Tuesday, 29 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on Sunday, 27 November, of Mr Edmund Maxwell Cameron Fox, CBE, a member of this House for the division of Henty from 1955 to 1974, and a member who was well respected in his electorate and very well liked. As a mark of respect to the memory of Max Fox, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the house that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Italy led by Senator Carmelo Santalco. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I ask him: If the recent surge in imports reflects a rise in imports of capital equipment, why have the expectations for investment in plant and equipment for 1988-89 been revised downwards substantially in the September quarter? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, we are seeing an enormous structural transition occurring in the economy, with very strong investment reflecting itself in a very sharp rise over the year in imports. In today's national accounts we have got investment in 1987-88 revised up to a real 13.7 per cent for the year, but still confirmation by the Statistician that the 12 per cent forecast in the Budget will be met; that is, the maintenance of 12 per cent investment off an even larger base than we had expected or understood at Budget time. I might say that both the Prime Minister and I were saying last year that we thought investment would be larger, when the figures were taken with some hindsight, than that which was around in terms of the expectations data. I am happy to say that the numbers do confirm what we were then suggesting-that is, the 13.7 per cent. So what we are saying is that for the first time really in the postwar years we are not seeing a lift in Australia's commodity prices and its terms of trade squandered by a binge in consumption. We are seeing the fruits of higher commodity prices and better terms of trade invested in our long term future, invested in a change in the productive structure of the Australian economy-unlike the coalition Government that presided over a substantial lift in the terms of trade, coming from a lift in oil prices and coal prices, that was also absolutely squandered in a consumption boom, which then led to a wage blow-out, which then wrecked the economy and gave us the first negative growth in 30 years, in 1982-83. What we are seeing here is the Australian economy growing solidly-but with the mix of demand heavily concentrated in investment-moderate private consumption, and the expectation that that investment phase will continue along with the strengths in corporate profitability, and that the arms of policy are there, set to maintain that change; that is, fiscal policy as tight as it has been in 35 years, wages policy holding firm, as again confirmed in today's national accounts, and monetary policy playing its proper role in moderating demand. All that means is that Australia is seeing annual growth figures in investment the likes of which it has not seen in the postwar years. That will transform the Australian economy to something like the kind of modern, sophisticated place it should always have been instead of the backwater it became under the Liberal Party and the agrarian rump now called the National Party. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Given the repeated attempts by the Opposition to place a sinister interpretation on the Prime Minister's relationship with Mr Kornhauser, is the Prime Minister now in a position to respond to suggestions made in the House yesterday that he sought to influence the Gold Coast City Council in relation to the business affairs of Mr Kornhauser? Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of parliamentary privilege. The honourable gentleman in his question has implied improper motives in the presentation of questions by the Opposition on matters regarding the involvement of the Prime Minister and Mr Eddie Kornhauser. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that any suggestion that any question in this place is improper is something that is quite outside our Standing Orders and the honourable gentleman deserves to be sat down and he should be required at least to withdraw the implications. They are that questions put by us to the Prime Minister yesterday were improperly based, and I take strong exception to that and suggest to you that it is a breach of parliamentary privilege. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair finds the honourable member for McMillan in order. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am not raising a point of order, I am raising a matter of parliamentary privilege. It is not a point of order in the normal sense. I am required under our Standing Orders to raise parliamentary privilege immediately on its occurring. It has occurred in a question directed by the Whip of the Labor Party. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is therefore not a matter of your declaring it out of order; it is a matter of your taking it up as a matter of a breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, it is clearly not a question of a breach of parliamentary privilege. The only point that could legitimately be raised on this would be a question of a point of order. When it comes to raising imputations or whatever in questions asked in this place, we hold no candle to anyone on the other side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will hear the honourable member for McMillan. Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, the Leader of the National Party has implied that I have raised a matter of privilege. My question to the Prime Minister is seeking information for this House. We have had repeated points of order in this House denying this opportunity. I am asking the Prime Minister a question for information and the question is totally in order, as you have ruled, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has ruled the question in order. The Prime Minister may answer it. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Melbourne press today has already informed us of the Prime Minister's intention to disregard-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not raising a point of order. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I am taking a point of order. That was an opening remark. I draw your attention to the convention of this House that matters of this nature should be dealt with by statement as it is clearly a matter for a quite lengthy response. I draw your attention to the drop in statements in the Parliament since you have been the Speaker. I ask you to ask the Prime Minister not to waste the time of the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. The Chair has ruled the question in order. The Prime Minister will answer it. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I said in the House yesterday that it would be inappropriate-- Mr Sinclair —Sub judice. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I regard this as a matter of fundamental importance and I believe-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not interject again. I call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the floor and the Chair will hear him. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Yesterday a question of sub judice was raised. As the Prime Minister canvassed it with you yesterday, and as this question relates directly to that matter of sub judice, are you ruling that the sub judice rule does not apply? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Leader of the National Party that at no time yesterday in Question Time was the matter of sub judice raised. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. In answering questions yesterday the Prime Minister pointed to the fact that he had been advised not to say anything further on the question. At no time ever-and Hansard will prove that I am right-did he mention sub judice. I call the Prime Minister. Mr Cadman —A different opinion today. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell will be quiet. Mr HAWKE —I preface my response by indicating that I had assumed that the Opposition regarded this as a matter of fundamental importance and seriousness. I certainly regard it as such. I would have thought it was appropriate that what I had to say on this issue be heard in silence. I said in the House yesterday that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on particular matters raised in questions by the honourable member for O'Connor and other Opposition members. Furthermore, I said that this position was based on legal advice to me since the questions raised concern an issue now the subject of litigation instigated by me earlier yesterday. At the same time, I am not prepared to allow the-- Mr Sinclair —Sub judice. That is exactly what you said. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will heed the Chair and not interject again. Honourable members have a right to be heard in silence. The Standing Orders give them that right. I suggest to those on my left that they give the Prime Minister the floor. Mr HAWKE —At the same time, I am not prepared to allow the intolerable situation to continue where I am unable to respond in any way to the Opposition's efforts to suggest, by smear and innuendo, that there has been some wrongdoing on my part. While a detailed consideration of events will have to await legal proceedings in response to allegations which, as I have stated publicly and continue to state firmly, are defamatory and untrue, I am able, on advice, to make comments of a more general nature in rebuttal of what the Opposition has suggested. At the time that Mrs Diamond referred to in her letter or statement, I was in Surfers Paradise primarily for the purpose of delivering a speech, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to a coal industry conference on the following day. I was present at Mr Kornhauser's apartment when I accepted his invitation to join him at lunch with a number of people, some of whom I recall were associated with the Gold Coast City Council. I am surprised that anyone who was present some 8 1/2 years ago could recall accurately or at least at all the precise words that were spoken on that occasion. Indeed, I note remarks attributed to Mr O'Connell in today's Courier-Mail that he cannot recall discussing official council business with me at the luncheon and remarks attributed to Mr Laws that, as far as he can recall, no council business was discussed. On Mrs Diamond's own account, as reported in today's Gold Coast Bulletin, those two individuals were present. During that lunch it is possible that I may have expressed opinions favourable of Mr Kornhauser. However, I am certain that I did not then or on any other occasion seek an advantage for Mr Kornhauser's development proposal or seek any improper consideration of that proposal, including any suggestion that my friendship for Mr Kornhauser should in any way influence the council in any decision it might make in respect of that proposal. I might say also that there was a considerable amount of anti-Kornhauser sentiment in Surfers Paradise, some of it expressed in the most unacceptable anti-Semitic form. Whenever Mr Kornhauser was the subject of discussion, I therefore had a natural inclination, as a friend and as a person concerned with the concept of a fair go, to speak positively of the man on the basis of my knowledge of him. To the extent that I have made favourable comments about Mr Kornhauser in the past, this was based upon my personal knowledge of him at the time. Should any investigation reveal that he has in any way acted improperly, I am already on the public record as saying that the cards should fall where they may, and I, of course, stand completely by that. I am absolutely confident that any connection I have had with Mr Kornhauser over the years has been entirely proper, and I state categorically that the attempted smear by the Opposition is a political stunt without foundation in fact. Mr White —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the Prime Minister's answer to that question, he said in effect that there was a lot of anti-Semitic criticism-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member must show the Chair a point of order, not a point of debate. Mr White —My point of order is that it is a reflection on the Gold Coast community. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. He should resume his seat at once. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the evidence of Mrs Betty Diamond, which supports in substance, if not in detail, the claims of Sir Jack Egerton that the Prime Minister acted to influence planning decisions of the Gold Coast City Council to the benefit of Mr Eddie Kornhauser, will the Prime Minister now withdraw his writs against Sir John and the Courier-Mail, or does he intend that they stay in place as stop writs to inhibit free speech? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member should not cast aspersions on the motives of the Prime Minister. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —There is at least one problem with the question of the honourable member for O'Connor. He asked that I withdraw a writ against Sir John Egerton. As I have issued no writ against Sir John Egerton, it is impossible to withdraw same. Mr Tuckey —You said that you did yesterday. Mr HAWKE —No, I did not. The honourable member is wrong again. In so far as the writ against the Courier-Mail is concerned, not only will I not be withdrawing it; it will be proceeded with assiduously, as will other writs. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support. I understand that last week he released the report on the Singa Sea disaster which occurred in July. Does the report disclose any matters of serious concern in the response of the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre? Is any follow-up action proposed? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I think honourable members are aware that it now transpires that on 4 July the Singa Sea, a Filipino flag vessel which departed from Bunbury in Western Australia en route to north-western Europe containing a shipment of copper ore and mineral sands, apparently split in two and sank in the Indian Ocean. Some days after that six survivors were found in a lifeboat in the Indian Ocean. Concern was expressed at that time about the circumstances in which that may have occurred. What happened was that the ship sailed from Bunbury on 2 July and the last report received from it was on 3 July. It was on the following day, apparently in heavy seas, that the Singa Sea split in two and sank with the loss, finally, of 19 lives. Let me say, as I have previously, that it is important to express credit to Mr Martus, who was the second officer on that lifeboat and who was able to maintain sufficient discipline among the six survivors to ensure that the flares which were available to them were not wasted in any situation of panic. In fact, that lifeboat drifted in the Indian Ocean for 29 days before the six were sighted by a Greek vessel and brought back to Fremantle and hospitalised before being sent back to Manila. Some points of concern were raised by the honourable member for Grey. I understand the reason that he raises this question, because he has a real and personal concern about the maritime industry and people engaged in stevedoring and maritime activities. I appreciate the circumstances and the concern that would have prompted the honourable member to raise this question. There were a number of circumstances which in a number of ways were extenuating in regard to the response of the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre. It is important to realise that in the first place the Singa Sea did not notify its departure from Geraldton after it arrived at Geraldton to start picking up its cargo for north-western Europe, nor did it indicate when it arrived in Bunbury. So there was some inconsistency in the way in which the Singa Sea radio operator was responding to the expectations under the Australian ship reporting system of the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre in Canberra. Also, on 3 July-the day before the vessel sank-there was a significant departure of the Singa Sea from the route that it was following. In fact, that departure, which was in response to advice that it had received that gales were expected, would have placed the vessel about 40 to 50 nautical miles off the route that it was following. That would have seriously prejudiced the opportunity for any search to have been undertaken satisfactorily. It would have placed it at the perimeter of the area in which its position would have been located. As a result of the inquiries that were undertaken by the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre in Canberra, the ship's agent in Fremantle had suggested the possibility of some inadequacy in the radio operator's ability. Apparently the person who was responsible for that suffered from some inexperience, and there was the possibility of some serious disability and deficiency as far as that was concerned. The Singa Sea ship management in Singapore also said that the ship could have had some transmitter problem. When no report was received from it on 4 July, no immediate search was undertaken then because of those types of extenuating circumstances. I accept that Mr Bob McCullough, the Director of the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre, would have been expected to use his experience and professional judgment to determine whether a search should have been undertaken. There was also no EPIRB-that is, an emergency position indicating radio beacon-in the lifeboat itself. Had there been one it is very likely that we would have been able to identify its position much earlier. Also the ship that went down was a 26,500-tonne bulk carrier, and it is not usual to lose vessels of that kind. So there were a number of circumstances that resulted in the fact that it was not until 27 July, when the vessel should have arrived in Cape Town, that any significant search was instituted. At that time it finally became clear that the vessel had been lost and when the six survivors were picked up from the lifeboat, they were able to explain the situation. I have asked the Director of the Department of Transport and Communications to undertake an inquiry within the Department to ensure that the procedures which are adopted by the Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre in future are appropriate to circumstances of this type. Mr WHITE —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister attend a meeting in the Brisbane Gazebo Motel in early November 1981 attended by Mr Eddie Kornhauser, Mr Russ Hinze, the then State Opposition Leader Mr Ed Casey, and the present Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Clyde Holding? If so, did the meeting discuss issues concerning charges against Mr Kornhauser, whose company was then considered to be a front-runner for the Queensland casino licence? Mr HAWKE —I have no recollection of a meeting at which those people were present. Mr Sinclair — Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —I have absolutely no recollection. I will check any diary record I may have available. If I find anything from such record to suggest that my recollection is incorrect, I will immediately inform the honourable member. Mr Tim Fischer —And the House? Mr HAWKE —Yes-if honourable members opposite will listen. Mr BALDWIN —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Given the recent concern within the community about retirement incomes, will the Minister tell the House about the Government's approach to retirement incomes policy? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Sydney for his question. He and a number of other members in the House have a substantial proportion of aged people within their electorates. As such, they have a very real interest in the approach to retirement income policy. It has been clear to the Government since the beginning of the social security review that this was an area of policy that we would need to look at in some detail. Work commenced early, at the commencement of the Cass review in 1986, on the area of demographic change and the shift in the population that was occurring in Australia and that would continue into the early years of the next century, and the development of a range of options for the Government to consider. The results of that review have been very recently published. It is the intention of the Government to ensure that that report is read extraordinarily widely within the Australian community and that consultations occur primarily in the first instance through the Prime Minister's task force in local communities across Australia. I am pleased to say that the first of those consultations took place this week in Queanbeyan and they were quite successful. But consultations will be undertaken at a grassroots level right across Australia. We will need to ensure that consultations occur throughout the welfare sector. I understand that the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Pensioners Federation will be involved in those consultations. The Government will also be consulting with relevant sections of the industry. It is important to recognise that we face certain clear issues. The number of people over 65 in the population is expected to increase from 10.7 per cent in 1987, to 11.7 per cent in 2000 and to 12.6 per cent by 2010. The normal retirement age for men has crept down over the past two decades. In 1986 about 80 per cent of men aged 60 to 64 were still in the work force. By 1987 this had dropped to just under 45 per cent, and that is a massive change. So there are issues of very great substance to be addressed in relation to retirement income policy, particularly in respect of the ageing of the population and the tendency for people to move out of the work force in their fifties and sixties. In terms of the Government's approach, we are not interested in quick fix solutions. We are not interested in an approach which is simply concerned about any immediate electoral impact. We are concerned about achieving a comprehensive approach. We are concerned to ensure that for the vast majority of age pensioners, three-quarters of whom have incomes of less than $40 a week over and above the pension, the issue of adequacy is addressed as part of the review, at least in the longer term. We are concerned to ensure that over time we have not only a policy which is adequate and which addresses issues of equity, but also a policy which, most of all, is sustainable. I conclude on this point: what has characterised this Government and not the Opposition, either in government or in opposition, is its capacity to deal with issues in the longer term, to deal with serious policy questions that involve putting settings in place. Mr Connolly —We have a policy and you haven't; that is the difference. Mr HOWE —Let me reply to the honourable member for Bradfield. He has put out a policy which is purportedly about retirement income but which does not deal with, and does not contain a sentence relevant to, the 75 per cent of age pensioners with incomes of less than $40 a week. Some retirement policy! Some concern and compassion! The honourable member and his Party are once again playing to their audience, to their constituency, to those elements within the aged population and those approaching age who have private and substantial resources. The honourable member said the other day, `We could not address that issue--' Mr Goodluck —On a point of order: I take offence at that remark. My mother-in-law is 92. I care for her and she is not in that category. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will sit down. He does not have a point and he will not do that again. Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Bradfield said to me the other day, `We cannot address the issue facing 75 per cent of people on the basic pension because that is a matter for government'. I will tell the House what is the position of governments: they have to govern for all Australians, for all aged people, and not develop a policy for a privileged minority. Mr Blunt proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I hardly think that falls within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibility. The question is out of order. Mr Blunt continuing to address a question to the Prime Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is also not within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibility. Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed: That so much of Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the following motion of censure: This House censures the Prime Minister for misleading Parliament and the Australian people in his answers at Question Time yesterday. Mr Beazley-The Government will accept the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.33) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for misleading Parliament and the Australian people in his answers at Question time yesterday. This censure motion is not related to questions of friendship between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and people in the Australian business community. This motion is not related to questions of the attitude of people on the Gold Coast towards developers or the attitude of people on the Gold Coast towards people of Jewish background. This has something to do with only one thing, and that is whether this Parliament can believe the word of the Prime Minister. That is what the motion is all about. It is perfectly obvious that we have seen in Parliament today, culminating in the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer the question of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the putting into effect of what can be called plan B of the Hawke response to the allegations that first appeared in the Sunday Mail only three days ago. Honourable members will remember, and all journalists in the Parliament will remember, that the claim made was that, according to Sir John Egerton, a former member of the Gold Coast City Council, the Prime Minister had telephoned the mayor and had telephoned other members of the Gold Coast City Council making representations on behalf of a Gold Coast developer in relation to a development proposal. I put aside, for the purposes of this debate, the question of whether there was anything improper in the Prime Minister making those representations at that time. I say neither that it was proper nor that it was improper. I put that aside. I am not saying that it was entirely appropriate and I am not saying that it was not. What I do not put aside is the way in which the Prime Minister behaved. What was perfectly obvious from the moment that that allegation was made was that the Prime Minister, who on many occasions when he is under attack is nothing better than a writ happy bully, set out to intimidate and bully his accusers into silence through threatening to use legal proceedings. The Prime Minister may scoff and those on his front bench may scoff about this, but let us see what he said in Melbourne on 27 November 1988 in answer to a question. I will read the answer from the official transcript issued by the Prime Minister's office: Let me make this statement clearly and I hope you understand it and all its import. The statements attributed to Mr Egerton and reported in some media last night and today are defamatory and untrue. I have instructed my solicitors to issue proceedings against Mr Egerton and any media which repeats these defamatory statements. Here is the threat: So I hope you understand clearly the import of what I'm saying because it has an import for Mr Egerton, the media which has reported his defamatory statements and anyone who does it in the future. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Parliament that if the Prime Minister's response was as he gave it to us today, why on earth did he not say last Sunday what he said in the Parliament in answer to a question from his Whip? Why on earth did he not say, `Of course I was in Surfers Paradise; so what? Of course I know Mr Kornhauser'? I am not asking him to deny that he knows Mr Kornhauser. I am asking him to tell the Parliament the truth. I am asking the Prime Minister, when he is confronted with a question, to give it an answer and to give it a truthful answer. But no, there was something embarrassing about this claim. There was something about this claim that made the Prime Minister feel a little uneasy and a little uncomfortable. So what did he decide to do? He did not say, `Oh yes, I often saw Eddie Kornhauser on the Gold Coast, we often had people in for drinks, we often talked about world affairs and the weather and I suppose the question of Eddie's development application may have come up but if it did, so what? I did not say anything improper; I did not do anything wrong'. Why on earth did the Prime Minister not say that? Why did he retreat into the coward's castle of threatening to issue writs? Why did he start behaving then and in the Parliament yesterday more like a Gold Coast bouncer than the Prime Minister of this country? Why did he not come clean on that particular occasion? If anybody imagines that that was the beginning and the end of it, we come to Question Time yesterday. We came first of all to the question from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). When the honourable member for O'Connor asked the Prime Minister, `Will you deny to the Parliament that you made any kind of representations to the Gold Coast City Council in relation to Mr Kornhauser's application?', what did the Prime Minister do? He continued with the bullying tactic. He assumed that the honourable member for O'Connor was referring not, as was subsequently disclosed, to Mrs Diamond's statement, but to the claim made by Jack Egerton. He immediately launched into the same tirade. He used the same legal cloak. He said that proceedings had been issued. He stopped short of using the words `sub judice' but he implied that the issue was sub judice. He allowed the Parliament to draw that inference and now, in Jesuitical fashion, he turns around today and says, `I was not talking about sub judice. Oh, no; you have all got me wrong'. The reality is that he conveyed to this Parliament yesterday the impression that he could not answer any questions and, what is worse, he could not be required to answer any question because he had taken proceedings. That is the impression that he sought to create yesterday. He said: I repeat: the observation and answer that I gave previously to the honourable member for O'Connor . . . What I am saying is that the issue which has now been raised by Mr Egerton and reported in the media has been repudiated by me and is not a subject of legal proceedings. So, the whole tenor of the Prime Minister's response yesterday was, firstly, that it was wrong of him to give any answer at all to the question and, more importantly, it was even wrong of anybody on the Opposition side to ask a question. But then we came to the really critical question that was asked yesterday of the Prime Minister, and that was the question asked by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). This is what the honourable member for McPherson said: 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. So, what the honourable member for McPherson was clearly doing was saying, `Prime Minister, this has nothing to do with the matter that you were questioned on by the honourable member for O'Connor. Therefore, it has nothing whatever to do with the matter in relation to which you have taken legal proceedings and therefore you ought to give it an answer'. Then he went on, and I will read the question because it goes to the very heart of the Opposition's charge that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled this Parliament. That is the charge against the Prime Minister. We say that, in his answer to the honourable member for McPherson, he told an untruth and he misled the Parliament. I will tell honourable members where he told the untruth and where he misled the Parliament. The honourable member for McPherson had this to say: 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'? That was the question asked by the honourable member for McPherson, and one does not need to be a genius to work out that that question was based on the signed statement of Mrs Betty Diamond, who was present at the luncheon that the Prime Minister attended. Here is the crucial answer from the Prime Minister. He gets up and says: I do not accept the statement that has been made. I do not accept the statement put by the honourable member for McPherson. No doubt, the Prime Minister will say that that does not mean that he was denying it. He will try to tell the Parliament that, when one says that one does not accept something, one is not denying it; rather, one is in some state of neutral suspension between saying yes and saying no. What in reality the Prime Minister did by giving that answer was to deliberately convey to the Parliament the impression that he was denying the substance of the question asked by the honourable member for McPherson. That is the charge. That is the basis of our allegation that the Prime Minister has been less than truthful with this Parliament. If in fact the Prime Minister did not feel any sense of embarrassment, if in fact there was no problem, if in fact this whole incident did not make the Prime Minister uncomfortable, I would say to the Prime Minister and we would say to the House, `Why on earth did the Prime Minister not say, as he has said today, ``Yes, I was on the Gold Coast. I did attend that luncheon. Something may have come up. I can assure the Parliament that I did nothing wrong or nothing improper and I did not use my not inconsiderable position as President of the ACTU''?'. However, instead of doing that, what did the Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister sought to hide behind the coward's cloak of having taken legal proceedings. That is what the Prime Minister tried to do on that occasion. Then, having said, `I do not accept the statement put by the honourable member for McPherson', he went on to say: . . . the observation and answer that I gave previously to the honourable member for O'Connor . . . have no compliance and complete reliance . . . I do not have the faintest idea what that means. It was a bit of undisciplined Hawkespeak and gobbledegook in reply to a question. But I am bound by the Hansard record and I cannot extrapolate from it. It goes on: What I am saying is that the issue that is now being raised by Mr Egerton and reported in the media has been repudiated by me and is now a subject of legal proceedings. So the Prime Minister's every move on Sunday, his every move at Question Time, his every nuance, his every reaction, his every answer, and his every implication, was that the Opposition was wrong, that the matters raised by the honourable member for McPherson were untrue and that by no stretch of the imagination could anybody say that there was any possibility that he had in any way put in a good word for Mr Kornhauser, let alone made representations or sought to influence the Gold Coast City Council. That was the thrust of what he said. Then the Leader of the National Party asked him yet another question in which the Leader of the National Party again paraphrased the statement made by Mrs Diamond. Again the Prime Minister repeated his technique of saying, `I have taken proceedings. You know that is all wrong'. He drew on his earlier statement. We all came out of the Parliament yesterday with a very clear situation. The Prime Minister was threatening legal proceedings. Ultimately, of course, when the statement of Mrs Diamond was read into the Hansard and it became public no doubt the Prime Minister and his advisers decided to ditch plan A that was not working very well and they decided to adopt plan B which, of course, was to belatedly come clean and to come into the Parliament. So they leaked it to the Melbourne Herald. They told the Melbourne Herald. Under the heading of `Eddie and Me-PM explains', the world is told that he is going to come clean and he is going to explain it all. The Prime Minister then came into this Parliament and what did he do? He finally came clean with a dorothy dix question. The very statement that he had yesterday sought to denigrate, the very allegations yesterday that he said were defamatory and untrue except in relation to one particular, and one particular alone, the Prime Minister admits the whole thrust of everything that was said by Mrs Diamond. Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister says `Oh'. I will tell the Prime Minister, but for one particular, everything that is contained in this statement. I will read from the statement, which bears a remarkable similarity to the dorothy dix answer that the Prime Minister gave to the Government Whip. It states: On Wednesday, 16th April 1980, 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- and I quote- `look after Eddie'. I have not got a transcript of the Prime Minister's answer but my recollection and that, I am sure, of most members on this side of the House would be that, save and except the words `Mr Hawke listened to these discussions and made it clear that he would like to see the Council agree to the request', the Prime Minister, out of his own mouth, confirmed today what Mrs Diamond had said yesterday. That is the charge that we make against the Prime Minister. We are saying to the Prime Minister that he should have come clean yesterday. Instead of trying to survive on plan A, the Prime Minister sought to survive on bluster, bullying and intimidation in the normal writ happy fashion of this man who, throughout his political career, has used the threat and the actuality of legal proceedings to silence people who have criticised him. In reality, he could not survive on that. His mind has said, `Bob, you can't run that much longer because they might have some other information; they might have something else to say; there might be something else that is alleged. You had better come clean and acknowledge that the meeting took place'. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did today. Even in the most charitable mood, one cannot reconcile the apparently open and innocent remarks of the Prime Minister today about that gathering with his bullying denial of yesterday. There is no way one can reconcile the two. I put aside questions of the association between the Prime Minister and other people; that is not the issue here. The only issue before the Parliament today is whether the Prime Minister lied to the Parliament yesterday. The Prime Minister may get up and talk about his longstanding loyalty to friends-I do not denigrate people who are loyal to their friends-but that is not the issue. The issue before this House is whether the Prime Minister was being truthful yesterday. I put it to the House that when an honourable member asks the Prime Minister: `Did you go to a lunch on a particular day? Were certain people present? Were certain matters discussed?', and the Prime Minister says, `I do not accept that statement', that is the Prime Minister denying the truth of that statement; it cannot mean anything else. It will stretch the meaning of the English language to demented lengths for the Prime Minister, even with his mastery of verbal tautology and Hawkespeak, to get up here and say, `When I say ``I do not accept this statement'', I am not really denying the statement; I am not accepting it, but I am not denying it; I am doing something in between.' The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot yesterday say `I am not accepting the statement' and today come in and accept 95 per cent of that statement and not stand accused of having lied to this Parliament. That is the charge that we make against the Prime Minister. We put aside questions of influence and of his association with people. We ask the very simple question: Was the Prime Minister telling the truth yesterday when he made the answer that he did to the honourable member for McPherson, when out of his own mouth today we have the proof that he misled the Parliament, that he lied to the Parliament, and that he ought to be censured by the Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not accuse the Prime Minister of lying to the Parliament. He may not accuse any member of this House of lying to the Parliament. Mr Sinclair —I second the motion, Madam Speaker, and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.53) —Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just concluded his speech by referring to `demented lengths'. It is an entirely appropriate description of the exercise we have just heard from him. Let me briefly, calmly and, I hope, quietly, respond to and destroy the propositions that have been put by the Leader of the Opposition. His case, of course, falls apart completely because the foundation building block is inaccurate. The foundation building block of his argument is that I instructed the issuing of a writ as a bullying tactic and as an attempt to shut something up. Let me destroy the building block at the outset. Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, of what the defamation is to which we are referring and in regard to which the writ has been issued. I, with no pleasure, indicate as clearly as I can the nature of that defamation in Sunday's Courier-Mail. The heading is `Hawke named', and then `Association with the Fitzgerald land probe. Phone call claim in Fitzgerald land probe'-with the photograph of Commissioner Fitzgerald and the reference to Fitzgerald. All I have done, according to the Leader of the Opposition, in these circumstances, is to get into a bully tactic. Let me say to you, Madam Speaker-and I do not think I break any professional confidence in saying it-that I have been informed by my solicitor, on the basis of the discussion with the Queen's Counsel whom he has briefed to handle this matter, that the opinion of the Queen's Counsel is that this is one of the worst defamation cases that he has ever seen. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The giggleometer starts, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. I expect the Prime Minister to be heard in silence. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, as soon as we go to the facts and destroy them-- Mr Halverson —Two swimming pools. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Casey will heed the Chair. Mr HAWKE —As soon as we go to the facts and destroy them, all that can happen is that this Leader of the Opposition presses the button and the giggles come out. The foundational block of his case was that the issuance of a writ by me on my instructions is a bullying tactic with no substance-an attempt to shut people up. I am saying to you, Madam Speaker, to this House, and to the people of Australia through this House, that the foundational block of his case is destroyed. I do not think one needs to be a lawyer-even a Sydney suburban solicitor may understand-to understand the enormity of the defamation. The heading in the article is `Hawke named', with a photo of Mr Fitzgerald of the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and `Phone call claim in Fitz land probe'. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in the Fitzgerald inquiry Hawke has been named. I am supposed to laugh and say, `Very funny. Next question'. I have been in public life for some 30 years. I have never done anything dishonest at any time, at any moment, in 30 years of public life. I treasure my reputation and if I have perpetrated against me what in the opinion of a leading silk is one one of the worst defamations he has ever seen, the issuance of a writ by me is not to make quiet some pathetic little pup in the Opposition; it is to protect my reputation. Therefore the case presented by the Leader of the Opposition immediately falls to the ground. I remind honourable members that his foundation block was that I issued this as some sort of blocking writ. That is what the Leader of the Opposition referred to as survival plan A. What followed in this House followed from the factual position in regard to what I did after the publication of this matter and not from some fervid concept in the imagination of this poor passing Leader of the Opposition. As soon as I was made aware of this monstrous defamation, I immediately contacted my solicitor and had discussions with him. Instructions were given-indeed, they were carried out yesterday morning-for the issuance of the writ. In the discussions with the solicitor in regard to this matter, it was put to me that I should say no more than what I said because I was going to be in legal proceedings on this matter. So there was not any survival plan A, plan B, plan X, Y or Z. There was a fact: a monstrous defamation and a response to that by me and, in response to the discussions with my solicitor and his advice, the answer that I gave in this House. We will go to the second point. The Leader of the Opposition then said that I misled this House because I said what? Because I said, `I do not accept the statement that has been made by Mrs Diamond'. I am not Robinson Crusoe in saying that. What we now have is the statement in the newspaper in Queensland from two other people who were there and who do not accept what Mrs Diamond has said. It is not Hawke simply saying that in terms of the advice given to me by my solicitor as to how I should handle myself in the face of this monstrous defamation; there are two other people in Queensland not accepting-and reporting themselves in today's Press as not accepting-what was said. But somehow in this poor, pathetic, fevered imagination, here is some survival plan. It is said that I have been found out and so I shift to plan B. There is nothing of the sort. Step one: monstrous defamation. Step two: meeting with my solicitor, issuing of a writ, instructions from the solicitor to me-- Mr Howard —Issuing a writ. You said you hadn't issued a writ. Mr HAWKE —I have not issued a writ against Egerton; I have issued a writ against the Courier-Mail and they do not want to believe the fourth paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald where they cannot get it right. What I am saying is that those were the steps. There was no survival plan and a monstrously unacceptable defamation in regard to which I took action. Those are the facts. There was no plan A for survival, simply a dedication and a determination on my part that if I am monstrously defamed, whether I am Prime Minister or not-and I have done it before I was Prime Minister-then I will use the processes of the law to deal with that defamation. I wonder, following from what the Leader of the Opposition has said, if the headline had been `Howard named', with a photo of Fitzgerald and reference to being named in the Fitzgerald inquiry what John Howard would have done. Would he have said, `Ho, ho, ho'? Mr Dawkins —He had no reputation to protect. Mr HAWKE —Someone has been kind enough to say that he had no reputation to protect. Of course, I did not say that. If the word `Howard' were substituted for `Hawke' and the headline read `Howard named', with a photo of the Fitzgerald Commission and the words `Phone call claiming Fitzgerald land claim', I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he would have just said, `Ho, ho, ho'? Of course he would not have done that. If the Leader of the Opposition believed that he had a reputation and it was worth protecting-- Mr Howard —Why don't you get to the point? Mr HAWKE —We are hurting the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, he has to talk and interject more. He will not be quiet because he is hurt. He writhes when he is hurt. I am simply saying that if the story had been the same but with `Howard' there instead of `Hawke', if the Leader of the Opposition believed that he had a reputation to protect, he would have taken exactly the same course of action as I did, particularly in circumstances in which he was instructed that it was a monstrous defamation. So the whole foundation of the case falls apart. In saying what I did yesterday I was accurate. There was no misleading of the House. It was a statement which is supported in today's press by two other people who were there. Be that as it may, it was a statement properly and accurately made in terms of the answer I have given today. The honourable members says that I admit the whole thrust of what Mrs Diamond has said. That is so manifestly and patently nonsense on its face in terms of the answer that I gave that I will spend not another word in dealing with that stupidity. What the Leader of the Opposition has said is that in the answer I gave today I supported 95 per cent of the thrust of what Mrs Diamond said. That is manifestly untrue. If I were to get up and say that, the sequence I have put could not be sustained in any sense. The sequence is quite clear: the defamation and the response that I gave to it, having spoken again to my solicitor after yesterday, and saying, `I'm not satisfied that I am bound in a situation on that advice that I say no more. I'm not going to allow that position, if I can possibly avoid it, to go ahead, and I am advised that I can go ahead and make the statement that I have made today'. That is the sequence of events. Those are the facts. There is nothing whatsoever in anything that has been said by those opposite which would sustain any suggestion of impropriety on my part and nothing that would begin to sustain the unbelievable suggestion that this matter should be referred to the National Crime Authority. If there is a choice of the high road or the low road, those opposite will never take the high road and they will never take the low road if the gutter is available, because that is their natural habitat. The Leader of the Opposition talked about survival plan A and survival plan B. I just say this in conclusion: it does not matter how many survival plans the Leader of the Opposition may have because none of them will be adequate to withstand the gathering attacks within his own Party upon his incompetent and unprincipled leadership. No survival plan will withstand that or the growing mainstream of opinion in the Liberal Party which is clearly stated day after day. The latest statement has come from John Hyde that the Opposition is not fit to govern. Why is it not fit to govern? It is not fit to govern firstly, but not exclusively, because the Liberal Party has not a leader that is worthy of the name. The Leader of the Opposition can have 25, 35 or 45 survival plans but he will not survive. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.06) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just compounded the matter on which we seek to censure him. It is important that people out there understand the basis of what we seek to do. Yesterday in this place the Prime Minister answered a series of questions, not about his friendship with an Australian businessman, but about the degree to which he sought to influence matters on that man's behalf and subsequently proceedings that he has initiated upon them. The Prime Minister is now leaving the House, but I have a few matters in which he will be very interested. The basis of his defence-and people need to understand it-was that he first wanted to deal with the matter of defamation. He produced a newspaper and the House will remember it. As the Prime Minister is leaving the chamber, he is obviously not interested in hearing this. I can understand why because he has just misled the House again. He has just deliberately told the House, quite contrary to yesterday, quite contrary to his press releases, that he has heard statements only in respect of one matter that are defamatory. The House will remember that yesterday he said that what Jack Egerton said was untrue and defamatory. Today, he has told us that it was not what Jack Egerton said that was untrue and defamatory; it was a headline in a newspaper. The whole basis of his case was that what Jack Egerton said was untrue and defamatory. What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said was that Mrs Diamond's statement was confirmed by the Prime Minister today, and yesterday he denied the accuracy of Mrs Diamond's statement. Quite the reverse, today in his defence the Prime Minister said that what Mrs Diamond said was true, by inference he said that what Jack Egerton said was true, and what he said is not that what Jack Egerton said was defamatory-in fact, he has denied having issued a writ against Jack Egerton. The Prime Minister said that he had issued a writ against the Queensland Sunday Mail. Let us remember that the headline is the only matter that he has identified as defamatory in association with the picture. The headline in the Queensland Sunday Mail was `Hawke named. Phone call claim in Fitzgerald land probe', and then there was a photo of Fitzgerald. That was the substance of the defamatory action the Prime Minister has initiated. The importance of this is that the Prime Minister has not said that the comments by Sir John Egerton are defamatory and untrue. I shall return to that in a moment. The Prime Minister has not said that what Mrs Betty Diamond said was untrue and defamatory. He has said only, and he has issued writs only, on the matter of a defamation action with respect to a newspaper headline and a photograph. In other words, the whole of the statement yesterday and half his statement in Question Time today were deliberately untrue, and he was deliberately seeking to mislead the Parliament. Mr Tuckey —He has misled the Parliament both today and yesterday. Mr SINCLAIR —Yes, he has misled the Parliament today and yesterday. When dealing with whether the Prime Minister has issued writs, the House will remember what he said to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He said, `I have not issued writs against Sir John Egerton'. What did the Prime Minister say in a press conference reported in the Sun on 28 November 1988? He said, `I have instructed my solicitors to issue proceedings against Sir Jack Egerton and any media which repeats the claims'. I repeat: `I have instructed my solicitors to issue proceedings against Sir Jack Egerton'. The point of it all is that, as he has admitted in his answer on this motion-- Mr Beazley —There is a difference between the two. Mr SINCLAIR —True. I am glad the Minister for Defence is listening. What the Prime Minister has just done, in Question Time today, is compound his felony because he has deliberately misled the Parliament in saying that Sir John Egerton's comments were untrue. In fact, they are not, and that is quite apparent because the Prime Minister has not issued a writ, as he said he was going to do. The point is that we know what was said yesterday; it is all in Hansard: I do not accept the statement put by the honourable member for McPherson. That was the Betty Diamond statement. We have just heard that it is true. He told the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White): 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 . . . have no compliance and complete reliance on the fact- I cannot understand what he means- 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 . . . That statement has been confirmed by the Prime Minister in his answer to a question from the Labor Whip, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), at Question Time today. What he said yesterday was untrue; what he said today with respect to the statements by Sir John Egerton are untrue. He continued yesterday: . . . the allegations that have been made are defamatory and dishonest. Today it is not the statements by Sir John Egerton that are defamatory and dishonest; it is the headline in the Queensland Sunday Mail. I repeat: the whole of the substance of the Prime Minister's defence today is not that the statement by Mrs Diamond is untrue; it is not that the statement by Sir John Egerton is untrue; it is that a headline and a photograph and the conjunction of the two are the basis on which Queen's Counsel advice has been given to him and upon which a writ has been issued. This is an extraordinarily serious matter, firstly because the Prime Minister, over the course of his time in that office-- Mr Duncan —Ha, ha! Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister might laugh. None of those on the other side believe in him. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is to follow me in this debate. To what extent can it be said that the Treasurer of Australia believes in the Prime Minister? I think the situation is laughable. The Treasurer is trying to pick up a few brownie points by defending his old mate. I will tell you what, to be frank: I would not want a mate like that. I think the first thing we need to do is to understand that the Prime Minister mislead the Parliament. Mr Holding —What about the chequebook? Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Minister will withdraw the remark. Mr Holding —I withdraw. Mr SINCLAIR —This whole proceeding is not new. We have talked about the first package of questions. A series of other questions was asked today. I found it particularly interesting that the Prime Minister says that he has no knowledge of those matters. But they are not just matters that have been forgotten. Honourable members will recall that yesterday the Opposition moved an amendment to the second reading motion of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1988. During that debate attention was drawn to matters that were brought to the public's attention in the 4-10 April edition of the National Times. Those matters go to the very core of our concern about not only whether the Prime Minister has been misleading the Parliament but whether there are more sinister reasons for his misleading the Parliament. Yesterday my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor read that article into Hansard. Another article was raised by way of a question which was laughed down and, of course, ruled out of order. It is interesting that this article comes from a publication called the Eye, a monthly journal of satire, comment and reportage edited by Brian Toohey. Mr Beazley —This is a great source of information! Mr SINCLAIR —I know that the honourable gentleman is laughing. He might recall that there have been several court proceedings involving Mr Toohey. That journal quotes the proceedings in respect of a book called the Oyster. The House is debating a censure motion on the Prime Minister. I am suggesting that other matters might well be involved. I am referring specifically to a question around which the misleading of Parliament, I suspect, has taken place. I refer specifically to a question asked by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I believe it is interesting that when we have a look at the article `At Home with the Toad', we find reference again to the matters in the National Times. Honourable members will remember that the National Times article really related to a telegram sent on 9 March to the Secretary of the Caucus, Mr Gibbs, who was Labor spokesman on justice and police. He said 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'. That was the acknowledgment that Mr Kornhauser had been a very significant financial backer of the Labor Party. The Prime Minister has said that he had provided assistance over time. So there is no question that Mr Kornhauser has a financial relationship with the Labor Party. It has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister, it has been published, and it has not been denied then or since. Then we find in the edition of The Eye published in March 1980: Eddie arranged some very generous (no-strings-attached, naturally) donations for Centre Unity- Centre Unity being a faction of the Labor Party- enough for it to afford to employ an organiser on $35,000 a year plus car and expenses to help Bob build the support needed to topple Bill. That article, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) suggests, might lack some credibility because of its source but the Minister has been associated with an action initiated by his Government through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) against the same individual. The point is that the credibility of that individual has been enhanced because the Government saw fit to think the revelations in the Oyster are significantly at the core of what the Government regards as our national security. If they were so wrong, why did the Government have to take action, and I suggest to him that the whole basis of the conclusion that one must draw is that Mr Toohey has his sources. Mr Howard —Why didn't he answer Mr Blunt's question? Mr SINCLAIR —The Prime Minister was not prepared to answer the question by the honourable member for Richmond. Of course he was prepared to answer the previous question but he refused to answer that question, and our concern is that the Prime Minister yesterday misled the House. Today I have just shown that he misled the House because he was referring only in his defence to the headline and not to the substance of the allegations about Sir John Egerton, although during his reply at Question Time yesterday he said that the answer was untrue and defamatory. Yet in his answer today, he did not say that; he said the headline was untrue and defamatory. There is a difference. We have then the whole of that sinister implication revealed in the National Times and in the article by Brian Toohey. Mr Gibbs's telegram is pertinent. His telegram refers to R. J. Hawke as a member of the front bench intervening on behalf of Mr Kornhauser. This whole luncheon that we are talking about and Mrs Betty Diamond is all about what the Prime Minister was doing. Albeit that in those days he was the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he was there on behalf of Mr Kornhauser. Honourable members remember Mrs Betty Diamond's assertions and we know she is a pretty brave lady. She is reported in this way: Diamond tells of lunch with union boss Hawke. PM joined Council planning committee and Kornhauser in his swimming togs. It is a pretty laidback approach and it sounds colourful. The significance of it is that the Prime Minister was using his position on behalf of his old mate. The Prime Minister's response indicates the extent to which he is prepared to use the stop writ to prevent any action outside this place. Honourable members heard him yesterday saying to the honourable member for O'Connor, `You repeat that outside the House', bullying the honourable member for O'Connor so that he would not repeat it outside the House. It is all so that the Prime Minister in this place does not have to respond because writs have been issued. When it comes to the crunch, writs have not been issued on the basis of the remarks by Mrs Diamond or on the basis of remarks by Sir John Egerton but on the basis of a headline and a photograph. We would do well to remember that it is only a few days since the Prime Minister gave his Sir Robert Garran Oration on 27 October last at the Royal Australian Institute of Public Affairs. In that speech he said: It has been my Government's desire, particularly through its budgetary reforms and the manner in which financial information is made available to the Parliament, to do all it can to make the processes of Government as transparent and amenable to public scrutiny as possible. . . . The true measure of ministerial accountability, here and in Britain, has never been the tally of ministerial resignations. In other words, Ministers of course continue to be answerable to the Parliament and to take any necessary action. He continued: Ministerial responsibility of course is but one strand in the web of accountability that pervades our whole administrative structure. The core of his remarks that day was that he did not have to resign if he misled the Parliament. We believe that he has misled the Parliament, that he misled the Parliament in Question Time yesterday and that he misled the Parliament again in Question Time today. Indeed, the very answer he gave to the censure motion moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition has set down the ground rules whereby the Prime Minister claims only one element of this whole parade as a matter of defamation, and that is the matter of the headline and the photograph. Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you as I would say to this fool over here on the front bench who has no brain and no future-I withdraw the remark about his brain. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLEAY) —Order! The Leader of the National Party should not cast aspersions upon another member. Mr SINCLAIR —I withdraw the remark. I believe it is important to understand that this censure is against the Prime Minister for using a process of this Parliament to mislead the Australian public. I ask why the censure motion relates only to the question of the Prime Minister misleading the Parliament. The Prime Minister has no excuse for misleading the Parliament and I believe that he should resign. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.20) —I move: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``This House censures the Opposition for making a mockery of the House by its persistent use of the forms of the House to smear and slander members of the House.'' What we have seen today is a parliamentary mistake on the part of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He came in here today fulminating and fuming about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for supposedly misleading the House and about whether he said he was suing Sir John Egerton or the Courier-Mail. That is the whole gravity of this motion. It is about some confusion on the Opposition's part concerning the Prime Minister's intention about whom he said he was suing. Mr Sinclair —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The words of the amendment seem to go very close to being a direct negative to the motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. There is some doubt about whether that amendment is in order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that before the Treasurer is allowed to proceed with his amendment you should examine it very closely. I believe it is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —In listening to the proposition put forward by the Treasurer it seems clear to me that it is an alternative proposition to that put forward by the Opposition and it is thus in order. Mr KEATING —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have the confusion in the mind of the Opposition about what the Prime Minister said. It thinks it deserves a censure so that other more indecent things can be said. The Leader of the Opposition has acted in indecent haste to get into the business of smearing members-in this case the Prime Minister. He has attempted to use the parliamentary forms, as he did yesterday, and as they were used, at his behest, by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). This is part of the Howard leadership, the Howard tactic of smearing members of Parliament under privilege. Then he had the gross, crass indecency to talk about the Prime Minister issuing writs in the courts. It is his right as it is of any other citizen to take action in the courts and to have it tested in the courts. The Leader of the Opposition is acting from coward's castle when he, as an express policy, has had members of his side of the Parliament, including himself, smear people under privilege. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition laughs. That poor pathetic character may laugh. I understand the moral basis of his politics. They were born in the Liberal Party headquarters in Ash Street, Sydney. All that he knows, believes, understands, practises and teaches is the politics of Ash Street-that is, the politics of the Askin Liberal Party of the 1960s and the 1970s; the tutorship of people such as Sir John Carrick, with the big red arrows from China; or the kind of responses we have to public issues from Senator Baume. They are the people in his company. If he tells me his company I will show him what he is. These are the standards he has always abided by. In 1985 the Leader of the Opposition led a campaign against the then Leader of the Liberal Party for the election of a leader who had a program, a platform and principles. Within weeks of that election it fell entirely to pieces. In the first parliamentary week of 1986 he had the honourable member for O'Connor smearing me. He has since smeared the former honourable member for Port Adelaide, who has now left this Parliament, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). We have had there permanent smears by this Opposition using the forms of the House and, indeed, acting in a cowardly fashion under the protection of privilege and not saying anything outside. Last week the honourable member for O'Connor even suggested that because I happened to make a point against the Opposition about removal of the capital gains tax I was speculating in property. But he never had the courage to say it outside. It is always the coward's attempt, as in 1985 when he was tested on Parliament and he had to lie to the television to abscond from his cowardice. These are the kinds of cowards we on this side of the House have had to deal with in Parliament. Why is that? It is because there is an attempt to divert attention from policies and substance to personalities and muck, because there is no policy. Today we have had published the national accounts for the quarter and progress in the economy for the year. One pro forma question came from the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock); nothing else. The Opposition was back to the sewer thereafter. It cannot even maintain a Question Time on the national accounts. It has no sense of policy. We heard that there were to be these policy releases all year. Here is a quote from the ABC radio program AM, from Mr Howard: `I have said all along that the timetable for policy releases by August is going to be adhered to'. He said this in February this year. August is months ago. The same came from the shadow Treasurer when he said, `I think if you contain your enthusiasm you will see the tax policy before the end of the year'. There is no policy, and now we are going to have some manifesto which will have in it intuition, feelings, values and all the rest, from a person who lacks any moral basis for his politics. Serious people in business who support the Liberal Party said to me, `I am so pleased to see John elected as Leader of the Liberal Party. At least there will be some sensible, proper and moral basis to our public life'. I, at the time, welcomed that change. I do not welcome it today, because we have the shabbiest person who has ever led an opposition in this country. He is prepared to denigrate his own country's economic policies by promising unfunded tax cuts in an election campaign-high cynicism for any price. He is prepared to foster racism in this country in relation to the migrant intake and so poison us in the neighbourhood of the world we live in-Asia. These are the prices he has been prepared to pay for an illegitimate attempt to maintain the leadership of the Liberal Party and to grasp the Prime Ministership. No more desperate, unprincipled individual has ever held the office of Leader of the Opposition than the honourable member for Bennelong. He thinks that smearing us is clever. Making quick remarks under privilege, muttering stuff under his breath at Ministers over here-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Howard interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr KEATING —I am waiting to see that embarrassed losing grin that I saw on the face of the Leader of the Opposition on election night in 1987. I am hoping to see it, either on election night when it next comes, or before, from a person who does not deserve the confidence of the Australian people, who should never have occupied the leadership of a major party in this country. Nevertheless, we have a motion of censure of the Prime Minister in relation to his integrity, from a person who has no policy and no policy framework, someone who as Treasurer ran the tax system of this country into disrepute. For three years, the unexplained three years, he turned his back on the advice of the Tax Office and its Commissioner to pursue criminal evasion of tax. For years he let the advice pass, until he was dragged there by the McCabe-Lafranchi report and by the Royal Commission, which his own Government established, into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and which brought him to account for his public policy failure. Do not tell us that it was not because of the whispers around the accountancy profession or business in this country saying, `Do not touch these things'. He understood. He was there to serve those interests. He never touched them until public accountability required him to introduce legislation to deal with them. That is the old slicko stuff we have been treated to by this person. He talks about dishonesty, about misleading people. Told in the election campaign of 1983 that the deficit would be nearly $10 billion, he walked around for the last week and a half of the campaign letting the rest of the public believe that it would be $6 billion. No national politician has been as culpable of deceit and misleading on this scale as this person. Yet he is here talking about the Prime Minister misleading the Parliament as to whether he is going to sue Jack Egerton or the Courier-Mail, with all of the innuendo, slander and the rest being thrown at him in the meantime. To add insult to injury, we have the motion seconded by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the leader of a two-State party-in Queensland and in New South Wales. Its Government in Queensland has been shown to be unambiguously corrupt. The Party to which the Leader of the National Party belongs runs a corrupt government. The Party which he has defended in this House for years, the Ministers he has defended for years, are corrupt. He is now up here talking about the Prime Minister misleading the Parliament, about whether yesterday, in the confusion, he said he would sue Sir John Egerton or the Courier-Mail. It is an attempt to smear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (MrPeacock), referred to the Prime Minister years ago as `a little crook'. The Leader of the Opposition used that issue against the honourable member for Kooyong to remove him from the leadership. He has picked up the tactic and has kept it ever since. He thought I was unreasonable when I abused him on the telephone in 1986 about his tactics. He ran to the press saying, `Keating's gone mad. He actually abused me for my lack of principle'. I picked you right, brother, right at the turn. I have hounded him ever since. All I want to see is that losing smile glued on his face as I saw it in 1987 and as I will see it again. He may think that he is up here poking muck at us, trying to destroy the reputations of honest people, but we will have our reward when honourable members opposite ponder the next three years of their lives back in opposition, bumping each other in the Opposition corridors, going around of a night to talk to each other to relieve their boredom, watching their lives frittered away day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year. They will then wonder who had the last laugh. They will wonder whether the clever smears of the honourable member for O'Connor under privilege were clever at all, whether taking the Liberal Party to its lowest common denominator did anything for them. In the suburbs where their seats are strongest such as Wahroonga on the North Shore of Sydney, with the blue rinse sets out burning the leaves on a Sunday afternoon, sweeping up, going in and turning on the television, they see their Party, the honourable member for O'Connor, like the monster from the Deep Lagoon, on the television. Is it any wonder that he is the biggest turn-off ever for traditional Liberals. Yet he has turned his parliamentary Party to the lowest common denominator. He has adopted this posture against a respectable Party of government which produced people such as Barwick, Spender senior, Menzies, Hasluck and people of decency, of principle, of ideas, of intellect and of integrity. Where are honourable members opposite now? They are with the bar room brawlers, the smearers, and they know it. When the Liberal heartland knows it, we can be sure of one thing and that is that they will stay where they are. Not only will we maintain our vote, pick up our marginal votes and pick up the votes of the decent Australians sitting and watching this contest, but also we will pick up the votes of the heartland Liberals in the marginal seats and the safe Liberal seats. This low tactic of the Leader of the Opposition to smear and to employ people such as the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for McPherson to attack people under parliamentary privilege will not pay dividends at the ballot box. The electors know what it means for the security of everyone if the Liberals try to mortgage the country, to cause the basis for civil strife, and to poison us in Asia. The electors will reject them out of hand, as they should. This tactic of no principles and no policies, will lead to no prospects. It is those no prospects which will hurt honourable members opposite hardest. They will wonder about the Wilson Tuckeys of this world and the veracity of the cheap jibe and the smear as they ponder those years, their broken lives in opposition, their broken careers and their broken opportunities. They may laugh and sneer, jeer and interject but they will be doing it from the uncomfortable station of the Opposition front bench. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.34) —Might I thank the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for opening up this debate in the way that he has. It is of great interest to me that if we ever needed evidence of the Treasurer's contempt for his lame duck leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we have just heard it. The Treasurer felt constrained not to defend his Prime Minister or address the censure motion of the Opposition. He felt it was immediately necessary to alter the motion so that he could make a speech that said everything but a word of defence for his Prime Minister. We know that nothing has changed-Paul still wants Bob's job. Is it not remarkable that he chose that particular defence? What a case of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, who is the person recorded in Hansard as referring to other honourable members of this House as `dogs returning to their vomit'? Who referred to those other honourable members of the House, some of whom are referred to in this motion, as `harlots'? How was he stopped? He was stopped by being given a bit of his own medicine. He squealed. He squealed out on the steps of Parliament and he squealed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He showed, as he showed yesterday, that when it comes to being treated by his own rules, he has no heart. Now that he has opened up the debate in this way, we might talk a little more about yesterday when someone referred to his preselection. There is another coward's castle for politicians and it is called defamation actions. We can all threaten people with that. Every time someone stands up and says, `Hey, we think something is going wrong in Western Australia Incorporated; hey, we think the people are losing their money' we find the Western Australian Labor Party-Dowding, Burke and Parker-out with writs. They slap writs on them. They are stop writs-writs to stop the talk. Look how much it has cost the people of Western Australia and Australia. They are denied the parliamentary process. The Labor Government goes about its business with stop writs and legal action. Its hide is thick in certain circumstances but pretty thin in other ways. The reality is that the Prime Minister came in here yesterday. He was embarrassed because he was associated with a person-- Mr Griffiths —The scum of the Liberal Party. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would name him if you wanted to prove a few things. That was an outrageous remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Calare will cease interjecting. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —If someone from our side had addressed a comment to the galleries in that fashion, one might wonder how they might have been treated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! One will not wonder that. One will get on with the matter before the House. Mr TUCKEY —Yesterday we saw a very embarrassed Prime Minister. He was embarrassed because articles in the newspapers had referred to his association with Mr Kornhauser. This was the situation yesterday and even more so on the weekend. The press reports have of course been referred to. It is of interest because it is not that long ago that the Prime Minister came into this place with his pecuniary interest statement to the Parliament. He said the following: The public-the electors of this country-are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives; to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour; to be reassured that a Minister's private interests-whatever they may be-do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government. With those beliefs in mind the Australian Labor Party has long held the view that public disclosure of the private interests of Ministers-and others, to whom I shall refer later-is appropriate. That is a pretty high sounding phrase. It is a pity it was not remembered by the Prime Minister yesterday. Yesterday he was still of the belief that nobody had anything on him and that he could bluff his way out of this. My question was put to give him the opportunity to come clean. But he stuck to his guns and bluffed his way through, which is one of the three great statements of the Labor Party. The point I have to make is that yesterday we were talking about Egerton and Kornhauser; today we are talking about Fitzgerald and the Sunday Mail. Why did the Prime Minister not say that on Sunday when he went rushing off, on that day of rest, to his solicitors to get a stop writ in place? One might wonder why, at that stage, he was going to sue John Egerton. Because that is what he said to the newspapers. Let us remember that the newspapers did not contact him; he contacted them. He told them what he had done and warned them of the dire consequences of any of them getting out of line. We go back to his statement again-`the public, the electors'. So we are not only charging the Prime Minister with misleading this Parliament. Admittedly the rules there are a bit tougher in the short term than misleading the people. The people in the end get fed up with being misled, being told the economy is on the up when their hip pocket tells them it is on the way down. They are getting fed up with the economic treatises of a Treasurer, who has, of course, neither academic nor practical considerations for the task, and proves it day after day in this place when we set before him questions of some technical detail. Mr Beazley —I thought you were from the university of hard knocks, Wilson. Mr TUCKEY —I got out at the right time, and I did not take nine years to get an economics degree, as did our mate Dawkins. Let us look for a minute at page 654 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice-`Deliberately misleading the House': The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt- I underline that word-a `contempt' of the Parliament- In 1963 the House of Commons resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt. That particular case was the Profumo case. Mr Profumo had sought the opportunity of making a personal statement to the House of Commons to deny the truth of allegations currently being made against him. Later he was forced to admit that in making his personal statement of denial to the House, he had deliberately misled the House. As a consequence of his actions, he resigned from the House which subsequently agreed to a resolution declaring him guilty of a grave contempt. I do not know whether there is a great deal of difference between denying the fact that one was running round with a prostitute and denying the fact that one was involved with trying to influence the Gold Coast City Council. But if one denies it in this place, one is guilty of a contempt. Yesterday the Prime Minister denied it. Today he has come in-- Mr Holding —Denied what? Mr TUCKEY —Yesterday the Prime Minister quite clearly denied that he knew anything about the meeting put to him by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White)-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo Mcleay) —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —I would not hire either of the gentlemen opposite as lawyers in my defence if they were able to have a-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for the Arts and Territories will cease interjecting. Mr Holding —I wouldn't have let you go in the first place, Wilson. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Minister for the Arts and Territories. Mr TUCKEY —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. The point is that in this case the Prime Minister clearly set out yesterday to deceive the Parliament. Today he is going to rely on the mumbo jumbo of the words. It will be up to the media and others, hopefully, to look very closely at what he said in the Parliament yesterday and make their own judgments on behalf of their readers, because they too pay for the newspapers and are entitled to the facts. As I said, yesterday, it was a case of Egerton and Kornhauser. Suddenly that has got nothing to do with it; it has got something to do with the headline and the fact that Mr Fitzgerald's photograph is included. In answer to his own Whip's question, specifically designed to avoid the confrontation that the Opposition then had to force upon the Prime Minister by way of this resolution, which otherwise would have been dealt with had he made a statement in the proper course, he tried, even there, to avoid having to answer properly to the Parliament. The reality is that the Prime Minister changed the rules today and has admitted that he did attend the meeting. He is now requiring people to believe that he did not say the things that Mrs Diamond so clearly remembers. I guess Mrs Diamond would remember the circumstances in which such a senior person wandered into a council lunch in his bathers. That sort of thing tends to be burnt upon one's memory. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has opened up this debate. What he is saying is that the Opposition at times introduces some embarrassing issues for him. One may decide, therefore, now he has done so, that we should talk about him for a while. I am sure he has given us the opportunity, by opening up the debate in the way that he has-`That this House censure the Opposition'-and I wanted to give him an opportunity of proof. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor to the fact that if he wishes to raise accusations against another member, he must do so by substantive motion. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the point of order that the Treasurer's speech was totally comprised of an attack on members on this side of the House and, displaying his legendary demented venom, he made no reference-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will get to his point of order. Mr Howard —He did not utter a word of defence of the Prime Minister, Mr Deputy Speaker, so you have no right to rule the honourable member for O'Connor out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I once again draw to the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor the fact that if he wishes to make allegations against a member, he must do so by substantive motion. Mr TUCKEY —I am not making any allegations that have not previously been made. I just thought that I would read a bit of the Burns report-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is irrelevant whether they are previously made ones or not. Mr TUCKEY —The Burns report to the New South Wales Australian Labor Party-a report by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Tom Burns-into the administration of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, 1970-- Mr Holding —Oh! Mr TUCKEY —Once the Government side opens up the debate, we find in there evidence of rorting of votes by the Treasurer. He certainly knew how to count in those days! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not cast aspersions on another member except in the form that the Standing Orders allow. Mr Howard —You allowed the Treasurer to do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting. The honourable member for O'Connor will proceed with the debate. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Order! Mr TUCKEY —It seems that there is a sensitivity amongst Government members about that particular report, and one wonders why, since it was made by their own President at that time and shows some massive discrepancies in votes-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will proceed to the rest of the debate. Mr TUCKEY —Well, it does not really matter, does it? Let us get back to our Treasurer. We have a few minutes left. The Prime Minister clearly misled the House. What is more, he has clearly misled the people. It was the Prime Minister who said that what Sir Jack had said was defamatory: `I have instructed my solicitors to issue proceedings against Sir Jack'. That was what he wanted the public to know. The public are entitled to fair treatment on these occasions. He saw that that was not going to be productive. He is not now talking about what Sir Jack said because Betty Diamond has confirmed that in substance. He talks about pressure on the Gold Coast City Council. Of course, the council members are concerned and embarrassed by the remarks of Mr Gibbs, who is a member of their own Party in Queensland. They are concerned and embarrassed about the remarks of the honourable member for Capricornia, Mr Wright. He said in the Queensland Parliament that Kornhauser and Saffron had been linked for more the 30 years. He told the Parliament that Kornhauser also had connections with a Minister in the chamber-whom the Treasurer was just bucketing. He said he had a copy of a confidential South Australian police internal report which linked Saffron and his organisation with drugs, prostitution and the laundering of money, and that the Kornhauser application should not have been considered. He asked the Police Minister and the Deputy Premier to release reports and details of casino investigations. This is a member of Labor's Caucus. No wonder the Prime Minister might feel embarrassed by those connections. The Prime Minister has got caught with his finger in the till. Yesterday he was telling untruths to this Parliament. Today he has had to back down on them. As Pettifer says, he should be held in contempt for that. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(3.49) —Those people who are decent, ordinary Australian citizens who may be listening to this debate or who may be visiting, might be wondering what this debate is all about. First of all, it is about an opposition that has run out of policies, run out of philosophy and run out of ideas, an opposition that has got a leader who rates on the poll at 28 per cent. People who say that they are supporters of the Liberal Party also say that they prefer Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. In that situation, what we have is an exercise in political belittling. Mr Pratt —Who said that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —What we are seeing in that situation-it is not even a very clever political ploy-is that those opposite use any argument at all, no matter how despicable or lacking in principle, to tear down the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). When members of the Opposition launch this argument, they also invoke a totally new and false and specious doctrine. That doctrine is this: if any citizen in this Commonwealth or his family are grievously libelled and slandered, they have recourse to our courts. The courts will determine on the facts in issue and will determine what award for damages will be given. Is that not a right that has been exercised from time to time by parliamentarians in State and Commonwealth parliaments in order to defend their reputations and the reputations of their families? But now we have a new and novel doctrine advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Presumably if he, his wife or his children were grievously slandered, he would say that to exercise the rights he has by virtue of the rule of law in this country, just because he is a politician if he does that he is involved in some sort of bullying tactic. What nonsense that is. Every parliamentarian has no more or less rights than the average citizen within the law. The Leader of the Opposition has a few more advantages in this place. Unfortunately, many members are prepared to use the processes of this House as a coward's castle to slander Australian citizens who have no recourse and no possibility of answering. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was invited yesterday-this was not an exercise in bullying-if he really believed that the Prime Minister of this nation, one of the most popular Prime Ministers in Australia's history, had his fingers in the till, to go outside the Parliament, call a press conference and say it. But that is not his tactic; that is not the process. Mr Pratt —What about Peter Duncan? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Adelaide. Mr HOLDING —What is this motion all about? It is about a woman called Mrs Diamond. I have never met the woman. Mr White —And Jack Egerton. Mr HOLDING —Anybody who knows Jack Egerton knows that he has been full of political malevolence directed at the senior leadership of the Labor Party ever since he left. What I am saying to the honourable member for McPherson is this: I do not have any argument with this woman, who happens to be a member of the Liberal Party. Mr White —She is not. Mr HOLDING —Is she a member of the National Party? Mr White —I don't know. Mr HOLDING —I thought she was advertised in the newspaper-perhaps they have got it wrong-as a former member of the Liberal Party, as a councillor on the Gold Coast Council. That is my recollection. In any event, she says that she remembers a conversation the Prime Minister had many years ago-not when he was a member of this Parliament or Prime Minister of Australia, but when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Other people were present at that function whose recollection is totally different, and they have said that. The Prime Minister denies it. Mr White —What? Eight years later? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —Let us deal with the honourable member for McPherson. The honourable member got up in the House today-this is the level of his research-and asked a question: Were the Prime Minister and I at the Gazebo Hotel with Russ Hinze and Mr Kornhauser in order to discuss and advance Mr Kornhauser's prospects for a casino licence? One is entitled to presume that before any honourable member asked that question he has some prima facie evidence to show the efficacy of it. I say to the honourable member and to this House: I have never been to the Gazebo Hotel. There might be some hotels I have been in that I have forgotten, but that is not the case in this instance. I have never been in the Gazebo Hotel with Mr Kornhauser; I have never been in the presence of Mr Kornhauser and Mr Hinze; and I have never been in the presence of Mr Hinze, Mr Kornhauser and the Prime Minister at any one time. I have never participated in any discussions with any of those gentlemen in terms of Mr Kornhauser's casino licence. It does not have to be true. I do not know who gave the honourable member for McPherson that kind of political scuttlebutt, but honourable members can see the level to which members of this Opposition have sunk. They do not say, `What is your evidence? Did you take a photograph? Who will come forward and swear to this?' That does not matter. The important thing is to ask the question, get it on notice, and then make somebody deny it. This tactic is being used increasingly by this sad and lamentable Opposition. Why? Because it is adopting the political morality of the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member for O'Connor really believes his own propaganda; he does not make any secret of it. He has the field marshal's baton in his knapsack. When the knives finally go into John Howard, he wants to be considered as a contender. He has said that. All sorts of people are entitled to their delusions of grandeur, and I do not deny the honourable member for O'Connor his delusions of grandeur. But when he goes to the blue rinse Rotary Club, the blue rinse set in Sydney or Melbourne, and says, `You know, they call me Ironbar because I am so tough, I am so fearless, and all those fellows are frightened of me', he knows why he is called Ironbar and he ought to have the decency and the honesty to tell those blue rinse ladies that the reason he got that nickname was for a not very commendable activity, for a cowardly assault for which he was convicted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have drawn the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor to the fact that he should not attack other members. I draw the Minister's attention to that as well. Mr HOLDING —I will let it rest there. I say to the honourable member for O'Connor that he is entitled to his delusions of grandeur, but he should not deceive the poor old ladies. He should not tell them that he is something he is not. Did the honourable member for McPherson ever complain-- Mr Tuckey —Wait a minute. When are you going to defend your Prime Minister? Mr HOLDING —I am happy to defend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister needs no defence from me. If the honourable member understood the processes of this Parliament he would see that the Prime Minister has denied in this Parliament the accuracy of the allegation made by Councillor Betty Diamond. Think of the enormity of it. This is the basis of the Opposition's case: here is a very influential man and she is on a very conservative council. There is an application for development by Mr Kornhauser, who had been in that area for some time, and everybody knew all about it. The Prime Minister says, `Oh well, you had better give Eddie a go'. My word, that was like God talking to her. She immediately ran off and said, `Oh fellows, this is very impressive'. Mr White —What? Eight years later? Mr HOLDING —It is rubbish, and the honourable member knows it is rubbish. Has the honourable member ever condemned the Kornhauser development? Has he ever said that this was not in the interests of the Gold Coast? Of course not. Let us be honest. I have known Mr Kornhauser now for 20 years-I do not make any apology for that-and I have known his family. I knew when he was operating in Melbourne that there was a totally vicious document about Mr Kornhauser circulated by a gentleman called Zion, an undischarged bankrupt. That document went to every political leader in Victoria. The honourable member should write this down. I will give him the information and I will give him a copy of the document. Mr Tuckey —One of your fellows read it in the Parliament in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor continues to interject. If he interjects again, I shall deal with him. Mr HOLDING —The document went to the leaders of the Liberal Party, the National Party-or the Country Party as it was then-in Victoria. Not one party would touch it with a 40-foot pole. But that has been the basis of continuous allegations against Mr Kornhauser. Let us also look at that. What was Mr Kornhauser's sin? Was it association with the Prime Minister? The presumption that members of the Opposition want people to draw is that if a person has a personal relationship with somebody, then it is guilt by association. What did Mr Kornhauser do? He lent a then Minister of the Party of the honourable member for McPherson two large sums of money because it was a personal request. Of all the sordid allegations that have come out of the report of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activity and Associated Police Misconduct the only person who seems to have got his money back and his interest is Mr Kornhauser. The fact that he happens to know the Prime Minister is grist to the bowl of these particular geese. Let us think about it. The people of Australia have been watching a sordid exercise unravel where members of the National Party have disgraced the body politic in Australia. That is the reality. Has the honourable member for McPherson condemned any of that? Mr Tim Fischer —What about Rex Jackson? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Farrer will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —That is not the issue. The issue is that Mr Kornhauser was the friend of a former National Party leader and is also a friend of the Prime Minister. By the way, he is a friend of mine. I do not make any apology for that. It is sad and lamentable that a man can go under an ordeal by slander, which has been repeated in this House today, without any regard for the facts. Because I know the Kornhauser family, let me say this-Mr Kornhauser will tell Opposition members this if they ask him-I have met Mr Kornhauser on many social occasions. I once met Mr Kornhauser and his brother in dinner suits going off to a Liberal Party fundraising rally at the Windsor Hotel in Melbourne. If those opposite ask him, he will tell them that he contributes equally to all three political parties. That man has been dragged in on what is a totally specious and false exercise. What is at the heart of this exercise? It is a dispirited Opposition with a political leader that it is trying to mount as an alternative Prime Minister. There are some things which Opposition members can do and there are some things which they cannot do. They have tried to fix John Howard's hair up, they have got him a new set of spectacles, and they have fixed up his teeth. If there were an operation that could be performed to produce in the Leader of the Opposition an ounce of political integrity and courage and an ability to concentrate on the grave issues that face this nation, I would be the first to take the hat around. I have no doubt that Mr Kornhauser, being a generous spirit, would be prepared to donate. Mr Howard —You know all about his generous spirit, don't you? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member's Party knows. He should go and ask his Party. What the Opposition has done today does not demean the Prime Minister but raises, yet again, even further grave doubts amongst its own back bench about the fitness of the Leader of the Opposition not only to lead the once great Liberal Party but also to act as Leader of the Opposition in this House. This is as lamentable a censure motion as I have ever seen. It is based upon a prurient and malevolent exercise designed to demean someone who is perfectly happy to give, and as Prime Minister has given, a full explanation to this House. If the Leader of the Opposition had any sense of honour he would resign, giving his Party a fair go and a fair opportunity to get back on the rails and provide the people of Australia with some sense of alternative leadership. I support the amendment. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.04) —It is time to bring the debate back to what it is all about. Three Government speakers have talked about everything but the issue. I remind the House that the issue is this: yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): 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'? That is what this debate is all about-whether the Prime Minister was at that luncheon and whether he sought to influence the council. Yesterday in this House he said that he could not answer any of that. He said, `On legal advice, I'm not going to say any more'. Right at the start of my question I said that it had nothing to do with the matters raised by Sir John Egerton. Yet he stood up yesterday, hid behind the legal skirts and said that he could not answer the question. Today he came into this House and said, `Well, the writ was not against Egerton; it was against the Sunday Mail'. We have moved this censure motion because he has misled the House. This matter began with a comment by Sir Jack Egerton that he had telephoned the then mayor, Keith Hunt. I quote from the Sunday Mail: Former Gold Coast deputy mayor Sir John Egerton said that Mr Hawke had once phoned the Gold Coast mayor- that is, Keith Hunt- asking favours for developer Mr Eddie Kornhauser. Sir John said former Labor mayor Ald Keith Hunt told him Mr Hawke had called to say: ``Give Eddie a go.'' He said, `Look after Eddie', just as he did at that luncheon. That is how it all started. Mrs Betty Diamond was at that meeting I mentioned. I heard that she was there so I rang her and asked what had happened at the meeting. She told me. I said, `Are you prepared to make a statement?' and she said that she was. She said she would make a statement because she took great exception to the pressure that was applied to her and other members of the Gold Coast City Council to get favourable treatment for the Paradise Centre. Both aldermen-Sir Jack Egerton and Betty Diamond-have since left the Council. There is nothing in this for them. They are not standing for election. They are not trying to gain points or publicity. Both have made statements because they felt that it was the right thing to do. The Prime Minister is accused of seeking to influence a decision in favour of a friend. Yet today he said: `Well, I agree. I was there. Yes, I took part in the discussions and I cannot remember exactly what happened'. But other people can remember and I will tell honourable members why. They can remember because at that same luncheon-probably it was an unrelated issue; I do not know what the issue was-the Prime Minister was in one of his most abusive moods. At that time he was the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Mrs Diamond remembers the lunch very well because it was she who was abused by the then leader of the ACTU. So there is no question about Mrs Diamond's memory. She remembers exactly what happened. The Prime Minister stood up here today and said, `Yes, I was there. Yes, I took part in the discussions, but I cannot remember the rest of it'. I have known Mrs Betty Diamond for some time. I think that at one stage she was a member of the Liberal Party. She gave up party membership when she became an alderman. I do not think that she has ever rejoined the Party. She has made this statement at my request because she feels that it is very important to get the record right. She has retired from public life. She wants a quiet life. She has quite extensive family responsibilities. She had the guts, when this issue was raised, to make a statement. So let us not have in this House any denigration of Mrs Betty Diamond or her memory or what happened at that lunch. It has been said that there were two other aldermen at that lunch who denied what Mrs Diamond had said. That is not so. The press reports that I have read show that Aldermen O'Connell and Laws-I might add that both were Labor aldermen-do not remember what happened. Aldermen O'Connell and Laws did not actually deny what happened. They said, `It was a long time ago; I can't remember'. In any case, the best case that the Government can put forward is that two Labor aldermen said, `I can't remember, it is a long time ago'. But we have Egerton and Mrs Betty Diamond with a very clear recollection of what happened. Mrs Diamond is a very gutsy lady. Let us turn to Sir Jack Egerton. There is nothing in it for him. I do not know why he made the statement, but he obviously felt very strongly about it. He is accused of being malevolent and having it in for the Australian Labor Party. But why after all these years would he choose to make that statement? I have not discussed the reason with him, and I do not know it. But he must have felt very strongly about this issue. Jack Egerton was the Deputy Mayor of the Gold Coast. He was deputy to Keith Hunt, another Labor man. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) said that it was a case of a conservative council ganging up against the Prime Minister. But the strange thing is that the majority of councillors at the time on the Gold Coast City Council were members of the Labor Party. Mr Howard —That is why Bob was there. Mr WHITE —So let us not have any more of this stupid talk about ganging up. Mr Howard —That is why Bob was there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not interject any more. I have asked him on a number of occasions. Mr Howard —Come on! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition and others have drawn the attention of the House in previous days to the fact that there are a lot of interjections. The Speaker has asked members to cease interjecting. The Speaker has made a number of points on the issue. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions during this debate to cease interjecting. I have warned him once, and I ask him now to conform with both the Speaker's directions and with mine. Mr Howard —Just on indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No; there is no indulgence on this issue. The leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Howard —You can't deny the Leader- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I most certainly can. I call the honourable member for McPherson. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have called the honourable member for McPherson. Mr Howard —You are refusing to allow me to speak to what you have just said, are you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am; that is right. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Howard —You do not have any respect for the procedures-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have drawn the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to a statement made by the Speaker. I am not willing to entertain any debate on the issue. Mr Howard —I am not wishing to debate it. I am simply wishing to explain that I was not interjecting. I was complaining about the double standards. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Then the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr WHITE —I was talking about Sir John Egerton. There was nothing in it for him. He obviously felt very strongly about this issue and made the statement last Sunday. He was the Deputy Mayor to Mayor Hunt, another Labor man. He was very close to him and knew what was going on more than probably anybody else. He knew where phone calls were coming from and who was on the other end of them. Why would the Government take to assaulting John Egerton because he has made a statement in good faith? One of the things I suspect he wants to know, and everyone else wants to know, including members of this Parliament, after the Prime Minister's statement today is: is Egerton subject to a writ or not? Mr Wright —That was very dramatic. Mr WHITE —Well, it is a very important point so far as Sir John Egerton is concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia! Mr Peacock —Are you going to repeat what you said in the Queensland Parliament, or are you going to rewrite history? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Capricornia will cease interjecting. Mr WHITE —This debate is not about Eddie Kornhauser, but I want to say one thing which refers to the Prime Minister's statement today. He said that part of his defence of Kornhauser was because he has been subjected to a lot of anti-semitic criticism. That is an absolute nonsense. He is using that as an excuse. I have lived on the Gold Coast for many years. I have never ever known of a single criticism of Kornhauser-- Mrs Sullivan —Nor have I. I have never heard any. Mr WHITE —Neither has the honourable member for Moncrieff, who supports me. I have never heard criticism of Kornhauser or anybody else on the basis of race. That is a smokescreen for why the Prime Minister felt he had to get in and support his mate. The Prime Minister stood here and said `My integrity is at stake'. The majority of people in Australia have their own views about his integrity. But he is quite right: his integrity is at stake in this issue. It is a matter of public integrity and his standing in the matter. The matter was raised by Egerton and he has not denied anything that has been said. It is interesting that in this debate we are being accused of using smear tactics. I ask honourable members to reflect on some of the statements from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), when he was in the State House, and Mr Gibbs, whose electorate I forget, when they, among others, tried to expose the Prime Minister's intervention on behalf of Kornhauser and asked the Prime Minister to leave the State because he was an embarrassment to the Queensland Labor Party. The honourable member for Capricornia knew what he was on about in terms of that casino licence and I hope he will stand up and say something about it. Is it not a fact that he, Gibbs and the rest of his party tried to move the Prime Minister out when he tried to heavy them to support his mate? Of course it is. Mr Wright —What you are saying is totally untrue and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Capricornia. Mr WHITE —But when we raised these issues that are being debated today we were accused of using smear tactics. I will be very interested if the honourable member for Capricornia will speak-apparently he will not-in defence of his actions during that time. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was supposed to be defending his Prime Minister. He talked about the tax policy, about John Howard, about the 1987 election, about the national accounts, about the leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), about the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and about smearers. He would know something about smearers as he has the most vicious tongue in the Parliament. He talked about anything except how he would defend the Prime Minister. Why? It is because he is enjoying another knock against the Prime Minister. A few more like these and he will be there at last. The Minister for the Arts and Territories talked about legal rights and about Jack Egerton. He did not talk much about the Gazebo except to say that he was not there. He talked about the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), Betty Diamond, the conservative council, Zion and Kornhauser, but gave no defence of the Prime Minister. He said that no-one had ever linked the two together. But the same Mr Gibbs of the Queensland Parliament read it into the record when he said that Zion claimed that Kornhauser attempted to coerce him to transfer $100,000 illegally. I do not know anything about that, but let it not be thought that it is an issue that has not been raised before. Yesterday, the Prime Minister hid behind a legal skirt. Today he got up and said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.19) —The time has come to bring this piece of nonsense from the Opposition to a conclusion and do something useful with it by giving the House the opportunity to express its views on the way in which the Opposition has used the forms of the House to smear members of the House for some time past, including in the proceedings today. There are two issues here: the Opposition's trivial censure motion against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and how it has bowdlerised that once great tradition in this Parliament; and our amendment to that motion, censuring the Opposition for its tactics. On the first point, on the Prime Minister's position, it does not require a very detailed defence-certainly not one that can fill 15 minutes in this place, because no member of the Opposition was able to sustain 15 minutes in establishing the case. Each member of the Opposition was obliged to go round and round the garden in order to be able to fill out his 15 minutes. I do not blame honourable members for that. It would be not possible for me to fill 15 minutes in mounting a defence to it. Opposition members attempted this censure motion yesterday because they alleged that the Prime Minister denied lock, stock and barrel the content of what Betty Diamond had to say. If one looks at the two answers the Prime Minister gave, one went to remarks that were attributed in the article to Sir Jack Egerton. The second came specifically from the question of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) as to what Betty Diamond had to say. This was the Prime Minister's response at Question Time: 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. How the heck could he possibly be misleading the House when he chose not to answer the question? Yet members of the Opposition yesterday, and again today, were prepared to charge into this place, puffed up like so many Queensland cane toads, and present a censure motion on the Prime Minister. One useful thing has come out of this debate, and it emphasises the point I shall make about the Opposition's smear tactics. We now find the origin of Betty Diamond's statement here. The origin, by his confession, is the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). The honourable member came into this place and said, `Ah, Betty Diamond must have been around then. I will give her a call and I will seek a statement from her'. So we see the genesis of an attempt to smear-not a voluntary statement by somebody coming forward and saying, `I remember something eight years ago that led me to want to say something', but a got-up job by a member of the Liberal Party front bench. We have a got-up job on that in the same way as we have a got-up job on the Gazebo issue, which I shall deal with shortly. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Bearing in mind that this is a motion about misleading the House, the Minister has just misled the House in quoting the Prime Minister's answer to a question. That is not the answer that was given on that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for O'Connor wishes to make that point, he must do so under the Standing Orders. He will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I take another point of order. Mr BEAZLEY —Sit! Mr Tuckey —I won't be put down by fat boy over there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I will not sit down on his instructions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order: will you please ask the Minister to resume his seat so that I can complete my point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has not got a point of order. Mr Tuckey —I find the word `Sit' on this occasion is unparliamentary and I want it withdrawn, but first I want the Minister to sit down under your instruction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I am on a point of order and the Minister must resume his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor-- Mr Tuckey —Now I will resume my seat. Mr BEAZLEY —Poor little boy. The honourable member for O'Connor is one of the most childish performers in the House. Unfortunately, only the witnesses here, and not the listening audience, could see that pathetic childish performance from him. There is no chance that he will grow up, I am afraid to say. The Prime Minister came into Question Time in the House and dealt in detail with the subject matter that was raised. He did not really need to deal in detail with it because when one looks at it, what has Betty Diamond said? Has she implied anything improper or criminal? No, she has not. The Prime Minister is supposed to be pilloried in this place. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, when there are important policy matters before the House, namely, the national account figures today and numerous other issues, the Prime Minister is being pilloried in this place on a statement which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as implying any activity on his part that was improper. Furthermore, it was at a period when he was not responsible in any way, shape or form for the management of this Government or this country. Here we have this discussion in the House-a discussion which, as Leader of the House, I believe has gone on far too long-on the basis of a furphy. It demonstrates the point of the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion of censure. That goes to the question of Opposition tactics in this place-the question of the smear. The Opposition, as its frustration has increased, has repeatedly taken opportunities in this place to smear Government members. When analysis has been put on what they have said, it has been evident that it contains no substance. This happened in regard to two items today. One matter that was supposed to be of great portent was from Betty Diamond, and the second related to the accusation made by the man who got that one up by his own confession, an accusation he made that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) was at a meeting. That was denied in detail by the Minister for the Arts and Territories. It is another smear that has fallen flat on its face. The business of this House has been disrupted to discuss this rubbish. It is not as though this is simply a development of the last couple of days. This has been the Opposition's practice in this place for a substantial period. There have been repeated efforts to smear honourable members on this side of the House. Efforts were made in respect of the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). When the honourable member for O'Connor was heckling me across the table and we were having an interchange-I confess a disorderly one-he said `I've got `em. What about Blewett?' What about him? On that occasion the honourable member for O'Connor came in, puffed up in his usual way, and got up for a faction of the doctors in an effort to trip up the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). What happened? There was a full investigation, inquiries and no substance. That was a typical worthless performance by the honourable member for O'Connor, with no substance and no policy. The honourable member for O'Connor must do it because he has no other role in this place. Give him a policy responsibility and he must be shifted-there is no question about that. Any policy position that he has been given by the Opposition he has failed in miserably. He has never delivered a policy in six years on the front bench. But he delivers a smear. Unfortunately for the honourable member for O'Connor, most of those smears fall flat. With his failures he imposes great burdens on the less smearing members of the Opposition front bench. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) is now in the process of totally scrapping the irrelevancies and trivia that were the Opposition's health policy and is trying to come up with something that is half-way decent and respectable. However, the honourable member for O'Connor spent his time sneering at the Treasurer because of the Treasurer's apparent failure to have attended a university and on the ground that the Treasurer has failed to have an appropriate education. This is a Treasurer who has presided over the economic recovery of this country after the mess left by the Liberals, but the honourable member for O'Connor cannot even devise a health policy. He cannot devise a policy document. One has only to write three or four pages when one is in Opposition. It does not matter if it does not stand up too much, one can just sling anything out, but the honourable member has not even been able to do that. The honourable member for O'Connor is a failure in this place as a policy-maker, he is now a failure in this place as a smearer, but it does not stop him or other members of the Opposition front bench trying. The honourable member for McPherson took great umbrage at the possibility of some anti-semitic element being involved in the sorts of statements that have been made about Mr Kornhauser and others. On the point of smearing-and Opposition members cannot help themselves-I well remember a question directed at one of our Ministers in relation to which the Leader of the Opposition said that he was not anti-semitic and that nothing anti-semitic was intended. But the question contained the phrase `Jewish businessman'-not `businessman' but `Jewish businessman'. There can be no purpose in doing that other than to make an anti-semitic point. The point about it is that it was not just a question that emerged from the plethora of jumping Opposition backbenchers at Question Time. It was part of organised Question Time. So it was a question approved by the Opposition tactics committee. This is a small but nasty example of the smear tactics of the Opposition. The Opposition therefore deserves censure on this. I suppose one of the most ludicrous elements of this discussion of trivia as far as Betty Diamond is concerned, with her nothing statements that imply no impropriety, illegality or anything else, is that somewhere down the line it has spun off the difficulties that the National Party and the Liberal Party are experiencing with the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. As the Treasurer said, one of the two crown jewels of the National Party, one of the two States in which it is strong, is jumping on the gibbet in terms of the problems with which it is confronted as a result of the corruption of its government-not talking about whether or not someone attended breakfast, but about wholesale corruption of the police force and politicians. It might suit the Liberal Party to try and hide behind the view that this is a National Party problem. I have been following the Fitzgerald inquiry as closely as one can from reading the newspapers. Scarcely a single accusation that has been made to this point relates to the period of sole National Party government. Virtually every matter that has been raised so far goes to the time when Queensland was governed by a coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Members of the Liberal party are as culpable as Russ Hinze, Don Lane or anyone else, for the vicious corruption of the Queensland Government. I take it beyond the point of simply saying `ordinary corruption'. I say `vicious corruption', because part of that conduct involved not just using the police or being involved with the police for corrupt purposes but using the police to target Labor Party members of parliament. So it was not just corruption; it was a vicious corruption. I do not know how honourable members opposite can put forward this insubstantial rubbish when they will have to face that gigantic monster-I think in another context the Treasurer talked about the Monster from the Black Lagoon-which is creeping up from the sloth and slime of the cesspits of the organisations, houses and whatever whose existence has been denied persistently for so many years in Queensland. This monster is crawling up to envelop them and they are slashing out in every direction to evade the consequences. The Prime Minister has nothing to answer on this censure motion. It is a got-up job by the honourable member for McPherson on his own admission here in this place during this censure debate. Rarely do we get anything as useful as that to speak about in this chamber. As I said, it is a got-up job by the Opposition. On the other hand, the Opposition has a great deal to answer for. It should be censured for what it has done. To provide the House with the opportunity to do so, I move: That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I put the question, I will hear the honourable member for Farrer on a point of order. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order follows on the point taken by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) relating to the wording of the amendment. However, my point of order relates to the words `by its persistent use of the forms of the House to smear and slander members of the House' which are contained in the second part of the amendment. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition motion strongly censured the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to which the Government moved an amendment censuring the Opposition. I submit to you that an amendment which by its wording reflects on the Chair is out of order unless that is put by way of specific and substantive motion against the Chair. I submit to you further, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the wording of the amendment in referring to the `continuous smearing and slandering of members of the House' suggests wholesale freewheeling under the existing Standing Orders and, therefore, that you should rule that the second part of the amendment is offensive to the Chair and should be ruled out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The forms of the House can be used to smear and slander people, and it is in order. I understand that what the motion asks for is that the House make a judgment on those who use the forms of the House to smear and slander members. It is not a reflection on the Chair. Question put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— 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, John 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, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.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.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. 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.Howard, J. W. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Keating's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.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, John 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, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.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.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. 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.Howard, J. W. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's), as amended, be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.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, John 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, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.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.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. 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.Howard, J. W. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I undertook to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) that I would check against any diary record I had available my statement that I had no recollection of the meeting at the Brisbane Gazebo Hotel in November 1981 involving myself, Russ Hinze, Eddie Kornhauser, Ed Casey and Clyde Holding. A detailed examination of diary records which exist in my office reveals no details of any such meeting as alleged. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of the Speaker I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 29 November 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories-Australian Capital Territory Administration: Building Control. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to. (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 29 November 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories-Australian Capital Territory Administration Building Control; and (2) That the report be printed. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australian Sports Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 35 of the Australian Sports Commission Act 1985 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Commonwealth Fire Board-Annual Report 1987-88. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-section 16 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. Department of Transport and Communications-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories-Annual Report 1987-88-including the 1987-88 Annual Reports of the Office of ACT Administration-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922 and the Public Lending Right Committee-section 19 of the Public Lending Right Act 1985-Volumes one and two. Health Insurance Commission-Annual Report-1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOLLIS —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOLLIS —In today's Illawarra Mercury the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) is reported as saying that on a recent African delegation, which I led, I introduced myself as a member of the Australian Socialist Party and I presented Australia as a communist country. Neither statement is true. On the same topic in the Sydney Morning Herald Senator Baume said that I attempted to issue media statements. Every media statement from the delegation and every telex to Australia was checked and cleared with every delegation member. On the Pru Goward program this morning the wife of the honourable member for Parkes, Mrs Cobb, said that I argued with Australian officials in Africa. I did not. As there are certain matters in the print and electronic media today that are libellous and defamatory I have referred these matters to my solicitors. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to: That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Kennedy on the grounds of ill health. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke/Keating Government to implement economic policies to achieve a strengthening of the underlying balance of payments and an improvement in living standards. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John 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. 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, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. W.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. 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.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. 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) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.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 HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourteenth report of the Committee for 1988, relating to the proposed fitout at 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney, for the Northern Command and eastern region headquarters of the Australian Federal Police. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.03) —I 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. This proposed work was dealt with expeditiously by the Public Works Committee. It involves the expansion of the international terminal facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by the Federal Airports Corporation. There is an urgent need for further expansion of the Sydney international terminal to meet the continuing projected growth in passenger numbers and to satisfy demands for aircraft gate positions for the larger aircraft now being developed and trialed. I do not need to elaborate on the requirement for improvement and expansion of the facilities to ensure efficient passenger processing and the amenity and comfort of the travelling public. The proposal was endorsed by the Public Works Committee. It involves the construction of a new four-level terminal building of some 51,000 square metres to the south of and fully integrated with the existing terminal. This will include facilities necessary for processing originating and terminating passengers and their baggage, together with associated concessions, lounges and office space. It also involves a new 21,000 square metre, three-level pier to accommodate eight of the new generation B747-400 aircraft. Six of the eight gate positions will be serviced by aero- bridges and the pier will include full facilities for transit and transfer of passengers, plus appropriate concessions and airline VIP lounge space. New aprons and taxiway pavements will be constructed to enable aircraft movement and access to the new pier, alterations to landside roadworks and provision of a new bus parking area. There will be new or upgraded trunk services such as water, power, sewer and drainage and also associated security fencing, signage and landscaping. The new work will meet current and forecast passenger growth trends until the mid-1990s, thus enabling an easing of existing scheduled control rules. It will provide the ability for rapid expansion, if required. The proposal is additional to upgrading works currently under way for the Federal Airports Corporation and under the project management of the Australian Construction Services within the Department of Administrative Services-work which will extend the capacity of the existing facilities to better cope with passenger loads until this new work is completed in 1992. So, this work complements the work that is already under way. The proposed development at Sydney Airport is aimed at meeting a shortfall in international facilities in the short to medium term which cannot otherwise be met at Badgerys Creek in the same time frame. The project is to be delivered under a fast track approach to ensure that the project is completed on time and cost. The estimated cost of these works recommended by the Committee is $A214m at April 1988 prices, which includes consultant fees and appropriate contingencies for design and construction. I thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of this proposal and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.05) —It is a great pity that this motion was not brought before the House several years ago, because anybody who has travelled through the Kingsford-Smith international terminal would know that the whole thing is totally inadequate. Mr West —Are you giving us the credit? Mr BLUNT —I will not give the Minister credit for doing it, because he and his Government should have brought a similar proposal to this Parliament at least four, if not five, years ago. Mr White —And all the private proposals that have been put up. Mr BLUNT —Yes. Qantas Airways Ltd actually offered to build this terminal for the Government some years ago and that offer was rejected out of hand because the Government could not quite make up its mind what it was going to do with privatisation. So it sat on its hands for a few years while Australia's tourist industry was grinding to a halt because people could not get through the new terminal in Sydney. As I said, this motion should have been brought in here years ago. It provides an interesting contrast that the Government is steadfastly refusing to do anything about the runway capacity at Sydney Airport, yet it is going ahead and building additional terminal facilities. Yesterday we had a proposal for the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) to spend a considerable amount of money on expanding facilities to accommodate the development of new domestic terminals. Today we have a proposal to expand the international terminals, but the Government is standing still in the face of requests made by Qantas, Australian Airlines, Ansett and everybody else who has anything to do with aviation in Australia, to expand the runways at Kingsford-Smith Airport. For that reason, one wonders how logical the Government's approach to this whole issue is. I know that other members wish to comment on this matter, so I will curtail my remarks. Mr JULL(Fadden)(5.08) —I would like to add a word of congratulations on the work of the Public Works Committee in getting this up; but I agree with the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) that it seems the most amazing situation that the Government is now going to turn around and spend $214m on this project-major terminal capacity increases in terms of the domestic terminals in Sydney-and still we have this absolutely ludicrous and farcical situation regarding the third runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This is really one of the great condemnations of this Government. It was spending tens of millions of dollars overseas promoting international tourism at a time when one could see exactly what was happening in terms of the increased number of aircraft coming in and the increased number of passengers coming in and this Government dithered around. Four years later, only now are we starting to address the situation, although not completely, and we are told by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) that the present situation will last only until the 1990s and we cannot see the whole thing finished until 1991 or 1992 anyway. To my mind, that is very much a condemnation of the Government. There is no doubt that 58 per cent of the international business is coming through Sydney Airport. There is no doubt that the demand for Sydney Airport will get greater and greater. There is no doubt that these projections have been around for years. There is no doubt that the Government took absolutely no notice of the projections of companies such as the Boeing International Corporation on the expansion that would occur. There is no doubt of the warnings about the increasing traffic that have come from Qantas Airways Ltd and most of the other international airlines coming in to Australia. Yet the Government fiddled. It is to its condemnation that Sydney has never been able to reach its full potential in its tourist capacity because the growth of Sydney is very much demeaned by this Government's attitude. It frightens me to read in the press of major developers in Sydney talking about the need for 41 more hotels but expressing very grave doubt that these hotels will go ahead purely because we do not have the capacity at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and that we do not have that third runway. I say to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch): If we are to deprive the rest of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia of this capacity to build the tourism growth into Australia, if we are to deprive the young people of Australia of jobs purely because the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support happens to have an electorate next door to Kingsford-Smith Airport, it is a very sad condemnation of this Government. If we really want to see that industry go ahead and another 1,400 jobs created for our young people with every additional 24,000 international visitors who are coming in, the first thing that this Government must address, and must address now, is the construction of that third runway and the high speed taxiway exits at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Until that is done, frankly the Government is playing with the whole situation. This week, apart from the fact that Qantas, Ansett Airlines and Australian Airlines and the rest of the airlines have been urging the Government to come to its senses and provide that third runway, the New South Wales Tourist Industry Association is now pleading and begging that the Government wake up to itself and put in that third runway. Until that happens, until we get the realisation of Sydney's main problem which is simply one strip-that is all that is needed; one runway-and get away from all this talk about Badgerys Creek which, quite frankly, cannot be fully operational until the year 2015, and until the Government wakes up to the fact that it has to proceed with the third runway at Kingsford-Smith Airport, then I do not really think that the Government can show itself as being at all genuine in terms of any hopes and aspirations that it might have for the future growth of the tourism industry. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.12) —I would like to add a few words to the debate. I naturally welcome the statement from the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West). I commend the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works upon its action in approving these particular works. I look upon them as a face saver for the Government. Since 1983 we, in the Opposition, have consistently been very forthright in telling the Government that it was very foolish in discarding the plans to build that extra north-south runway that was in the pipeline. It was agreed upon; it was going to be put there. We even knew what the costs were. It is disappointing that that has not been included in this report that the Minister has brought before the House. It is nice to see that the facilities, so far as turnover of international tourists is concerned, are actually available. They were very necessary. All of us have had the opportunity of arriving or departing and seeing the delays that are caused. This country of ours is getting a very bad name in tourism. I have a letter before me from the New South Wales Tourism Industry Association. I think that perhaps every honourable member has this letter. It is most pertinent. It refers to the works that the Minister has approved this afternoon. It says: All our members are vitally concerned at the appalling situation that the present Federal Government has let occur at Sydney Airport . . . The facilities are woefully inadequate. They are incapable of looking after today's demand, let alone tomorrow's. We know this is future planning. The letter-it is interesting to note this-concludes: Sydney, Australia's leading tourist attraction now has its airport listed amongst the 10 most congested airports in the world. Sydney, the capital of Australia's tourism, is amongst the 10 worst airports for congestion in the world. It is a great disgrace to see the congestion that is caused there. That is why I say that this issue before the House is a face saver for the Government. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government now intends to carry on with Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, not Badgerys Creek, as the future international airport for Australia and that our commuter aircraft and interstate aircraft may be forced to go to Badgerys Creek. On behalf of a rural constituency, I strongly object to that. I will argue in this House time and time again against any move that will send our commuter aircraft out into Bankstown or up to Badgerys Creek in the mountains. We will argue against this because we have a reasonable case. How long will it take to get back into the city? If it is a case of allowing transport from the Badgerys Creek area or even Bankstown, what planning has taken place between the Federal Airports Corporation or the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government? Just think of the commuter aircraft that we travel in throughout New South Wales. Put them out there and see the number of people whose time will be wasted in travel all because of one Federal electorate which this Government does not want to lose and which is close to the Kingsford-Smith Airport. The Government has forgotten how many people are working at and living around the airport and who are so dependent on it and who want to see that airport stabilised. This is important. Kingsford-Smith Airport can take all the increased traffic that we are likely to have over the next 10 years if adequate attention is given to the facilities, the runways and the future planning for that airport. We are certainly in favour of Badgerys Creek for future periods. We know our tourism is growing. The shadow Minister for tourism, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), is sitting in front of me. Time and time again he has pointed out the inadequacies to the House. We support him. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) supports him and so will other honourable members. The Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), might not support him. There may be political reasons for this. Never mind; we will forgive him, but we will not forgive his Government. This is the important thing. We will not forgive the Government because of the simple fact that this nation demands that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport be updated and its planning be such as to meet the demands of the future and certainly to look after those commuter aircraft that will travel from the various parts within New South Wales and interstate. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.18) —I wish to join with the comments made by honourable members on this side of the House-the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and others who have spoken so strongly about the need for additional works at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Whilst the Government today is addressing the issue of an inadequate international terminal building which we all recognise is long overdue for updating, it is, as has been pointed out by other speakers, not addressing the very key issue that affects the future of our tourism industry in Australia today, and that is the construction of this third runway-the second parallel runway at Sydney international terminal. Until such time as this is done I am afraid that the whole growth and development of the Australian tourism industry will be restrained. Like it or not, Sydney Airport is the gateway to almost 60 per cent of our international visitors coming from around the world. It is well known that this airport is in a chaotic situation. For several hours each day, along the eastern coast capitals of Australia, one cannot get one extra jet into any one of those airports. That is not only a costly exercise for airlines, which have to leave aircraft in holding patterns for unnecessary periods; it is also unsafe for the passengers who use those aircraft. At the same time, it is very bad indeed for Australia's tourism industry. As the honourable member for Fadden and others have pointed out, Australia spends a great deal of time, effort and energy in promoting itself to international visitors, to make Australia known as the destination for every holiday around the world. Of course, we are that destination, and people are seeing us as such in increasing numbers. This year we will have about 2.2 million to 2.4 million international visitors. By the year 2000 the industry expects that we will have 7 million to 8 million international visitors, 60 per cent of whom will want to come through Sydney international airport. We are facing a chaotic situation with 60 per cent of 2.4 million people this year. We are going to have a disastrous situation by the year 2000 with 60 per cent of 7 million to 8 million trying to get through Sydney international airport. The talk of Badgerys Creek is not going to solve the problem. As has been pointed out by other speakers on this side of the House, Badgerys Creek is a long way from being completed. It will not be completed in time to relieve the imminent congestion over the next few years. The only solution is to build that third runway at Sydney international airport. It can be done in the period of four to six years. It will cost $200m to $300m. It is the quickest, easiest and most sensible solution of all. Everybody in the tourism industry, everybody in the aviation industry, knows that this is the only answer that the Government can come up with to solve the problem of Australia's major gateway. I am afraid to say that while the Government fiddles on this issue in an effort to try to protect one or two seats based around Mascot international airport, Australians are going to pay a very high price. As has been pointed out, for every 24 international visitors, one full time permanent position is created in Australia's tourism industry. So for every plane load of international visitors that the inadequacies of Sydney international airport stop from coming into the country, we are putting more and more Australians on to the end of unemployment queues. The responsibility rests on the shoulders of this Government. As the honourable member for Lyne pointed out, the former Liberal-National Party Government was in the process of agreeing and about to commence works to build that runway years ago. This Government has stopped it for its own political reasons. The Liberal and National parties have in their transport and aviation policies a firm commitment to build that runway and get it operating as quickly as possible. We recognise that if we do not do so, we will hurt every Australian. The tourism industry is the fastest growing industry in this country. It has the greatest opportunity to create employment, particularly for young people. Is that not what government is about? Is that not what we are all here to do? People who get in the way of that are not doing this country any good and should be ashamed of themselves. I just hope that this Government will be a little statesmanlike and overlook the concerns of one or two seats around Mascot international airport and look to the best interests of Australia and build the third runway, get on with the job of creating a successful, growing and prosperous tourism industry for Australia, make aviation safer in this country, and reduce the cost of air transport. Do that and it will do this country a lot of good for the future. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.24) —I rise to endorse very briefly the observations of honourable members who have already spoken, following the submission by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) informing the House of the decision of the Public Works Committee on the extension of the facilities at Mascot for international terminal upgrading. However, I deplore the fact that this is so much a mishmash without any overall plan for the future of air services in New South Wales. The matter relates directly to my constituency, because most of the air services to and from Sydney from my area are non-jet services. It was a matter of great concern to learn at the weekend that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) has apparently put forward a proposal to the Government for the early commencement of work at Badgerys Creek on the basis that that airport would ultimately take non-jet aircraft for a period and that Mascot would be retained as the major airport for jet aircraft. Surely, this contradicts all that has been said by the Government, in the debate that has raged now for some months, in its opposition to the construction of the third runway. If it is intended to retain Mascot as the major international terminal-and the motion before the House at the moment certainly confirms that-then, surely, the fear that has been engendered about undue aircraft noise is not well based at all. We recall that the former Minister for Transport and Communications proposed curfew alterations. The Government endorsed that-and then, under pressure, caved in. We have found over a period of months nothing more than duckshoving on the part of the Government in respect of the future of air transport in and out of Sydney. This is just not good enough. In the past week there has been bad weather, which has highlighted the crisis situation currently facing air travellers in and out of Sydney international airport. We have found enormous delays and total disruption to intrastate services. Last Monday a service leaving Grafton for Sydney at 6.45 a.m. was delayed because it could not be assured of a time slot into Sydney. It eventually took off an hour and a half late. Before reaching Sydney, the pilot of that aircraft was advised to land at Newcastle due to congestion at Sydney and due to problems that might arise. So it landed at Newcastle. The passengers were obliged to remain there. That service reached Sydney at 10.30 a.m. That is an appalling state of affairs. People who had set out on an early morning flight, paid their fares, assumed that they can do a day's business in Sydney and then return, were deprived of doing it. It is only an example. I recognise that difficulties can occur unexpectedly from time to time with the need to ensure safety in the operation of aircraft; but this is an example that shows very clearly the limitations of facilities at Sydney, even at this time. There are inadequacies in navigation upgrading. If we are to have an extension of the international terminal, surely the other related facilities that are required to make that an effective proposition should be seriously considered by the Government. A positive plan should be put forward for the future of Mascot and the relationship of Mascot to the proposed Badgerys Creek proposition. I deplore the Government's failure in this regard, and I strongly support what has been said by honourable members in the House this afternoon. Question resolved in the affirmative. Committee Act Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.29) —I 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. This work involves the upgrading of Navy single living-in accommodation at HMAS Cerberus, which is 70 kilometres south-east of Melbourne. The proposal is part of a staged development of facilities at HMAS Cerberus, which is one of the principal training establishments for the Royal Australian Navy. The first phase of this redevelopment, which consists of a new seamanship school, a new wharf, a marina and a boat ramp, is currently under construction and will be completed by mid-1989. In September this year the House referred a proposal for the second phase of the redevelopment to the Public Works Committee. This proposal is for the construction of new communications and recruit schools. This current proposal involves the upgrading of existing sailors, living-in accommodation and the construction of a new accommodation block for junior sailors. The objective of the proposals is to provide a standard of living-in accommodation which is as close to the current Services scales and standards accommodation as the existing building envelopes and layouts permit. Much of the existing permanent barracks accommodation at HMAS Cerberus was built during the 1960s, and the standard of accommodation now provided is generally below the current Services scales and standards of accommodation. This proposal will provide around 760 upgraded single rooms in eight buildings. Modernised ablution facilities will be provided and all living areas will be carpeted and modern built-in furniture will be provided. In fact, generally the upgraded junior sailors rooms will be slightly larger than the current standards require as a result of the conversion of the existing four-man rooms to two individual rooms. It is also proposed to construct a new accommodation block for 120 junior sailors at the start of the project. There will also be refurbishment of the shower, toilets and laundry components of the four recruits accommodation blocks. The estimated cost of this proposal is $15.7m at September 1988 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is planned to call tenders in late 1989, with the construction being phased over a five-year period. Phasing of the construction will be required to minimise disruption to existing accommodation arrangements and to meet Department of Defence requirements. A similar major upgrading project estimated to cost some $57m is already under way at 16 locations around Australia to upgrade the bulk of the Army's living-in accommodation. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.34) —The Opposition supports the referral of the proposed work to the Joint Committee on Public Works. As we have said in this House many times before, the conditions under which our service men and women are expected to live are substandard in many cases. That is one reason why we are seeing so much wastage in the Services, as emphasised by the Cross report a couple of weeks ago. I am pleased to see that part of the new works is the construction of recruit schools. I cannot help but make the observation that one reason why we need more facilities for recruits is that we have to train more people to replace those who are leaving the Services. It has become a vicious circle. That is not the subject of this debate and I do not intend to pursue it, except to make that observation. Living-in standards will be improved quite dramatically. It is just not on to expect young men and women to come in and stay in the Services these days in conditions under which their forebears existed, including me some years ago. There are different expectations and standards in the community. The old accommodation where there were four or more men or women-but not at the same time-in one big barrack room is just not acceptable. While it is very expensive to upgrade this accommodation, it is simply something we have to concentrate on if we expect these people to stay in the Services. The cost of this proposal is $15m, and we support it. One problem we have-I suspect that the Government has this problem as well-in view of the Cooksey report on the Review of Australia's Defence Cooperation Programs and Policy on Export of Defence Equipment, which had a broad look at the whole of Australian defence facilities, is just where is the plan and in what direction are we going? Cooksey spent a little time at HMAS Nirimba and HMAS Cerberus, which have complementary training facilities. As far as I know, no decision has yet been made as to whether Nirimba will move to Cerberus, or vice versa. We are spending this money, which we believe is necessary, but it is being spent in a vacuum in the sense that there is no plan for Army facilities. That was the major criticism that Cooksey made of the Government in terms of its handling of defence facilities. In the interim, Cooksey makes a sensible recommendation to relocate Nirimba to Cerberus, and presumably the work that is going on at Cerberus will look after that relocation. Nobody, least of all the Government, has given us any indication of where it is to go. The Cooksey report has been with the Government I think for in excess of 12 months. We still have no plan. Cooksey stated: No comprehensive policy has been formulated . . . which recognises the links between Australia's strategic circumstances and defence facilities. Although it is to the responsibility of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), I ask: how long can we go on in this ad hoc way, spending money here, there and everywhere on our defence facilities, if there is no overall plan to take care of the defence facilities in Australia? The sooner we get that plan the better, although I suspect that it has been so long coming after the production of the Cooksey report that the Government might say that there has to be another investigation before it can come up with a plan. No doubt that is an excuse the Government will use. In summary, we support this proposal, if only to give the service men and women of Australia some decent facilities in which to live. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``employee'', lines 29 and 30, leave out the definition. No. 2-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``member of the staff'', lines 43 and 44, leave out the definition. No. 3-Page 3, clause 3, after definition of ``public money of the Territory'', insert the following new definitions: `` `public servant' means a member of the public service; `public service' means that service referred to in section 53;''. No. 4-Page 4, after subclause 9 (2), add the following new subclause.''. ``(3) This section has effect subject to any enactment.''. No. 5-Page 4, subclause 11 (2), line 25, leave out ``as''. No. 6-Page 5, paragraph 12 (1) (d), line 8, leave out ``at least 9'', insert ``an absolute majority''. No. 7-Page 5, subclause 12 (2), lines 10 to 12, leave out the subclause. No. 8-Page 5, subclause 13 (1), line 17, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``person''. No. 9-Page 5, subclause 13 (2), line 19, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``person''. No. 10-Page 5, subclause 13 (3), line 21, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``person''. No. 11-Page 5, paragraph 14 (1) (b), lines 28 and 29, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) is absent without the permission of the Assembly from: (i) such number of consecutive meetings as is specified by enactment for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (ii) if no such enactment is in force-4 consecutive meetings of the Assembly; or''. No. 12-Page 5, subclause 14 (2) and (3), lines 33 to 40, leave out the subclauses. No. 13-Page 5, after clause 14, insert the following new clause: Conflict of Interest ``14a. (1) A member of the Assembly who is party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory or a Territory authority shall not take part in a discussion of a matter, or vote on a question, in a meeting of the Assembly where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract. ``(2) A question concerning the application of subsection (1) shall be decided by the Assembly, and a contravention of that subsection does not invalidate anything done by the Assembly.''. No. 14-Page 7, subclause 17 (1), line 22, leave out ``9 members are a quorum'', insert ``a quorum is formed by an absolute majority of the members''. No. 15-Page 7, subclause 17 (2), lines 23 to 25, leave out the subclause. No. 16-Page 8, subclause 22 (1), line 30, leave out ``subsection (2)'', insert ``this section''. No. 17-Page 9, after subclause 22 (2), add the following new subclauses: ``(3) If, immediately before 1 July 1990, paragraph (1) (b) applies to the establishment of magistrates courts or coroners courts, it ceases so to apply on and from that date. ``(4) Paragraph (1) (b) ceases to have effect in any form on 1 July 1992 unless sooner omitted by the regulations.''. No. 18-Page 10, after clause 27, insert the following new clause: Avoidance of application of enactments to Parliament ``27a. (1) In this section: `enactment' includes a part of an enactment; `Parliamentary precincts' means the precincts defined by subsection 3 (1) of the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988. ``(2) If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution declaring that an enactment made after the commencing day does not apply: (a) to that House; (b) to the members of that House; or (c) in the Parliamentary precincts, the resolution has effect according to its tenor and the enactment does not apply accordingly. ``(3) A resolution under subsection (2): (a) does not have effect in respect of the application of an enactment on a day before the day on which the resolution is passed; and (b) has effect, to the extent that the enactment ceases to apply, as if the enactment were repealed by another enactment.''. No. 19-Page 11, after subclause 32 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2a) Subsection (2) does not apply to the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971 or the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 until after 1 July 1992 or until regulations amend Schedule 3 in the manner referred to in subclause (5a), whichever sooner occurs.''. No. 20-Page 11, after subclause 32 (5), insert the following new subclause: ``(5a) If, before 1 July 1992, the regulations do not amend Schedule 3 by omitting all the laws in Schedule 3, other than those referred to in Schedule 5, then, on and after that date, those laws shall be taken to be enactments and may be amended or repealed accordingly.''. No. 21-Page 12, subclause 33 (2), line 4, after ``the Governor-General may'', insert ``by written instrument,''. No. 22-Page 12, after subclause 33 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2a) A written instrument referred to in subsection (2) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.''. No. 23-Page 12, clause 34, lines 23 to 25, leave out the clause. No. 24-Pages 15 and 16, clauses 49 and 50, line 35 (page 15) to line 14 (page 16), leave out the clauses, insert the following clauses: Powers of Head of Administration ``49. The Head of Administration: (a) shall advise the Executive on the management of the public service as a whole; (b) in relation to the administrative unit of the public service under his or her control: (i) shall be responsible, under the Chief Minister, for its general working and for all its business; and (ii) shall advise the Chief Minister on all matters relating to the unit; and (c) shall exercise the powers conferred on the Head of Administration by or under enactment. Powers of Associate Heads of Administration ``50. An Associate Head of Administration shall, in relation to the administrative unit of the public service under his or her control: (a) be responsible, under the appropriate Minister, for its general working and for all its business; and (b) advise that Minister on all matters relating to the unit.''. No. 25-Page 16, subclause 52 (3), line 32, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``public servant''. No. 26-page 16, subclause 52 (4), line 35, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``public servant''. No. 27-Page 16, subclause 52 (4), lines 36 and 37, leave out ``the member as such a member'', insert ``him or her as a public servant''. No. 28-Page 17, clause 53, lines 7 to 12, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Public service ``53. (1) There shall be a public service for the conduct of the public administration of the Government of the Territory. ``(2) The Chief Minister shall, from time to time, by notice in the Territory Gazette: (a) divide the public service into administrative units; and (b) place each Head of Administration in control of one or more of those units. ``(3) Subject to this section, the constitution and operations of the public service shall be as provided by enactment. ``(4) In this section: `Head of Administration' includes an Associate Head of Administration.''. No. 29-Page 20, paragraph 66 (4) (a), line 16, leave out ``or'' (second occurring). No. 30-Page 20, after paragraph 66 (4) (a), insert the following new paragraph: ``(ab) the person is of unsound mind; or''. No. 31-Page 22, subclause 70 (1), definition of ``employee'', paragraph (a), line 4, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``public servant''. No. 32-Page 22, paragraph 72 (1) (j), line 33, leave out the paragraph. No. 33-page 22, subclause 72 (2), lines 34 to 40, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) A person shall, in respect of services in an office, be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, if no such determination is in force, shall be paid such remuneration as is specified by or under enactment.''. No. 34-Page 24, at end of Schedule 2, add: ``Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971 Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933.''. No. 35-Page 26, Schedule 4, leave out ``Executive staffing'', insert ``The public service''. No. 36-Page 28, after Schedule 4, add the following new Schedule: ``SCHEDULE 5 Section 32 LAWS AND PROVISIONS OTHER THAN THOSE THAT SHALL BECOME ENACTMENTS PART 1-ORDINANCES OF THE TERRITORY Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board Ordinance 1982 Corporate Affairs Commission Ordinance 1980 Ordinances Revision (Companies Amendments) Ordinance 1982 The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited (Merger) Ordinance 1982 The Commercial Bank of Australia Limited (Merger) Ordinance 1982 PART 2-ACTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN FORCE IN THE TERRITORY Life, Fire and Marine Insurance Act 1902 PART 3-IMPERIAL ACTS IN FORCE IN THE TERRITORY Demise of the Crown-(1760) 1 Geo. 3 c. 23 Naval Price Act-(1864) 27 and 28 Vic. c. 25 Naval Prize (Procedure) Act-(1916) 6 and 7 Geo. 5 c. 2 Prize Act-(1939) 2 and 3 Geo. 6 c. 65 Prize Courts Act-(1894) 57 and 58 Vic. c. 39 Prize Courts Act-(1915) 5 and 6 Geo. 5 c. 57 Prize Courts (Procedure) Act-(1914) 4 and 5 Geo. 5 c. 13 Territorial Waters-Jurisdiction-(1878) 41 and 42 Vic. c. 73.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.38) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. On this historic occasion we are about to move the Australian Capital Territory into the process of self-government. The House has before it a report from the Senate detailing amendments which were made to each of the four Bills for the self-government legislative package. The report represents weeks of intensive negotiations between the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. If this House accepts the Senate's suggested amendments we will have at last achieved fundamental democratic rights for the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. Negotiations on the Bills were held in a climate of positive commitment to the concept of self-government. I would like particularly to record my appreciation of the work put into this legislation by the Opposition shadow spokesperson for the ACT, Senator Hill. On this occasion I should also like to commend the general approach that was taken in this House. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), who had the conduct of the legislation, was prepared to accept and enjoin a process by which it was agreed that as the legislation passed through this House it was preserving the rights of both the Opposition and the Government to continue to negotiate for the purposes of achieving unanimity and accord in terms of the details of this legislation. I am pleased to say that I think all political parties were part of that process. Although there was some disagreement with the Australian Democrats in respect of certain aspects of the legislation, the Bill virtually comes back to this chamber with the agreement of the major political parties. The amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988 will specify a timetable for the transfer of certain functions from the Commonwealth, particularly those associated with the administration of the courts. The Magistrates Court will transfer no later than 1 July 1990 and the Supreme Court no later than 1 July 1992. Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court made between 1 July 1990 and the time of transfer will be made only after consultation with the ACT Executive. The amendment in the consequential Bill will debate the provision that gives the Governor-General unfettered power to make ACT ordinances. That power will be limited to functions which are retained by the Commonwealth. The amendments clarify the application of Assembly laws for the Parliament and parliamentary precincts; make any instrument of disallowance of Assembly law a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901; allow the ACT Legislative Assembly to determine the requirement for an oath and affirmation before members may take their seats; allow the Assembly to determine the requirement of the number of meetings of the Assembly for which a member may be absent; clarify the powers and functions of the Head of Administration and establish an ACT Public Service; add `unsound mind' to the list of disqualifications for potential candidates; clarify the operation of certain clauses; and make some minor technical changes. All the amendments have the Government's support and I recommend them to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: Available preferences ``4a. For the purposes of sections 18 and 19a, where the next available preference indicated on a ballot-paper cannot be determined because the same number appears in more than one square on the ballot-paper: (a) where only one of those squares is opposite the name of a party or an independent candidate, the next available preference shall be taken to be for that party or candidate; (b) where 2 or more of those squares are opposite the names of parties or independent candidates, the ballot-paper shall not be taken to indicate a next available preference; (c) where all those squares are opposite the names of candidates of a particular party, the next available preference shall be taken to be for that party; and (d) where all those squares are opposite the names of candidates of parties and 2 or more of them are opposite the names of candidates of different parties, the ballot-paper shall not be taken to indicate a next available preference.''. No. 2-Page 3, subclause 9 (4), line 26, leave out ``1993'', insert ``1992''. No. 3-Page 3, subclause 9 (5), line 28, leave out ``fourth'', insert ``third''. No. 4-Page 6, paragraph 17 (d), lines 18 to 27, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(d) at a general election, an elector shall vote only by: (i) expressing a first preference for one independent candidate; (ii) expressing a first preference for one registered party; or (iii) expressing a first preference for one candidate of one registered party; and, if the elector wishes to do so, expressing subsequent preferences for candidates or parties for which the elector has not expressed a first preference.''. No. 5-Pages 6 to 8, clauses 18 and 19, line 28 (page 6) to line 24 (page 8), leave out the clauses, insert the following clauses: Counting votes: exclusion from distribution of seats ``18. (1) The total number (called the `base number') of first preference votes received by each party and by each independent candidate shall be counted, and, for this purpose, where an elector has expressed a first preference for a candidate of a party, the party is treated as receiving one first preference vote. ``(2) The sum of the base numbers shall be divided by a number equal to the sum of 1 and the number of members to be elected to the Assembly and the result of that division (disregarding any remainder) shall be increased by 1. ``(3) All parties and independent candidates whose base numbers are less than the result of the calculation under subsection (2) shall be excluded from participation in the distribution of seats. ``(4) Where a ballot-paper indicates a first preference vote for an excluded party or independent candidate, the vote given by that ballot-paper shall be transferred to, and added to the base number of, the party, the party of the candidate, or the independent candidate, not excluded, for whom the ballot-paper indicates the next available preference (if any). ``(5) Where: (a) a party is excluded; (b) a ballot-paper that indicates a first preference vote for that party or a candidate of that party does not indicate a preference for another party, a candidate of another party, or an independent candidate; and (c) that excluded party has a party voting ticket registered for the purposes of the election that indicates a next available preference for a party, a candidate of a party, or an independent candidate, not excluded; the vote shall be transferred to, and added to the base number of, the party, the party of the candidate, or the independent candidate, with that preference. Counting votes: provisional election of candidates ``19. (1) The provisional distribution of seats among parties and independent candidates shall be determined in accordance with section 19c. ``(2) If an independent candidate receives a seat under subsection (1), the candidate is provisionally elected. ``(3) If the number of seats received by a party under subsection (1) equals the number of candidates of the party, the candidate is, or candidates are, provisionally elected. ``(4) If the number of candidates of a party exceeds the number of seats received by the party under subsection (1), the candidate or candidates of the party is or are provisionally elected to those seats by distributing the votes among the candidates as provided by the Electoral Act. Counting votes: transfer of preferences of provisionally unsuccessful candidates etc. ``19a. (1) Where a ballot-paper indicates a first preference for: (a) a party: (i) that was not excluded under section 18; but (ii) did not receive a seat under subsection 19 (1); or (b) a candidate: (i) of a party that was not excluded under section 18; and (ii) who was not provisionally elected under subsection 19 (3) or (4); the vote given by that ballot-paper shall be transferred to: (c) where the ballot-paper indicates a next available preference for another party, or a candidate of another party, not excluded-that other party; or (d) where the ballot-paper indicates a next available preference for an independent candidate not excluded-that candidate. ``(2) Where a ballot-paper indicates a first preference for an independent candidate who: (a) was not excluded under section 18; but (b) did not receive a seat under subsection 19 (1); the vote given by that ballot-paper shall be transferred to: (c) where the ballot-paper indicates the next available preference for a party, or a candidate of a party, not excluded-that party; or (d) where the ballot-paper indicates the next available preference for another independent candidate not excluded-that candidate. ``(3) Where a ballot-paper indicates: (a) a first preference for a candidate: (i) of a party that was not excluded under section 18; and (ii) who was not provisionally elected under subsection 19 (3) or (4); and (b) a next available preference for another candidate of that party; that next available preference shall be taken to be the first preference. ``(4) For the purpose of subsections (1), (2) and (3): (a) where a ballot-paper indicates a vote that has been transferred under subsection 18 (4) or (5) because of a next available preference for a party, a candidate of a party or an independent candidate, the ballot-paper shall be taken to indicate the first preference for that party, candidate of that party, or independent candidate, as the case may be; and (b) where subsection 18 (5) applies to a ballot-paper, preferences indicated by the party voting ticket shall be taken to be indicated by the ballot-paper. ``(5) The base number within the meaning of subsection 18 (1) as increased under subsections 18 (4) and (5) of each party and independent candidate shall be adjusted by: (a) adding to the base number of the votes transferred to the party or independent candidate under subsections (1) and (2); and (b) deducting from the base number the votes for that party or independent candidate that were transferred under subsection (1) or (2) to another party or an independent candidate or to a party or another independent candidate, as the case may be. Counting votes: election of candidates ``19b. (1) The distribution of seats among parties and independent candidates shall be determined in accordance with section 19c. ``(2) If an independent candidate receives a seat under subsection (1), the candidate is elected. ``(3) If the number of seats received by a party under subsection (1) equals the number of candidates of the party, the candidate is, or candidates are, elected. ``(4) If the number of candidates of a party exceeds the number of seats received by the party under subsection (1), the candidate or candidates of the party is or are elected to those seats by distributing the votes among the candidates as provided by the Electoral Act. Counting votes: distribution of seats amongparties and independent candidates ``19c. (1) In this section: `adjusted base number', in relation to a party or independent candidate, means: (a) in the case of a determination for the purposes of subsection 19 (1)-the base number of the party or candidate as increased under subsections 18 (4) and (5); or (b) in the case of a determination for the purposes of subsection 19b (1)-the base number of the party or candidate as increased under those subsections and adjusted under subsection 19a (5); `base number' has the same meaning as in subsection 18 (1). ``(2) The adjusted base numbers of the parties and independent candidates not excluded under section 18 shall be divided by 1, then by 2, then by 3 and so on. ``(3) The numbers worked out by dividing all the adjusted base numbers by 1 are `quotients' on the first and highest `rank' and the numbers worked out by dividing all the adjusted base numbers by 2 (disregarding any remainders) are `quotients' on the second `rank' and so on. ``(4) If any 2 quotients on different ranks are equal, the quotient on the higher rank shall be taken to be the higher quotient. ``(5) If 2 or more quotients on the same rank are equal, the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Officer shall, by ballot, decide the order in which they shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (6). ``(6) The party or independent candidate receiving the highest quotient receives the first seat, the party or independent candidate receiving the next highest quotient receives the next seat, and so on until all the seats to be filled have been distributed. ``(7) When the number of seats received by a party is equal to the number of candidates for that party, any further quotient received by that party shall be disregarded. ``(8) When an independent candidate receives a seat, any further quotient received by that candidate shall be disregarded. ``(9) An example of a distribution under this section is set out in Schedule 2.''. No. 6-Page 8, subclause 20 (2), line 36, leave out ``3 1/2'', insert ``2 1/2''. No. 7-Page 18, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of section 173, before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(aa) Insert at the beginning of the section the following subsection: `(1) In this section, ``base number'' has the same meaning as in subsection 18 (1).'.''. No. 8-Page 18, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of section 173, paragraph (b), proposed paragraph 173 (a), leave out ``total number of votes received by'', insert ``base number of''. No. 9-Page 18, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of section 173, paragraph (b), proposed paragraph 173 (b), leave out ``sum of the votes received by'', insert ``base number of''. No. 10-Page 22, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of sections 211, 211a and 212, after proposed subsection 211 (1), insert the following new subsections: `` `(1a) A registered party shall not lodge a statement for the purposes of subsection (1) that indicates equal preferences.''. No. 11-Page 23, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subparagraph 213 (1) (a) (v), leave out all words after ``insert'', insert ``, a public servant or a member of the staff of a Territory authority''. No. 12-Page 23, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subparagraph 213 (1) (a) (ix), leave out all words from and including ``After'', insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) After `Australian Public Service' (first occurring) insert `, a public servant or a member of the staff of a Territory authority'. (b) Omit `another officer of the Australian Public Service', substitute `another person who is an officer of the Australian Public Service, a public servant or a member of the staff of a Territory authority'.''. No. 13-Page 25, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of subsections 239 (1) and (2), at end of proposed paragraph 239 (1) (b), add ``or''. No. 14-Page 25, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of subsections 239 (1) and (2), at end of proposed paragraph 239 (1) (c), leave out ``or''. No. 15-Page 25, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of subsections 239 (1) and (2), proposed paragraph 239 (1) (d), leave out the paragraph. No. 16-Page 28, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of paragraphs 268 (1) (b) and (c), proposed paragraph (ca), leave out ``subject to subsection 269 (1),''. No. 17-Page 28, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of section 269, proposed subsection 269 (1), before ``ballot-paper'', insert ``formal''. No. 18-Page 29, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of section 269, leave out proposed subsections 269 (2) and (3), insert the following subsection: `` `(2) Where a formal ballot-paper has: (a) a preference mark in a square next to the name of a party; (b) no other preference mark in a square above the ballot-line; and (c) a preference mark in a square opposite the name of a candidate of that party; the ballot-paper shall be taken not to have been marked above the ballot-line.''. No. 19-Page 29, Schedule 1, proposed modification of section 270, proposed subsection 270 (2), leave out ``or (6)''. No. 20-Page 30, Schedule 1, proposed modification of section 270, at end of proposed subsection 270 (2), add ``and any other preference marks on the ballot-paper shall be taken not to have been made''. No. 21-Page 30, Schedule 1, proposed modification of section 270, after proposed subsection 270 (2), insert the following new subsection: `` `(2a) Where, under subsection 19a (3) of the Territory Electoral Act, a preference indicated for the candidate of a party on a ballot-paper is taken to be a first preference, any other preference marks on the ballot-paper shall be taken not to have been made.''. No. 22-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraph 273 (2) (c), proposed paragraph (c), before ``votes'' (wherever occurring), insert ``first preference''. No. 23-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraph 273 (2) (c), proposed paragraph (ca), before ``vote'', insert ``first preference''. No. 24-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraph 273 (2) (d), leave out ``first preference''. No. 25-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subparagraph 273 (2) (f) (i), before ``votes'', insert ``first preference''. No. 26-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraphs 273 (5) (c) and (d), proposed subparagraph 273 (5) (c) (i), before ``votes'' (first occurring), insert `'first preference''. No. 27-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraphs 273 (5) (c) and (d), proposed subparagraph 273 (5) (c) (ii), leave out the subparagraph, insert the following subparagraph: ``(ii) the first preference votes received by each candidate of a party; and''. No. 28-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraphs 273 (5) (c) and (d), proposed subparagraph 273 (5) (c) (iii), before ``votes'', insert ``first preference''. No. 29-Page 31, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraphs 273 (5) (c) and (d), proposed paragraph 273 (5) (d), before ``votes'' (first, second and fifth occurring), insert ``first preference''. No. 30-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modification of paragraphs 273 (5) (c) and (d), proposed subparagraphs 273 (5) (da) (ii) and (iii), before ``vote'' (wherever occurring), insert ``first preference''. No. 31-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), leave out proposed subsection 273 (6), insert the following subsection: `` `(6) The Australian Capital Territory Electoral Officer shall cause everything necessary to be done for the purpose of: (a) the exclusion of parties and independent candidates under section 18 of the Territory Electoral Act; (b) the provisional distribution of seats required by subsection 19 (1) of that Act; (c) the distribution of votes required by subsection 19 (4) of that Act, being a distribution in accordance with this section; (d) ascertaining, and, if necessary, parcelling, the ballot-papers to which section 19a of that Act applies; (e) the transfer of votes required by section 19a of that Act; (f) the distribution of seats required by subsection 19b (1) of that Act; and (g) the distribution of votes required by subsection 19b (4) of that Act, being a distribution in accordance with this section.''. No. 32-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), leave out proposed subsection 273 (8), insert the following subsections: `` `(8) For the purposes of the succeeding subsections a candidate of a party shall be taken to have received a first preference vote if he or she receives a higher preference than any other candidate of that party. `(8aa) In the succeeding subsections: `elect', in relation to a count for the purposes of subsection 19 (4) of the Territory Electoral Act, means provisionally elect.''. No. 33-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), proposed subsection 273 (8b), leave out ``dividing the total number of votes received by that party'', insert the following word and paragraphs: ``dividing: (a) in the case of a distribution for the purposes of subsection 19 (4) of the Territory Electoral Act-the base number of that party as increased under subsections 18 (4) and (5) of that Act; or (b) in the case of a distribution for the purposes of subsection 19b (4) of that Act-the base number of that party as increased under those subsections and adjusted under subsection 19a (5) of that Act;''. No. 34-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), proposed subsection 273 (8c), after ``votes'', insert ``(being, in the case of a distribution for the purposes of subsection 19b (4) of the Territory Electoral Act, that number as adjusted by the operation of section 19a of that Act)''. No. 35-Page 32, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of subsection 273 (9), after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(ba) After `candidate' (first occurring insert `of the party'.''. No. 36-Page 33, Schedule 1, after proposed modifications of subsection 273 (19), insert the following new modification: ``Subsection 273 (20): Omit `and the Representation Act 1983'.''. No. 37-Page 33, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsection 273 (29) (definitions of ``leading shortfall'' and ``shortfall''), leave out the modification, insert the following modifications: ``Subsection 273 (22): Omit `Electoral Officer for the State', substitute `Capital Territory Electoral Officer'. ``Subsection 273 (29): After the definition of `adjusted notional vote' insert the following definition: ` ``base number'' has the same meaning as in subsection 18 (1) of the Territory Electoral Act.'. ``Subsection 273 (29) (definition of `leading shortfall'): (a) Omit `in a Senate election', substitute `to determine which candidates of a party are to be elected'. (b) After `candidate' insert `of the party'. `Subsection 273 (29) (definition of `notional vote'): After `candidate' (third occurring) insert `of his or her party'. ``Subsection 273 (29) (definition of `shortfall'): Omit `in a Senate election', substitute `to determine which candidates of a party are to be elected'.''. No. 38-Page 33, Schedule 1, after proposed modification of subsection 273 (29) (definition of ``State''), insert the following new modifications: ``Subsection 273 (29) (definition of `vacancy shortfall'): (a) Omit `in a Senate election', substitute `to determine which candidates of a party are to be elected'. (b) After `candidate' (first occurring) insert `of the party'. ``Paragraph 273 (31) (b): Omit `Electoral Officer for the State', substitute `Capital Territory Electoral Officer'.''. No. 39-Page 37, Schedule 1, proposed modification of subsections 294 (1), (2) and (3), proposed subsection 294 (1), leave out all words after ``in respect of'' and before ``received'' (second occurring), insert ``each first preference vote that, for the purposes of subsection 18 (1) of the Territory Electoral Act, is taken to have been received by a registered party, and for each first preference vote that, for those purposes, is taken to have been''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.43) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill 1988 puts in place an electoral system for the ACT. This Bill in particular has been the subject of considerable negotiations between the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. The principle feature of the amendments involves an alteration to the d'Hondt electoral system as originally outlined in the Bill. The amendments provide that, where an elector's first preference is expressed for a party candidate who is not successful, or for a party or independent candidate surviving the exclusion process but still not attracting enough votes to receive a seat, his or her vote will be transferred to the party, the party of the candidate or the independent candidate receiving the elector's next available preference. The effect of transferring a vote to a party candidate is to treat that candidate as having received a first preference vote. As a result of this refinement, the proposed amendments provide for a changed vote counting procedure. The amendments also clarify the intention of certain provisions of the Bill and reflects the amendments proposed to the ACT (Self-Government) Bill 1988. The Government has also agreed to a reduction of the fixed term of the Assembly from four years to three years. I recommend that the Committee accept the Senate's report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 4, definition of ``works'', paragraph (a), line 36, leave out `'or extension'', insert '', extension or demolition''. No. 2-Page 25, clause 82, lines 1 to 7, leave out the clause insert the following clause: Contracts ``82. Where, immediately before the repeal of the NCDC Act, a contract was subsisting and the NCDC was a party to the contract, the Commonwealth is substituted for the NCDC as a a party to the contract.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.46) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill 1988 puts in place new arrangements for planning, land development and land management in the context of self-government for the ACT. Only two amendments to this Bill were passed by the Senate. The first adds the word `demolition' to the definition of `works' in clause 4 to make it clear that the demolition of a building in designated areas requires the approval of the National Capital Planning Authority. The second replaces existing clause 82 which allowed the regulations to make provisions substituting the Commonwealth or other specified bodies for the National Capital Development Commission in subsisting contracts. As all subsisting contracts are now to be transferred to the Commonwealth, a new clause 82 will make provision for this and remove the need to make regulations. I recommend that the Committee agree to the amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 3, definition of `Territory office', lines 6 and 7, leave out the definition. No. 2-Page 3, clause 3, definition of `transitional Territory staff', lines 16 to 19, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `transitional Territory staff' means the persons required for the conduct of the public administration of the Government of the Territory, other than members of the service referred to in section 53 of the Self-Government Act.'. No. 3-Page 5, after clause 11, insert the following new clause: Laws converted into enactments by 1 July 1990 ``11a. (1) In this section: `law' includes a part of a law. ``(2) If, immediately before 1 July 1990, any laws specified in subsection (5) have not been omitted from Schedule 3 of the Self-Government Act, the laws are omitted from that Schedule on that date by force of this subsection and shall be taken to be enactments and may be amended or repealed accordingly. ``(3) Where: (a) an Ordinance has been made with respect to the subject matter of a law specified in Schedule 3 to the Self-Government Act; and (b) the law is omitted from that Schedule at a time when the Ordinance is in force; the Governor-General may make regulations providing that the Ordinance, or specified parts of the Ordinance (being parts relating to that subject matter), with such modifications (if any) as are specified in the regulations, shall be taken to be an enactment and may be amended or repealed accordingly. ``(4) The definition of `enactment' in section 3 of the Self-Government Act shall be read as including a law, Ordinance or part of an Ordinance that is taken to be an enactment because of subsection (2) or (3). ``(5) The laws referred to in subsection (2) are the laws specified in the various Parts of Schedule 3 to the Self-Government Act as follows: ``PART 1 Children's Services Ordinance 1986 except sections 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147 Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 Coroners Ordinance 1956 Crimes Ordinances and Crimes Amendment Ordinances (various) Imperial Acts (Substituted Provisions) Ordinance 1986, Schedule 2, Parts 16, 17, 20 and 21 Judgment Creditors Remedies Ordinance 1933 Judiciary (Stay of Proceedings) Ordinance 1933 Legal Practitioners Ordinance 1970 Limitation Ordinance 1985 Magistrates Court Ordinance 1930 Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance 1982 Notaries Public Ordinance 1984 Police Ordinance 1927 Small Claims Ordinance 1974 Supreme Court Ordinance 1952 ``PART 2 Arrest on Mesne Process Act 1902 Crimes Act 1900 Judgment Creditors' Remedies Act 1901 Lunacy Act 1898, sections 65, 66 and 67 Piracy Punishment Act 1902 ``PART 3 Offences at sea-(1536) 28 Hen. 8 c. 15 Piracy-(1698) 11 Will. 3 c. 7 Piracy-(1717) 4 Geo. 1 c. 11 Piracy-(1721) 8 Geo. 1 c. 24 Piracy-(1744) 18 Geo. 2 c. 30 Slavery Abolition Act-(1833) 3 and 4 Will. 4 c. 73 Slave Trade Act-(1824) 5 Geo. 4 c. 113 Slave Trade Act-(1843) 6 and 7 Vic. c. 98 Slave Trade Act-(1873) 36 and 37 Vic. c. 88''. No. 4-Page 8, paragraphs 20 (30) (a) and (b), lines 18 to 20, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) as if subsections (1), (1a) and (2) were omitted;''. No. 5-Page 8, subclause 20 (6), line 30, leave out ``member of the staff'', insert ``public servant''. No. 6-Page 13, subclause 30 (1), lines 10 to 13, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) The Governor-General may make regulations making provision (including provision by way of modifications of an Act) in relation to: (a) any matter arising from, connected with or consequential upon the establishment of the Territory as a body politic under the Crown; or (b) any matter arising from, connected with or consequential upon the conversion of a law into an enactment.''. No. 7-Page 13, subclause 30 (3), line 17, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclauses: ``(3) Regulations relating to a matter specified in paragraph (1) (a) shall not be made after 31 December 1989. ``(4) Regulations relating to a matter specified in paragraph (1) (b) shall not be made after the law becomes an enactment. ``(5) In this section: `law' includes: (a) a part of a law; or (b) an Ordinance or a part of an Ordinance.''. No. 8-Page 14, Schedule 1, proposed modifications of the Public Service Act 1922, proposed new subsection 7 (1a), leave out ``Australian Capital Territory'', insert ``A.C.T. Self-Government''. No. 9-Page 16, Schedule 2, proposed modifications of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, proposed modification of subsection 23 (5), leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) Omit `public authority of the Commonwealth', substitute `enactment authority within the meaning of the A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988'.''. No. 10-Page 22, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933, after proposed amendment of section 5, add the following new amendment: ``After section 7: Insert the following section: Appointments between 1 July 1990 and 30 June 1992 `7aa. (1) This section applies to an appointment made under section 7 on or after 1 July 1990 at a time when this Act has not become an enactment within the meaning of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. `(2) Such an appointment shall not be made unless, before tendering advice to the Governor-General, the Attorney-General has consulted with the Australian Capital Territory Executive. `(3) This section ceases to have effect on 1 July 1992.'.''. No. 11-Page 23, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, after proposed subsection 8 (1a), insert the following new subsection: ``(1b) The Minister shall try to enter into the first such arrangement before 1 July 1990.''. No. 12-Page 25, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, proposed amendment of subsection 5 (8), at end of proposed paragraph 5 (8) (ba), add ``or an office established by or under enactment''. No. 13-Page 36, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973, at end of proposed new paragraph 5 (3) (aa), add ``or an office established by or under enactment''. No. 14-Page 40, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, leave out the proposed amendments, insert the following amendment: ``Subsection 3 (3): Omit the subsection, substitute the following subsection: `(3) A reference in this Part to an office includes a reference to an office that, within the meaning of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, is an office of member of the Assembly or Minister and any office in or in connection with that Assembly that can be held only by a member of that Assembly.'.''. No. 15-Page 40, Schedule 5, proposed amendment of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, leave out the proposed amendment. No. 16-Page 41, Schedule 5, proposed amendments of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, after proposed amendment of subsection 5 (4), insert the following amendment: ``Subsection 12 (1): Omit the subsection, substitute the following subsections: `(1) Subject to subsection (1b) the Governor-General may make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory with respect to: (a) the establishment, jurisdiction, practice and procedure of courts; (b) the classification of materials for the purposes of censorship; (c) evidence; (d) National Land as defined by the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988; (e) companies; (f) close corporations; (g) foreign companies; (h) the acquisition of shares in bodies corporate; (j) the regulation of the securities industry and the futures industry; and (k) the subject matter of laws specified in Schedule 3 to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. `(1a) An Ordinance made under paragraph (1) (d) has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the National Capital Plan in effect under the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, but an Ordinance shall be taken to be consistent with the Plan to the extent that it is capable of operating concurrently with the Plan. `(1b) Subject to subsection (1c), paragraphs (1) (a), (1) (c) and (1) (k) cease to have effect on and after 1 July 1990 or after regulations made in the manner referred to in the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 come into effect, whichever sooner occurs. `(1c) Paragraph (1) (k) does not cease to have effect on and after 1 July 1990 in regard to any matter referred to in Schedule 5 to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988.'.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.48) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian Capital Territory Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 makes provision for necessary transitional and consequential matters arising from the establishment of the ACT as a body politic. The purpose of the amendments passed by the Senate is to make further consequential amendments arising from the amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988; make provisions for the transfer to the ACT by 1 July 1990 of Commonwealth laws dealing with criminal law matters and legal practitioners; require the Commonwealth, no later than 1 July 1990, to try to enter into arrangements for the provision of police services to the Australian Capital Territory by the Australian Federal Police on an agency basis; limit the Governor-General's power to make Australian Capital Territory ordinances to Australian Capital Territory functions retained by the Commonwealth; enable the Remuneration Tribunal to determine directly the remuneration of Ministers and members of the Assembly; and make some minor technical amendments. I recommend that the Committee accept the Senate's report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 28 November, on the following paper presented by Mr Hawke: Joint Defence Facilities-Ministerial statement, 22 November 1988 and on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the House take note of the papers. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.50) —The House is debating a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a week ago on the joint defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The Prime Minister has an excellent record in reporting to this House on the nature of those defence facilities between the United States of America and the Australian Government. In June 1984 the Prime Minister outlined to the House the nature of the work carried on at Pine Gap and Nurrungar, but I am pleased to say that in his statement last week the Prime Minister was able to go into more detail. That is welcomed by the community. Last week the Prime Minister explained some important changes to the agreement under which the joint defence facilities operate, and I wish to go into some detail. First, we must acknowledge that under this Government the Prime Minister of the day is explaining to the Australian people what happens at Pine Gap and Nurrungar to a very large extent. That is to be contrasted with what happened in the past. It is unfortunate that when these facilities were constructed in the 1960s the government of the day was unable to come clean with members of the public and tell them, if only in broad detail, what happens at those facilities. I quote an interesting paragraph from page 56 of a book on Pine Gap by Dr Desmond Ball, who is considered to be one of the exports on these facilities: The first clue that the people in Alice Springs had that something extraordinary was going to be built south-west of the town was the construction of a sealed road in the direction of Temple Bar Creek. This was announced in June 1966 as an access road to the Mereenie water bores, which they- that is, the people of Alice Springs- had long pressed for but which the Northern Territory Administration had continually refused. But construction did not stop at the bores; to the puzzlement of the locals it kept going to what is now the entrance to the Pine Gap station. It was not until December 1966 that a public statement was made that the facility was to be constructed at Pine Gap, but in June 1966 the then Liberal Government was approving funds for this mysterious sealed road to be built out of Alice Springs. I would have thought that it would have been in everyone's interests for the government of the day to have been more honest with the people of Australia so that some of the wilder allegations and stories about these facilities would not have taken root. One of the problems with the facilities in the past was that some governments were not frank with the people of Australia. I admit that there were limitations on how far those governments could go, but at least they had no need to pretend that it was a space research centre. They should have given some broad indication to the people as to what was happening at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. I quote from an article in the Australian by Paul Kelly on 25 November 1988 when he made the following comment in passing: Joint control is about to become a reality. The article followed the Prime Minister's statement. Mr Kelly continued: Past claims by both this Government and previous governments about joint control have been fraudulent. In the '60s and much of the '70s, the US did what it liked. Former prime ministers John Gorton and Billy McMahon said they never knew what Pine Gap did. Gough Whitlam said he was never told the full truth. It is unfortunate that Australian Prime Ministers could not look after Australia's interests by ensuring that they were fully advised as to what was happening at those defence facilities. If Australia does not ensure that its national interests are looked after, those who are against the bases could rightly claim that they are US bases. It is important to understand that under this Government we have sought to make sure that Australia's interests are looked after and that the facilities are joint facilities and not US bases, as some people have alleged. I commend the fact that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has provided briefings for members of the Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, since the equivalent committee in the US Congress already receives such briefings. It would be a matter for regret if the Australian parliamentary equivalents were not receiving similar briefings to those which are being provided to US congressmen. In his statement the Prime Minister made clear that there will be an increase in the number of Australians working at these facilities. In fact he has made it clear that at present only 10 per cent of the personnel working at these facilities are Australian and that the figure is scheduled to rise to 30 per cent over the next two or three years. I quote the following important paragraph from the Prime Minister's statement: At Pine Gap, a senior Australian defence official will be appointed to a newly created position as deputy chief of the facility. He will advise and support the United States chief of the facility in managing the facility and its activities, and he will share responsibility with him for that work. I think it is very important that Australian personnel be in the senior two or three positions at the facilities so that they can ensure that Australia's national interests are looked after. I was interested to read a report on the Prime Minister's statement written by Geoff Kitney in the Australian Financial Review headed `Bases now spy for Australia'. The article begins: Australia has initiated major changes to agreements with the United States on the operations of the Pine Gap and Nurrungar bases to greatly increase the role the bases play in electronic spying in the region for Australia. The article later continues: The sophisticated electronic information gathering capabilities of the facilities and the massive cost of constantly upgrading technologies means Australia now has strong operational and financial interests in ensuring the bases have long-term guarantees. This represents a major change from the early days of operation, which was determined by US defence officials and Central Intelligence Agency operatives entirely for the benefit of the US. Although they were always claimed to be joint defence facilities, the reality was that Australian staff had no influence over and little knowledge of operations. The transformation has been under way for some time but was accelerated by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, who saw the potential to turn the base's advanced intelligence gathering capabilities to Australia's advantage. That is the test which I think we should apply as to whether the bases should continue: is it in Australia's interest for Pine Gap and Nurrungar to continue to function? By having Australians in senior positions, as the Prime Minister has outlined, and ensuring that Australians can determine the nature of a lot of the work that is carried on by the bases, we can seek to make sure that Australia receives the valuable and essential information that we need to determine Australia's position in world affairs. In addition, we cannot afford to look at Australia's interests alone. We also have to ask whether the presence of the bases helps to continue to keep peace in the world. It is very clear that the bases at Pine Gap and Nurrungar allow for proper verification of the agreements which have been negotiated in recent days between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The intermediate-range nuclear force argeement between the US and the Soviet Union means that today, for the first time in the world's history, nuclear weapons are being destroyed. It is not a moment too soon, and we would be very happy if the talks on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons were successful in the near future. But none of the superpowers are going to agree to the elimination of nuclear weapons if they cannot be sure that the other side is playing by the rules and is not secretly seeking perhaps to maintain its own stockpile of nuclear weapons in an underhand manner. That is why, unfortunately, in the real world, places like Nurrungar and Pine Gap are needed-so that the West can be assured that the Eastern bloc countries are following the rules; so that we know that the Eastern bloc countries are destroying their nuclear weapons. Those who argue that we should close down Pine Gap and Nurrungar do not tell people that that would mean that the United States would be even less likely to be able to negotiate these agreements which provide for reductions in nuclear weapons. People who honestly in their hearts believe that we have to do all we can to reduce the number of nuclear weapons should be supporting statements such as that made in the House last week by the Prime Minister when he explained that Pine Gap and Nurrungar make a vital contribution to the provision of proper verification procedures on both sides. I have pleasure in commending the Prime Minister on his statement and for being honest with the Australian people. He is more honest than any Prime Minister has been in the past. I hope that is something that will continue for many years to come. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.02) —The Opposition supports the statement on the joint facilities made a day or so ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The roles of the joint facilities are clearly laid out in that statement. We have been given a more detailed description than we have had in the past, and I think that, in itself, is a good thing. There has been a lot of criticism of these bases, not the least by members on the Government side of the House. Some Government supporters have been converted along the way and now totally support the bases. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) made the point-I suspect-that most people on the Government side believe that it is now necessary that these bases be maintained. Of course, that was not the view of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) a few years ago, and I will come to that point shortly. The point I want to make at this stage, which seems to escape entirely those who criticise the joint facilities, is that the facilities are just as important to Australia as they are to the United States. They operate for our benefit. They provide us with information, and they are a very important part of Australia's security. The US is not doing us a favour. These joint facilities are of mutual benefit to both countries. Claims have come from the other side of the House-not so much recently, but yesterday this sort of thing was said by the Australian Democrats-that the United States is not an ally of Australia. I must say that I find that an extraordinary remark. Perhaps I can take a couple of minutes to go back to the dark days that Australia faced in 1942 when the Americans came to our assistance in large numbers. That relationship has continued since 1942. Australian and United States service men and women fought side by side in Korea. More recently an alliance was forged in respect of Vietnam, and I will return to that in a moment. There has been the closest possible relationship between our two countries. For some time both sides of this House have agreed that the Australian-United States relationship, through ANZUS, has been the cornerstone of our defence policy. New Zealand, or some New Zealanders, or certainly the New Zealand Government, do not understand that fact. New Zealand has walked away from that old alliance. It seems to think that it can walk away from its responsibilities and still expect all of the benefits that go with being in that alliance. This is fairyland stuff. It is time that we in Australia spoke more strongly to New Zealand and told that country what is happening as far as that alliance is concerned. I find it a bit strange that several Government supporters who spoke in this debate last night or today should say that the Labor Party is strongly in support of these joint facilities. Not so long ago at least half the Labor Party was trying to close down these facilities. Not the least of those people was the present Prime Minister. During debate on another matter today, concerning a censure against the Prime Minister, he came into this House and talked about his integrity-not about the issues. I am always very suspicious of people who talk about their integrity. One either has integrity or one does not. Let other people judge one's integrity. One's integrity must be pretty suspect if one has to talk about it. Let us talk about the Prime Minister's integrity, as he has raised the subject. The Prime Minister quite rightly made a statement on the joint facilities. But 10 years ago he was not saying what he says now. The National Times of 13-18 September 1976 carried a full page advertisement which stated: We, the undersigned, consider that: Military alliances are a source of international tensions. They lead to subordination of weaker nations to bigger powers, and often involve the aligned nations in military interventions. Foreign military bases on our soil are detrimental to Australia's safety. They constitute a threat to other nations, make this continent a potential nuclear target, and could be used by the USA contrary to our wishes . . . USA-Australian alliance dragged us into the Vietnam war. And so it goes on and on. The advertisement concluded: Therefore, we the undersigned, support the campaign for an independent and non-aligned Australia, which stands for: Opposition to military alliances, foreign military bases- and so on. The advertisement carries probably a couple of hundred names, amongst which are the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), a Labor member of this House, Senator Brown, the Speaker, Joan Child, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Gietzelt. Honourable members might like to guess whose name was last on the list. It was R. J. Hawke. So in 1976 he signed an advertisement which said that the signatories were totally opposed to the joint facilities and foreign bases and that Australians were dragged into the Vietnam war because of the American alliances. He comes in here in 1988, having been converted along the way, and says that the bases are the greatest thing since sliced bread, that they are the cornerstone of our defence policy, and that it is a pity that we had not been stronger and more open in the past in declaring what they were all about. Today the Prime Minister raised the matter of his integrity. Where does his integrity stand now? He did not say a word about his integrity when he made his statement on the joint facilities. He might have had the grace to say, `Well, I thought at one stage the bases were not in Australia's best interest, but now I am convinced that they are'. So it is not only a matter of integrity; it is a matter of gross hypocrisy. The Prime Minister, of course, is not the only one guilty of this. I am not sure that is the view the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) now holds, but at the 1986 ALP conference he moved a motion to close down Pine Gap. He was not on his own in supporting that motion. The Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November, referring to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), stated: A prominent Left-wing Federal MP accused the Prime Minister yesterday of failing to consult the Caucus over the Government's decision to extend leases covering US bases in Australia. So it is not all sweetness and light on the other side of the House, although I am happy to say that only one or two Labor members seem to be left out on a limb. I take issue with the statement that the US dragged us into the Vietnam war. Australia made its own decision to go into the Vietnam war based on Australian interests. We were part of the Western alliance and we were totally and still are opposed to communism, as were the other countries that fought in that conflict. There was one other reason for our becoming involved in the Vietnam war: we decided that it was worth the effort to help people, some of whom were already under the communist yoke; half the country was threatened with being put under that yoke. I fought in that war and, like everyone who fought there, there were times when doubts arose about whether we should have been there and whether our commitment was right. Anyone serving there would have had those doubts. A couple of years ago I went back on a parliamentary delegation and I was allowed to travel with that delegation the length and breadth of that country and Kampuchea and Laos. I went to North Vietnam, which has now been under communist rule since 1954, and I saw what had happened to that country. The people were living under the most grinding poverty that I have ever seen anywhere. They were people entirely without hope because they knew that no matter how hard they worked or what industry they showed or how clever they were, nothing was going to change. Their place in life was fixed under this communist regime. I saw, and they have since admitted, that the communist principles had failed. But they are still people without a future. I wondered then, when I thought back to the days when I and others had been there during the war, whether we were right. I determined, having gone back to see what it was like for people to live under a communist yoke, that we were right. I take great exception to the statement last night by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) that during the Vietnam war the coalition policy was, `We do not mind 500 young Australians being killed'. What a thing for a member of this House to say-that it was coalition policy that we did not mind 500 Australians being killed. If the honourable member for Isaacs had any sense of decency he would apologise in this House. The joint facilities are only one aspect of our Western alliance. There are other aspects to how reliable an ally we are. Grave doubt has been cast on that reliability in recent years under this Government. There was an incident in 1983 when the Invincible was seeking repairs in Australia and was turned away. That was a British ship which was turned away from Australian shores and eventually sent to Singapore to get repairs done. Why? Because the Government would not dock that ship. In 1985 there was the fiasco of the MX missile, when we would not give facilities in Australia for Americans to test that missile. The left wing won again. It raised all the old doubts in Britain and in America about whether we were a reliable ally. More recently, this year we had the Edinburgh incident in Sydney-a British ship again which needed repairs and which came all this way for our Bicentenary at the invitation of the Australian Government. It was turned away because the Government-not the trade unions and not the dockyards-would not give the guarantee the British sought that, if that ship was docked, it would be undocked. Then we had the spectacle of the Ark Royal bouncing around in filthy weather in Port Phillip for about three days because the Seamen's Union would not provide the tugs. The Government allowed that visiting British warship to stay there until eventually it turned away in disgust and went elsewhere. The point I am making is that it is all very well to be strong about joint facilities, and we welcome that, but an alliance is more than that. It is a partnership and a guarantee that one will play one's part in that partnership. Can honourable members imagine what it would be like if we sent ships to the United Kingdom and they were turned away and not serviced? Can honourable members imagine the scream in this country? It is no wonder that both the British and the Americans are reviewing aspects of their relationship with Australia. The Government has taken a sensible view in this matter. The joint facilities are a very important part of securing world peace. We support that, and I presume the Government will continue to support those facilities. The coalition parties are pleased to see the Government come to a sensible decision in this matter. To those who oppose the joint facilities I say, `Look at the real world in which we live'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(6.17) —I am pleased to take part in this debate on the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the extension of the term for the joint facilities and the new arrangements whereby, if Australia wished at some time in the future to terminate the tenure of those facilities by the United States, it would give three years' notice. It is a particularly pleasant occasion because this step forward, in keeping with the policy of the Australian Labor Party and certainly in the best interests of the Government and the people of Australia, has been taken as one of the closing acts in the career of the present American Ambassador to Australia, the Hon. Bill Lane. I take the opportunity, and I am sure honourable members on both sides of the House agree, to say that His Excellency Mr Bill Lane has been an outstanding American Ambassador in the way he has communicated the American position on a vast range of subjects to the people of this nation and to the members of this Parliament and also in the way he has worked with great enthusiasm to develop and enhance the already sound relationships between the people of the United States and the people of Australia. The extension of the tenure for the joint facilities is, of course, part of that relationship which is enshrined in the ANZUS agreement entered into in 1951 between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The Labor Party has nothing to be apologetic about in relation to the defence relationship with the United States. It was John Curtin early in 1942, not long after Pearl Harbour, who made that appeal to the President and people of the United States for military assistance and for cooperation. He was attacked at that time by the conservatives in this country because patriotism was judged then by the British connection and not by the American connection. He was seen by some members of this House as being unpatriotic. Time has proved John Curtin right. After the war the Labor Government sought to achieve what was then called a Pacific pact, without success. The United States was wary about entering into commitments, but at the time of the Japanese peace treaty it became opportune and necessary, and the United States showed great leadership at that time, for the United States to enter into treaties with its Pacific partners in the Philippines and in ANZUS. The policy of the Labor Party, unlike the policy of the coalition in earlier days, is that the role of these facilities should be explained to the people of Australia. That has been a step by step role. The Prime Minister made a statement in June 1984 and another one this month. The role of both of these facilities is much better understood in Australia. The Opposition, when in government, tried to develop the mystique of the security arrangements. That caused unnecessary and unwanted fears by many people in Australia about the actual role of these facilities. The Australian Labor Party has debated these matters on a number of occasions at its national conference because it is concerned about our national integrity and our national sovereignty. The Party has found that these facilities conform with the policy of the Party and are in the best interests of the people of this country. It is our proud role to have made them genuine joint facilities. That started at the time of the Whitlam Government when Mr Barnard went to the United States to negotiate an increasing Australian role. As time has gone by the role that Australia plays in both of these facilities has increased. This statement marks a further step forward, particularly as it applies to Pine Gap. The role that Australia has played in Nurrungar has been very significant for quite a long period. The statement points out that an Australian is now to be appointed to the newly created position of deputy chief of the Pine Gap facility. We are not there only in an observer role; we are there in a management role, as we are at Nurrungar. That expanded role for Australia in both of these facilities is not only worth while from the point of view of ensuring that we totally participate, that we receive all of the information that those facilities generate and that we are aware of everything that is happening at those facilities but it also enables people from our Defence Department and from our armed forces to obtain invaluable experience that they could not obtain anywhere else. I would like to focus for a few minutes on some of the advantages of these joint facilities. I think some disquiet still exists in some parts of the Australian community. There is an idea that somehow we are giving the United States an enormous benefit by enabling it to establish these facilities on Australian soil, given the fact that it has admitted that in time of war both of these facilities could be nuclear targets. One should, I suppose fairly enough, ask what Australia gets out of all this. I have mentioned the technology. That technology, particularly at Pine Gap, is such that Australia could never spend the money, develop the expertise or train the people needed to provide a facility of that type. The fact that we are in this joint relationship means that we have access to the latest technology in the world in this area. Quite apart from that fact it is part of an intelligence sharing arrangement. We make our contribution, as part of the Western world, to feeding intelligence into that system. In return we are in a privileged position to receive intelligence from the United States as we receive it from other friendly powers. That is a great advantage to this country. Dr Evatt described us as a middle power but we do not have great resources throughout the world. If we want to keep tabs on what is happening in the Persian Gulf, for example, or other parts of the world where there might be tension or trouble, the fact that we are making a contribution towards the intelligence databank of the Western world puts us in a privileged position to receive from the United States and our other allies data in which we are interested when we do not have the resources to collect intelligence for our own part. I believe that there has been a quantum change in the views of many people about these facilities. The reason why there has been that change is, I suppose, that a Labor Government has been in office for more than five years. The Labor Party-about which the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) reminded us many people had reservations in earlier days-has looked objectively at these facilities and decided that they are very much in the best interests of Australia. I make the point again that actually explaining the role of these facilities has been a big factor in the quantum change in the community opinion in Australia. Another factor in this statement is that there is a 10-year term. That is the longest term allowed by the policy of the Australian Labor Party. When that was debated at the national conference it was considered that the term should be of a substantial length because one would not want to see some change of government in the future and some precipitate change in the management of these extremely important facilities. It means that the United States can now plan-and, indeed, we can plan-for the use of these joint facilities over the years ahead. The three-year notice is reasonable and fair. I am aware that there has been some criticism of the three-year notice. Under the previous arrangements the tenancy could be terminated with a year's notice. Quite frankly, if some future Australian government decided to terminate the agreement on Pine Gap, for example, it would take the United States very much longer than a year to replace that facility with one of similar capacity somewhere else in the world. What do these facilities mean to Australian and what do they mean to the world? I have explained fairly briefly what these facilities mean to Australia. They make a very great contribution in terms of the areas in which I have already dealt-that is, expertise, technology and sharing of information. That defence relationship with the United States is enormously important to us because we have privileged access to equipment from the United States should we be involved in a wartime situation, especially some of those areas of ordnance that we do not keep large stocks of, such as missiles. As a close ally of the United States we in this country are in a privileged position. We know-and we had a lesson of it in recent times in the Falklands war-that the United States keeps its alliance commitments. We saw the United States responding to Britain's request for help in that unfortunate war. One would be at fault if one did not point out that there are much broader implications than what these facilities mean to Australia. They are important to the world. The arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union for winding down the nuclear stockpiles have been made possible by the fact that facilities such as the ones that we have in this country enable checks to be kept on the activities of the Soviet Union and other countries. It has been fairly said that if these facilities did not exist, in terms of the agreements that are being put in place to wind down the nuclear stockpiles and make this world safer, such facilities would have to be constructed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Madam Speaker: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.00) —The Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill seeks to reduce the number of separate departments serving the Parliament from five to three. It involves amending the Public Service Act 1922 to replace the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department with a new Department of Parliamentary Services. It also seeks to create a new office of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services to administer the new department. The main objectives of the Bill, as outlined, are to establish a less fragmented and more effectively coordinated administration while making the best use of allocated resources. The Presiding Officers envisage that the restructuring would result in cost savings-including the saving of 18 staff-and greater efficiency in the provision of services. We understand this is seen as an initial legislative step. Introduction of a separate parliamentary service Bill, separate from the Public Service Act, to establish a new framework attuned to modern needs for the employment of staff to service the Parliament seems to be the ultimate objective. When the Speaker introduced this Bill into the House of Representatives in the provisional Parliament House on 19 May this year, she said: We are making history as we move from this Parliament House to the new Parliament House. Inevitably, some new arrangements will be necessary. It is now more than three months since Parliament met for the first time in this building on 22 August 1988. Although we are still settling in to the new parliamentary environment, I am sure all honourable members will agree that the move has created far fewer difficulties than most of us expected. In large measure this is due to the dedication and efficient planning of the parliamentary staff, the staff of the Parliament House Construction Authority, and others who shared those responsibilities. On behalf of the Opposition I extend our thanks to all of these people for what they have done and for the way they are continuing to cope with the problems created by the move from the provisional Parliament House to this magnificent new home of the Australian Parliament. Whilst the Opposition recognises, as I said at the time this Bill was introduced, that some new administrative arrangements are necessary to cope with the requirements of Parliament in this much larger building, we question whether the best way of dealing with the situation is through legislation. We believe it would be more prudent to vary the administrative arrangements within the framework of existing legislation rather than opt for a formal amalgamation of departments at this stage. This would give senators and members more time to see how administrative arrangements work out. We would then be in a position later to bring in legislation to provide for the most efficient servicing of the Parliament in the new building, if this is thought desirable. Because it would appear that this is not acceptable to the Presiding Officers, the Opposition will oppose and vote against this Bill. The Opposition appreciates the way the Speaker has handled the Bill. It has been available to members of the House of Representatives for the past six months along with other material that has assisted us to consider the various aspects of the matter. The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) could learn a great deal from the Speaker in this regard. Members are still acutely aware that the Leader of the House, by use of the guillotine, forced 28 Bills through this chamber last week in a period of three days. This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament by the Executive Government. The Opposition has carefully examined the Bill and the other information supplied by the Speaker. Though the Presiding Officers suggest cost savings will result from the re-organisation, they have offered no detailed report. We believe the scope for achievement of savings seems questionable. It is also likely that the amalgamation will involve increased expenditure by creating another senior position and another layer of senior management over the proposed three departments. Madam Speaker claims indicative savings in the order of $525,000 annually based upon 18 man-years. It appears this is based upon a saving of 18 staff, but no indication is given of how that staff reduction is to be achieved. As the functions of the three departments are quite different, the only staff saving which could apparently be made would be in the area of administrative staff and a claim of a saving of 18 positions from management would appear to be highly optimistic. The Bill provides for parliamentary relations and parliamentary education to continue to be carried out by the two chamber departments-parliamentary relations by the House of Representatives and education by the Senate. I fail to see the advantage of this. Would it not make more sense for those two functions to be serviced by the new department, rather than handled separately? Much is made of the establishment of the Parliamentary Information Systems Office. However, that office was established in part as a result of support from, and by way of resolution of, the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The savings in staff and funds said to result from the establishment of the Parliamentary Information Systems Office would appear to be based on estimates compiled before the office was established, not upon real staff numbers or actual expenditure. Moreover, it is well to bear in mind that the Parliamentary Information Systems Office is responsible for only one function. A saving of 10 staff positions costing some $249,000 is said to result from the amalgamation of the management services area of the three departments. Such a saving could be made only by the abolition of positions other than management services and, given the different functions of the three departments, one can only speculate as to what those positions might be. There seems to be no great merit in the amalgamation of dissimilar and specialised functions which will do little more than create the necessity of a new layer of managers, probably with limited knowledge or skills in their specialised functions. Of particular concern is the Parliamentary Library. It should have the independence and control of its own funds to provide its services in a responsive and flexible way. If the allocation of funds, staff and the organisation support for the Library is to be determined by a new layer of managers with perhaps little knowledge of the specialised tasks of the Department itself, it is inevitable that the Library services will be provided less responsively. To a lesser extent, the same considerations apply to Hansard. It would seem that the Joint House Department is finding great difficulty in coping with its existing responsibilities of operating and maintaining the building of the new Parliament and its various systems, not least being that of catering. This Department needs more time to come to grips with its current range of duties before being given a name change and greater responsibilities. Before I conclude my remarks on this Bill on behalf of the Opposition I wish to reiterate that, although we are opposed to making at this time legislative changes affecting the administration of the parliamentary departments, we are prepared to cooperate with the Speaker and the President of the Senate to bring about administrative changes within the framework of existing legislation which will improve the efficiency of the services provided within Australia's new Parliament House. Some changes are, of course, necessary; but care must be taken to preserve the integrity of the two chambers, and this can best be achieved by proceeding cautiously. Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate need more time to assess what changes are necessary before agreeing to legislation of the type that is currently before the House. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(8.11) —I must say that I am terribly disappointed with the stance of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), and the Opposition. What we have really heard is that it wants to keep in place, to cement for all time, the ludicrous position that five permanent heads are running this Parliament House at a time when private enterprise and the Government, if not the Opposition, recognise that we must have a leaner, trimmer, more efficient Public Service and when a lot has been done to the Senior Executive Service in the Public Service and freedoms have been granted to government business enterprises. What the Opposition is saying is that Parliament should be immune from that process. Certainly, the need for a tighter, leaner and more efficient organisation in the new Parliament House was evident. Some may say that we could put up with what we had; but, surely, there is no argument that in this new Parliament House we do not have to rethink. Members of the Parliament are placed in an absolutely ludicrous position in saying that Parliament House requires five permanent heads to run it-not two, not three, not four, but five. Clearly, whilst I accept that the current situation may have served this Parliament well in the past and that we may have a lot to be grateful for, moving into this Parliament House has demonstrated just how far technology has taken off and just how much there is a need to ensure that all parliamentary departments operate at maximum efficiency. I guess I cannot get over my disappointment about the position of the Opposition. Reference was made to PISO, which is the Parliamentary Information Systems Office. Let us look at what has happened there. Previously, every department had a component of PISO in it. Coordination was exceptionally difficult. I am not trying to argue that progress was not made under that arrangement, but the logic of taking it out of each of the departments and placing it into one unit, the Parliamentary Information Systems Office, was agreed upon. It is those sorts of efficiencies that we need to obtain for the future. The honourable member for Hume talked about the integrity of the chamber departments. Quite frankly, I think there is some criticism of the Speaker. I hope I will not be thrown out for saying that perhaps she has not moved far enough; but one thing she and Mr President have done in this Bill is to ensure that we do have the two chamber departments. However, we remove the absurdity of having three others. Look at what we had to do with PISO. Where should a facility that services all departments be located? Clearly, in the Joint House Department. But it could not be put there. It had to be put with the library services. If the Opposition is going to say that locating PISO with library services is a logical move, that is absolute rubbish. What we need to do is to rationalise the services. The point I am making is that some members on this side may say that we have not gone far enough. I am not speaking to that. I am speaking in support of the Bill introduced by the Speaker to try to bring the organisation and running of Parliament House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate and the other departments up into the 1880s and beyond, hopefully. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I am sure that the honourable member for Chifley meant the 1980s. Mr PRICE —Maybe that is what we are stuck with at the moment. Thank you, Mr Deputy President; I appreciate your assistance. Some criticism was made of the Joint House Department and the catering services. Let us talk about them. One of my privileges is to sit on the Joint House Committee. This Committee is an advisory committee to assist Mr President and Madam Speaker in the provision of services. What do we do? Basically, we do very little, apart from talking about catering. So, if there are some criticisms, probably they need to be thrown at the Joint House Committee. But the point I want to make is that for the efficient running of Parliament House and the Houses we need effective Speakers and Presidents, but we also need back bench members in both chambers, sitting there in a structured way, talking and advising the Speaker and President on different aspects of the administration. It is for them to accept the responsibility and have the accountability for running them; but there can be input from back bench members. One would have thought, for example, that we should have a full range of committees looking at finance and looking at PISO. I want to make this point: one of the great things about PISO now is that there is a committee. It is an advisory committee to both the Speaker and Mr President. I am pleased to chair it. We have senators and members there, and the experience of just sitting down and talking through problems and getting a back bench perspective has been invaluable. The officers of PISO would be the first to acknowledge that and, most generously, so do the Speaker and Mr President as well. We have been able to effect better services at a cheaper cost. That will be the key. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said to you before, I am really surprised that the Opposition parties of private enterprise, of doing things cheaper, leaner and more efficiently, are really standing out and supporting what now is-it might not always have been-an archaic system. The people of Australia are not really being given the leadership that I believe they deserve and, if I can say frankly, the Speaker and Mr President are not being given the support they deserve, because running this new Parliament House is a challenge. Let us look at some of the differences. For example, in the old Parliament House there were nine lifts; in the new Parliament House there are 44. In the old Parliament House there were 3,500 lights; in the new one there are 34,000 lights. There were 10 mechanical service boards in the old Parliament House; there are 150 in the new. It gives an idea of just how different this place is. I think that in the 1980s and 1990s members of the Parliament will want to continue to get the excellent service from the Library that they enjoy now, and also from Hansard. Already we are being shown how technology is being moved so that in fact we can get Hansard on the computers in our offices in Parliament House. But that is not good enough. We are not going to be content with doing that. If we are going to make the changes for the future, we really do need to rationalise the services. Guarantees have been offered by Madam Speaker and Mr President to those two departments. I am sure that one would want to preserve their independence and their integrity; but they will, in terms of their budgeting, be getting a single line budget and they will have the responsibility and accountability for spending it. A saving in the Library will not be able to be offset against a cost blow-out in Hansard. That is the way it should be. Let us not resist it. If there is one criticism that one can make consistently, it is that, unfortunately, members of the Parliament have been behind the times in terms of facilities being provided to them, either in this Parliament House or in the electorate offices. There has been a woeful lack of coordination. The initial provision of, say, computers has been a classic example. In Parliament House we have one software program but in the electorate office-I realise this is not necessarily the fault of the departments of the Parliament-we have a different type of program so that the two computers are incompatible. One cannot transfer information from one program to the other. I will concede that it was the Senate which led in the provision of computers. We ought not to be so defensive about the role of the Senate or merely preserve the pre-eminent position which it currently holds. We need to ensure that some of the initiative, drive and enthusiasm that it has displayed from time to time, generally because of the much higher pro rata funds which the Senate receives, is harnessed; let us harness that get up and go and provide it right across the board. No-one is saying that we want to cut the Senate off at the knees. I am saying that there is a constructive role to be played by the Senate. I welcome it but there is no long term future if we divide ourselves, one chamber against the other. If the Senate needs an excellent library service, so does the House of Representatives. Preserving it as an independent department with its own permanent head will not necessarily guarantee that. Clearly under this system we can. We really need greater cooperation between the two chambers and certainly between the members of the two chambers. The advisory committee I was talking about earlier is one of the few opportunities which exist in this place. I have generously welcomed the contributions of people such as Senator Baume and Senator Collins, just to name two. They have made a real contribution. I do not want to take up too much time but I want to place on record these points: as far as I am concerned the people of Chifley are amongst some of the best in the world. They deserve the best and anyone who has the privilege to represent them wants to be able to do it with a 100 per cent backup. Having 100 per cent backup not only means having good staff and good facilities in one's electorate office but also refers to the amenities and the facilities available in this Parliament House, so that I, as the representative of the electorate of Chifley-or any other representative-can go out there and do my best. But if we preserve this situation of having five permanent heads running the Parliament of Australia we are a mockery. I sincerely say to the Opposition: Perhaps I can understand some of its reservations but if it is really trying to put the private enterprise case, I do not believe how honourable members opposite can stand there and justify the case for five permanent heads. The honourable member for Hume said that the new Parliamentary Secretary heading the third department would cost some money. Of course he would because the Secretary to the Joint House Department is currently a Level 2. The other permanent heads are on a much higher level. But the trade-off is that the Secretary to the Joint House Department has more responsibilities. There is an opportunity for better coordination and better cooperation. There will be staff savings. One of the most regrettable things about the current situation of cost cutting is that members' facilities need to be cut back. Some people might say, `Well that is fair enough. Goodo, nice to see them take a knock'. But it really means that those people who wish to cannot do the job in the way they see their constituents requiring it. I think that is a real tragedy. I support the Bill of the President and the Speaker without qualification. I sincerely hope, as Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), said in her second reading speech, that we have a speedy passage of this Bill and that we can look forward not only to the service that we currently enjoy but also to an enhanced and more efficient service for the future. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.24) —I am fascinated by the way in which my colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) has been able to rouse himself to such a high state of enthusiasm. He made such an emotional and an almost pleading speech about matters that are before us. Mr Downer —Passionate. Mr RUDDOCK —My colleague described it as passionate. I was fascinated by the way in which he was able to develop the topic particularly when one has regard to the Bill before us-the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I intend to have a brief look at the Bill and to draw the honourable member's attention to some of the clauses in that Bill and then to ask whether all the passion that came forward was appropriate in the circumstances. I simply note that the Bill's purpose is to amend the Public Service Act of 1922 to replace the Joint House Department, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Department of the Parliamentary Library with a new Department of Parliamentary Services. It creates a new office of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services to run the new Department. My colleague would have us believe that as a result of that there would be a far more efficient and purposeful body running the Department and that there would be substantial savings for the Australian taxpayer in the way in which this new building operates. Of course, he knows as I know, that in any event to run the building requires a good deal more money than the old building. So savings are not really on the agenda. It is really savings in terms of the very additional and substantial cost involved in running this building that is on the agenda. The savings, as he would have us believe, come as a result of the replacement of the three department heads with one department head. Even Madam Speaker's speech would give it to the honourable member, but I encourage him to read clause 12 of the Bill. Clause 12 (1) (a) deals with what happens to people who hold positions at this time. Of course, all the offices, other than the offices of the Parliamentary Librarian, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and the Secretary to the Joint House Department, are in fact being transferred from their old departments to the new Department. I also encourage the honourable member for Chifley to read clause 12 (1) (c) of the Bill. I will read from the explanatory memorandum: . . . the offices of Parliamentary Librarian and Principal Parliamentary Reporter in the new department with same classification as those former offices had immediately before the commencement of the section. It goes on to provide: the persons holding the office of Parliamentary Librarian and Principal Parliamentary Reporter immediately before the commencement of the section shall be taken to be the holders of those offices in the new department on the commencement of the section. Madam Speaker, in her speech, made it perfectly clear that the Bill ensures that the current occupants of the positions-that is, two of the parliamentary heads that we are referring to-will continue in these positions. Their current salary and status will be preserved and they will continue to have direct access to the Presiding Officers for advisory purposes in their respective areas of expertise. In this Bill that the honourable member became so emotional about we still have three permanent heads in each area. Mr Price —We have five. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member is getting the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the Senate, who are the others. We have still got the five. Mr Price —Come on. Mr RUDDOCK —Not come on. We listened to a very emotional speech about the savings that would be made through this new streamlined structure. But the fact is that there are interests involved and those interests have been protected in the way in which this has been structured. When I look at it in that way and at the savings that are thought to be involved, I find it difficult to believe that the rationalisation and efficiency the honourable member is holding out to us are likely. What troubles me is that the whole arrangement might become more centralised and more impersonal than already exists in this new environment. As I look around the Parliament I find that we are inflicted with a modern art deco style which is going to be very dated. I look at that style and say that if anybody had consulted me I would have said that we should get something that is not going to be dated in such a short time. I look at the way art acquisitions have been made. I found, as did many of my colleagues, that having regard to the way they were put in place and the extent to which these activities seem to be becoming more divorced from members, there was little to be found amongst the available resources to satisfy my needs. I am supposed to have had the opportunity to choose a little earlier than some others, and I hear that many others formed the same view I did in relation to those questions. My concern, and I have been in Parliament for some time, is that the Parliament runs like a department, very much divorced from the people it is intended to serve. Of all the structures in the Parliament that I have had anything to do with, the Joint House Department is the least approachable and least communicative. In a real sense its activities are least related to the way in which I carry out my duties and functions as a member of Parliament. I have a great deal of contact with the Library. I see a great deal of the Department of the House of Representatives, as one would expect. Like all members, I think I have a good understanding of what Hansard is about. I do not claim to be on top of what happens in the other place, although I notice when I am on the Public Accounts Committee and I have relations with the Senate that it seems to have a somewhat different way of conducting its activities from those of the House of Representatives in the way its members relate to it. I suppose those more miraculous proceedings that occur in that place ought to be left largely for senators to interest themselves in rather than me. I understand the Joint House Department is involved in the catering service and the provision of facilities to our offices, the maintenance of the building and other activities. So many of the activities around this building seem to bear little relationship to our work, but when they do impinge upon us they seem to occur without consultation. I wonder whether a new structure which puts one person in charge of that, the Library and Hansard will deliver a better and more effective service to members of Parliament rather than simply achieving administrative savings of the sort that the honourable member for Chifley thought might be possible but which under the arrangements that are before us seem unlikely to be obtained. I simply draw those matters to the attention of colleagues. I do not intend to detain the House any longer. However, I do suggest that the approach taken by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) is the appropriate one in all the circumstances. If we had a better opportunity to learn something of the processes that are likely to arise from this legislation, if it is carried, and if we were given a better understanding of the way in which these services could be made more effective to those of us who are supposed to benefit from them in terms of the ability to carry out our work, one might well then be prepared to look at it again. In relation to this legislation, I have read the second reading speech and I have read the Bill, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how more effective and better managed services would result in terms of the information that is before me at this time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.36) —As other speakers in this debate have indicated, the major purpose of the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill is, in its broadest terms, to reduce from five to three the number of separate parliamentary departments serving this Parliament. The way in which the Bill seeks to do that is by amending the Public Service Act 1922 to replace the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department with a new Department of Parliamentary Services. It also seeks to create a new office of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services to administer the new Department. The Bill is the result of long-standing discussion and consideration of problems and difficulties which are seen to be confronting the administration of the Parliament, particularly in the new Parliament House. The Presiding Officers, in a paper prepared earlier this year, outlined a number of current problems which they saw as facing the administration of this Parliament. It is worth making that point in this debate. Firstly, there is the difficulty of fragmentation of management and financial and staffing resources over five small and independent departments. Secondly, there appears to be lacking an effective focus for executive coordination of Parliament-wide management issues. Thirdly, there are heightened pressures for public sector economy and efficiency in the ways in which we use staff and financial resources. Fourthly, there is the very important question which has been alluded to by other speakers in this debate about the scale of the building and the property responsibilities and costs associated with running this new Parliament House. Fifthly, there is the development of computer-based and information-based systems which in many ways transcend the old departmental boundaries. Finally, there seem to be too many lines of reporting to the Presiding Officers and there is an inadequate filtering of information that sometimes gets through to those Presiding Officers. It is in the light of that background that the Presiding Officers have put this Bill before the House. It is a Bill that outlines and addresses those background problems. It aims to coordinate more effectively the administration, particularly of personnel and resource management. It aims to enhance the scope and standards of services to senators and members and to do that in a climate of severe financial restraint. This Bill aims to contain the additional costs which have necessarily resulted from the shift to a much larger and more complex new Parliament House. The Bill also provides for a better balance of managerial, parliamentary, procedural and other specialist viewpoints. It is hoped also that it will provide more flexibility for the Presiding Officers to adapt structures and staffing to meet changing circumstances, particularly in the experience of this new Parliament House environment. I am disappointed in the opposition which has been expressed tonight to this Bill. Frankly, I do not think it has been opposition of great substance. I think it has fallen into that category of opposition which is simply opposition to protect the established order of things, opposition to change, opposition because the same old attitudes have existed for years and we think they ought to predominate. There are a few points to make about that. The first general point is one that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) made very succinctly. Throughout the national economy, the macro-economy, at the moment and also in the micro-economy governments of all political persuasions are making efforts to provide a better output from limited resources. In other words, they are trying to provide better government, but smaller government. There have been widespread reforms under this Government to efficiency and scrutiny in the Public Service. To my way of thinking, in terms of the general philosophical approach, if governments all around Australia are saying to the public sector and to the private sector, `We expect better performance; we expect you to do more, or at least the same, with fewer resources', it is not unreasonable that the same principles ought to apply in the environment in which we work. I think that reducing the number of departments from five to three and streamlining management and executive processes is likely to-in fact, it will-almost certainly-lead to efficiencies and cost savings; in other words, providing the same services or better services for fewer resources. That is something we should all keep in mind. One does not want to make this a political debate, and I know that Madam Speaker has tried strenuously to keep this matter out of the political arena, but I find that some of the comments made by Opposition speakers tonight grate a little. The Opposition cannot have it both ways: it cannot wax lyrical about the need for freedoms in the marketplace, efficiencies in the economy or reforms in the Public Service and yet come into this place and resist changes which, in virtually everyone's opinion, will most likely, if not definitely, result in better services for a lower level of expenditure by the Australian taxpayer. I would not be supporting this Bill if I did not think that the quality of services to this Parliament and to members would be maintained in the future. But, having read the intention of the Bill and the proposed restructure, I do not have any doubt that we will get an enhancement of services and, in the longer term, a lower cost to the taxpayer. The extent of the savings which can be derived from the implementation of this Bill are, as Madam Speaker has said, difficult to quantify but certainly all the estimates suggest that considerable savings in the longer term will be provided. I think that in the current fiscal environment we ought to support legislation which will provide savings to the taxpayer. I see a number of arguments in favour of this legislation. Firstly, it is my view that the restructure will provide more career opportunities, and more opportunities for development, wider interest, multiskilling and so on for employees in the Parliament. So I think there is an argument there which should appeal to professional associations, unions and so on that over time the opportunities for advancement, multiskilling professional development and so on should improve. There is a second argument too; that is that the rationalisation of the administration of the Parliament has been considered for years. It is not something which has suddenly come out of the woodwork. The proposals embodied in this Bill began more than three years ago in June 1985 under the previous Presiding Officers, Mr Jenkins and the then Senator McClelland. There has been a multitude of papers and discussions on the subject. I think that the Opposition has had more than enough time to consider its position. I am very disappointed that it is expressing the attitude it is tonight. I am told that the Block Efficiency Scrutiny Unit declined even to consider looking at parliamentary departments because the matter had been canvassed so often in the past that it thought there was no need to duplicate previous effort and that the solutions to problems which had been identified in the past, and which I have outlined, were fairly obvious. The Presiding Officers have been extremely patient and have gone to great lengths to consult widely with all interested parties, particularly party political leaders. It has to be stressed in this debate that the cost squeeze which confronts all government departments, including parliamentary departments, is very serious. In moving into the new Parliament House we have not only the general problems of fiscal restraint, but also-as my colleague the honourable member for Chifley reminded us-significant problems and cost increases which have been created by the shift. My colleague mentioned a few statistics about the shift from the provisional Parliament House to the new Parliament House. He mentioned that the number of lifts is up from nine to 44; the number of luminaires-which I understand means light globes-is up from 3,500 to 34,000; the number of variable air volume boxes-I am not sure what they are-has increased from nil to 1,900, which is a very big increase; major items of kitchen equipment are up from 47 to 756; and chillers have increased from 600 to 4,400. So those sorts of changes have put remarkable challenges before the administration of this place in terms of meeting the requirements of the Parliament in a new environment which is certainly far larger and far more complex. I do not think I got an impression of how big and complex this Parliament House was until I was taken on a tour last November before it was officially opened. I was taken down to the basement and looked at the enormity of the sewerage, water, power, tele-lift systems and so on. Basically what has been built into the top of this hill is a city the size of many provincial cities throughout Victoria-such as Castlemaine and Maryborough-with a population of 5,000 and 6,000 people. So the management and running of this complex is, indeed, a daunting task. This Bill proposes more efficient ways of producing the same outcomes with fewer resources and I support it for that reason. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), referred to clause 12 of this Bill and said that because certain positions would be protected in the changeover to the new arrangements there would be no cost savings and incumbents would be protected in terms of salary and conditions. That may be so, but I think the honourable member has missed the point. Those people may be protected at that salary level, but they will not be office holders. Instead of five office holders in the future we will have three office holders and a much more streamlined arrangement for the making of decisions. My colleague the honourable member for Chifley mentioned the dramatic savings which have occurred in the parliamentary information systems area since that was restructured. I have plenty of data with me this evening which I could describe to the House, but I know that there are many speakers on this Bill. I think it is evident to all members that streamlining and restructuring in that Department has led not only to improved services for members but also to significant cost savings by amalgamating previously distinct and unique areas of responsibility, bringing them together, streamlining management processes and getting heads together on things such as purchasing policy and so on, where very large discounts and savings have resulted. The honourable member for Chifley also mentioned the benefit in the future of single line budget items per function. Throughout every area of government, be it higher education, the Public Service or whatever and throughout the private sector, there has been a shift in recent years to single line budget items because it ensures that the inefficiencies of one department or one section cannot be carried by another. A department or a section which is given a spending item and told that that is its budget has to take measures and responsibilities within its own area of functions to ensure that it meets that budget, that it meets performance objectives and that it gives value for the taxpayer's dollar. As I have said, I see all these reforms in the specific way in which they have been spelt out by Madam Speaker and Mr President as leading to at least the maintenance if not the enhancement of services to the Parliament, but at a lower cost. All of us must be aware of the wider responsibilities that we have in parliament and in government-that is, these are difficult economic times in the private and public sectors, and we expect new management arrangements to produce new efficiencies, Madam Speaker is putting effect to that in this Bill. She has consulted very widely with all interested parties. I believe that the Bill before the House is a responsible one which ought to be supported. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.51) —I listened with interest to what the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said and I admired the way in which he presented his argument. Among other things, he used terminology with which we have become all too familiar these days when we talk about economic management and development, such as `reducing and streamlining management'. I do not intend it in any personal way when I refer to the honourable member's remarks, but I would point out that there is room for opposing points of view. We do not necessarily equate efficiencies and the desirability of efficiency with changes. After all, change is what we are looking at. It is all very well to talk of rationalisation and to point out that because we have moved into the new Parliament House we are incurring new costs; but those costs exist anyway. What we are talking about is not that there are new costs and new management problems, but perhaps the best way of managing the problem with those new costs as well as the new management problems. I am not necessarily of the mind that because one creates fewer operating cells one necessarily achieves economies. One does not necessarily reduce expenditure or necessarily arrive at a better management program or system. The honourable member for Bendigo referred to savings in information systems. I think that he attributed some credit to his colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), who spoke earlier. Perhaps there will be some savings, but taking the all-up capital cost and the need to keep the information up to the systems-mainly computer-based systems-it would be very hard to say that there are savings. There may be savings to individual members of this Parliament, and that is very important. Given the size of the legislative program with which we must deal in each sitting, we need readily accessible information more than ever before. Going back to the earlier days and my experience in business, I can assure honourable members that I have never come across a computer-based system which has produced savings. We all know the techniques of old, and they are still the same, where the salesman used to come along and say: `If you put this system in, you'll save one staff person'-or if it was an Irish salesman, `You'll save 1 1/2 staff'. But it never worked out that way. In fact, the opposite was true. I am not saying that those circumstances necessarily apply in the field today, but I do treat the matter with a certain amount of respectful scepticism. Madam Speaker pointed out in introducing the measure that, although not unique-she having already created a precedent-it is something different for one of the Presiding Officers to introduce legislation into the Parliament. Her reasons for doing so are entirely admirable and are supportable by me and, I am sure, Opposition members. They are stated by her to be that, among other things, they demonstrate an independence from executive government. No one more than I would like to see the Parliament become just that and to regather some of the rights and duties that it has, in effect, subcontracted to the executive government. However, I do not think that this measure or any other measure will demonstrate independence. It might, at best, demonstrate that we are some distance in this Parliament from the Executive. The truth is that the Government has the purse strings. Because of that the Government will always, to some extent-usually to some large extent-control the activities of this Parliament. I simply instance the number of committees we may have and the number of staff we may have to support those committees in the very valuable work that they do in certain areas from time to time, and that is in addition to the standing committees. The golden rule applies: In this case the Government has the gold and it rules. It is as simple as that. Taking the analogy a little further, one could liken executive imperialism as we see it practised in this Parliament and by successive governments with the power exercised by the czars of Russia before 1917. They had the gold and they ruled. The truth is that the ultimate control of the Parliament's activities rests, to some large measure, with the government of the day. It can exercise that control by either starving the Parliament of funds or, in times when it suits it, providing more funds. Those, including the Presiding Officers of the day, who are charged with the responsibility will succumb. There will not be sufficient distance as a result of these measures. Nevertheless, I welcome the effort and the initiative taken by Madam Speaker. When we see legislative programs these days pre-empted by ministerial statements of one sort or another, more often than not by press release, which pre-empt not only the party of the government in power but this Parliament, we must treat this measure with some-I hope not of cynicism, although we tend to get that away after a time-reservation. Those techniques are adopted by the present Government just as they were adopted, to a lesser extent, by the previous coalition Government. We saw that presumption by executive government that the Parliament would pass its legislation, along the lines that we saw not so very long ago in this House, where a tax measure was announced in February 1985 and was introduced just one or two weeks ago, and it differed in important respects from the ultimate legislation which we had to consider. That is when we get some measure of this executive imperialism that I am trying to describe tonight. Madam Speaker mentioned, quite properly, that the independence of the Presiding Officers' positions and their administrative responsibilities met with the approval of the Executive Government. For reasons that I have just advanced, that does not give me much comfort. As to the manner of presentation, it is all the better if it emphasises the differences that we all seek between the Executive Government and the Parliament. However, I do not think that we should take any comfort from the fact that it is approved or not approved by the Executive Government. In fact, I think that Madam Speaker made a virtue out of the fact that she did not think it was appropriate that this legislation be introduced or initiated by a Minister. It might be that the Minister was not prepared to do so. I am not sure whether that gives it a greater imprimatur than the action Madam Speaker took. The purpose of the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill is stated to be to reduced the number of separate departments serving the Parliament from five to three. That might seem all right at first blush. After all, we have had for a long time-certainly during my time in this Parliament-separate departments of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House. When it is sought to change that fundamentally, as is now proposed, it is appropriate to examine the reasons. I would not accept the admonition of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who suggested that this proposal is being opposed for other than constructive reasons. The Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department are, in effect, to be amalgamated into a mega-department. Without destroying the tenures of senior people in those three departments, there is to be a supernumerary appointed over the three heads of department and in a line position of responsibility. The legislation is explained away by the need to restructure the administration of the Parliament. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that it needs to be restructured in the way envisaged and that it needs major restructuring or, to use a term I hate, finetuning in some managerial sense of the organisation. When I see a word such as `restructure', I prefer to use a word that does not have so many connotations. I prefer to talk about reorganising, or even altering, the management structure of Parliament House and its precincts. We do not under any circumstances want this initiative to be confused with the Government's plan to restructure the car or the steel industries, because that has been shown to be a miserable failure and to be fairly seriously wanting. I know that that would not be Madam Speaker's wish, and perhaps it is a wrong word to use. In her second reading speech Madam Speaker referred to detailed reports which were commissioned `by us'. I presume that she meant the Presiding Officers, because all that information, those reports and their recommendations are not available to me and, so far as I know, are not available to other members of either chamber. Apparently they related, among other things, specifically to information systems, parliamentary relations, public relations and certain staffing and accounting services. The outcome is in the legislation we have before us tonight. When we talk about changes which have occurred and which have coincided with the move from the provisional Parliament House to this very fine and functional building, honourable members may well recognise from their own experience the problems that occurred with catering in the dining room. It was a real mess-up, for want of a better word-and I do not want to start industrial problems in the place, as once happened, by referring to brown dogs or anything like that. But I would point out that that problem simply coincided with the change and the need to get used to these new premises and the equipment that came with them. On the other hand, it would have been very easy to say-and apparently was easy to say before we came up here-that there would be major personnel changes, particularly in the level of management in the catering services. That simply did not work. I am delighted to note that management positions have been restored to the identities that existed down in the old place. I am delighted to record that as a result we see a far better operation in that part of Parliament House. Madam Speaker has referred to the need for more cohesion, that being one of the major objectives, along with the maintenance and enhancement of the provision of services to senators and members. No one can argue with that. What we question is the way in which it is proposed to go about it. Furthermore, Madam Speaker talked of the containment of additional costs arising from the provision of services in a larger and more complex Parliament House. No one argues that in some ways it is more complex but, on the other hand, it has the benefits that go with modern planning, modern wiring, modern equipment and the fairly new facilities which are still under warranty and maintenance. Therefore, at least in the first year or so of operation, there will be some reduced cost compared to what would need to be spent in subsequent years. There is an esoteric reference to the need for a better balance of specialist viewpoints. I am not exactly sure what that means. The fifth and final objective is the stated need for more flexibility for Presiding Officers to adapt the structures which will exist if this legislation goes through. As if to justify that, there is talk about blurring of functional boundaries, information technology, contracting of some services and limitation of resource allocation. It is not immediately apparent to me that one needs departmental restructuring to achieve that. A pure management approach would call for those matters to be addressed within the existing departmental structures, with the preparation of a statement of duties, the establishment of clear lines of communication and the allocation of duties. That is a management problem in itself, but it does not warrant the creation of the structure that is envisaged-the decrease in the number of operating departments from five to three. In fact, there is a very good case for supposing that with the creation of only three departments in an expanded operation there will be even more blurring of those functional boundaries, as they are described, within the new mega-department. I want to point out-I am running out of time, but I still have a great deal more to say-that big is not necessarily beautiful, nor is big necessarily more efficient. The size of the operation as it is now, and as it is likely to be, does not necessarily warrant, the measures that we are contemplating. Furthermore, I do not think that there is any intrinsic evidence to support that contention. We know that the two independents departments which serve each chamber, the House of Representatives and the Senate, will remain. That bears out my contention that there probably is no need to go along these lines. The Clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives will retain their independence in respect of finance, personnel and administrative service. I do not argue with that because I support the need for the Clerk of each chamber to be able to service their members in the most efficient way possible, and I want to see the distinction between the chambers maintained. But when one looks at managing the provision of certain common services in the Parliament, as we are supposed to be doing tonight, and when one is proposing a new department which embraces three previous departments-which become virtually a catch-all department which, I suppose, will be dominated by the old Joint House Department-I have very serious reservations. It is not automatic that we will receive full value; there is a real possibility that the opposite will be true. I make the point that, as a pure management problem, if one were approaching this matter one would not do what we have done and take two departmental heads out of a line management of only five reporting to the Presiding Officers. My old tutor, Howdy Koontz, would have laughed me out of court if I had proposed it. As a pure management exercise, that is nonsense. Any chief executive, or chief executives in this case, should be able to handle five departments and department heads reporting to them, with the usual addition of staff functionaries and advisers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.11) —I will not delay the House for too long, but a couple of matters need to be said about this legislation. Firstly, I believe the House should commend the Speaker and the President for bringing forward the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Most members of this Parliament had taken the view while we were in the temporary Parliament House down the hill that it was not wise to change too many of the administrative arrangements because there was always the expectation, from the 1920s really, that we would move to a new Parliament and that that would be the appropriate place to start to do those things. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), from what I recall of his speech when I was listening in my room, said that we need more time and we need to see how things will work out. My recollection is that when we were in the old House we were told, when people talked about changing some of the parliamentary department arrangements, that the time to do that was when we moved to the new building. These proposals are now new. The Speaker and the President circulated them quite some time ago. An amount of discussion has taken place, both at officer level and at party levels and among individual honourable members and senators. It would be wrong for any of us to say that this is just something that has arisen suddenly. It always struck me, when considering the opposition that people had to this proposal by the President and the Speaker, that it was a little bizarre that we had moved into a twenty-first century building but continued to want to stay with nineteenth century administrative arrangements. Often things are said in this House, sometimes for point scoring and sometimes because people genuinely hold a view, and the position of the Westminster Parliament is evoked and what happens in State parliaments is evoked. I think it is time in this Parliament that we actually put aside the blinkers and had a look at what is happening in those other parliaments that we consider ourselves to be like. I suppose the most relevant parliament for Australia to consider in this regard is the Canadian Parliament-not so much the Westminster Parliament and not so much the New Zealand Parliament, because essentially they are both single house systems. Mr Rocher —Westminster is not. Mr LEO McLEAY —If the honourable member for Curtin had listened, he would have heard that I said `essentially'. The Lords has very little of the powers of the Australian Senate, in which the honourable member for Curtin served. The Parliament that probably has the best approximation to us is the Canadian Parliament. The Australian Parliament is not like the Westminster Parliament. Many Australian and overseas political scientists write books about what they calls the `Washminster Mutation' where they talk about how the Australian Parliament is really an amalgam of many of the things that go on in the American Congress and the British House of Commons. Indeed, the Australian Senate draws more of its power and position from the American Congress than it does from the House of Lords in Britain. So we have a lower House that draws its powers essentially from the views of Westminster and a Senate that draws its powers from the views of Washington, but we have trotted out to us in this House the view that we should wait all the time. Let us look at the other parliaments from which we have drawn our inspiration and at the parliament that is most like ours, the parliament next to the Washington Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, which drew many of its inspirations from Westminster. The Canadians have a services commission. They do not have the ridiculous situation of five small departments. In the Congress they have somewhat the same sort of service provision arrangement. Even in New Zealand, which is our smaller cousin, they have a parliamentary commission which draws together all the provisions in their Parliament. The Presiding Officers have said that they recognise the difference in this Parliament and that they understand that to come up with something as novel as a parliamentary commission, as they have in New Zealand, would not be acceptable to the people who wish to entrench the roles and the constitutional independence of the chamber departments in this Parliament. There are probably some compelling reasons why that might be so. These provisions really put to death the argument that is mounted in some quarters that somehow or other this is an assault on the chamber departments. If honourable members read the Bill, if they read the explanatory memorandum, if they read the Presiding Officers' speeches, and if those of them who were written to in various capacities by the Presiding Officers can recall what was said, they would all know that this Bill contains no provision for any attempt, subtle or otherwise, to denigrate or reduce the authority of the chamber departments. Mr Rocher —No-one is claiming that. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member for Curtin says that no-one is claiming that. I guess the honourable member is deaf in at least one ear if that is what he says, and maybe when he goes to some of his party meetings he will be deaf in both ears. Mr Rocher —Have you been to any of our Party meetings? How would you know? Mr LEO McLEAY —I have not been to any of his Party meetings and have no intention of doing so, even if I am invited. But one talks around the corridors to some of his colleagues from the other House, and I am sure that they put the same view in the Party room as they put in the corridors. If the honourable member for Curtin is not listening to that, he is obviously deaf in both ears. These are eminently sensible administrative arrangements for which we want to legislate. It is not good enough, as the honourable member for Hume said in his speech, that we should try to do something about this by an administrative arrangement. The honourable member for Hume was a Minister and, as the manager of Opposition Business and the person who aspires to be the Leader of the House, he knows, as do his colleagues, that the three small department secretaries are Executive Council appointments, that they have their positions enshrined in small Acts of this Parliament, and that it would be most improper for the Presiding Officers to slice off their authority and leave the Secretary to the Joint House Department or the Principal Parliamentary Reporter or the Parliamentary Librarian as secretary to a department that had one member, as his Government did when it had the department that a previous Leader of the House ran. It was a department in name only and had nothing to do. We will not get into those sleights of hand. We say that one should look honestly at this situation and recognise that it is probably an absurdity that in this twenty-first century Parliament House we have these five small departments. It is worth while honourable members remembering the size of these departments. The honourable member for Curtin said that we are trying to create a mega-department. That might sound all right when listening on the radio but the honourable member for Curtin should be aware that the Joint House Department has an appropriation of about $35m and a staff of about 450 people. The Library has an appropriation of about $20m and a staff of about 200 people, and that includes people in the Parliamentary Information Systems Office. The Hansard Department has an appropriation of more than $7m and 156 people. This mega-department that the honourable member for Curtin wants us to shudder about is a department of 800-odd people. He tells us that 800 people make a mega-department. Mr Rocher —Oh, that isn't big, Leo. You go and explain it to the people out there. Mr LEO McLEAY —Eight hundred people is about the size of one of the medium sized councils in my electorate. If the honourable member for Curtin thinks that a medium sized council in New South Wales equates with a mega-department I suggest that he look at a few of the Appropriation Bills that are passed in this House and look at the size of mega-departments. Mega- departments have thousands of people and billions of dollars in appropriations. The Presiding Officers are saying that we should put together a minuscule department that has an appropriation of $7m and 156 people-a really huge administrative arrangement-and which has the head of department enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and the Library, which before it took in the Parliamentary Information Systems Office had just over 100 people. These are not big departments. It is eminently sensible and efficient to put them together. I say to the honourable member for Hume that the sensible way to do that is by legislation. It is patently dishonest to try to do it by a sleight of hand administrative arrangement. Mr Fife —To do what? Mr LEO McLEAY —To put them together. It is probably also illegal when one recalls that the Secretary of the Joint House Department, the Parliamentary Librarian and the Principal Parliamentary Reporter are all named in Acts of Parliament as heads of parliamentary departments. Mr Fife —By all means keep going-but that is not what I said. I don't want you putting words in my mouth. Mr LEO McLEAY —If that is not the burden of what I heard the honourable member say I do not want to misrepresent him. But the burden of what I understood the honourable member to be saying when I was listening was that he thought these things should be done by administrative arrangement. Mr Fife —I will give you an autographed copy of my speech. Mr LEO McLEAY —I am saying to the honourable member they they cannot be done by administrative arrangement. We have to face reality. The Public Service is changing; government is changing; the private sector is changing. But there are people in this House who would say, `You can have this bright new building, you can have every sort of electronic system in this building, you can have everything that opens and shuts but you cannot have an efficient administrative system'. I am sorry in a sense that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) is not in the chair because he has also had the experience, as I have, of administering from time to time the Department of the House of Representatives and, with the President, the three joint parliamentary departments. I found a number of duplications that occurred there to be bizarre, to say the least; to be antiquated, to be unkind. I found it disgraceful that in the 1980s we were still sticking to these tried old formulas. Mr Rocher —That is why you are appointed-to do a manager's job, to sort it out. We do not need legislation. Mr LEO McLEAY —I guess that the honourable member for Curtin in his interjection has really got to the nub of the issue. He says that I, the Speaker, and the President are appointed to do the manager's job. Mr Rocher —That's right. Mr LEO McLEAY —He says that that is right. I say to the honourable member for Curtin that if he thinks in the 1980s that Ministers, or their equivalent, the Presiding Officers, should actually have to do the hands on management of their departments he is really making an incredible mistake. What Ministers are there for and what the Presiding Officers are there for is to develop policy and to implement policy matters. If the honourable member for Hume-who is having a chuckle at this-can tell me that when he was Minister for Aviation he signed warrants for class 5 clerks, appointments I will eat my hat. He knows he never did and he knows it would have been a ridiculous waste of his time as a Minister if any fool secretary to his department had said, `Minister, I really need to talk to you about whether Janine Bloggs in the typing pool should be promoted and whether an instrument promoting her should be signed by you'. That did not happen and he knows that it would have been ridiculous. His colleague sitting next to him, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who wants to be the Minister for Health, knows that this is ridiculous as well. But that still happens in these small departments. It is wrong. We ought to be looking at modern administrative arrangements and at amalgamating those five small departments so that we get administrative efficiency and so that we can provide a better service to the Parliament. There is no hidden agenda. It is about saying to the Parliament, `We want you to have the most efficient and best service that can be provided'. We believe that if those services are provided more efficiently savings can be distributed to other facilities provided to members. I think the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said in his contribution that he was a bit concerned that he never got the right choice of paintings. He felt that if we had this new department somehow or other he would become a bit disconnected from the people who work in the building; that if we amalgamated the Library, the Joint House Department and Hansard he would not have the same services or he would be divorced from those services. I suggest to the people who want to run that argument that they look at the way the Joint House Department has expanded since we came into this building. They will see that that is a patently silly argument to run when there has been such a change in the size of the Department. To ensure that members will still have an advisory role and an input into the way the previous elements of those departments will function, the President and the Speaker have said that in the new arrangements the Librarian, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and the Secretary to the new department will have direct access to the Presiding Officers. They have said that the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House will still be the vehicle by which members have their say in the running of this building. They have said that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Library will stay and be the interface between the Librarian, the Library, the members and the Presiding Officers. It is eminently sensible and logical and that is the way it will be. Members will not have other things put in their way. Members will have the savings made ploughed back into providing other services for them. They will be able to say that the parliamentary service is as efficient as what people require of the public sector outside. In the few moments remaining I will try to enjoin members to see the sense in this legislation. I reiterate that there is absolutely no threat to the chamber departments and that the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives will still remain the most senior advisers to their respective Presiding Officers but that there will be administrative savings. However, there would be administrative savings. If this Bill were passed by the Parliament, there would be a twentieth century administrative arrangement in a building that was built for the twenty-first century. Surely, if we have got out of the small building down the hill, we should be able to expand our minds a little in this new home to take on some new ideas to make the place work better for the benefit of the Parliament and members as a whole. I ask honourable members to support the legislation. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(9.31) —I rise to support the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House in going over the arguments put so clearly by speakers before me. However, this Bill seems to me an eminently sensible Bill because it intends to bring the administration of this Parliament into the late twentieth century and prepare us for entry into the next century. What might have been appropriate earlier this century may not be the best way of administering this Parliament today. There is nothing sinister in the Bill; it has no hidden agenda. There is no attempt to circumvent the authority, the integrity or the independence of any of the parliamentary departments at all. It is clearly an attempt to improve and streamline the administration of this Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is reduce the number of parliamentary departments from five to three. The Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate will remain intact. The other three departments, the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department will be combined into a new department to deliver to members and senators the same services, if not improved services, but more efficiently and more cost-effectively. Other sections of our community have had to subject themselves to close scrutiny. They have had to look at the way they have done things. They have had to restructure so that they could provide services to the community more efficiently and most cost-effectively. We have been in this building for only a short time but one thing that has impressed members and senators and visitors to the building is its sheer enormity. What might have been an acceptable administration down at the old House would probably be inappropriate for the administration of this building today. We have had over one million visitors to this building. That indicates how attractive the building is to Australians and how much more complicated it must be to administer. I think that the arrangements contained in this Bill will provide for a more sensible and cost-efficient administration of the Parliament. The Public Service has been subjected to a close scrutiny. I understand that Block was invited to scrutinise the administration of this Parliament. He had a look at that and came to the conclusion that the reports of previous scrutinies should have been implemented and that there was nothing further he could add to them. He concluded, therefore, that the Parliament should take steps to improve its administration. Parliaments in other countries, for example, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, have all realised that changes should be made-that improvements can be made. Those parliaments have implemented those. I think it would be sad and tragic for us if we did not take the opportunity of looking at the way we do things in this Parliament so that we can do them better and more efficiently. I can tell honourable members that there is some public disquiet in regard to the fact that over $1 billion was spent to construct this magnificent building-a magnificent building it is indeed. However, I think the public expects us to do our job more efficiently, to cut out waste and to spend their tax dollars more effectively. I believe that the proposals in this Bill will do just that. We certainly have an obligation to the Australian people to spend their dollars more wisely than we have in the past. I think one way we can do that is by cutting out what can only be described today as duplication and ineffective administration of departments. As I said, I do not want to spend too much time going over the arguments put forward by speakers before me. I think that the arguments in support of this Bill are sensible. I think the Bill should be supported. I am pleased to see that the independence and integrity of the two chamber departments, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate, are protected and preserved, because I think those departments do a good job. However, I think the remaining three departments can be administered more effectively. I think that the proposals contained in this Bill are sensible. I urge honourable members to support it. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.36) —I will keep my comments on the Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill as brief as possible. I wish to associate myself with the comments of the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in supporting the legislation before the House. The honourable member for St George mentioned the criticism arising from the building of Australia's new Parliament House at a cost of $1 billion. I have to say that every one of my constituents who has had a chance to look through the building has certainly been very impressed with the beauty of the design and the quality of the workmanship of the marble and timber. Those of us who have been associated with the building and its construction understand that that has created a new problem-the cost of maintaining this $1 billion building. Certainly, the people who have to administer the expenditure of the Parliament will be under great pressure from the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer when they seek extra funds to maintain this beautiful building in the condition it is currently in. If there is a way we can cut back on duplication and save some money, some scarce resources, which can be spent either in maintaining the building or providing members and senators with the services they require, I would have thought that that commonsense reform would have been supported by both sides of the House. I am disappointed that the Opposition believes that it cannot, in principle, support the legislation. The last speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), suggested that his opposition was based on the fact that the proposal would establish a mega-department. He said that the proposed new department, the Parliamentary Services Department, would be too big. I was very impressed with the figures cited by Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler, when he explained that if the amalgamation did not go ahead, we would continue to have a separate parliamentary department to look after the excellent standard of Hansard which we are provided with-a department which, I believe, at the moment has a staff of 70 people. I would have great difficulty in arguing that Hansard should continue to be a separate department since it has only 70 staff. I think that the proposal to amalgamate the Parliamentary Reporting Staff with the Department of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department makes a lot of sense. We cannot continue to have three separate departments just because we had three separate departments in 1927 when we moved into the old Parliament House. I think there will also be some positive benefits to those people who work in those departments. I think that there will be a better career structure for those people who work in those departments. I hope the amalgamation will create better promotional opportunities for them. As someone who believes that it is never wise to specialise and become expert in one particular area, I hope that we will be able to develop even better managers and supervisors within those departments through a combined Department of Parliamentary Services. I have the honour of serving on the committee which has provided advice to the Presiding Officers on information systems. That committee has provided a lot of advice to the Presiding Officers on the computer equipment and other modern information processing equipment installed in this building. I have to say that I was certainly surprised, when I first was appointed to that committee, at how many differences there were between the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate in terms of how their computer systems strategic plans had been designed. It is to be commended that more than a year ago the Presiding Officers decided that there should be one combined office to look after the computer services of the new Parliament House. One can imagine the mistakes that would have been made if the two departments had headed down different tracks and purchased different types of equipment for different parts of the building. As a direct result, we would have had to spend more money on spare parts and backup and on having expert staff on the different types of software that are available. I think that one of the best decisions made in recent years has been to provide a combined information services system in this Parliament, and in the same way having a combined department looking after Hansard, the Library, the catering, industrial relations and finance and personnel systems has to be a commonsense reform which saves the Government money. The reason why I find it very difficult to understand the Opposition's stance on this is that day after day it is telling us that our Government spends too much money, that we should be cutting back Government expenditure. The Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Fife) nods his head and says that we should be cutting back Government spending. Here is a way in which Parliament can save scarce taxpayers' resources. Here is a way in which we can reduce duplication. Yet the Opposition is in here speaking against the legislation. I think that is a great pity. Finally I emphasise that the separate chamber departments, the House of Representatives and the Senate, continue. That is certainly something which I welcome. So, no one can suggest that our House, the people's House, will suffer in some combined department because of some cutbacks in other areas. I urge all honourable members to support the legislation. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(9.44) —The Public Service (Parliamentary Departments) Bill has been a long time in gestation. I believe that it is now timely to move to a fundamental reorganisation of parliamentary administration. I say that because of the move that has taken place to the new Parliament House and all that that move entails and because of the need for all organisations to address their own efficiencies. The institution of the Parliament has grown, along with our nation, since 1901. We have seen increases in the number of members and senators, in the number of staff supporting them, in the schedule of legislation, in the institution and development of the committee system, in the increased population that each of us serves in our electorates, in the increased demands made on members of this House and the other place, and in the increased sophistication and complexity of the issues that face members. We have seen also much greater use of the Parliament and a rise in the expectations of the Parliament by the community generally. All of these matters have combined to create the Parliament of today, a Parliament that is much more sophisticated, much more complex and much busier, and on which much greater demands are made compared with the relatively small institution that began with Federation. The Parliament is now, without question, the institution our founding fathers envisaged it would become. It is the central authority of government and, as they envisaged, the place of national decision making. Having said that, let me say that it is appropriate for all institutions, during their growth, to review their organisation from time to time to see that the organisation is relevant, that it remains appropriate to the times, that it fulfils its charter, and that it is efficient. Let me underline that this Parliament is no exception. It is not a sacred territory within the public purse. It is subject to the same discipline from the people in the community, in how they see their money used, as any other sector of community activities. So, this is important at this time, when the whole of our society, for economic reasons, is being asked by Government and by both sides of the Parliament to look at the way we do things, and society and industry, the trade union movement and individuals are being asked to become more efficient, to become more competitive. Out there in the community, in all of this, everyone expects to retain his or her standard of living. What we have to ask ourselves in the course of the debate that is taking place here this evening is whether the administrative arrangements that were developed early in the life of the Australian Parliament, well over 80 years ago, are still relevant today, and whether they are capable of satisfying the demands of the institution efficiently. I think the judgment comes down very clearly, particularly in light of the comments of the Speaker and the comments you made yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they are not. Clearly, there are efficiencies to be gained from the administration of this building and the functions conducted in it. Hence we have this Bill before us. Clearly, there are improvements that have been made over the years. Each of us can recall the changes and the improvements that have been made from time to time but there has been no attempt in the course of this Parliament to make a change of the magnitude proposed within this legislation. In this process of change it is important to note one significant issue, namely, the need to maintain the constitutional and institutional independence of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I am quite sure that everyone acknowledges that that is paramount. That is clearly reflected in the Bill. However, while independence is necessary, we must also objectively assess the degree to which administrative arrangements need to be attached to the two chamber departments. It is relevant to go back to the second reading speech of Speaker Child in which she set out the objectives of the Bill. Those objectives are worth repeating. They are, firstly, a less fragmented, more effectively coordinated administration in which personnel and resource management are given greater emphasis, especially in the joint areas. Secondly, the maintenance of services to senators and members, and enhancement of scope and standards where possible in a climate of severe resource restraint. Thirdly, the containment of additional costs arising from the provision of services in the substantially larger and more complex new Parliament House. Fourthly, a better balance of managerial, parliamentary, procedural and other specialist viewpoints. Lastly, more flexibility for Presiding Officers to adapt structures and staffing to meet changing circumstances, for example, experience in the new Parliament House environment, blurring of functional boundaries with developments in information technology, contracting of some services and limitation of resource allocation. Speaker Child set out, I believe, very clearly in those objectives the type of change and the magnitude of change that need to be achieved. Whilst independence between the two chambers is necessary, we must also objectively assess the degree to which administrative arrangements need to be attached to the two chamber departments. I repeat that paragraph because of the importance of it. This Bill and those objectives I have repeated make a demarcation which will inevitably result in gains in efficiency, particularly on issues of personnel and financial management. We mentioned briefly the cost of running this Parliament. Honourable members have referred to the capital cost of some $1,000m or thereabouts. In effect, it is a $1,000m investment by the people of Australia in the institution of Parliament. So, it is proper and it is responsible that we should look to the management of that investment in as efficient a way as possible, having regard to the special functions of the two Houses of Parliament. Let me remind honourable members that the cost of Parliament grew from some $47.9m in 1986-87 to $71.2m in 1987-88. If we turn to page 48 of Budget Paper No. 2, we see that the recurrent and capital costs of the Parliament for the 1988-89 financial year are scheduled at $100.3m. I think it is worth running through, for the record, the composition of that expense provided for in the Budget. The recurrent cost of the Senate is $14.4m. The capital cost of the Senate is $285,000. The Advance to the President of the Senate is $200,000. For the House of Representatives, this chamber, the recurrent cost is $16.382m and the capital cost is $152,600. The Advance to the Speaker of the House of Representatives is $300,000. The cost of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, Hansard, is $7.658m. The cost of the Parliamentary Library is $22.708m. For the Joint House Department, the recurrent cost is $35.224m and the capital cost is $2m. Then there is a joint advance to the President and the Speaker of $1m. In total, recurrent costs amount to $96.372m and capital costs amount to $2.437m. There is an adjustment in that which includes some of the advances I have referred to. The total cost provided to the Budget is $100.310m. It is a very substantial amount of money. Expenditure of that kind places upon the Presiding Officers, the Clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives and all those involved in the services associated with those two chambers, a very heavy responsibility to ensure, as good managers as distinct from their parliamentary functions, that that money is used wisely, and that the services are provided efficiently. In the context of that we need to ensure that the demarcation between the two Houses will be kept under review. We need to ensure that we examine any potential efficiencies. This will be the case, particularly as the operation of this new building settles down. Quite clearly, some efficiencies of operation are being achieved as arrangements made in abstract for example operation. But financial discipline requires us to look to every possible means of improving efficiency. Some of the discussions I heard from the other side of the chamber were quite ludicrous. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) was effectively saying that everything is okay; there is no need to change. I will come back to that a little later on. That is not a good enough response to an annual outlay, to a minimum of some $100m by the taxpayers of this country to provide the services to the institution of parliament. I now move to the changes involved. It is obvious from the sheer size of the building compared with the old that a budgetary increase will be involved. Further, the staffing of the Joint House Department, as the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) mentioned earlier has increased from $298m to $451m since the start of 1986. Within this institution of Parliament, within this operation, there are approximately 14 unions in the Joint House Department covering 14 trades and seven professions. It does not make life any easier for those responsible for carrying out the management processes. The operation of the building is a major administrative task for which the Speaker and the President need the best advice and the best management available. The current system has been assessed as not providing this. Speaker Child, the successful smooth transition from the old building to this one, is a credit to you- Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a credit to the President and to your respective officers. We have a new standard of accommodation. We have a new standard of service. You have set an excellent example in examining the organisational structure to ensure that it continues with added efficiency. That is the process that each one of us faces in every work place across the nation. Within these buildings we are saying to the rest of Australia, `We all have to try to make do with less; we all have to look at a better way of doing things; we all have to adopt to the process of change'. For the management and employees of the parliamentary departments there will be opportunity for improved career structures, for classification changes and for improved working arrangements. The Joint House Department will thereby be in a good position to carry out the award restructuring being addressed elsewhere. When we say to the rest of Australia the words that ring around these walls in this chamber, `You have to learn how to do it better; you have to learn to become more efficient; the nation has to become more competitive', that does not make this building a sacred site, immune from the same pressures for improved efficiency and better use of the taxpayers' dollar which applies to everybody else outside this building. I want to refer briefly to the comments made by my colleagues opposite. I listened to most of what the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) had to say. I know him reasonably well. He may object to what I am about to say. I felt that the honourable member's heart was not really in it. He delivered his address but, knowing him as I do, I did not feel it was something he felt strongly about. The contribution that was made was really a message of fear of change. Sure, change frightens everybody. There is always a resistance by some people to change. There are always those people in the citadels. Sometimes, I think, within this parliamentary organisation there are citadels in which people see themselves as being there to maintain the tradition regardless of the level of efficiency and regardless of whether they could do better with less money or do better in terms of the efficiency and service they provide to the community at large. In others there is resistance simply to the suggestion of change. This is a very reasonable, moderate and measured change put forward by the Speaker in this Bill. It is change that can be accommodated which, really in itself is the beginning of a modernisation of parliamentary practice in this place. The purpose of the Bill is simply to modernise the administrative operations of Parliament, to bring it up to date and to reduce the parliamentary departments from five to three. Like the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler, I confess that I chuckled a little when the honourable member for Curtin was labouring on about wanting to reduce five departments to three. Surely, given the small number of people involved and the very large budget involved, we should be looking wherever possible within these arrangements to ensuring that there is no duplication or triplication, that we are operating at the best level of efficiency and that we are using that money for the best possible purpose. The honourable member for Curtin says the Government has the purse strings. That is true. But it is the Government that is accountable to the people of this country for the use of that $100.3m. It is the Government that goes to the polls and has to explain how it has used the taxpayers' money. Therefore the Government has the responsibility of ensuring that that efficiency is achieved and for ensuring that desirable structural change is embraced. That is what this Bill is about. It is about desirable, reasonable, long needed structural change in the way we do things in this place. The Bill represents a step forward. In my view, it is long overdue. Once commenced, it will produce more efficient services. It will produce better value for taxpayer's dollars. I believe it deserves the support of the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. 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, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. TDuncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGrace, 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.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. 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.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, B. D. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. 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.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.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. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.07) —The Opposition supports the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The Bill is one part of the type of legislation that used to be included in a statute law revision amendment Bill and the various Acts which are amended all fall within the general law and justice portfolios. As I have said, the Opposition supports the Bill and it is not necessary to go through it in great detail. However, it is appropriate to make a few remarks on some of the areas covered by the Bill. In the order in which I have taken them, the first Act which is amended is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. What the Bill does is to allow full time deputy presidents of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to be appointed for fixed terms of up to seven years. The advantage of this proposal is that it will allow flexibility in staffing of the AAT, and it is appropriate that the amendment to the Act should be supported for that reason. The work of the AAT is such that it ebbs and flows. No doubt members of the Tribunal would say that it mostly flows and that, therefore, there is an increasing need for additional appointments to the Tribunal. Nevertheless, we accept the argument from the Government that there is a need to provide for flexibility in appointments to the Tribunal. For that reason, we support the amendment proposed to be made to the Act by this Bill. The second proposal of significance in the Bill is an amendment to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The Bill in this regard allows the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, rather than the appropriate Minister, to determine the number of officers in various ranks in the police force. It applies the merit principle to the Federal Police Force and it prohibits discrimination in employment. To the Opposition, they all seem to be desirable attitudes, and for that reason, we support the Bill in this regard also. Thirdly, there is an amendment to the Customs Act which abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination in an examination by the court or registrar or official trustee pursuant to a court order. To abrogate the principle against self-incrimination is a very significant step and not one which is embarked upon lightly. Nevertheless, upon an examination of the Customs Act, it would appear that there is a need to use this additional power only in extreme cases; namely, those where a narcotics offence has been committed and where an offence has been committed which is subject to very substantial punishment, to particularly large fines and terms of imprisonment. So in those cases what might otherwise seem to be a heavy handed approach is justified. We are bolstered in this support by the fact that the information elicited once the privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated cannot be used in other civil or criminal proceedings. So, for the reason that the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination is underpinned by that safeguard we support this amendment to the Customs Act 1901. There are several amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. Because I wish to make a few additional remarks on that, I will leave them to the end of my speech. There is a rather curious amendment to the Law Officer Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested in this in view of our present predicament. It grants a deferred pension to a disabled or infirm Solicitor-General who has served seven years but less than 10 years and who is, therefore, not entitled to a judicial pension. I will resist the temptation to say that this might be drawn with someone in mind, but it does seem to be a curious provision, and although the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) devotes himself to a never-ending pursuit of justice and rectification of shortcomings in statutes, this is one that I think, with respect, calls for a little further explanation than the one that we received in the second reading speech. I will be interested to see whether the Attorney-General has anything additional to say other than what he has already said in the second reading speech. What I regard as an important provision in the Bill is an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. On examination of the Bill we see that there are amendments proposed which will give protection to third parties whose property interests are affected by foreign forfeiture orders that are registered under the Mutual Assistance Act. That likewise is a desirable proposal and one that we support. In addition to this, there are some odd provisions found in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill which have not been mentioned in the second reading speech. I wonder why some of them have been made. No doubt there are reasons for their having been made, but some of them still intrigue me. There is a particular amendment to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1988 which seeks to amend section 11 of that Act. By omitting from paragraph (a) of section 11 the word `issued', and substituting the word `issued' and then by omitting the word `agency', and substituting the word `agency'. So far as I can see, it is an amendment to the commas rather than anything else. Mr Lionel Bowen —We have a lot of those. Mr N.A. Brown —If there are a lot of those, I suppose it is appropriate that they should be hunted down and weeded out relentlessly. I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General is applying himself to these matters. Finally, in this area of my remarks there is an interesting provision which provides an answer to the question which has often puzzled me which is: Where have we arrived at in 1988 after many years of equal employment opportunity and a barrage of laws to enforce it? We find the answer in a provision in this Bill which seeks to amend the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act. It provides: Where an Act establishes an office of Deputy Chairperson of a body, the Deputy Chairperson may be referred to as Deputy Chairman or Deputy Chairwoman, as the case requires. So the answer to the question that I posed before-I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General has assented to this-is that we have now gone around in a complete circle and we are saying at long last probably what we always should have been saying. I mentioned in the course of my remarks that there were some amendments to the Family Law Act of 1975. I believe it will be worth while if we spend a few more minutes on this particular area of the Bill than I have spent on other areas of the Bill. The Family Law Act and the family law system which it supports are a very important area of the law which touches many people in the community. We should, I believe, as legislators be continually astute and attentive to the provisions of this law and to how they are operating. It is therefore pleasing to see that the Government has been giving its attention to the Family Law Act, but it is somewhat disappointing that of all the areas of family law which could be attended to the Government has found only two in substance which justify amendments at this stage. There is, first of all, a provision in the Bill which gives to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory the same exclusive jurisdiction as State supreme courts have where there arises under a Northern Territory law a matter which concerns the adoption of children, matrimonial property and ex-nuptial children. So the Northern Territory is put in the same situation as a State so far as the family law jurisdiction is concerned and that is, in my view, desirable. Secondly, there is an important provision to which attention has been drawn, judicially and in other places, which repeals subsection 78 (3) of the Family Law Act. The repeal of that subsection will enable the Family Court of Australia to make orders that bind third parties-for example, a bank-as well as parties to a marriage. That is a situation that arises in property disputes and their settlement. It has been very clear for some time that there was a need to repeal that subsection so that the rights of third parties could be properly recognised. I have said that the Family Law Act is an important Act; the Family Court is an important court; and the family law system is a very important part of our system of law and justice. It is therefore appropriate that whenever we have an opportunity to do so we should stop and look at the administration of family law and the Family Court to see how they are going and whether we can direct attention to areas of reform which need to be addressed. We were assisted in this regard, I believe, by a paper presented by the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Mr Justice Nicholson, at the Australian Legal Convention on 30 August 1988. For a few minutes I would like to direct the House's attention to some of the matters mentioned by His Honour concerning the Family Court which have not been given proper attention by the Government and which, in our belief, should be given proper attention. His Honour, in a wide-ranging address, touched first of all upon a number of mistakes which have been made with respect to this court, some of which, regrettably, are continuing. The first point he made in the area of mistakes was: First, the Court was from its commencement and still is significantly under-resourced. That, unfortunately, is still true. His Honour was quite correct: the Family Court is underresourced. I believe very firmly that if we want the court to have the standing in the community to which it is entitled and which the importance of this area of the law justifies, we have to come to grips now with this very major problem of the underresourcing of the Family Court. I believe that if we give the Family Court proper powers and status, if we give the judges of that court proper salaries, if we give to the court itself proper, decent and appropriate premises, and if we recognise the court as being part of the mainstream of the system of law and justice in this country, we will have a family court about which we can all say, with conviction, that it really is doing the job that the community wants to see it do. Unfortunately, at the moment we cannot say that the court is properly resourced or that its judges are properly rewarded, and we certainly cannot say that the court is housed in proper and appropriate premises. His Honour made that point in some detail and I urge honourable members to consider his remarks. His Honour drew attention to the fact that the second mistake, as he put it, was that the court staff are required to become members of the Commonwealth Public Service. The point he draws from this is that, as a result, their substantial allegiance is to the Commonwealth Public Service and not to the court which they are supposed to be serving. He went on to say that it was a disastrous mistake-he used the word `disastrous'-to decide to set up a separate court. He said: A further mistake and I believe a disastrous one, was the decision to set up a separate court in the form of the Federal Court of Australia, rather than providing for one Federal Superior Court with a divisional structure. Clearly, his view is that the Family Court would be better as a division of that proposed court. Instead of that, he made the point, which is true, that the Family Court has come to be regarded and is in many respects a poor relation in the judicial structure, and it is not seen as part of the mainstream of the Australian court system. When one looks at its resources, its facilities and the general standing which has been given to the court, one would have to conclude that it is the Cinderella of the court system in Australia. It is time that that came to an end. It is time that it was properly resourced; it is time that it was treated with more respect; and it is time that it was given its proper and rightful place in the mainstream of the court system in this country. I will not take the time of the House to go into detail of the other mistakes and shortcomings to which His Honour drew attention. Suffice to say that it was a very sustained and substantial critique of exactly where the Family Court is today and where it should be. He dealt with the pressing problem of delays in hearing cases in the court. As we all know-it is not simply a cliche-justice delayed is justice denied. When a custody case in which the status quo has remained for two or three years before the matter comes on for trial, obviously it is unlikely that the court will change the situation from that which is presented to it, even though the justice might be on the other side of the case. A judge faced with a situation that has existed for two or three years will start off from the presumption that it is unwise to change that, thereby, perhaps, not doing justice to the full extent that he or she would if the case came before the judge fresh and comparatively recently after the dissolution of the marriage was granted. That is a significant matter to which His Honour properly drew attention. There have been improvements. Indeed, it must be put on the record that the reforms in administration which Mr Justice Nicholson has introduced himself have already led to a substantial improvement in the efficiency of the court and a shortening of the delays. Nevertheless, His Honour would be the first to admit that, despite the reforms and the administrative changes that have been introduced, there are still substantial delays which are having the result of justice not being done fully to the parties who appear before the court. His Honour summed up the general situation when he said in the speech to which I have referred, which in a few words encompassed the whole of the current problem: The failure to appoint judicial registrars- they have not been appointed as yet- coupled with the refusal by most of the registrars to exercise their additional powers- I say as another aside that that is as a result of industrial relations matters- and the absence of any agreement between the Commonwealth and the States as to the magistrates exercising their additional powers, has left the court- this is the important part- precisely where it was before the legislation came into force. that is to say, before the amending legislation which was before this parliament in comparatively recent times which was supposed to relieve many of the problems facing the Family Court at that stage. I can well remember the Attorney-General, no doubt from the highest motives, telling us in this House not so long ago that the most recent reforms to the Act were those which would bring about a new dawn in the Family Court: we would have a great improvement in the system and new appointments-- Mr Halverson —It is time the sun came up. Mr N.A. Brown —As my colleague the honourable member for Casey says, it is time the sun came up. However, as Mr Justice Nicholson has said, the sun has still set, in effect, on the Family Court and we have not seen the new dawn that we were promised from the recent legislation. It is about time that the Government and the whole community-it is not solely the Government's fault-faced up to this vexed question of what must be done to give the Family Court its proper resources, proper powers, proper respect and proper premises. A court simply will not perform to what the community expects from it if it is underresourced, if it sits in inadequate premises, and if we are not able, because of salaries, to appoint the best people to the Family Court. If those sorts of problems are allowed to continue, the Family Court in the future will, unfortunately, be described in the same way that I have been forced, reluctantly, to describe it tonight-that is, as the Cinderella of the Australian court system. We do not want it to be the Cinderella. We want it to be a court which will properly meet the community's needs and expectations. We know that it is not easy for the Government to find the resources, but we feel that now we have embarked on having this separate Federal Court dealing with matrimonial and family matters-now that we have committed ourselves on that course-we must acknowledge that a lot more must be done in providing resources and facilities for the Family Court so that it can meet the community's needs in this area of the law. The Opposition holds the view that the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 makes some changes, which are necessary and desirable, to a series of Acts of the Parliament. For that reason, the Opposition supports the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Lionel Bowen-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.30) —in reply-I wish to refer to the remarks made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. He made a very good speech about difficulties in the family law area, but I think that he agrees with the amendments proposed to the Family Law Act. In common with the honourable member, I shall reserve my remarks about family law for a little while in order to deal with one other matter he raised. He was anxious that I should explain the specific provisions relating to the Solicitor-General. It is true that we are making provision here for a pro rata pension for a Solicitor-General in relation to what normally would be a judge's pension. There are two issues involved here. At present a person who serves as Solicitor-General is covered under the Judges' Pensions Act for death or incapacity while in office, but when ceasing to hold office does not have that cover. What we are saying here-and this has been put to me pretty strongly-is that a person who takes an appointment for seven years as Solicitor-General is out of the normal stream of practise in that that person is no longer able to take the briefs he would normally take. It is somewhat of a penalty to suggest that that person can just go back to practise. I think that that person would suffer some loss of remuneration. One should bear in mind that judges get the benefit of such a provision and it is deemed that a Solicitor-General would be related to provisions under the Judges' Pensions Act. We are saying that a person who gives seven years' service to the law on behalf of the government and does so at a rather low rate of remuneration-- Mr N.A. Brown —He gets more than we do. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but how low can one get? The Solicitor-General has a good case in that sense. The difficulties faced by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General are, I am advised, in contrast to the position of Solicitors-General in the States, whose appointments enable them to serve until they reach judicial retiring age. It may well be that our Solicitor-General will be reappointed, but the question arose whether he should be given some pro rata consideration on the same lines as that given to judges. The honourable gentleman made a very good speech relating to matters under the Family Law Act-not that they are contained in this Bill but he dealt with practical problems. The issues he raised relate to the fact that the court was started in a hurry in 1976. It would have been far better not to have started it. The court was in most unsuitable premises that contained other tenants. In my period in office I have tried to obtain better premises for the court-no mean feat in any city of Australia. The court has been able to obtain substantial new premises in Brisbane and in Newcastle. We have good accommodation coming up in some other parts of Australia, but I have gone to the trouble and expense of acquiring a site in Sydney. It will require at least $45m to build the court and these things take a little time. I acknowledge all the things that have been said. There is the question of the Court's status and whether it is in the mainstream. The answer is that it is not deemed to be in the mainstream because of what I regard as a mistake in granting it exclusive jurisdiction. Once exclusive jurisdiction was granted in this area, the court was deemed not to be capable of doing anything else in the law. As the honourable gentleman will know, unless one is a bit of an all-rounder in the law, one will not get much credibility. One cannot just be good at maintenance and expect to do very well in that area alone. One is expected to do well in equity and other areas. One might even have a chance to talk to the High Court on matters. It is very clear that this well-meaning proposition-the use of the word `Family' in the name of the Court-created high expectations that this Court would be able to solve all the problems of the family. It happens to be the divorce court. At that stage, the family is completely fractured and there is very little chance of any reconciliation-nor was there ever under the Matrimonial Causes Act. Certainly, there are those who will now argue furiously about custody matters. Because divorce is now a no-fault issue and the issues decided by the court usually involve questions of custody and property, the parties' anger, heat and revenge are directed to those two issues. It is a very difficult jurisdiction. I have the utmost admiration for those who accept appointment to the Court. There are not so many who are ready and willing to accept appointment to the Court, for the reasons I have already mentioned. The honourable gentleman opposite knows that we might be able to give the Court additional jurisdiction. I hope that that occurs, because it will alleviate the monotony and the difficulty of having to deal with the same sorts of matters, day in and day out. But again, judges in other courts feel that that might affect their status. We understand judicial politics, because we are professionals ourselves. As we did not create that sort of climate at the start, it is very hard to create it now, particularly when there are deemed to be issues-which I do not want to mention in detail-relating to the question of disgruntled litigants acting violently and the loss of the lives of judges and their spouses. It is not an easy jurisdiction to administer. What the honourable gentleman proposes has a lot of merit, except that it would need a lot of money and a lot more resources. The number of judges in the Court has increased to 56. It is not as though the Court is under-resourced in that sense. But the work of the Court has substantially increased. There is now an additional 15 per cent workload because the Court must deal with the question of the status of ex-nuptial children. There are enormous problems in this area. I know that the honourable gentleman has spoken to the judges in the Court. I want him to do so. It is not as though there are any politics in this matter. It is a question of parliaments and those who have the responsibility for allocating the priority of resources realising that we need to allocate a lot more resources to buildings and certainly to staff and their obligations. One of the matters that is causing some concern-and this relates to our own difficulties-is the question of judges' salaries. The recent determination as to salaries is not readily accepted at the moment. All of these matters create difficulties. Persons at the bar who accept judicial office, in most cases, if not in all, take a reduction in salary. They serve the nation, and they are indispensable from the point of view of democracy and justice. We do need to look at the question of premises. Some further discussion is required with the Victorian Government as to the suitability of sites in Melbourne, and with the South Australian Government as to the suitability of sites in South Australia. I understand that we have no problem in Western Australia because we already have the site and have commenced building. The only other thing to do is to try to reduce the workload. I pay great tribute to the new Chief Justice and his Deputy Chief. The delays have been substantially reduced because of administrative procedures, particularly in listing, and in matters which one might have thought could have been acknowledged earlier than this. The system is progressing. I have every confidence that this jurisdiction will continue to give very good service. I am anxious that it be given additional work and not be relegated to an inferior status. I thank the honourable member for his support. There is an amendment to be moved in the committee stage which I will explain and which relates to the fact that last evening we passed the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill. An amendment which was contained in the Bill that is before us was removed and inserted in the Bill that we passed last evening. The discussion of that amendment will be of limited duration. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.41) —I move: Part XVI, pages 17 and 18, lines 36 to 40 (page 17) and lines 1 to 22 (page 18), omit the Part. The amendment relates to proposed amendments to the National Crime Authority Act of 1984. The reason why we need not proceed with the amendments here is that last evening we incorporated the same amendments in the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill. What we are about here has been achieved in the Bill that was passed last evening. That was done because a request had been received from South Australia to have a particular amendment made to the National Crime Authority Act to allow for an additional member to be appointed. As that was required urgently, it was appropriate to bring these amendments forward in accordance with the South Australia request. It was all encompassed in the one piece of legislation that was passed last evening. Therefore there is no need for this amendment to the National Crime Authority Act to proceed. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.42) —I refer to the provisions relating to the temporary appointment of members of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and express a little concern about the process we have entered upon, not to oppose the provisions being introduced but to express caution and to say that I hope the powers given for the appointment of temporary members will be exercised only in circumstances where the need for a temporary vacancy occurs. I understand that is the view of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), but I am a little concerned about the terms of the second reading speech. It suggests that although the amendments are designed primarily to enable the appointment of members on a short term basis to handle backlogs or initial peaks of work, that is not the exclusive basis on which appointments will be made. It is an important and fundamental principle that when dealing with quasi-judicial appointments we should not move away from the principle that such appointments generally to be made for a term of good behaviour; in other words, that it is not appropriate with judicial office that short term appointments be made where the holders of judicial office or quasi-judicial office be subject to reappointment by the executive. The obvious difficulties that arise by such short term appointments should need no particular expansion. I register my concern and flag that point for the attention of the Attorney and draw it to the attention of the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.45) —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) mentioned the question of appointments. This related to the particular difficulties of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when over 90,000 taxation cases were referred to it from a taxation board of review. We had to do something about getting those matters dealt with. I am happy to say that we have made remarkable progress. But the honourable member can imagine that when we suddenly have to deal with such a backlog of cases, which certainly affect people's rights, we have to take unusual steps. It would not be appropriate, particularly because of the skills we want in that area, and in the many cases people do not want to accept appointments for the life of a judicial period. But the honourable member was right in making the point. It is not as though we are deviating from the principle of independence. The fact is that our own independence was somewhat submerged by the weight of the backlog of cases in the taxation area. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.47) —Those of us who are concerned about our environment are well aware of the significant role played by the Keep Australia Beautiful Council (KABC). The Keep Australia Beautiful (KAB) movement was founded in Victoria in 1964. At first it operated under the name State Wide Civic Pride, and was a project of the National Council of Women of Victoria (NCW). This project was the result of an empty beer can being thrown at the then President of the Victorian (NCW), Phyllis Frost while she was driving along the Hume Highway. I am reliably informed the can was not thrown deliberately or with any malice. It was the indiscriminate and thoughtless action of a truck driver, who was evidently taking the opportunity afforded by a straight stretch of road and minimum oncoming traffic to do a little housekeeping in the cabin of his semi-trailer. He jettisoned not only the offending can but also a number of other items for which he apparently had no use. The empty can chipped the windscreen of Dame Phyllis's car, but that did not concern her as much as the trail of litter the truck left behind. Because of this incident, her attention was drawn to the amount of litter along the roadside-obviously not only truck drivers regularly used the highways as rubbish repositories-and on her return to Melbourne she enlisted the aid of her NCW colleagues to launch a campaign to encourage Victorians to take more pride in and care of their environment. By 1968, the State Wide Civic Pride campaign had outgrown its original structure. The anti-litter concept was retained, and broadened to include additional environmental and conservation oriented objectives, and a wider support and involvement base was established. The revamped and expanded organisation adopted the name and slogan Keep Australia Beautiful. Some three years later, the National Keep Australia Beautiful Council was formed. Every State and Territory is now represented on the national committee. The objectives of the Keep Australia Beautiful campaign include fostering a community appreciation of the benefits of an unspoiled environment and clean, well kept, litter-free cities and towns; and encouraging Australians of all ages to participate in safeguarding the character and beauty of our Australian landscape. KAB has always emphasised the important community role and responsibility in regard to litter prevention, believing it is better to inform people about the advantages of cleaning up after themselves rather than leaving the job for others to do. It is also vigorously involved in educating the community to realise that our natural resources must be conserved, and recycled or re-used where these options are economically feasible. For twenty years now, the Keep Australia Beautiful organisations throughout Australia have maintained a continuous and demonstrably effective campaign, and their efforts have been well rewarded. The effectiveness and high level of community acceptance of the Keep Australia Beautiful message can be seen every day in our streets, along our highways and throughout our naturally beautiful countryside. In addition to its community-oriented activities, KABC provides advice and assistance on any matters within the scope of its broad objectives to all levels of government and to industry and commerce. It receives funding support from private donors through its various membership schemes, from industries and commercial enterprises, from municipalities and from State and Federal governments. On 4 December Dame Phyllis Frost, the National President and Victorian Chairman of Keep Australia Beautiful, will be leaving our shores to represent Australia at the celebrations in Washington DC to mark the 35th anniversary of Keep America Beautiful Inc. The activities include a seminar on the increasingly significant topic of the community role in solid waste management and meetings of Clean World International-the international body representing environmental care organisations from 27 different countries. Dame Phyllis will be representing Australia at these meetings, through her role as the Vice-Chairman of Clean World International. I am confident members on both sides of this House will want to join with me in congratulating the Keep Australia Beautiful Council for the magnificent job it has done and continues to do. I believe we should also take this opportunity to wish Keep America Beautiful Inc. a very happy 35th birthday. For the good of this generation and future generations, I hope that both these organisations, and others like them throughout the world, have many more happy birthdays. It goes without saying, of course, that they will tidy up after the party. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.51) —Last night in the house the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) made comments about the recent parliamentary delegation to Africa. I was not here last night so could not respond to the attack made on me as leader. I also find it interesting that at a time when the draft report on the trip is about to be discussed these comments should emerge, and also the threat of a minority report. At no time have I made mention about who paid for Mrs Cobb's trip. I assume the honourable member for Parkes downgraded his first class ticket, but if he, or any member, wants to debate that here or in the media, I am more than happy to do so. By custom and tradition, when a parliamentary delegation leaves Australia, its members leave their day to day party politics behind. This does not mean they cannot ask difficult and searching questions. During the African trip no restrictions were placed on questions or discussion. This has happened on every trip I have been part of and was most certainly the case with the successful delegation of 16 I lead to the People's Republic of China earlier this year. The trip for all of us was physically and somewhat emotionally demanding. It is absolute rubbish to say I persecuted Mrs Cobb. We never exchanged a word after our first day in Addis Ababa. The much quoted flare up at the Ethiopian Women's Revolutionary Council came about when Mrs Cobb challenged me to show her an oppressed woman in Australia. I asked her if she had ever seen an Aboriginal or migrant woman and suggested she discuss it with Mrs Harvey or Ms Crawford. My swearing was the comment that smart arse comments do not help the cause. I did not ban Mrs Cobb from attending any function. As leader of the delegation I never knew what function she would or would not decide to attend. The only place I said would be inappropriate for her to visit was the African National Congress College. When the Cobbs protested I called a meeting of the group and put it to a vote. The honourable member for Parkes, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and Senator Baume said she should go. I, as leader, the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford), our High Commissioner, political adviser and the Secretary said she should not go. Six votes against three, by my reckoning, is a majority. Arrangements were made for Mrs Cobb to come as far as the gates of the College where she would be met by a four-wheel drive vehicle and taken to view the wildlife. Senator Baume conveyed this to her and agreed to the suggestion. She refused. Then arrangements were made for her to go swimming and visit the beaches around Dar-es-Salaam. Again she refused. In Ethiopia I did address the Ethiopians as `comrade', as I checked with our Ambassador on the correct form of address. I never referred to the honourable member for Parkes or the honourable member for Franklin as comrade, as I do not regard them as comrades. In Tanzania the form of address was `gward', which I used. In introducing the delegation I made the point that three of us were from the governing party, the Australian Labor Party, which was aligned with the socialist side of politics; that the honourable member for Franklin and Senator Baume were from the Liberal Party of Australia, which was aligned with the conservative side of politics; and that the honourable member for Parkes; also from the conservative side, represented in the main, rural interests. This I did throughout the trip to Africa. This was done by way of explanation to our hosts. The Mozambique part of our trip was perhaps the most sensitive of all. Every delegation member had approved the final press release which I read at Maputo airport in front of every delegation member, with the honourable member for Franklin sitting beside me. I invited questions from the media and when these were over I closed the press conference. A short time later I noticed the honourable member for Franklin giving a separate press interview. I went over to him and told him that all comment should be made in front of all members of the delegation. I stress here that the issues we were discussing in Mozambique were extremely sensitive and it was very important that we should speak with one voice on them. The comments made by the honourable member for Parkes on my leadership are not shared by our hosts or, I believe, our diplomatic representatives abroad. Despite some personality clashes, I believe that it was a most successful trip. I stress the fact that parliamentary delegations are not holiday trips to exotic parts of the world, but serious and sensitive exercises on behalf of the Parliament. Perhaps greater care should be exercised in selecting the membership of these delegations. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.56) —The Castle Bacon decision is now a part of Australian industrial folklore. The decision is perhaps one of more significant recent events in industrial relations, yet oddly enough it has gone largely unnoticed-at least compared with the Mudginberri or Dollar Sweets scenarios. The Castle Bacon story is the story of a medium-sized, small ham and bacon manufacturer in the country town of Castlemaine, 120 kilometres from Melbourne. More importantly, it is a story about how a comparatively small business operator chose to offer his employees what he considered a reasonable deal only to come face to face with a union-the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU)-intent upon conflict to the detriment of not only its members, but the industry as a whole. The AMIEU, well-known for its `thick-headedness' at the Mudginberri abattoir-to quote the Australian Financial Review of 13 October 1988-opposed the deal despite the fact that 460 out of 520 employees supported the proposed changes as more than fair and reasonable. Unable to enter into genuine negotiations with the union, which refused to agree to any significant productivity improvements in exchange for the 4 per cent second tier wage increase, the company decided to deal directly with its employees. The deal included: a 4 per cent restructuring and efficiency pay rise in exchange for productivity gains of at least 4 per cent, thereby enabling maximisation of potential for both management and employees; the combined alteration of shifts to enable more continuous production and therefore more effective economies of scale, increased production and the increased possibility of flow on benefits to employees; a juggling of Show Day and Melbourne Cup Day holidays by mutual arrangement for the benefit of both parties; and the shortening of tea breaks by five minutes allowing maximum time on the job. It also included a promise that new shifts would not leave any workers currently on penalty payments out of pocket. As far as management and workers were concerned, these were matters that directly affected the future viability of their work place and the jobs of more than 500 people in the township of Castlemaine. However, the union thought otherwise and attempted to gain the upper hand in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the grounds that a second tier agreement could only be made by an employer with a union and not directly with its employees. This contrasted directly with what management and the employees wanted to achieve. Both parties felt they had more to gain by ridding themselves of the reactionary element in the union hierarchy which appeared intent on conflict for conflict's sake. It is a measure of some concern that the initial reaction of the Commission was to back the union in its push to retain a stranglehold on this, Castlemaine's largest factory, despite the overwhelming desire of 90 per cent of its employees to come to their own arrangements with management. Effectively, it ignored the agreements between employer and employee and granted the workers their 4 per cent pay rise in exchange for minor trade-offs inoffensive to the union. The company subsequently appealed to the Full Bench, which allowed the appeal, there being matters of such importance involved. These were: the relationship of an employer with its employees; the role of unions in negotiations between those parties; and questions concerning the position of a union in proceedings affecting an award to which it is a principal party. The Full Bench re-examined the evidence and upheld the appeal, quashing the original finding and varying the award at Castle Bacon along identical lines to those of the agreements between employer and employee. The good sense of the Full Bench in upholding the appeal must be applauded. It should be noted, however, that the Full Bench did not in fact formally recognise the agreement reached by Castle Bacon and its employees. Instead it varied the existing award by arbitration, using the original agreement as evidence of the employees wishes. Nevertheless, the agreement was a classic case of direct dealing between employees and their employer with the aim of raising wages and productivity simultaneously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Staples to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to move- That this House authorises the broadcasting and re-broadcasting on Australian radio and television stations of a sound record of excerpts of its proceedings, subject to the conditions determined for this purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Mr Beazley to move- That- (1) the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m., as amended on 21 March 1985, 13 February 1986 and 22 October 1986, relating to the registration and declaration of interests by Members, be further amended by omitting resolution (4) which provides for the making of oral declarations of interests in debate and proceedings; such amendment to be effective from the first sitting day of the House of Representatives in 1989; and (2) in all other respects the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m., as amended on 21 March 1985, 13 February 1986, 22 October 1986 and by this resolution, relating to the registration of interests by Members, continue in force. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 November 1988: Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 3c (1), dated 22 November 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Agents Ordinance-Declarations pursuant to subsection 3 (2)-1988-Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7. Housing Assistance Ordinance-Variations pursuant to section 12-1988-Nos. 3, 4, 5. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 14) Mr Reith asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: Are the proceeds of options to sell real estate, held by the person granting an option and where the option is not exercised, subject to capital gains tax; if so, are there exemptions from the tax where the real estate which is the subject of the option is the principal residence of the grantor. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Options generally, including options to purchase granted by owners of real estate, are treated as assets under the capital gains tax legislation when granted after 19 September 1985. Where the option granted in respect of real estate is not exercised the consideration received for the option is subject to capital gains tax in the income year in which it was granted. There is no exemption from the tax where the property over which the option is granted is the principal residence of the grantor and the option is not exercised. The principal residence itself would remain free from capital gains tax in the hands of the grantor in the event of a subsequent disposal. (Question No. 864) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: (1) Is he able to say (a) what stage has been reached on preparation of a major capital increase for the World Bank, (b) whether the proposed increase has been approved by the Bank's executive directors and (c) when the proposed increase will be put to the parliaments of member countries. (2) What would be Australia's contribution to the proposed capital increase and how would this be divided between contributed funds and guarantees. (3) When will the increase be proposed to Parliament. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) World Bank members including Australia have approved a general capital increase (GCI) of 620,000 shares valued at $US74.8 billion, with an additional 14,000 shares to be set aside for new members. (1) (b) Yes. (1) (c) The question of when the proposed increase will be put to the parliaments of member countries is for individual member countries to decide. (2) Under the GCI, Australia is entitled to subscribe to an additional 10,734 shares. The bank does not require full subscription from members immediately and members have until 1993 to subscribe, if they so desire, to the total number of shares allocated to them. The Government has decided that Australia will subscribe to 7,880 shares at an estimated cost of $A35.65m over the five years to 1988-89 to 1992-93. (The total value of these shares is $US950,603,800, of which $US28,518,114 has to be paid-in, the balance being on-call.) This will represent only a very small proportion of likely Australian aid expenditure over this period. The Government has not yet decided whether Australia will subscribe to its remaining entitlement of 2,854 general capital increase shares or relinquish them for allocation to other members of the bank. (3) Legislation to authorise purchase of the 7880 GCI shares has been introduced in the Budget Sittings of Parliament, 1988. (Question No. 976) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) minute of 18 November 1987, entitled ``Matters relating to origin of nuclear material and origin swaps'', and addressed to members of the Euratom Advisory Committee. (2) Is he able to say who are the members of this committee and does Australia have any formal link with this committee. (3) Does paragraph 2.2 of this document state that Canada was asked to agree to 2 cases of flag swapping and that Canada refused when Euratom would not disclose whether South African and Namibian uranium was to be flag swapped. (4) Have there been any formal or informal discussions with the Canadian and Australian Governments on the matter of flag swaps; if so, when and for what reason did this occur. (5) How many times has Australia been asked to agree to flag swapping. (6) How many times has Australia agreed to flag swap. (7) Is he able to give an unequivocal guarantee that no South African or Namibian uranium has been swapped for Australian uranium? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Australia does not have any formal link with the Euratom Advisory Committee. The Committee Chairman is Mr A. Petit (CEA France) and the vice-Chairmen are Messrs M. Palandri (AGIP Italy) and M. Townsend (CEGB U.K.). Under the Euratom Supply Agency Statutes, the Committee has 44 members, representing member States as follows: Belgium ... 3 Denmark ... 2 FRG ... 6 Greece ... 3 Spain ... 5 France ... 6 Ireland ... 1 Italy ... 6 Netherlands ... 3 Portugal ... 3 UK ... 6 (3) Yes. (4) Australia and Canada are partners in a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement and are both strong supporters of international actions to strengthen the barriers to proliferation. There is therefore regular contact on a range of peaceful nuclear matters, including international flag swaps. (5) Three. (6) Australia has not agreed to any international flag swap proposal. (7) As a result of an international flag swap, yes. With regard to internal exchanges of safeguards obligations, in my 20 April statement to Parliament, I said: ``. . . South African-Namibian uranium is not under embargo in the European Community. Euratom can thus buy, process and use South African and Namibian uranium and, within its jurisdiction, it can exchange South African or Namibian obligations with other national obligations, provided this is done in accordance with the terms of the relevant bilateral safeguards agreements. It cannot however, as I have said, approve an exchange of obligations between jurisdictions-that is, an international flag swap-involving Australian origin nuclear material without the consent of the Australian Government.'' (Question No. 998) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 May 1988: (1) What issues were raised at the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in April 1988? (2) What was the Government's view on each issue? (3) What was the outcome of the discussions on each issue? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The main issues raised at the 1988 annual meeting were the amount and distribution of ADB lending, sectoral lending priorities, the relative emphasis on project and non-project lending, cooperation between the ADB and other international financial institutions, the timing of the next general capital increase, and the work of the external panel which is reviewing the role of the Bank in the 1990s. A copy of Australia's submission to this panel has been made available to the Honourable Member. (2) Australian Government views on these issues can be found in the statement to the meeting of the Australian Governor Ad Interim, the Hon. Peter Morris, MP and in the submission to the external panel. Mr Morris issued his statement as a press release on 3 May 1988. A copy has been sent to the Honourable Member. (3) The purpose of Annual Meetings is to provide guidance to the Bank's board of directors and management on major issues confronting the Bank. At Annual Meetings Governors of each of the 47 member countries make statements. This process occupies most of the meeting. Governors do not, however, pass resolutions, nor release a communique. A copy of Governors' statements has recently been made public and has been forwarded to the Honourable Member. (Question No. 1040) Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: (1) Why did the Minister give permission for the sinking of the vessel Nella Dan. (2) Why were repairs not effected while the vessel was hard and fast aground. (3) What attempts were made to salvage the equipment and furnishings, including the ship's bell, before the Nella Dan was scuttled. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) The Nella Dan ran aground at Macquarie Island on 3 December 1987. The vessel was owned by J. Lauritzen A/S and was on charter to the Commonwealth to conduct research and resupply operations for the Antarctic Division of my Department. On 18 December 1987, a permit was issued under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act to the salvage company appointed by the Owner's Protection and Indemnity Club in case scuttling the vessel became the only option. The vessel was refloated on 21 December and the hull was inspected by divers. The damage was assessed by the experts on site, and on 23 December 1987 the owners of the ship, J. Lauritzen A/S, advised that they were left with no option, for practical and safety reasons, but to scuttle the ship in deep water. On 24 December 1987, the Nella Dan was scuttled in over 6000 metres of water in position 54*37.5'S 159*13.3'E off Macquarie Island. (2) Some repairs were made to the vessel while it was grounded in order to pump out water and to pressurise holds to provide buoyancy. After refloating the underwater inspection revealed the most serious damage in the area of the hull which had been resting on the rocky bottom. Repairs to this area were impossible while the ship was aground. (3) As soon after the grounding as weather conditions allowed, the equipment which could be removed, some 5 to 6 tonnes, was taken ashore by volunteer expeditioners working in very difficult conditions. The equipment had to be manually removed as no power was available to operate the ship's main lifting gear. Items of scientific equipment left on board were either too large to be manually handled, or were fitted below decks and could only have been removed in dock. More than 400 cubic metres of diesel fuel were removed from the vessel. Once the decision to scuttle the vessel had been made, the expeditioners at Macquarie Island assisted the crew to pack the crew's personal effects and items of memorabilia. During this operation the vessel became unstable and listed more severely. The Salvage Master ordered the vessel to be abandoned immediately, and all but a few of the items packed remained on board when the vessel was scuttled. (Question No. 1168) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 August 1988: (1) Must an application for admittance to a nursing home in NSW be made to Sydney for approval. (2) When an admittance is urgent, is there a requirement for this approval to be sought by a telephone call by the doctor of the patient or resident; if so, is this head office approval necessary, notwithstanding that a person previously may have been a resident of a rehabilitation hospital and been subject to care by geriatric specialists. (3) Why is it not possible for approval to be obtained on a regional basis. (4) Is the requirement for head office approval a recent change; if so, why was this change made and does it result in delays for admittance. (5) Has his Department received complaints from residents, potential residents, or their families and doctors; if so, what was the nature of those complaints. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Applications for nursing home admission (except for State Government homes) must be referred to either Commonwealth Medical Officers employed by the Department of Community Services and Health in the capital cities of each State/Territory or, if the person lives in a region covered by a geriatric assessment team with delegation to approve nursing home admissions, the application can be made to one of those teams. Four of the geriatric assessment teams in New South Wales hold this delegation. They are the Albury, Hunter Region, Hornsby-Kuring-gai and Lower North Shore teams. People in other regions of New South Wales must refer their applications to the Sydney Office of the Department. (2) When an admission to a nursing home is urgent, there is a requirement to notify the Department within 3 days after the admission. However, no approval is able to be given over the telephone. The National Health Act only allows a decision to be made on an application once the authorised application form is received. In cases of admission without prior approval, the National Health Act outlines that: the proprietor of the nursing home shall, as soon as practicable and, in any case, within 3 days after the day of admission, notify the Secretary of the admission of the person; an application in accordance with the authorised form shall be sent to the Secretary; and approval for the admission cannot be backdated to the admission date unless the notification and application are received by the Secretary within 3 working days of the resident's admission to the nursing home or a longer period in special circumstances. Additionally, for such an approval to be given, the Minister must be satisfied that the circumstances of the admission were such that it was not practicable for prior approval to be obtained, and that the patient is eligible for admission to a nursing home. The only persons delegated by the Minister to give this approval are certain Commonwealth Medical Officers and certain geriatric assessment teams. (3) The Government has accepted the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review recommendation that regional geriatric assessment teams should receive the delegation to approve admission to nursing homes. Accordingly, in co-operation with State Governments, the Commonwealth is establishing a network of geriatric assessment teams throughout Australia. Nine of these assessment teams have already received the delegation to approve admissions to nursing homes in their region. (4) No. This has been the practice for some 15 years. (5) The Department is not aware of any specific complaints about nursing home admission procedures. (Question No. 1200) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) What decisions were made at the International Monetary Fund annual meeting in Berlin on the 9th general review of quotas. (2) Did those decisions involve an increased share for the newly industrialising countries in Asia and for the developing countries generally. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The International Monetary Fund's Ninth General Review of Quotas is due to be completed by 30 April 1989. No decisions were made on the quota review at the IMF's Interim Committee Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 25 September 1988 in Berlin. The Interim Committee noted that progress had been made on the review and urged the Executive Board to give a high priority to this task so that the agreed completion date would be met. (Question No. 1204) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Is he able to say what agreement was reached at the April 1988 meeting of the Group of Ten major industrial countries about reviewing the role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the debt crisis. (2) Have Australia's views on this issue been presented to participants in this review; if so, what views have been presented. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The communique of the meeting of the Group of Ten (G-10) major industrial countries (the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden) held on 14 April 1988 included the following paragraph: `The Ministers and Governors exchanged views on the future work of the Group of Ten and asked their Deputies to undertake a review of the role of the IMF and the World Bank in the context of the debt strategy.' The communique of the Group's last meeting, on 25 September 1988, includes the following reference: Ministers and Governors were informed of progress made in work carried out by their Deputies on the role of the IMF and the World Bank in the context of the debt strategy. They instructed their Deputies to present a final report in time for their meeting next spring. (2) Yes, but through the IMF and World Bank Executive Boards and meetings of Fund and Bank governors, not direct to the G-10. The role of the IMF and World Bank in the debt strategy is a subject of continuing discussion in the Executive Boards of the Fund and Bank. Australia's views on the issue have been put by our representatives in the Executive Boards, on which the G-10 countries are also represented, and in my own interventions in meetings of the Interim and Development Committees-most recently in Berlin in September this year. While the detailed proceedings of these meetings are confidential, I can indicate that Australia has supported the important catalytic role of the IMF and World Bank in the present case-by-case, growth-oriented debt strategy. The IMF and World Bank do not have the resources, nor is it their role, to replace private financing or to accept the transfer of risk from private lenders. I also noted in my statement on 29 September 1988 to the Plenary Sessions of the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings in Berlin, that the Fund and Bank have critical roles to play in addressing the debt and other problems of developing countries. I noted too that Australia does not believe that the Bank should be lending to any country for long-term structural purposes in the absence of a suitable framework of macroeconomic policies for that country. We would not wish to see a situation develop in which borrowing countries were able to exploit a duplication of IMF and World Bank roles and play one institution off against the other to obtain balance of payments financing from one institution that the other was not willing to provide. The role of the IMF and World Bank in the debt strategy can be described briefly as follows: The IMF's role in the debt strategy is essentially to assist member countries to design effective growth-oriented adjustment programs, monitor their implementation, provide its own financial support to smooth the adjustment process, and mobilise finance from other sources. Private lenders have often predicated their own lending on the existence of an IMF-supported adjustment program, which is taken as evidence that a debtor country is tackling seriously its economic difficulties. The World Bank's longer-term structural adjustment lending fulfils a similar catalytic function, supplemented in appropriate cases by credit enhancement measures through the Bank's commercial cofinancing program. The Bank's traditional project lending also contributes importantly to ameliorating debt problems by increasing the productive capacity and growth potential of borrowing countries. The IMF and World Bank also provide technical assistance aimed at strengthening the debt management capacity of developing member countries. In addition, they undertake technical work on voluntary, market-based `menu' options designed to reduce debt and increase private financial flows without transferring risk from private lenders to official creditors and taxpayers. The wider role of the two organisations-and of the IMF in particular-in helping to strengthen international policy coordination, reduce global imbalances and improve the functioning of the international monetary and trading system is aimed at producing a world economic climate in which debt problems can be more satisfactorily resolved. (Question No. 1232) Mr Scholes asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) What was the actual level of all Australia's overseas debt at 30 June (a) 1977, (b) 1980, (c) 1982, (d) 1985 and (e) 1988. (2) What was the ratio of debt to gross national product. (3) In each year referred to in part (1), what was the actual debt of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State and the Northern Territory and (c) the private sector. (4) In each year referred to in part (1), what was the actual ratio of net worth to debt of (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each State and the Northern Territory. (5) What major assets exist overseas that would be an offset to the debt liabilities of the private sector. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Table 1 presents current estimates of Australia's gross and net external debt in $A million and as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) for the periods requested. Table 1 AUSTRALIA'S GROSS AND NET EXTERNAL DEBT Gross External Debt Net External Debt At 30 June $A million % GDP $A million % GDP 1977 ... [7,812 9.0 3,888 4.5 1980 ... 13,499 11.1 6,864 5.6 1982 ... 24,178 15.5 16,375 10.5 1985 ... 66,926 31.6 50,334 23.8 1988 ... 115,091 39.4 88,834 30.4 (3) The ABS has not yet compiled a disaggregation of public sector external debt by Commonwealth, individual States and the Northern Territory. The first such statistics will become available when the ABS publishes the results of its Survey of Public Sector Debt as at 30 June 1987. (The availability of information for individual States may be constrained by confidentiality considerations.) The results of this survey, which is expected to be conducted annually, are scheduled to be published early next year. Details of Commonwealth Government debt-including debt raised on behalf of the States-are comprehensively reported in Government Securities on Issue (Budget Related Paper No. 1). Table 2 (compiled from this source) provides information on Government securities denominated in foreign currencies. These are, for the most part, Commonwealth securities issued for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory Governments. (A few State securities, mostly issued prior to the Financial Agreement of 1927, were outstanding during the years concerned). Debt of semi-government and local authorities of the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory is not included in Table 2. It should be noted that the Commonwealth Government has not issued securities abroad denominated in Australian dollars, but any such issues would form a part of Australia's external debt-as non-resident purchases of Commonwealth $A Securities issued in Australia already do. Such holdings are outside the scope of Budget related Paper No. 1. Table 3 provides a sectoral classification of gross external debt and includes debt of government authorities. However, a disaggregation of the `General Government' and `Public trading and financial enterprises' categories of external debt by the Commonwealth, each State and Northern Territory is not presently available. Table 2 GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ON ISSUE, DENOMINATED IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES $A Equivalent, Millions (a) Commonwealth NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT (b) At 30 June 1977 ... 1,743.4 55.0 26.6 15.6 14.5 8.9 6.7 n.a. 1980 ... 5,326.4 36.0 8.9 7.1 10.1 4.6 3.2 n.a. 1982 ... 5,335.8 3.7 1.6 2.8 5.6 1.5 1.1 n.a. 1985 ... 9 786.4 - 0.3 0.7 5.0 - 0.3 n.a. 1988 ... 12,686.2 - - - 5.2 - - n.a. (a) Converted to Australian dollars at the rates of exchange ruling on the dates indicated. (b) Prior to 1986, Northern Territory debt was included in that of the Commonwealth. Table 3 AUSTRALIA'S GROSS EXTERNAL DEBT BY SECTOR ($Am) General govt and RBA Public trading and financial enterprises Private sector At 30 June 1977 ... 2,325 n.a. n.a. 1978 (a).... 4,228 558 5,347 1980 ... 5,687 1,496 6,316 1982 ... 5,692 3,552 14,934 1985 ... 14,883 14,868 37,175 1988 ... 31,469 22,356 61,266 (a) Since June 1978 is the earliest period for which gross non-official debt is available for the public and private sectors, this period is also included. (4) Available statistics do not allow an estimate to be made of the ``net worth'' of the Commonwealth, any State or the Northern Territory Government. Although figures are available for financial assets and liabilities, the difficulties involved in the valuation of real assets and the calculation of present value of future governmental and public enterprise net income are such that the end results would not justify the resources that would have to be expended on the task. (5) Table 4 provides information on Australia's major overseas financial assets. Official reserve assets include foreign exchange, gold and other assets held by the Reserve Bank. Debt assets comprise the stock of Australian lending overseas, while ``other'' assets comprise primarily the stock of Australian equity investment abroad and accounts receivable. Table 4 AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS ASSETS ($Am) Official Reserve Assets Debt Assets Other Assets Total Assets At 30 June 1977... 3,312 612 2,298 6,222 1980... 5,681 954 6,911 13,546 1982... 6,517 1,286 8,716 16,519 1985... 13,517 3,075 17,495 34,087 1988... 20,182 6,075 38,629 64,886 (Question No. 1269) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $363,847. (b) $3,231,766. (c) $4,205,113. (d) $718,067. (e) $1,197,045 (See Note (a)). (2) (a) $350,000. (b) $3,500,000. (c) $4,010,000. (d) $825,000. (e) $1,095,000 (See Note (a)). (a) In keeping with the thrust of the question these amounts represent expenditure on the publication and distribution of journals and magazines of a promotional and advertising nature. (Question No. 1281) Mr Scholes asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to concern that the tax amnesty requires that, in seeking information, a taxpayer must contact the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and provide details which may not be covered by the amnesty. (2) Will he examine the possibility of (a) an extension to the amnesty period and (b) the first contact point being through an accredited tax agent. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the situation where many persons are not prepared to make direct contact with the ATO and thus have not availed themselves of the amnesty. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The tax amnesty was an initiative of the Commissioner of Taxation. Under the terms of the amnesty, the Commissioner of Taxation exercised his power under the Income Tax Assessment Act to fully remit any additional tax imposed for the late lodgment of returns. No other tax penalties are covered by the amnesty. Persons who lodge returns under the amnesty are asked to provide the same amount of information that would have been required had their returns been lodged on time and are not required to provide any other information. (2) (a) The Commissioner clearly stated that the amnesty would end on 31 October 1988 and that increased penalties and enforcement activities would commence from 1 November 1988. (2) (b) A brochure produced by the Taxation Office advised people who needed professional assistance in completing their returns to consult a registered tax agent. It is understood that many taxpayers took the opportunity to consult tax agents on amnesty matters and to lodge amnesty returns through agents. (3) The Australian Taxation Office set up a toll free hotline for the period of the amnesty. People contacting the hotline were not required to identify themselves. The hotline received 134,136 inquires to 4 November 1988. As mentioned, taxpayers had the option of lodging their amnesty tax returns through tax agents if they did not wish to have direct contact with the ATO. (Question No. 1313) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in answers to questions 4823 (Hansard, 9 September 1982, page 1353), 4689 (Hansard, 21 September 1982, page 1704) and 3095 (Hansard, 19 February 1986, page 903) concerning Natural Disasters Organisation funding and activity. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: PQ 4823 of 18 August 1982 What was the (a) value (b) purpose and (c) date of (i) application for and (ii) making of each grant to civil defence organisations in each of the last 5 years. Answer The Department of Defence does not make specific grants to civil defence organisations but through its Natural Disasters Organisation (NDO) it provides physical and financial assistance to State/Territory Emergency Services in support of their dual counter disaster and civil defence roles. The purpose and value of the various NDO support programs are: (1) Reimbursement of Salaries. The Commonwealth reimburses the salaries of approved State/Territory Service permanent officers up to a maximum salary equivalent to a Commonwealth administrative service officer class 5. These officers' duties include the organisation, administration and training of local emergency service units, public education and support of local government authorities in the development of local counter disaster plans and arrangements. Expenditure over the past six years has been: 1987-88 $2.111m (79 Positions). 1986-87 $2.091m (80 Positions). 1985-86 $2.070m (84 Positions). 1984-85 $1.933m (92 Positions). 1983-84 $1.758m (88 Positions). 1982-83 $1.749m (94 Positions). Note (1) There is currently an agreed maximum of 80 positions across all State/Territory organisations. (2) Building Subsidies. The Commonwealth provides financial assistance to local government authorities by way of building subsidies on a dollar for dollar basis towards the cost of providing accommodation for local State Emergency Service units. Currently there is an agreed maximum per project of $20,000 with the average subsidy running at $10,000. Currently there is no backlog of requests. Expenditure for the past six years has been: 1987-88 $.586m (53 Projects). 1986-87 $.545m (48 Projects). 1985-86 $.300m (34 Projects). 1984-85 $.464m (53 Projects). 1983-84 $.340m (47 Projects). 1982-83 $.192m (16 Projects). (3) Emergency Equipment. The Commonwealth provides annually a range of emergency equipment to State/Territory Emergency Service Units. Items provided include rescue vehicles and trailers, field radios, rescue equipment, tarpaulins and, protective clothing and footwear. This equipment is designed to meet both counter disaster and civil defence requirements. State and Local Governments are also expected to provide equipment. This program demonstrates the Commonwealth's desire to participate in the maintenance of effective State/Territory counter disaster and civil defence organisations. Expenditure over the past six years has been: 1987-88 $1.262m. 1986-87 $1.232m. 1985-86 $1.224m. 1984-85 $1.186m. 1983-84 $1.326m. 1982-83 $1.338m. (4) Training. NDO through its training arm, the Australian Counter Disaster College, arranges residential and regional training, seminars and workshops for nominated counter disaster personnel drawn from State, local government, volunteer groups and non government organisations. The overall objective is to contribute to the development of an efficient counter disaster capability by training selected personnel in counter disaster and civil defence requirements. The associated costs of travel and accommodation are met by the Commonwealth, with expenditure over the past five years being: 1987-88 $2.219m (994 Students). 1986-87 $1.903m (874 Students). 1985-86 $1.833m (933 Students). 1984-85 $1.552m (585 Students). 1983-84 $1.427m (722 Students). 1982-83 $1.289m (617 Students). (5) Public Information and Awareness. The Commonwealth assists States/Territory public information programs by the production of printed material on natural and man made disasters as well as sponsoring and/or producing training and public information films, videos and sound tapes. It also assists in meeting the costs of telephone directory disaster information pages. Expenditure over the past six years has been: 1987/88, $.067m. 1986/87, $.059m. 1985/86, $.066m. 1984/85, $.057m. 1983/84, $.109m. 1982/83, $.061m. PQ 4689 of 21 September 1982 What sums have been (a) budgeted and (b) expended on civil defence each year since 1971/72. Answer Budget details for the Natural Disasters Organisation (NDO) for the past six years are: Year Budget Expenditure $m $m 1982-83 ... 5.1 4.9 1983-84 ... 5.3 5.3 1984-85 ... 5.8 5.7 1985-86 ... 6.0 6.0 1986-87 ... 6.5 6.5 1987-88 ... 6.8 6.8 95% of funds allocated to NDO are expended in support of the development of State/Territory counter disaster and civil defence capabilities. PQ 3095 of 19 February 1986 Q.1: What funds were allocated to the Natural Disasters Organisation in (i) 1982/83 (ii) 1983/84 (iii) 1984/85 and (iv) 1985/86. Answer: Since 1985/86, funds allocated have been: 1986-87, $6.7m. 1987-88, $6.8m. Q2: Specific to NSW and therefore not applicable in the context of this update. Q3: How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for the organisation. Answer: Funds were administered by the NDO with assistance from the State/Territory Emergency Services. Q4: How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under the auspices of the organisation. Answer: Funds are allocated in accordance with decisions made by the NDO in consultation with State/Territory Emergency Services. Q5: Specific to NSW (Richmond Electorate) and therefore not applicable in context of this update. Q6: Specific to NSW (Richmond Electorate) and therefore not applicable in context of this update. Q7: As above. Q8: As for Q6. Q9: As for Q6. Q10: How and when were applications sought for grants under the organisation in each year. Answer: Each year NDO advises funding availability to State/Territory Emergency Services. Local Councils in turn make application for accommodation subsidies through their respective State/Territory Emergency Service Headquarters and local emergency service units place bids for equipment in a similar manner. Consolidated equipment bids and accommodation subsidy applications are vetted by State/Territory Emergency Service Headquarters and notified to NDO for satisfaction. Q11, 12, and 13: Specific to NSW (Richmond Electorate) and therefore not applicable in context of this update. (Question No. 1344) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What is the Department of Defence's expenditure on international (a) air freight and (b) shipping in 1987-88? (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The 1987-88 expenditure for international air freight was $3,250,500, and for international sea freight, it was $2,136,165. (2) Corresponding estimates for 1988/89 are $3,629,000 and $2,556,000 respectively for international air and sea freight. (Question No. 1276) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (a) $800. (b) Nil. (c) $77 472. Note that this figure includes staff recruitment advertising. (d) $132 315. (e) $92 364. Note that this figure does not include the cost of the Department's house journal for staff. (2)- (a) $9 000. (b) Nil. (c) $85 000. Note that this figure includes anticipated staff recruitment advertising. (d) $230 970. (e) $133 199. Note that this figure does not include the cost of the Department's house journal for staff. In addition to the above projected expenditure figures, it should be noted that $2.543 million has been allocated for Year of Citizenship initiatives which will include promotion. No final decision has been taken on the breakdown of expenditure under the items nominated by Mr Blunt. (Question No. 1326) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 November 1988: What are the details of the costs of preparing and conducting the 1988 referendums. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 16 November 1988 the Australian Electoral Commission advised that the estimate of cost for the conduct of the 1988 Referendum is as follows: Item $'000 Staffing ... 15,078 Freight ... 875 Premises ... 650 Postage/Telephones ... 6,614 Printing ... 5,140 Tally Room ... 25 Advertising ... 3,573 Scanning Centres ... 1,050 Ballot Boxes/Voting Screens ... 1,536 Training of Polling Officials ... 1,150 Overseas Postal Voting ... 250 Support Services ... 140 Miscellaneous ... 20 Prosecution/Court Costs ... 713 ADP Costs ... 223 Total ... 37,037 The Commission has further advised that these figures are still estimates of cost as accounts for most items are still being received.