these serious problems. It would appear that Hansard management is either unable to, or incapable of, resolving these longstanding issues. Accordingly, I urge that reporters' salaries and conditions, which are already well below those of other Hansards, be redressed immediately to avoid further resignations, occupational injuries, possible industrial action and the continued difficulty of attracting qualified competent reporters. Having said that, I would now like to say a few words about the Australian Postal Commission. There was a great navigator by the name of George Vancouver who, I believe, was of special significance to Australia. It was through George Vancouver's activities that the west coast of Australia was largely explored. This led to the area around Albany being probably the best known part of Australia outside Sydney Harbour for many years. Australia Post, when approached to issue commemorative stamps to celebrate the bicentenary of Vancouver's discoveries, flatly refused. It said it was a matter of no great significance. One could easily say the same of Captain Cook. He discovered a small part of Australia and mapped the east coast-a matter of no great significance! Why it should be more significant on the east than on the west, I fail to understand. Vancouver's activities probably forestalled the French and led to Australia being a continental nation. For had this not been so, we might now be sharing a country with another people, which would obviously lead to tensions that we do not presently have. One of the other important things that Vancouver did was to become very involved in the exploration of north-west Canada. A lot of people do not realise that this took place on his way from Australia. I believe it is outrageous that Australia Post is refusing to recognise the exploits of Vancouver. I will be talking more about this in the House at a later time. Mr PRATT(South Australia)(10.48) —I rise to speak on a matter that has special relevance to my electorate of Adelaide in that it contains the major part of South Australia's prison system, a system that is approaching crisis. For years now the Bannon Labor Government has presided over a chaotic situation. One of my State's major messes is the continuing row between the Government, the prison officers and the prisoners themselves. The cost of maintaining prisoners in South Australia's gaols has skyrocketed while the unrest grows even stronger. The latest episode concerns two senior prison officers of longstanding, who have been made the subject of a police investigation of a prisoner's allegation. What is more, while under investigation the officers have been suspended from duty without pay. The matter has sparked discontent within the ranks of prison officers in the State, 400 of whom took to the streets of Adelaide last week to record their protest at what they consider to be a raw deal-and a raw deal it is, as I will explain. Already named in the press and the media are David Nash, Assistant Chief Correctional Officer, Grade 1, and Barry Smith, Senior Correctional Officer, who both worked at the Adelaide Remand Centre, known as the Arc, until 14 October, when they were stood down over allegations of assaulting a prisoner. The prisoner concerned was convicted of armed robbery, for which he was to serve seven to 10 years in Melbourne's notorious Pentridge Prison-an apprentice Ned Kelly who had made the same allegations a year ago, which were dismissed. The penalty of five days for the false allegations was added to his sentence. It is a poor state of affairs when a proven perjurer, one of life's dregs, can cook up a story against two fine members of society who have the guts to do a job few of the rest of us would be prepared to do-I am referring to prison officers Nash and Smith-and get five days when he has been proven to be a liar and a fraud. Both men have been highly spoken of during the many years they have dedicated to serving the prison system. David Nash and Barry Smith are highly respected both within the Department and also amongst the criminals they have supervised. Both officers are members of the newly formed 600-strong Correctional Officers Association of South Australia (COASA). There is an ongoing and well-recorded feud between COASA and the Miscellaneous Workers Union (MWU) where prison officers are concerned. The MWU has a healthy number of seven such officers left amongst its membership, a fact that seems to upset South Australia's correctional services Minister, Frank Blevins, who is on the record as telling prison officers `You'll join whichever union I tell you to join'. This is a strange statement indeed but then those of us on the sane side of politics have often had difficulty understanding the confused workings of the socialist mind. So the truth begins to emerge. Here we have a couple of loyal, long-serving and conscientious prison officers who have been used as pawns in a union power struggle and suspended without pay when a 10c pimp on a armed robbery charge makes an unsubstantiated allegation of assault. Precedent suggests suspension without pay is an extreme measure indeed but when we consider a previous incident involving the Manager, Assistant Manager and Movement Chief of the same institution we find that they were suspended with pay pending investigation of a similar allegation. The 400 protesting prison officers say they are being screwed-no pun intended-by an unfair and unconstitutional system which disregards the maxim of `innocent until proven guilty'. How hypocritical is this? The rights of the prisoners at the remand centre are maintained while those that help in the maintenance of those prisoners' rights have their rights thrown to the wolves. The Department heavies had to search the State statutes long and hard before they came up with section 69 (1) of the Government's Management and Employment Act that allowed them to wreak their vengeance on these two fine officers. I suggest that the prisoner's allegations, when properly investigated by police as they are, will turn out be baseless mouthings as did the last such allegation from the same individual. Further, I suggest that prison officers Nash and Smith are being used as pawns in an ongoing union power struggle, conducted with the full blessing of a Minister in South Australia. In light of the fact that 400 prison officers took to the streets of Adelaide last week in support of their mistreated colleagues I submit that I am not the only one who thinks this way. One prisoner in South Australia recently served less than one-third of his non-parole period through remissions gained by successive outbreaks of such industrial action which gave him a remission of four days of his sentence. As for the Minister for Correctional Services last week calling on me to apologise, I ask `What for?' Is it for having the courage to defend men and women who are daily performing this stressful and often dangerous task? What loss of dignity is there to prison officers when on duty they have to suffer the humiliation of sexual acts, simulated or not, being conducted through the medium of X-rated videos imported from Canberra or bought from a north-east video store? Since the local paper did not consider it necessary to get the facts and could not contact me I guess I will have to spoon-feed it with these facts as well as some startling information on drugs in prisons. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(10.53) —I rise to discuss a commitment by my Government to Logan City. Much has been debated about Logan City and its very large unemployment problem. However, the situation has been exacerbated by the Logan City Council, which has rejected not one but two Federal Government grants totalling half a million dollars. Despite its rejection of such a grant aldermen on that council have requested consistently that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visit the area and recognise that it is disadvantaged. However, the Government tends to act in a much more pragmatic and helpful way by giving grants to groups within the area that are seen to do work and are seen actually to address the needs of the area rather than the grandstanding which is currently being done by the Logan City Council. In this sense the Logan City community youth support scheme (CYSS) has been responsible for gathering $200,000 to develop a Skill-share program. This, I might add, has been at some great personal cost to the President of that CYSS, Mark Forrester, who has suffered an amount of personal abuse in the press and from the citizens of Logan City Council. Indeed, the Logan Council vilified him and when he approached the Trades and Labour Council for support for the unemployed in the area, the city council suggested that this was a further ploy by CYSS to get help. Of course it was a ploy to get help. With more than 9,000 people unemployed in the area, it is incumbent upon us and our Government to attempt to redress the problem. That is exactly what the Logan CYSS was attempting to do when it made its application for Skill-share. The Trades and Labour Council supported us, as did the Logan City Chamber of Commerce. Both these groups are very much wiser and more humane than the good aldermen on the Logan City Council. Indeed, the $200,000 grant is now a testament to the work which Mark Forrester and his committee, the Trades and Labour Council and the Logan City Chamber of Commerce have done to ensure that the long term unemployed of Logan City will be helped. They will be helped not only by this $200,000 grant for the long term unemployed who are able to participate in training programs, but the Logan Chamber of Commerce has also gathered to itself a further grant of $300,000 from the Federal Government to assist in the stimulation of business in the area-a program for which the Logan City Council established its Economic Development Board, which to date has failed to attract any businesses whatsoever to the area. Indeed, this board has been seen by many as being simply a group of people who are more concerned about themselves and their own ends than with stimulating business in the area. The Trades and Labour Council, the Chamber of Commerce and CYSS see the need to create an environment in which business can be stimulated, in which the long term unemployed can be assisted by retraining and in which there is a healthy business economy to ensure jobs and training for all in the area. I am delighted to be able to acknowledge our Government's commitment to that to the tune of $500,000 despite the fact that Logan City has a council which on the one hand has consistently rejected grants, and, on the other hand, publicly vilifies us for not helping that council. What is one to do with such people? Where do we go and where do we turn? One can only hope that the business community and the long term unemployed within our area will acknowledge the source of their support, who is actually helping them and who has their best interests at heart. The Logan City CYSS has been very successful and has worked against considerable odds to get this grant to help people in our area, to ensure that training will be carried out and to ensure that the long time unemployed will find dignity through entering our economy. That also applies to the Logan City Chamber of Commerce, which hopes to stimulate business in the area. In the long term we all, as citizens of Logan City, will be a very much better and happier community despite the work which is not being done by the Logan City Council. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(10.58) —On 19 October in this place I commented on the overly legalistic approach to tax matters by the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, and his officers, a point that was reiterated strongly in this place earlier today by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson). While press reports in recent days indicate that Mr Boucher may be taking the continual criticism to heart and is to talk to the professional bodies concerned in the near future, I still receive many inquiries and criticisms from individuals about the activities of the Australian Taxation Office. Recently I received a letter from the Contractors Association in New South Wales which highlighted and exemplified the anger and frustration being generated by Australian Taxation Office perceptions and attitudes. With the indulgence of the House I will read from that letter. It said: Our members and others are being terrorised by huge tax reassessments being issued by the ATO for periods of up to eight years. These figures, including 40 per cent penalties, 20 per cent interest and provisional tax demands, have reached as high as $186,000, quite enough to make the unfortunate recipient totally destitute. The ATO received the green light for their current actions with their success in the Tublikov case in 1984. IT 21.21 tax ruling widened the judgment considerably and the ruling itself is being widely interpreted by taxation officers to reassess small business men operating in the manner described above. What makes that action so terrifying for all Australians, not only the immediate victim, is that the assessments are retrospective, effectively making a crime something that was legal when performed. In the short time available to me this evening it is not possible to explore these understandably emotive issues in more detail. However, it is clear that the Australian Taxation Office needs to modify its present generally overbearing, moralistic approach to tax assessment and revenue collection before the position degenerates further under the Big Brother syndrome. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrade of Navy living-in accommodation at HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point, Victoria. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Expansion of international terminal complex, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 November 1988: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1988-No. 4-List of names and addresses of businesses to Industries Assistance Commission. Fisheries Act- Copy of agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Midwater Technological Resources Pty Ltd, dated 27 October 1988. Notices-Nos. ECC1, 117D, 216.