Mr ALLAN MORRIS (5:19 PM) —This afternoon I would like to touch on a number of issues. The first is the decision by the government to place the Newcastle Customs House on the market. Customs House in Newcastle is one of our most significant buildings, with a long and proud history of service to the nation. It is seen as an icon building in the Newcastle cityscape. It is a beautiful building which was seriously damaged in the earthquake of 1989—so much so that the cost of restoration and repair to that building was just on $4 million, a sum which was not justified by its economics or by its then usage by government departments. Subsequent to its restoration, the building has been converted to a convention centre-cafe and is currently leased by Damon and Gabrielle McCabe, who operate an excellent establishment which has been of great benefit to the community. It also means that the Newcastle community has access to the building and takes advantage of that.

In placing the building on the market, the government has called for tenders, much to the alarm of many people in Newcastle. The concerns that have been put forward to me and by me to the government have been responded to by the Minister for Finance and Administration. He has suggested that the building is secured because of the Newcastle City local environment plan and the New South Wales Heritage Act 1977. Of course, both of these refer to the demolition of or substantial changes to the building. The concern that most of us have is that the potential maintenance of the building could become a major cost problem in the years ahead. Whilst it has been restored recently and is, therefore, in good condition, it is a large building, it is very extensive and, like most heritage buildings, it does have a capacity for high maintenance.

The fact that the building is rented now—and one could argue that it is, therefore, a commercial matter—means the Commonwealth will not be able to recover the $4 million spent on it, nor, in my view, will it be able to sell it to a buyer on a commercial basis. I do not believe the rent will be enough to make the property viable and provide sufficiently for its future maintenance. The alternative is that the government sells it at a fire sale price and effectively loses money on the cost of restoration. That would be reprehensible in two ways. Firstly, the investment was made in the restoration of the building not on a commercial basis but because of its significance and Commonwealth responsibilities. It would be wrong to undo that and to change that emphasis.

Secondly, selling it on other than commercial terms or at a lower price is almost to encourage misuse of the building. The fact that the Commonwealth appears not to value the building and is pushing the responsibility for its long-term maintenance on to state government legislation or city council regulation and planning is an abdication of responsibility that this parliament and governments have maintained for over 100 years. As I said, the building has serviced the Commonwealth well and it is tragic that, at this point in time, the Commonwealth wishes to jettison it. I would encourage the people of Newcastle to continue their protests and their campaigns of letter writing, and whatever other form their protests can take, to bring to the government's attention their displeasure at this nitpicking approach to Commonwealth assets. This asset is one that we all value. It is a pride of the nation and should be treated as such.

The second matter I want to raise is in relation to legal action in the mid-1980s that I was required to take because of an article in the Newcastle Herald that was written by Jeff Corbett, who made accusations about me that were incorrect. After requesting the newspaper to correct the record and indicate that they had been inaccurate, the response was that they insisted the report was accurate and that they would stand by it. As a result of that, we ended up with a court case that went on for quite a long period and during which the Newcastle Herald were given every opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of what they had put forward. The court case was concluded at the request of the Newcastle Herald because of their incapacity to demonstrate the truth of the report. In accepting their plea to terminate the case, the major issue for me was the fact that the Herald recognised that you just cannot go around telling lies about people. You cannot always rely on things you are told being accurate, and journalists should always check accusations and claims they get about people, particularly those in public life.

For a couple of years the Newcastle Herald did in fact do that and were quite careful and quite professional in their reporting. However, in recent years the same journalist has begun a habit of again printing gossip, and falsities have become the norm. The most blatant was on 12 June, when this same journalist ran an article that was about the awarding of life memberships to some members of the Australian Labor Party. He made the point that such awards would normally be formally endorsed by the local member, in particular, me. He went on to point out that I was conspicuous by my absence. The implication, of course, is that I did not support these people and that I had acted abnormally. Despite my request to the Newcastle Herald to correct that, and for this journalist to point out that he had neither checked with me about the story he had been told nor checked with anybody with any authority, the fact is that I had not been given an opportunity to make such support known. If I had been, I would have. So to claim that I acted abnormally or conspicuously in some way is totally false.

In public life we all deal with impressions and perceptions and there is a fair bit of give and take in how much we stress that things be correct. Most journalists I deal with from most media, here, in Newcastle and in other parts of the country, try very hard to be accurate. They try to check their sources and, invariably, any mistakes that occur are usually just that—mistakes. I find it most bizarre that a journalist can write about me constantly and never ever check anything. I have not spoken with the man or been asked to check any of his sources since 1989, which is when the court case was held. I think it is disappointing that the Newcastle Herald allows this low level of professionalism and journalistic ethics to continue. If people wish to write about us, they should at least have the ethics and responsibility to actually check their facts. As I said, it is disappointing that this man is apparently paid to write about people like me without any real observance of the facts of matters.

The third matter that I want to raise is about BHP and its activities in Newcastle. I should point out at the start the concern I have about the hot briquetted iron project in Western Australia, which arises from my interest in industry and industry development. It is now in a very difficult situation and there is great danger that it will be completely closed down. The total cost all up to BHP of such a project is likely to be something like $3.7 billion. So this is a major national issue and, potentially, a major national disaster. I am optimistic that this project can be saved and can be successful in the long term because of the excellent scientific skills of the people in the Newcastle central laboratories of BHP. In my view, because of their scientific skills, they have analysed the problem adequately. They have worked out what can be done and I trust that will happen. My fear is that the decision on that plant may be decided by the stock market, not the scientists and engineers. There is a very great danger that BHP will be scared of the stock market implications and the financial writers, rather than listening to the technical scientific advice. Every project involves technical risks. This one does and it is important that BHP be encouraged to proceed.