Thursday, 26 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Discrimination against Women To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Burr,Mr Cowan,Mr Hunt,Mr Katter,Mr Newman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child,Mr Hand and Mr Kent. The Honourable the Speaker and Members in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government Will act to ratify the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Disrimination Against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry,Mr Humphreys and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned about the problems being created by high unemployment in Australia and the need for a long-term solution which will enable all who wish to work and are able to work to obtain work. That your petitioners request that you consider the concept of a support income for all Australian residents as developed in the Basic Support Income proposal. This proposal has been designed to create an environment in which all who are able and wish to work can work. It also has a number of other features which will benefit the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits: That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth. Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will: 1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region, 2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government's Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, 3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that Australia Council funding for the Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland has been entirely cut for 1983. The Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland has made an important contribution to the cultural and artistic life of the Australian community for the past eight years taking innovative and original theatre to sections of the community who would not normally attend live theatre performances. The Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland is the only theatre company in Australia which consistently presents theatre of social comment and tours nationally every year. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will resolve to ask the Australia Council to reverse its decision in respect to the Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That (a) the export of live animals for slaughter overseas and (b) the shipment of live horses to Japan sentences such animals to cruel and inhumane treatment in the export process and at the hands of foreign importers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to ban the export of live animals for food and allow only carcass trade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric. That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission's terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate: (1) whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated. (2) whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That Moreton Island has been listed on the Register of the National Estate because of its exceptional scientific, ecological, heritage and recreational values; and (2) That any sand mining of Moreton Island will result in the destruction of the exceptional scientific, ecological, heritage and recreational values of the Island; and (3) That Moreton Island has been the subject of detailed investigation resulting in the adoption of a Management Plan by the Brisbane City Council the main aims of which are to conserve in its natural state the quality of its scenery and natural environment and to enhance public enjoyment of it for recreation purposes; and (4) That Moreton Island represents the last significant area of wilderness close to Brisbane; and (5) That there is an acute deficiency of National Parks within a 150 kilometre radius of Brisbane; and (6) That Moreton Island contains Aboriginal Relics of immense scientific and cultural importance; and (7) That the Island represents a major potential tourist resource specifically because of its unspoiled natural scenic attractions; and (8) That public opinion actively demonstrated over a number of years clearly indicates that most citizens of Brisbane are strongly opposed to any sand mining on the Island, and desire that the whole of Moreton Island with the exception only of existing Townships, Tourist Resort, Airstrips and Lighthouse Reserve should be declared a National Park. Your Petitioners, therefore, Humbly Pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) accept the wishes of the petitioners and the citizens of Brisbane generally and take whatever action is necessary and available to it to prevent sand mining of any description taking place on Moreton Island; and (b) request the Government of the State of Queensland to take immediate action to declare the whole of Moreton Island to be a National Park with the exception only of existing Townships, Tourist Resort, Airstrips and Lighthouse Reserve. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That sand mining on Moreton Island poses a threat to the natural ecology and environment of the Island. 2. That Moreton Island is included on the Register of the Australian Heritage Commission, and the Federal Government is urged and indeed it must, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 take into consideration the protection of the land. 3. That the Queensland Government has given approval to the sand mining of Moreton Island despite the advice of conservationists and despite the opposition of the majority of electors in the Moreton Region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will request the Government to refuse export permits covering mineral sands mined on Moreton Island. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land , is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whale Protection Act 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale byproducts, and 2. the Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the international banning of whaling, 3. then consistent with (1) and (2), this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal byproducts, including the harp seal of Canada, and 4. through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that consistent with legislation on whaling, this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal byproducts and support an international ban on slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Deparment of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care Cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the household and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australila respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilomtres east of Port Augusta on Highway One (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the City Council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the need for the immediate introduction of an Attendant Care Allowance for Disabled people who need assistance with aspects of daily living. This allowance will enable disabled people to live in the community. It should be in the form of a benefit paid directly to the disabled person enabling him/her to employ and train the attendant of his/her own choice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: That the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district. deprive customers of a personalized reliable telephone service. reduce job opportunities in the area. increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social reponsibility to provide a sound, reliable, personalised telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Cross,Mr Humphreys,Mr Keogh and Mr Lindsay. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That being mindful of the important role that community health centres play in the provision of health care for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and of the vital part played by Scullin Health Centre in the provision of Health care in Central and Southern Belconnen in the electorate of Fraser are distressed at the uncertainty over the possible closure or disruption of current medical, paramedical and anciliary services at that Centre. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will prevail upon the Minister for Health to take no action that will in any way affect the continuity of operation of all current services at the Scullin Health Centre or diminish services to patients, professional or other staff at that Centre until the report of the Task Force on the structure of the Capital Territory Health Commission has been published and the community served by that Centre has been fully consulted. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia shows: 1. That the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia entered into an agreement on 7th December, 1907 requiring the Commonwealth of Australia to construct the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway from Darwin to South Australia; 2. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway has not yet been constructed ; 3. That the construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway is the linchpin for the further development of the Northern Territory of Australia; 4. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway will provide employment through construction work, steel production and manufacturing and it will assist in ensuring the defence and security of Northern Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth of Australia commence and complete construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reeves. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holden's, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holden's to retain its operation at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Message received from the Senate returning the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the suggestion of thousands of petitioners that the day of 26 January of each year is the appropriate date on which to celebrate our national day, and (b) that the petition has the full support of the Australian Jaycees as part of their campaign 'Pride in our Nation' and, from a recent survey, the majority of Australians, and (2) calls upon the Government and the States to adopt the actual date of 26 January of each year, regardless of the day in the week on which it falls, as Australia's national day. Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Queensland Government to include funds for the Brisbane City Council Public Bus System in their submission to the Federal Government under the urban public transport funding available from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, and (2) calls on the Government to act urgently, by using every means at its disposal, to compel the Queensland Government to resubmit a proposal which includes the Brisbane City Council Bus System. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) many small businesses have superannuation funds which they wish to invest legitimately in long-term property investment and have income exempt from Income Tax under paragraph 23 (f) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and (b) the Commissioner of Taxation allows large business superannuation funds to invest in long-term property investments, and in exercising his discretion, refuses many small business funds the right to do so, and (2) calls on the Government to- (a) request the Commissioner of Taxation to end any discrimination against small business funds; (b) publish a clear set of rules and guidelines for investment in all superannuation funds, and (c) explain reasons for any different rules between types of funds under paragraph 23 (f). Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns, as unsound, the monetarist economic strategies on which the previous Government's policies were based, and (2) confirms its support for a macroeconomic strategy based on growth and equitable redistribution of wealth and income. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the dissident Soviet physicist, Andrei Sakharov remains in internal exile in the closed city of Gorki in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; (b) the Government of Norway has invited him to live in Norway; (c) 140 Swedish Members of parliament have written to the Soviet leader, Mr Andropov, urging him to release Andrei Sakharov; (d) President Reagan declared 21 May to be National Andrei Sakharov Day throughout the United States of America; and (e) the University of Vienna has invited him to be Professor of Physics at the University, and (2) calls on the Australian Government actively to support this international movement for the release of Andrei Sakharov. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the- (a) price cuts being enforced on the Pilbara iron ore producers, Hamersley Iron and Mount Newman by Japanese steel mills; and (b) inaction by the previous Government on this crucial matter. (2) supports the Western Australian Premier, Mr Brian Burke, in his negotiations with Japanese producers, and (3) urges the Australian Government to provide active support to Australian mineral producers in their negotiations with the Japanese. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Applauds the excellent rescue work presently being carried out by the Amberley RAAF helicopter and Caribou pilots in the Dirranbandi, St George, Injune, Quilpie, Charleville and Roma area following the heaviest May rain in south-west Queensland since 1890. (2) calls on the Government to grant all the disaster assistance that is available to help the people of this part of the Electoral Division of Maranoa to recover from this great flood. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the statement on Tuesday, 24 May, by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, that he intended to use Queensland taxpayers' money in an advertising campaign opposing the proposed referendum to limit early elections, and (2) condemns the Premier's assumption that it is appropriate to use Queensland' s public money for his own party political purposes. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises and puts on record the dedicated and momentous work of Professor Graeme Clark and those associated with him in the development of the bionic ear which means so much to so many deaf people, and (2) calls on the Government to ensure that adequate funding for this development is maintained. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House strongly supports the case for Hobart to be the location of the proposed National Maritime Museum. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses- (1) its dismay at the Government's attack on community savings; (2) its disappointment that the Economic Summit has proved to be an illusion; (3) its condemnation of the Prime Minister's leadership and lack of forthrightness, and (4) its wish that the Labor Party backbench assert its authority and drag the Government back on to the rails. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for abolishing the Bicentennial Water Resources Program, and (2) calls on the Government to continue funding allocated by the previous Government for the Mitchell River dam project. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to correct a personal misrepresentation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member, having claimed to have been misrepresented, may proceed. Mr ADERMANN —I refer to an article in the Australian this morning on page 7, entitled 'How a former minister put his foot right in it'. I believe that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) might also see some misrepresentation in this article. It alleges that I was trapped unawares by the Minister yesterday when I asked a question about the bionic ear. Indeed, it was the journalist who put his foot in it. Journalists sometimes do that, Mr Speaker. I was misrepresented on four counts. The first is that I am old fashioned enough to believe that Question Time is a time when specific answers to questions might be obtained. Secondly, I have been misrepresented because, as this House will know, since 1972, no matter what government has been in power, I have consistently fought the case for the deaf, whether the government was discomfited or not. Thirdly, I knew that the Minister had in his possession a model of the bionic ear. I had seen it and I wanted the House to see it. I knew that no politics would be involved in the matter because this development has gone on over a number of governments and a number of Ministers. I was misrepresented, fourthly, because the information was valuable to me in that I have a son who is scheduled to have this operation. I wanted to know, and thousands of deaf people wanted to know, whether surgery had been commenced again, as it had been discontinued, and also whether Melbourne is the only centre in which it is being performed. The Minister knew this because I asked him to inquire. He had to make inquiries to give a specific answer to a specific question. He gave me the answer, something which he could not have done off the cuff. It was good news to many unfortunate deaf people. So, far from putting my foot in it, I knew what I was doing. I thank the Minister for his answer. We got the answer we sought. I believe it was a service to the long-neglected deaf who have had little consideration from a number of governments over the years. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The concern and distress of millions of Australians whose superannuation investment planning has been destroyed by the Government's decision on the future tax liability of lump sum payments. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.17) —This is not the first issue which has given rise to public concern about this Government. It is not the second, it is not the third nor, indeed, is it the fourth. It is just one more in a long list of acts of incompetence which already is becoming a hallmark of this Government, incompetence which does not just embarrass the Government but which hurts millions of Australians. In the short time available to me there are three essential points I will make about the increase in tax on lump sum superannuation. First, the decision strikes at literally millions of Australians . Secondly, the Government's handling of the matter has been abject and inept. Thirdly, the decision is just another example of this Government's growing record of deceit. Let there be no doubt, the Liberal and National parties would never be so inept, never be so callous, in the policy making processes relating to the savings of the Australian people. As I said, the Government's handling of the increase in taxation on lump sum superannuation is just another example of its incompetence. But it is more than that. The Government has taken an impulsive, ill-considered decision without any consideration for the human impact it will have on millions of individual Australians. It has not thought out its proposals. It has not examined the details. It had not consulted representatives of the superannuation and life insurance industries until Tuesday, five days after the decision was announced. It still has not consulted the trade union movement, when its prices and incomes agreement commits the Government to consultations on this and other issues before decisions are taken. Yesterday we learnt from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that details of the changes probably would be put before Cabinet next Monday-probably, but not definitely. Perhaps they will, perhaps they will not. We do not know; nor does the Treasurer . But above all, nor do the 1.8 million Australians who are in superannuation schemes. They do not know and neither do their families. They are left in a state of total uncertainly and total insecurity. Yesterday the Treasurer was asked some very straightforward questions on the impact of his proposal by my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He was asked whether the increased tax on lump sum superannuation would affect widows on the death of their husbands. He was asked whether it would affect people forced to retire through an accident, for example, paraplegics. He was asked whether it would affect itinerant workers. He was asked whether the sole exemption to the measure was registered redundancy payments. A Treasurer who had taken a decision after careful consultation, after careful thought-indeed, a Treasurer who cared about Australians-could answer a question like that. But what reply did we get? It was that he did not know. The cases that were raised by the honourable member for Mitchell were not unusual; they represented common everyday situations, but the Treasurer did not know how they would be affected by his policy. Why did he not know? Because this measure has just not been thought through. No wonder there is widespread concern. No wonder many hundreds of thousands of Australians are suddenly worried. At the beginning of last week they had been planning their future on the basis of their superannuation. By the end of the week their plans had been thrown into confusion. They are worried about unemployment. They are worried about high interest rates. They are worried about health insurance. Now, to add to these worries, they are worried about their superannuation, about how to plan their livelihood when they retire. These are not the rich. They are not just company directors or professional people. Lump sum superannuation is, to quote a spokesman for the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Workers Union, the only chance workers have had to free themselves from loan sharks. More than 40 per cent of all wage and salary earners, or about 1.8 million people, are in superannuation schemes. Add to that number their wives and children and it can be seen that this measure affects almost half of the Australian population. Now some of them will not take their superannuation in a lump sum but most will. About 83 per cent of participants in superannuation schemes in the private sector take their payments in a lump sum. The message of the Treasurer to them is simple-he has not thought through his proposal. He does not know what he is doing. Again, this is a government that is showing a callous disregard for middle Australia. Let me offer two examples to show just how careless, in every sense of the word , this Government has been. Let us take the case of a serviceman aged 45 years who is required to retire from the armed forces. He has lived in different parts of Australia. He may have lived overseas. Certainly, he will not have been in one place long enough to be able to buy a house, and he will have no immediate job prospects. He must depend on his lump sum superannuation payment not only to buy a house but also, in many cases, to set up a business, to give himself an occupation. Suddenly, at a stroke, he will lose 30 per cent of his future lump sum payment. In future it will be much harder for him to buy a house. It could well be impossible for him to set up a business. How is he now to provide for his future and his family? Let us consider a second example, and there is a plethora of them-from those mentioned in the question of the honourable member for Mitchell yesterday to thousands of others. Let us take the example of a shopkeeper who has worked all his life, has rented accommodation and has not taken out any form of superannuation. Suddenly he decides that he needs superannuation. He takes out a highly geared package contributing over, say, 10 years a sum which normally might have taken 30 years to contribute. Thus, he has contributed at three times the normal rate. What we do know is that the new tax relates only to contributions made from the date of the bringing down of the mini-Budget. Let us say that he has contributed for two years already. When he takes the lump sum payment he will be taxed at, say, the 30 per cent rate in respect of eight years ' payments. So his retirement plan has now been thrown into total confusion. His savings commitments, to reach his retirement target, are no longer sufficient but he will be unable to make alternative plans because the Treasurer does not know how such a scheme would be affected. As he indicated yesterday, he has not given it a thought. I suppose that it should surprise no one to learn that this Government does not care about such people as shopkeepers. They are the sort of people who would never even be considered when issuing invitations to a summit. They are just two examples. As I said, there are thousands more and none of these examples and none of these people have been given consideration by the Government. They have been callously ignored and these measures announced by the -- Mr Howe —Look at the bankruptcy rate under you. Mr PEACOCK —You talk about what we did. We were in government for decades and we never did this. You are the one who did it and you have not thought through the consequences or the hardship imposed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the Chair. The Minister for Defence Support will cease interjecting constantly. Mr PEACOCK —He is an intellectual cripple, Mr Speaker, and he shows no regard for others who suffer hardship in life. Mr Howe —Mr Speaker, I find the term offensive. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister finds the term offensive. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark. Mr PEACOCK —Yes. I will withdraw. I said that such people had been callously ignored. The measures announced by the Treasurer are heartless and the Government used a sledge hammer when careful, sympathetic planning was needed. No one would deny that our system of social security is imperfect. There are problems, financial challenges and concern about the rising burden of pension payments, but the solutions must be carefully considered. Decisions must be made after, not before, due consideration has been given to the hardship those solutions may inflict on Australians. A further aspect of this whole sorry exercise is of very great concern not just to the Opposition but to all Australians. It is the re-emergence of our old bogey, Hawkespeak; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says one thing but really means the opposite. This fundamental change to our social security system was not foreshadowed in the Prime Minister's policy speech. It was not foreshadowed in Labor's national recovery and reconstruction plan. It was not foreshadowed in the Prime Minister' s numerous pre-election speeches. It was not foreshadowed in the hours and hours of Press interviews he gave. In other words, Australians had no warning that this was coming. What is worse, any suspicions that some may have had were quickly allayed after the election. Not one but several newspapers reported on 16 April that the Prime Minister had stated that there would be no increase in tax on lump sum superannuation. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that these reports were without substance. Later in the day, he described these reports as 'speculation'. Maybe they were. The Prime Minister clearly knew these reports were inaccurate. Why then did he give those millions of Australians a false sense of security? Why did he let them believe that their nest eggs were safe when he knew they were not? Why then did he allow this cruel deception to go on? A responsible Prime Minister would have denied these allegedly false reports immediately. Our Prime Minister did not. But what he did do bears reading to the House. According to the Secretary of the New South Wales Labour Council, Mr Barry Unsworth, the Prime Minister told the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive during the National Economic Summit Conference that there would be no increase in tax on lump sum superannuation. Mr Unsworth told Nationwide two nights ago: I was at the Summit as a member of the ACTU Executive, it was reported to the full executive by officers of the ACTU that after discussions with the Prime Minister and others that there was no fear about the likelihood of the Government to tax lump sum superannuation payments. That undertaking, as we all took it, has been broken prospectively. The Prime Minister denies such a commitment, so whom are we to believe-Mr Barry Unsworth, a respected member of the ALP and the trade union movement, or the Prime Minister? Could the Prime Minister have misled the ACTU at his Summit, at the meeting which made consensus a part of Australia's political rhetoric? The fact is that, once again, Australians have been cruelly misled, particularly middle Australia. It trusted the Government to give help. The Government has taken away the home loan interest rebate, the health insurance rebate, the pension of many old people, the hope of tax cuts, and now middle Australia has been told without warning to pay 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments-without any warning, without any preparation. As I said early in this statement, the Liberal Party and the National Party would never be so callous or so inept in the policy making processes relating to the savings of Australian people. At the very least, we should be considering, not the sort of review about which the Treasurer was talking-a review of what? He does not even know what it is; how can he review it? It would be some form of retreat from that review on Monday; there is no doubt about that. We should have at least an all-party committee to examine the matter, because this is a shameful act from a deceitful Government. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.31) —The address of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was made with all the sincerity of a Mississippi gambler . What a squalid opportunist he is. No objection to this measure was mentioned in these terms in the reply of the Leader of the Opposition just two days ago, no mention of it in these terms at all. Indeed, I do not think that there was any mention of it. Where has he discovered all this indignation all of a sudden? Of course, it is mock indignation. The other question which needs to be addressed, apart from the obvious breakdown in integrity by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of his own view of this measure, is: Why was this matter not proposed by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard )? He is the spokesman on these matters. He is the shadow Treasurer. Why did he not do it? Opposition members interjecting-- Mr KEATING —It is clearly within my portfolio. The honourable member for Bennelong has the shadow portfolio. Why did he not do it? I will say why he did not do it: It is because he believes in the measure. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —That is why he did not do it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much interjection. I ask the House to come to order. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Bennelong believes in the measure; that is why he did not do it. It has been made obvious and clear over time that he and Senator Chaney would have liked to have got this measure through the last Liberal Cabinet, but they could not do so because of the lack of any sense of justice, fairness or integrity in that Cabinet, and quite obviously it is here. Again, let us look at the extravagance in the terms of this matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition talks about 'concern and distress', that 'investment planning has been destroyed by the government's decision'. Destroyed, in a measure which has no retrospective quality about it? No entitlement up to last Thursday evening will be touched. That is the commitment that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave, and that is the commitment which the Leader of the Opposition would not recognise. The commitment was that there would be no retrospective element to any changes. What we are seeing is a gradual change in the favoured tax treatment of superannuation which will accrue into the future. Let me quote what the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), said when they issued a statement on occupational superannuation in September 1979: There does seem to be very wide measure of agreement on one point-namely, that the current framework of legislation is in need of considerable reform. Of course it is in need of considerable reform. That is because we have a major anomaly in the social security and tax system of this nation. There is a $2,000m contribution to superannuation each year to provide for people on income in retirement. That is the purpose of it. Over time the habit has been that most people take their superannuation benefits as lump sums, not for the original purpose and intent of securing a retirement income. Then there is a problem in that people have been arranging their affairs in such a way as not to attract income to that sum- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, can I get some protection from the drones on the back benches? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon Les Johnson) —Order! The House will come to order. Mr KEATING —Then we see people doing what is called double dipping-using their lump sums and arranging their affairs in such a way that they do not attract income and then collect the old age pension. What has not been addressed is the fact that 60 per cent of the Australian work force have no superannuation benefits available to them. Forty per cent-a minority-have. The Leader of the Opposition is apparently arguing that the 60 per cent without superannuation should continue to subsidise the superannuations of the 40-odd per cent with superannuation and then, after having subsidised them to secure a retirement income, approve of the fact that they can then go and line up for the age pension of which 60 per cent of the Australian work-force again have to pay their share. Quite obviously, there is a clear need for reform. An article reporting the Chairman of the Australian Mutual Provident Society Ltd, Mr David Anderson, stated: The Federal Government's move last week to alter the taxation of superannuation benefits was 'wholly understandable'. The Chairman of the AMP Society, Mr David Anderson, said yesterday. Addressing policy holders at the life offices annual meeting Mr Anderson also said that the Government's moves would improve Australia's national capacity to meet the rapidly growing public cost of age pensions. It seems to us wholly understandable that the Government is moving the community's framework of retirement provisions towards pensions. We, ourselves, have expressed concern at the drain on public resources through what has become known as double dipping and through dissipation of superannuation funds as employees change jobs. That is the view of someone who does not normally endorse the policies of my party but, of course, it is a sane and sensible view on the need to meet the problem of the substantial demographic shift which is taking place in Australia. We have an aging and growing population and over time the cost of securing people in their retirement will be a very heavy impost on the Budget to be borne disproportionately by the work force. There has to be a time when changes can take place. Let me make a number of things clear about the nature of the change which has taken place. The Government believes that it would have been unfair to have attempted to tax lump sum superannuation on a retrospective basis. It made it clear that it would touch no element of retrospectivity whatsoever. The proposal has no element of retrospectivity about it. The gradual and moderate accrual of benefits from this time will be subject to tax at the standard rate, which is roughly 30c in the dollar. To illustrate graphically the fairness of the Government's measure I compare the cost to revenue in this year of the subsidy to superannuation, which is $2,000m a year, with the savings to revenue in year one of $15m. That is a cost of $2,000m compared with a saving of $15m. Mr Groom —How much-- Mr KEATING —In year two a cost of $2,000m-- Mr Cadman —What about the indexed bonds? Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, am I continually to be abused by the honourable member for Mitchell and the drone beside him, the honourable member for Braddon? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will cease interjecting. The House will come to order. Mr KEATING —In the second year the cost to the public purse is $2,000m. The saving to revenue is $70m. It will take years to build up to the maximum saving of $420m. Honourable members should compare the $2,000m subsidy with the eventual savings to revenue of $400m. That demonstrates the moderation of the Government's proposal and the essential fairness of it. Compare $2,000m in year one against a $15m saving. So much for this phoney opportunist claim by the Leader of the Opposition that this destroys people's retirement planning. Mr Hodgman —He is lying all the time. Mr KEATING —It is absolute nonsense and bunkum and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. The Government is a lying government. It has broken its promises. Liar! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. The Government is lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. You ought to have a lie detector test. You could be called polygraph Paul. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr KEATING —Do not worry about him, Mr Deputy Speaker. He has got the political morals of an alley cat. Mr Hodgman —You are the world's only two-faced ferret and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison is provoking the Chair. I will not tolerate any more insubordination in this matter. Mr KEATING —The other essential element of this scheme is that potential retirees can take the option of not paying any tax on the lump sum at all by purchasing an annuity. The Government, in the last couple of days, has been meeting with the life offices and the superannuation funds to establish ways in which annuities can be offered on a very attractive basis so that over time we will see people securing a retirement income by using the lump sum, which will not be subject to tax should they exercise the right to purchase an annuity. The other thing which was addressed in my statement last Thursday was the question of portability. We have indicated that anybody leaving one superannuation arrangement and going to another will not again be taxed on any lump sum and that lump sum can be transferred on a portable basis. As well as that the more general question of portability is under consideration. So if we are to do anything substantial about the problem of providing a retirement income for people, of dealing with the problems of the greying and aging of the Australian population and the future heavy cost to the public purse of securing people in their retirement, this would be the most equitable, sensible and fair way to do it. There is no retrospective element and no diminution of any accrued benefit before last Thursday evening. So anybody who has been in a superannuation scheme for 10, 15 or 20 years will have no benefits touched. But in the future, as they gradually accrue benefits, they will be subject to taxation. In no way can it be then assumed that, as the Leader of the Opposition asserts, this in some way destroys the capacity of people to plan their retirement. I need to get the Government's proposals back into a clear perspective. I am just aghast at the fact that the Leader of the Opposition saw fit not to mention these changes in his reply on Tuesday to the Government's economic statement. Because there has been some Press speculation, he has raced into this Parliament to make a noise about it. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition is motivated by the noises from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. Its members are worrying about whether their lump sums in excess of $250,000 will be taxed; that is their concern. The Leader of the Opposition is batting for the retirees who will receive very high levels of lump sums. Let me just say this about the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and those pilots who have made some expressions about this matter: If the Australian Federation of Air Pilots should decide to take industrial action on this issue it will be a triumph of greed over need. This Government will tolerate none of those objections from these people who have been very handsomely looked after in their employment and who receive a massive subsidy from the public purse towards their retirement. We cannot make the 60 per cent of people who do not have any superannuation benefit continually subsidise the 40 per cent who have. We cannot do so on the basis that those capital sums are used to pay off houses, buy overseas trips, boats and the like, and then back up for the age pension. We cannot ask the same people, the small people who have no superannuation, to continue shelling out their taxation to keep people who, in retirement, receive massive lump sums. The whole purpose of superannuation and the public subsidy of superannuation has long gone off the rails and it has to come back. We are bringing it back in a responsible and sane way. It would not have been too much to hope that the Opposition in this Parliament would have supported us in that measure. Up until this time we have had no indication that it had any motive other than to support us in this measure. In the backgrounding of journalists after my statement last Thursday, the indication of the Opposition was that it would support this measure both in the Parliament and outside. Now we find that, because of a few noises coming from the airline pilots and others, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to exploit the situation. All I can say is that he will not be in this Parliament as Leader of the Opposition for long. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.47) —I move: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for inquiry and report: (a) the televising of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees in the present and the new Parliament House; and (b) the radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees including the continuous and simultaneous broadcasting of both Houses. (2) That the committee, for any purposes related to this inquiry, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. Last year both Houses of the Parliament agreed to motions referring to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: The matter of the televising of the proceedings of the House of the Parliament and their committees in the new Parliament House, and the continuous and simultaneous radio broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament. The Committee's inquiry had not begun when the election was called and the Parliament dissolved. Reactivating the reference provides an opportunity to expand the Committee's terms to allow for a more extensive inquiry to cover televising proceedings in the existing Parliament House and the broadcasting of extracts on radio and television. As honourable members would be aware, the expansion of the terms was suggested to the Government by the Acting Clerk, with the support of Mr Speaker. The Government is happy to agree that the Committee should examine these matters now . Furthermore, the Government would be pleased if the Committee were, in settling its priorities, to consider reporting first on televising the present Parliament. The Committee will now have the benefit of experience of the National Economic Summit Conference, where mobile TV apparatus was used successfully. Although last year the Senate Standing Orders Committee found that television costs could not be justified for the present building, the Government believes the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Committee is the right forum for exploring these questions further. The Government looks forward to learning of the Committee's views. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(10.49) — First of all, I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his new role as stand-in Leader of the House. I presume it is a temporary role. I do not know whether it is because the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has decided to stand aside while the royal commission inquires into his leaks and the comments he may have made regarding the Combe affair. If so, I think it would be a very appropriate course of action for him to take. On the two parts of point (1) of the motion I wish to draw a couple of remarks to the attention of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. The first is that yesterday, when we were dealing with another matter pertaining to closed circuit television, I mentioned what I see as a very considerable inconvenience to members from the arc lights necessary for televising proceedings. That is apart from the substantive issue. I hope that in the report that this Joint Committee brings back to us we will have some descriptive analysis of the extent to which both the heat and the brilliance will interfere with what I described yesterday as the proper debating chamber function here. I believe that if the televising of proceedings is as it was at the time of the Joint Sitting back in 1974 all members of this place will find that after a time it is not particularly comfortable. For that reason, if for no other, I think that many honourable members will want to consider very seriously any recommendations that flow from the Joint Committee. The second point I want to make, in respect of point (1) (b) of the motion, is that I think all of us have become accustomed to hearing extracts of House of Commons debates during news broadcasts and news commentaries. Of course, these are not subject to our Australian broadcasting laws. It seems that in Australia, because of the way in which our broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament is now regulated, broadcasting of such extracts from the Australian Parliament is not permissible. Whether, therefore, there should be an extension to the Australian scene of the present House of Commons and other parliamentary forum practices so that we can broadcast from our own proceedings is a matter that might properly be considered by the Joint Committee. Proceedings not only from the House of Commons but also occasionally from the United States are broadcast on the Australian broadcasting stations and in my view the same facility should be available from our Australian Senate and House of Representatives as from those chambers. In the course of its inquiry, I hope the Joint Committee will take as possible an extension of the second term of reference. The Opposition did not specifically consider moving an amendment to that effect but perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will take the suggestion on board. I am sure he shares with me the view that it is a matter that could properly be considered by the Joint Committee. Apart from those comments, the Opposition does not object to this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Suspension of Sessional Order Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.53) —The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has had to travel to Darwin and therefore, in my role as temporary Leader of the House, I move: That the sessional order of 4 May 1983 amending Standing Order 48A, relating to the adjournment of the House, be suspended for the sitting of the House on 23 August 1983. Briefly, as is known, the Budget will be introduced on 23 August 1983. At present Standing Order 48A provides that the House will adjourn at 6 p.m. on a Tuesday. In order that the Budget, as is customary, can be introduced on Tuesday , 23 August, at 8 p.m., it is necessary to suspend the Standing Order which relates to the provisional adjournment. In other words, we will go back to the former rule 48A to provide that the House will be suspended at the normal time in the evening. This merely will enable the Budget, as would be expected by all, to be introduced at a time when the nation will be able to hear it and the press will be able to report upon it. It will have all the elements of secrecy until 8 p.m. on the day. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(10.54) —Firstly, I wish the Leader of the House (Mr Young) a very enjoyable barramundi lunch in Darwin today. I trust that he will not have the same difficulties following that lunch as occurred on another fairly notable occasion. As to the motion, the only comment that the Opposition has is that it is unfortunate that we are still totally at a loss to know when the Parliament will sit after the presentation of the Budget and the hours that we are to sit. I hope that the Leader of the House will soon be able to reconcile those difficulties that I understand he is having in Caucus in settling on this issue. We all know that there is a sessional order which has set down hours of sitting for the present four-week sitting bracket which are somewhat different from the hours we have followed in the past. I am told that a four-day sitting week has been suggested. I believe that has been rejected, but there has been no advice to this Parliament or to honourable members as to whether it has been. I ask the Minister for Trade whether, for the convenience of honourable members , he can advise us of the sitting pattern for the Budget session and of the hours of sitting that are intended? I note that this motion relates only to Budget night, 23 August 1983, and that the Budget is to be presented at 8 p.m. That marks two significant changes from the present sessional orders. The first concerns the fact that during this four-week sitting bracket we have had a tea break between 6.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. The Budget will be presented at 8 p.m., so that is the first departure. The second is that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has asserted, under the current sessional order the House would adjourn early on a Tuesday evening, but it will not on Budget night. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to advise both as to the intended sitting pattern following 23 August and the intentions of the Government in respect of sitting hours, so that those honourable members who are trying to plan their diaries can do so. Apart from that, the Opposition does not oppose the motion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.57) —in reply-I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for New England ( Mr Sinclair), for the Opposition's support of the measure. I assure him that there are no problems in Caucus; the problem is whether the House considers at this stage that it is wise always to adjourn on a Tuesday evening. There is some doubt about whether that idea will be maintained. The Opposition might have the same view on that point. In regard to the Budget session, I am of the view-I cannot say it is a firm decision-that the House will revert to the normal period of three sitting days a week, three weeks on and a week off; in other words, what the House has been accustomed to doing. I do not want to say that that is final, although I think it is final in terms of what the Leader of the House (Mr Young) would want. I am assured that the details of all these matters will be circulated to all honourable members later today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(10.58) —I move : That the Bill be now read a second time. The Ombudsman Act 1976, which came into operation in July 1977, was the result of bipartisan support for the proposal that there should be an ombudsman with jurisdiction over the administrative actions of Commonwealth Government agencies . Legislation to establish the office was an initiative of the Whitlam Labor Government, carried forward by the succeeding Government. In a similar way the present Bill exemplifies the bipartisan approach to ombudsman legislation; it is substantially the same as the Ombudsman Amendment Bill, introduced in the last Parliament by the previous Government, which was designed in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council, a statutory advisory body set up under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. This Government has undertaken to be closely guided by the Administrative Review Council in further developing the administrative review system. The present Bill instances that undertaking and provides a development and expansion of the Ombudsman's role. The Bill has two purposes. First, it will create and confer on the Commonwealth Ombudsman a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman. Secondly, it will amend the Ombudsman Act in the light of operational experience to date. Defence Force Ombudsman The proposal to create a Defence Force Ombudsman, with jurisdiction to investigate administrative actions related to or arising from a person's service in the Defence Force, had its origin in the platform of the last Labor Government. Legislation to establish the office lapsed in 1975, though an interim office of Defence Force Ombudsman has continued to operate in the Department of Defence since that time. In 1979 the previous Government requested that the Administrative Review Council examine the proposal. Its report was tabled on 4 July 1981 and the present Bill reflects its conclusions. The Bill proposes that the office of Defence Force Ombudsman, although being established within the Ombudsman Act as a complement to the Ombudsman's general jurisdiction, should be identifiable and distinct. In particular, the Bill provides for a Deputy Ombudsman (Defence Force) to be designated to perform the day to day work of the Defence Force jurisdiction. Recognising the importance of this new position for the defence forces, before a Deputy Ombudsman is approved or designated for the Defence Force jurisdiction, the Prime Minister will consult with the Minister for Defence. Whilst the creation of the new statutory Defence Force jurisdiction will result in some extra costs, notably the salary- approximately $50,350 per annum-of the new Deputy Ombudsman, establishing the jurisdiction within the Ombudsman's office will avoid administrative duplication and ensure that it is effectively exercised at minimum cost. The creation of a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman will provide an important advance in the conditions of employment for Service members. Servicemen and women differ from most other Australians in that their relations with their employers can extend into almost every aspect of their lives. It is in the nature of Defence Force service that members do not have the advantage of external grievance mechanisms typical in civil employment. With the creation of a Defence Force Ombudsman an independent avenue for the review of grievances will be established. The Defence Force Ombudsman's function is to investigate, either on complaint being made or of his own motion, administrative actions related to or arising from a person's service in the Defence Force. Although most complaints will come from current or former service members, other persons, such as their dependants, will also be able to lodge complaints if they are affected by actions which are within the Defence Force Ombudsman's jurisdiction. In recognition of Service members' special position, the Defence Force Ombudsman's jurisdiction is defined by service in the Defence Force, whereas the Commonwealth Ombudsman is excluded from investigating matters arising in Commonwealth civilian employment. There are, however, some exclusions from the proposed jurisdiction which parallel exclusions from the Commonwealth Ombudsman' s existing jurisdiction. In addition, the Defence Force Ombudsman is excluded from investigating action taken in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, and action relating to the grant or refusal of most honours and awards though not, for example, campaign medals. Review by the Defence Force Ombudsman will complement, rather than compete with , existing internal redress procedures: For effective management in the Defence Force, officers should usually hear and have the first opportunity to remedy the grievances of those under their command. The legislation applies most of the procedural provisions in the Ombudsman Act to the Defence Force Ombudsman, such as those concerning the conduct of investigations. As well, transitional provisions in the Bill provide for the transfer to the statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman of any unfinished business of the interim non-statutory office. Other Provisions The remainder of the Bill makes a number of amendments to the Ombudsman Act based on the Ombudsman's operational experience to date, drawing on the review by the Administrative Review Council. The full report of that review was tabled in the House on 23 September last year. The main theme to these amendments is that the Ombudsman, an independent officer with the statutory formal duties and powers essential to vigorous investigation and reporting of defective administration, should normally operate less formally than is appropriate for other administrative review mechanisms, such as courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, several amendments are made which give the Ombudsman greater discretion and flexibility by modifying formal procedural requirements in the Act. In particular, the Bill includes amendments which: Recognise that the Ombudsman may accept and resolve oral complaints-unless there is a need to investigate formally; simplify the Ombudsman's discretion not formally to investigate certain complaints; streamline the requirements for the Ombudsman to notify the Minister and agency head of his decision whether to investigate a complaint; and give legislative backing to the Ombudsman's practice of making informal inquiries. The last amendment will also clarify that the Ombudsman may inquire informally to establish that a matter is within his jurisdiction before investigating formally. In amendments which are similarly to facilitate his role in encouraging better and more accessible administration, the Bill also gives the Ombudsman greater discretion to disseminate information or comments on his investigations to Commonwealth agencies, the Parliament, other people with an interest in the outcome of investigations-for example, parliamentarians-and, where special circumstances so warrant, to the public at large. Other amendments variously strengthen or widen the Ombudsman's role in line with developing practice and the intention of the Ombudsman legislation. These amendments will: Provide a sounder statutory basis for co-operative investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and his counterparts in the States and Northern Territory where both Commonwealth and State or Territory activities or undertakings are involved; empower the Federal Court to determine issues that may arise in relation to the Ombudsman's powers and jurisdiction; expand the circumstances in which the Ombudsman can cause matters to come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and clarify certain doubts that have arisen regarding the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over particular types of action, including administrative action leading up to or following action by a Minister, and jurisdiction over particular types of Commonwealth bodies. More detailed information on the provisions of the Bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(11.6) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill makes amendments, primarily to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, which complement the provisions of the Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983. The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 in part provides for the independent investigation by the Ombudsman of complaints against the Australian Federal Police. The Act provides a role for the Ombudsman in relation to complaints, substantially similar to that in the Ombudsman Act 1976. Parallel amendment of both Acts is desirable to ensure basic uniformity in the Ombudsman' s powers and duties in relation to complaints. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated provides more detailed information on the manner in which amendments to the Ombudsman Act have been reflected in this specific complaints jurisdiction. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(11.8) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a new River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for the control and management of certain water resources of the River Murray system. The new Agreement is set out in the Schedule to this Bill. From the earliest days of Federation, the Commonwealth has demonstrated a strong interest in River Murray matters, initially reflecting its concern for interstate trade implications of river traffic, but even more important more recently, a recognition of the national importance of water conservation and associated land development based on the River Murray. In fact, River Murray problems, which were already claiming a good deal of attention from 1880 onwards , probably accelerated the advent of Federation. Multi-State aspects of the River Murray waters were alluded to constantly during the great Convention debates which preceded Federation. In these debates, the controversial and contested issues relating to River Murray management were identified. The first River Murray Waters Agreement, to resolve developing conflicts in the use of River Murray waters, was signed in 1914; legislation came into effect in 1915; and the River Murray Commission was established in 1917. The new Agreement now before this Parliament is the result of the first major review of this important inter-governmental Agreement since those early days. River water quality, particularly in respect of salinity, has now become a key factor in the long-term utilisation of what is regarded by many as the nation's most important water resource. Under the new Agreement, the responsibilities of the River Murray Commission have been extended to include water quality matters, in addition to the responsibilities it has had in the past for water quantity in the main stem of the river and associated storages. The new Agreement charges the River Murray Commission with the responsibility for monitoring the quality of water in the river, in tributary inflows and in the Commission's storages. To this end, a monitoring network is already well established. The Agreement also authorises the River Murray Commission to formulate water quality objectives or standards for key locations along the river. It is against these objectives or standards that the Commission will have to develop its water management strategies. State authorities are required to inform the Commission of proposals under their consideration which could have a significant effect on water quality or quantity in the river, and to provide the information necessary to enable their likely impact to be assessed. Obviously, the agreed water quality objectives will provide important benchmarks, and the Commission will then make representations, as necessary, to the appropriate State authority on such proposals. It is also worth noting that the water distribution provisions have been completely recast to ensure, not only an equitable distribution of water between the States, but also allowing each State maximum flexibility in meeting its own particular water demands. Even more importantly, the provisions will enable account to be taken of the quality of tributary inflows and drainage returns to the river from each State in assessing their respective shares of the water resources under the Commission's control. This procedure should provide a strong incentive to each State to improve the quality of flows in its tributaries and from outfalls to the river. In keeping with modern water management principles, the new Agreement now comprehends important river water management objectives for the Commission, additional to its traditional role of supplying water for irrigation. These could also include flood mitigation, environmental protection and recreational uses. For over 65 years, the Commission has operated within the powers defined for it by the four governments. With the enlargement of these powers to encompass water quality, inter-governmental co-operation in the management of the river system now enters a more difficult phase. As in every river system, water quality is the end product of practically all major activities in the vast catchment of the River Murray-dryland agriculture, irrigation, forestry and urban industrial development. These are all areas of State responsibility, and the realities of the Australian Constitution require that many of the Commission's water quality responsibilities may have to be pursued in consultation and co-operation with the States. While in these areas the Commission will have mainly an advisory role, its powers of persuasion should not be underestimated, particularly if its representations are based on well researched data and are consistent with the overall thrust of the new Agreement. The Government will be maintaining a close interest in the implementation of the new Agreement and, if there are indications that the Agreement needs to be strengthened, we will approach the three States to determine how this might be done. The Commission retains its autonomy under the new Agreement. This is essential if it is to continue as an effective custodian in the national interest of this most important water resource, and to provide the stimulus for co-operative action by the States in the maintenance and, eventually, improvement of water quality in the River Murray. The Government believes that the new Agreement provides a more adequate framework for inter-governmental co-operation in the development of long term plans for safeguarding the enormous public and private investment in irrigation settlements and urban water supply systems based on the River Murray in the three States. This Agreement, as was the case with its predecessor, depends on the goodwill of the contracting parties for its success. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Ms Fatin: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I call the honourable member for Chisholm. I remind honourable members that this is the honourable member's maiden address and ask them to extend the usual courtesies. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.15) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I offer my congratulations on your election to your very important office. May I, through you, pass on my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his election to his high office. I am very proud, as the first woman and the first Labor member to represent my electorate, to be making my maiden speech in this House before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the first women to occupy the chair, marking the Thirty-third Parliament as the first in which there are women in both Houses serving in positions of authority and responsibility. It is appropriate that the electorate of Chisholm should have a woman member, as it was named for Caroline Chisholm, who worked so hard and showed such concern for the well-being of women in the early days of European settlement here. It is doubly appropriate for me, as my paternal grandmother was Ellen Chisholm. Her recollections of the joys and trials of her life in the early days of the settlement of the Wimmera region of Victoria enriched my childhood and gave me a deep appreciation of the strength and courage of our pioneer women. The Box Hill State electorate, which is part of Chisholm, elected a woman member, Mrs Margaret Ray; the Box Hill Council is led by a woman mayor, Councillor Betty Walters; and the Waverley Council, in another part of my electorate, is also led by a woman mayor, Councillor Irene Pederick. In reporting this somewhat unusual situation with some pleasure, it is my hope that by the time Federal Parliament celebrates its centenary, the presence of women in all areas of decision making, government and non-government, will be normal and not exceptional. In this world, where 'reality' has come to mean something unpleasant and 'ideal ' to mean expensive airy-fairy notion, there is a need for redefinition of those concepts. I believe that good government is the rational implementation of policies centred upon ideals and principles, without which government becomes cynical, expedient and self-seeking. For some years now I have worn a small badge which symbolises an expression of the ideals which I hold central to my political views. In 1949 the then Prime Minister, Mr J. B. Chifley, said: We do say that it is the duty and responsibility of the community and particularly those more fortunately placed to see that our less fortunate fellow citizens are protected from those shafts of fate which leave them helpless and without hope. This is the objective for which we are striving. It is the beacon, the light on the hill to which our eyes are always turned and to which our efforts are always directed. That small badge symbolises those words and reminds me constantly of what my responsibilities are. The ideals of a caring compassionate government which would set the goal of national reconciliation, which would set priorities of need rather than greed, which would comprehend the contribution of women in our society to the progress of that society, were overwhelmingly endorsed in March. It is the responsibility and the duty of every Australian to be aware of the difficulties faced by the less fortunate in our community and the privilege of every Australian to share our good fortune with our fellow citizens upon whom the sun is not shining. The provision of universal health insurance, of adequate education, of legislation against sex discrimination, of better pension systems, of job creation programs, and of community improvement programs are some of the ways in which this Government intends to implement policies informed and illuminated by those ideals held as central by the party to which I belong. The objective enunciated by Mr Chifley has been a driving force for many people who have worked all their adult lives to have a government which will achieve that objective. It is because of those people that I am here today, and I thank them for their support and their confidence in me. They have worked not for their own benefit but for a government which will give reality to their desire to live in a country which cares for all its inhabitants and in which we can all live in dignity and security. In my electorate of Chisholm-a pleasant place with tree-lined streets, attractive houses, plentiful parks and sports grounds, a range of industries, a variety of schools and tertiary institutions, a large hospital and many nursing homes and elderly people's villages-there should be every opportunity for its citizens to live that peaceful, secure life which is the right of every Australian. The people of Chisholm believe that it is their right. They believe that it is the business of government to make it possible for all citizens to exercise that right. They are concerned not only for themselves. They are not selfish, uncaring people. They are concerned for those whom they saw to be sadly treated by a government which talked about dole bludgers and social security cheats, which used unemployment as an economic measure, which denied people a sensible health insurance system, which took no action about the vandalism of an area included on the World Heritage List, which encouraged the mining of uranium without any responsibility for its consequences and which allowed poverty to afflict an ever increasing number of its people. They are prepared to share, and they said on 5 March that they cared. Behind many a front door in my electorate live people now retired, who apparently have everything they need, but in those houses are empty refrigerators, unused heaters, fear and insecurity. The cost of health insurance is the single most burdensome expense borne by those on fixed and ever more inadequate incomes. If they receive pensions they, unlike the tax evaders under the former Government, have every cent of that income scrutinised as if they were criminals instead of their having committed the indiscretion of growing older and retiring from the work force through which they contributed to the well-being of our country. They want and have a right to a government which demonstrates real concern for them and their needs. In my pleasant electorate over 600 requests for short and long term accommodation were made by homeless young people last year. They too have a right to a caring government which has something better to offer than a future of hopelessness. There are, too, many single parents who look to our Government for support in their difficult task, knowing that real understanding of those difficulties exists in this Government. During the election campaign many people , both men and women, expressed their conviction that there should be more women in parliament, and of course I agreed with them. One of the most exciting events , one which showed how seriously women are interested in political processes, was the meeting attended by over 700 women at which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ), then the Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Susan Ryan, now Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, announced our Government's policy for women. Women, by their attendance, their questions and their response, made it clear that a very great need exists for positive action to address their needs and concerns. However, the interest in women in Parliament goes back a good while, as I discovered when I was doorknocking. At one house my knock was answered by an elderly lady who said: 'Are you standing for Parliament, my dear?' I said: 'Yes, I am'. She inquired what party I was representing, and I told her the Australian Labor Party. She said: 'Well, I believe that is a very respectable party, my dear'. Then she said that she would vote for me because she had waited 84 years to vote for a woman. That is a long wait. I am glad she got what she wanted. Women everywhere are showing their concern for good government in a whole range of issues. They are speaking out about the social structure of this country, about the future of children and young people, about the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, about the health and security of its people. They want peace, stability, consensus and equity. It says something to the women of this country about the nature of political parties here that all the women in this House are on this side. One of the characteristics of many people in my electorate is a deep and abiding love of the landscape. I share that love of our beautiful and unique country, so I share with them their passionate concern about the vandalism taking place and planned in South West Tasmania. The wilderness in Tasmania is also in Australia and therefore the concern of all Australians. The heritage area is the responsibility of all Australians to preserve for the future generations of peoples of the world. I have listened to arguments which seem based on the claim that Tasmania is virtually a foreign land in which only Tasmanians have any rights and for which only Tasmanians of this generation have any responsibility. I reject those arguments. In the 200 years of our occupation of this continent we have already, in ignorance and selfishness, caused destruction which we now regret but cannot repair. We have levelled mountains, drowned valleys, choked rivers, created deserts and caused many species of animals and plants to become extinct. I remind honourable members that 18 species of animals and plants became extinct when Lake Pedder was enlarged. We know better and we should do better. The world heritage area is just that-an area which we hold in trust for the world. No claim of other rights and no secret activities of destruction can deny the Australian Government's responsibility to preserve that area. I am glad that we have accepted that responsibility. All of us must regard our heritage with much deeper understanding of the value of the land and its natural life as a vital part of our social structure. We live on and with the land. That does not mean either the broad acres to which some fortunate people hold title, nor the mortgaged suburban block, but the land as a whole which belongs to all citizens and is held in trust by governments and private owners for our future citizens. We have, in this country, no pyramids and palaces to put us in touch with our past. But we do have our land which is our past and our future. We have much to learn from our original Australians about the value of the land for our spiritual and psychological health. Before I came to the Parliament I spent many years in the field of education. During that time, the whole nature of education changed or should have changed. What has not changed are the gross inequities in educational opportunity which still exist. The previous Labor Government made great advances in lifting education out of its nineteenth century doldrums, especially in funding a much wider range of tertiary institutions, making tertiary education available to many more people than had previously been the case and thereby lifting the level of skill and understanding in our country. The first steps were taken towards the principle of giving all those involved in schools some decision-making power . Autonomy was granted to tertiary institutions so that they were able to provide courses which met the needs of the communities they served. However, rapid changes in our society need rapid responses from the education system. This is not yet happening. An elitist view of education emphasises tradition and achievement in traditional skills. This view which has predominated recently holds back the process of educational change. Schools need to serve the whole population and therefore the great differences in resources provide our society with an ever-increasing number of young adults who have been disadvantaged by their time in school rather than prepared for adult life. That schools, in their resources and their abilities to cope with changing needs, still reflect the resources and average income levels of the communities in which they exist, makes a mockery of the notion of equality of educational opportunity. Young people today face a world of complexity and insecurity. Unemployment, the arms race, disappearing professions and the demands of the peer group together make young people take decisions about their future with no conviction that those decisions are meaningful. Teaching strategies may ignore the technological competence of young people because their teachers neither have, nor have the opportunity to gain, a similar technological competence. The computers in schools program is a first step towards providing the education system with a line to the real world. If we are to have an education system to meet the needs of our community we have to be prepared to discard many of our notions about the good old days and start moving towards an understanding of the changes our society has already experienced and will be experiencing in the future. The Curriculum Development Centre has a vital role to play in assisting education to meet change. For too long the education system has been without that vital resource. In this week during which International Women's Day for Disarmament was commemorated, I draw attention to the range of initiatives this Government is planning to implement on this vitally important issue. The human race, after nuclear war, will not be divided into the quick and the dead but into the dead and the dying. This country must, as every country must, do everything in its power to help the world draw back from the perilous position in which we all stand. We do not want to bring up our children in a world on the brink of destruction. We do not want to bring up our children in a world suffering tension and stress from the imminent threat of destruction. The courage shown by our children in facing up to the uncertainties of the employment situation, of technological change and of the rapid changes taking place in our society should be recognised. How better to recognise that courage than by the Government of their country taking positive and sensible steps towards giving their world a safer future? I have spoken about rights and responsibility, about duty and privilege, about ideal and reality. It might be said that those large words do not put bread in the cupboard and blankets on the bed. However, unless a government is mindful of its duties and responsibilities, its ideals and the rights of its citizens, it will not take the proper action to ensure the bread in the cupboard and the blankets on the bed. Unless a government is just as conscious of the needs of its poorest citizens as it is of the wants of its richest, it will not be a government for the people; it will only be a government for some of the people. Unless, as a government, we have our beacon, our light on the hill, we will not succeed, because success for us is not just staying in power as a political party. Success for us is developing a better world for our citizens to live in. It can mean as little as changing a form to take the hassle out of getting some medicine and as much as removing fear and insecurity from the lives of our citizens. Government to us is a greater challenge because we have a greater objective. I am both proud and conscious of the responsibility that I have to accept that challenge for the people of the electorate of Chisholm. I wish to thank the people who have supported and inspired me over the years, my campaign committee, the branch members and the many Labor Party supporters. I wish to pay tribute to my family-my husband, son and mother-in-law. Without their support and loving care my job would be much more difficult. I wish to thank the members of both State and Federal parliamentary parties for their generous assistance and advice and the members from both sides of this House for their courteous and warm welcome. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.32) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to join with others in congratulating you upon your elevation to your office. I would be grateful if you would convey to Mr Speaker my congratulations on his election, unopposed, to the important office of Speaker. The Speaker, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), has, I think, earned the admiration and respect of people on both sides of the House. He has proved himself to be a man of great sincerity and impartiality. Already he has guided this House with some distinction. I also wish to congratulate the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) on her maiden speech which was a very thoughtful contribution. I too share her view that in the future we should see more women elected to both sides of this Parliament to make the contributions which they are capable of making to constructive debate in this Parliament. I want to congratulate all those new honourable members who have taken their place in this Parliament. Particularly I wish to congratulate my new National Party of Australia colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) on his election to this Parliament and for the quality of his maiden speech. I wish him a very long and outstanding career in this Parliament. In spite of the cynicisms of some people about this great parliamentary institution, cynicisms that we probably earn by our conduct and behaviour, this is the most important democratically elected institution in this country. All of us should be mindful of the great honour and trust that is imposed upon the elected representatives of this Parliament by the Australian people to serve their interests. No summit, round table conference or other forums can or should be allowed to take the place of this treasured inheritance. The National Economic Summit Conference which was conducted in this chamber five weeks ago provided a valuable forum for an exchange of ideas, but it could have been held in the Albert Hall or, for that matter, in the Gulargambone grain shed. Although the non-parliamentary participants represented some interest groups, concepts and philosophies, they were not the representatives of the wider views of the Australian people. The Summit provided a forum, an opportunity for an exchange of views, an exchange of ideas and a way in which people could get together, discuss their attitudes and try to understand the attitudes of others. Of course, the Government took the opportunity to place its economic facts on the table. It also provided the newly-elected Government with an excuse to retreat from a number of its election promises that it had no intention of fulfilling, such as an immediate reduction in taxes for six million Australians, no tax increases for farmers, a 3c a litre reduction in fuel prices, tax concessions for small businesses, half a million new jobs to be created and the Alice Springs-Darwin railway to be completed by 1988. It was an opportunity to issue a communique that purported to reflect a resolution by all parties to support a plan for consensus, rehabilitation and reconciliation. During the Summit, the Government promised the Australian Council for Trade Unions that it would not introduce further taxation on lump sum superannuation payments. Of course, this promise has been broken already. Although the communique was supported by all parliamentarians, except the redoubtable and far-seeing Premier of Queensland and the inspired Tasmanian Premier, a close reading of the document reveals that no explicit agreement was reached on critically important specifics in regard to the wage pause. Since the Summit the ACTU has made a mockery of the so-called Summit consensus. Where is the consensus today? Mr Anthony —There is none. Mr HUNT —As the Leader of the National Party of Australia says, there is none. Within a month we have even seen the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) publicly admonish the ACTU because of its application to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission initially for a 9 per cent increase this year and a provision for catch-up of real wages forgone since the pause. Mr Simon Crean, since Cliff Dolan's departure overseas, has come out with another formula. There is no doubt that members of the ACTU are completely and utterly confused. They have no intention of honouring the spirit of consensus, reconciliation and reconstruction. Unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party's pre-election rhetoric was not conducive to giving the leadership that was necessary to the Labor movement and to the union movement during that election campaign. The Labor Party rejected the former Government's appeal for wage moderation and a wage pause for 12 months. They fought the election campaign upon it. They fought the election campaign with an alternative approach for a Summit Conference but with no details spelt out as to what that Summit Conference was intended to achieve. Of course, their rhetoric has undoubtedly confused and not given the leadership that the union movement badly needs at this time. Mr Anthony —The country needs it too. Mr HUNT —The country needs it, indeed. In any event the agreed communique from the Summit failed to address the real issues in specific terms such as the duration of the wage pause and the need to forgo catch-up. I was astonished that so many people, who should have known better, fell for that communique which was in many ways a meaningless document. The communique merely accepted that future wage increases were a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and that, while the maintenance of real wages is a key to the objectives of the union movement, in a period of economic crisis it will be an objective over time . That was a vague, and a deliberately vague, definition of timing. This vagueness, which is a feature of the communique, has left its legacy of wide interpretation and misrepresentation. Mr Robert Brown —It will be an historic document. Mr HUNT —The honourable member for Hunter has said that it will be an historic document. He is quite right. It will be an infamous document. It will be a document upon which this Government will ultimately perish. Since the Summit, the Prime Minister has indicated that the nation could withstand full indexation in 1984 if wages were increased by only 3 per cent to 4 per cent towards the end of this year. Even a drover's dog would agree that if there is to be any hope of real recovery in the economy, profits need to be increased before there are any real increases in wages. Increased job opportunities will return only with increased profit margins. The National Economic Summit Conference was an imaginative concept but the Government failed at the end of the day to persuade the unions to accept the need for a wage pause for the rest of this year. The communique was a vague compromise embodying a soft option. Clearly, the parties to the communique should have accepted the need for a wages pause for 12 months and the need to forgo a catch-up at the end of the pause, leaving the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with the big responsibility of determining the capacity of the economy to pay and the quantum of the increase in 1984. A 12-months wage pause is especially necessary to enable our vital export industries to recover their competitive trading positions. I refer to our great agricultural, mining and pastoral industries. I represent one of the great agricultural and pastoral electorates in Australia , in which there is also a significant amount of mining. I therefore wish to say something about the importance of these industries in general and the rural industries in particular. People living in the towns and on the farms in my electorate-indeed, throughout most of rural Australia-are financially, physically and emotionally exhausted after years of drought, low commodity prices, high costs and the unemployment due to those factors. Successive droughts in eastern Australia have had a disastrous effect on the rural sector of our economy. The recent drought, one of the worst this century, has been a major contributor to the current recession. Direct revenue losses to farmers in this year will amount to about $2,500m. When the multiplier effect is taken into account, that will amount to a loss to the community of about $5,000m. The Australian economy remains heavily dependent upon agriculture. The rural sector, though a minority grouping, is of fundamental importance to the standard of living of all Australians. It is a vital element in the economy. This is why the people in country areas were dismayed at the way in which the mini-Budget discriminated against them. About 30 per cent of the cuts in the mini-Budget for 1983-84 will be met by people living in rural Australia. Let me spell out the rural share of these cuts. The decision not to proceed with the Bicentennial Water Resources Program has shot Split Rock Dam to death. The dam that was necessary to give security to people in the Namoi Valley, to the cotton growers, to the small business people and to the whole of that valley, is shot to bits. That was to cost $70m. Mr Braithwaite —What about the Burdekin Dam? Mr HUNT —The Burdekin Dam was in doubt and the Government has not clarified the position. Mr Anthony —It would be tragic if that were stopped. Mr HUNT —It would be absolutely tragic. If the Government wants job creation schemes, why does it not go for something that will improve the national asset at the same time as creating jobs? Changes to the fuel freight subsidy scheme amount to $10m and changes to the tax averaging provisions for farmers involve $ 15m. The extension from three to five years for the depreciation of certain plant and equipment for farmers will cost them a further $9m. Mr Braithwaite —They hate the country. Mr HUNT —Yes. The removal of the interest rate subsidy for the Australian Wheat Board totals $19.8m. Sure, the Board now has the flexibility to borrow overseas that we were planning for it, but the subsidy provision has been taken away. The deferral of elements of the aerodrome local ownership plan will cost the rural community another $8m. This gives a total of $131.8m. In spite of what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had to say the other day, that represents 30 per cent of the total savings of $427m. Of course the percentage would be higher if one added the share of the cost of postal and telecommunications charge rises that will occur as a result of Telecom Australia losing the subsidy arrangements on its borrowings. We should also bear in mind the increased cost of aviation fuel, the virtual abandonment of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line and other changes to tax expenditures and concessions. Therefore, about 7 per cent of the Australian population will have to meet about 30 per cent of the cost of the mini-Budget. The farmers, middle income earners, small businessmen and women and the self- employed are the main contributors to the boost to housing, job creation schemes and the costly Medicare program. How stupid could this Government be to try to bring back that wretched Medibank thing at a time when the economy is in a sorry , sick state and confusing everybody once again? It is significant that the great corporations have largely escaped. These groups were heavily represented at the National Economic Summit Conference. I believe that the Prime Minister has now put himself in a position where he is the man who will preside over the conferences of the large union leaders and the great corporations. It is also significant that the unsung heroes of this nation-the farmers, the middle income earners, the small businessmen and women and the self-employed- were represented by only two members at the Summit. Indeed, the hardest working people-the backbone of Australia-have been slugged by this Government. Small investors will lose from the abolition of the dividend taxation concession. Thousands of families will lose from the elimination of the housing interest rebate scheme. Small-time superannuants will lose through the 30 per cent tax on lump sum payments. Farmers, after years of drought, self-denial and restraint will be the heaviest losers. This is a sad indictment of a government-a Labor government-that offered the little Australians promise, hope, reconciliation and rehabilitation. The Government has engaged in a deceptive, discriminatory exercise against those who were least represented at the National Economic Summit Conference. So, today, instead of the promised immediate tax cuts for six million Australians, we find that the average family will be $8 a week worse off. We are told that there is more to come in the August Budget, including the one per cent levy for this incredible return of Medibank. I believe that most Australians will accept necessary reductions in Budget outlays as long as they are fair and do not discriminate against sections of the community. Let us hope that the rural industries are not going to be singled out again. They have the potential of making a 3 per cent increase to gross domestic product, which would be an enormous contribution to Australia's economic recovery if the Hawke Government were prepared to give them a fair go. Rural industries account for nearly 50 per cent of Australia's export earnings. Although the drought has broken in most areas, the cash drought remains in farming industries. The removal of tax concessions and other forms of assistance to industries will not help rural industries to recover and contribute to a general economic recovery. The National Farmers Federation submission to the National Economic Summit Conference presented the case so clearly and comprehensively. I hope that every member of the Government reads and absorbs it . This submission made the point that 70 per cent or 78,000 of broadacre farms in Australia will not earn sufficient income to pay for normal living expenses and to service the debt in 1982-83. Sixty per cent of farmers will earn incomes of less than the unemployment benefit for a married man and two children of $149 per week. Indeed, the level of farm income per man-year of family labour will on average drop from about $11,000 in 1981-82 to about $2,100 in 1982-83. Mr Lusher —How far below the poverty line is that? Mr HUNT —It is well below the poverty line. Who talks about poverty in the rural sector? Very few are prepared to acknowledge the great poverty that is occurring in rural areas. Therefore, 11 per cent of farmers in Australia are at risk due to factors outside and beyond their control. There is an urgent need for the provision of substantially increased rural adjustment assistance. I would have thought that the mini-Budget would have made immediate provisions for additional funds for adjustment assistance. The former Government made a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on this issue and the Commission's report should be in the hands of the Government right now. Honourable members interjecting- Mr HUNT —Government supporters do not like to hear the truth. I assume that the report recommends additional funds for rural adjustment. The Government must respond generously to that need. Whilst there is a need for additional funds for rural adjustment, it would be crazy constantly to rely upon rural adjustment funds to bail out the rural industries. That section of the community should not be the only one that has to face adjustment and reconstruction. Many of the economic problems of the rural industries are a direct result of the high cost of protection given the secondary industries. Rural export industries have had constantly to increase their productivity and efficiency in order to survive in a highly competitive overseas market. That rule has not been applied to many of those highly protected secondary industries which have in many cases been the pacesetters for higher wages and better conditions. Time and again we have seen governments avoid the great issue of the need to reduce the level of protection in this country. The farming community, in particular, is expected to become more and more efficient. The time has come for this country to accept the need for reconstruction in so of many of its industries. I hope that the Government will not fall for the suggestion that it give additional tariff protection to the steel industry. I hope that it will face up to its responsibility and ensure that that secondary industry becomes as efficient as rural industries. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Saunderson) adjourned. Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 25 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Aircraft Accident-Report and Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1983. and on motion by Mr West: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.53) —The statement made yesterday by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) was a thoroughly responsible approach to the report made by the Board of Accident Inquiry into the disaster which, on 21 February 1980, at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, cost 13 lives. The Board's work was itself commendable. The report is detailed, thorough and fair. The Board was not able to come to a firm view as to the precise reasons for the accident but listed, in summarising its conclusions after making a painstaking examination of the evidence, various factors which contributed to the accident. I wish to make one or two comments arising out of the Board's report and, if I depart from what the Minister has said, he will understand that I am approaching the report in the same vein as that in which he has approached it. First, I go to finding No. 1, which appears at page 274 of the report. This is one of the findings summarised under the heading 'Causes of the Accident'. The Board stated: There are a number of factors which in combination were contributing causes of the accident. On the balance of probabilities, the Board considers they are as follows: 1. The aircraft was in excess of its maximum permissible take-off weight by some 110 to 150 kg, which in the circumstances would have had a minor detrimental effect on its climb performance. The operator and the pilot were each partly responsible for the understatement of weight. It appears from page 246 of the report that officers of the Department of Transport were aware of what might be called a practice. The report states: It is clear that some officers of the Department of Transport were aware that the maintenance being carried out by the operator was unsatisfactory in certain respects. At least one officer was also aware that non-standard weights for passengers were being used for the calculation of aircraft loads and that less than full power was being applied on some take-offs. Accordingly, the question is raised, so far as is relevant to the accident, of the adequacy of the departmental surveillance which was carried out. The Board came to the conclusion that it was advisable to have what it called ' surprise checks' and it proposed the institution of a system of such checks within a few months of any particularly critical surveillance report to ensure that corrective action had been taken. The Minister, at page 10 of his statement , considered that proposal but rejected it. I would ask the Minister to have another look at that recommendation of the Board. I do not suggest that the Board's recommendation necessarily has to be adopted in precisely the terms put by the Board, but I do suggest that it might be looked at somewhat along the lines of a random audit within a large company, which has two benefits. First, the audit, when carried out, can disclose factors which would need correction. Secondly, the existence of a system of random audits in itself would instil a certain measure of fear into those who might otherwise cut corners when it comes to maintenance. I refer now to the power setting of the aircraft at the time of take off. In paragraph 24 of the chapter entitled 'Summary of Principal Conclusions, Observations and Causes of the Accident', on page 269 of the report, it is stated: The evidence supports the conclusion, however, that power was set at a lower figure of 700*C ITT, following a provision introduced by the operator into the Operations Manual. This provision was an unsafe guide and contrary to the Air Navigation Regulations. I emphasise the words 'unsafe guide'. This conclusion is picked up later in finding 5 of the Board's report, at page 274, where it is said that the setting of the power at that lower level would have seriously curtailed engine output. This practice was apparently known to the Department as something which occurs or might occur from time to time. In relation to the use of reduced power, on page 272 it is stated: Senior officers of the Department were aware of rumours of the practice, but took no action to alert Examiners of Airmen to the risks involved or the need to put a stop to it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 12 noon, the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101 (a). The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity of informing the House that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has been appointed Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Mr STREET —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier this week in which he said, in relation to the very complicated and sensitive question of trying to resolve the problems of Cambodia, that at this stage he ruled out nothing and included nothing. Does the Prime Minister approve of acting Ministers making statements on policy issues which have not been discussed with either the Government or the responsible Minister? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Corangamite for his very genuine interest in this matter and in the events of earlier in the week. He, like all honourable members, will remember the brilliant response of my Foreign Minister. It will remain in our memories for some time. The situation is quite clear. I agree absolutely with what the Foreign Minister said-that nothing will be excluded. The Foreign Minister, in the short time that he has occupied that portfolio, has established the position of this Government in regard to our international relationships generally, and in regard to the Indo-China area in particular, as being based upon a sound comprehension of the relevancies in this area. Already, in his visits to countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, in his discussions in Europe and in his communications with other interested parties, as well as in our discussions with Premier Zhao of China, he and the Government have established not merely our bona fides but the opportunity for this country to play a significant role in trying to bring peace to that tragic country of Kampuchea. I turn to that part of the question which asks whether I approve of acting Ministers making statements in their area without first consulting. When a Minister assumes the position of acting Minister-by definition, he will not be able to consult with a Minister who is overseas-I have no objection to an acting Minister expressing a point of view if the expression of that point of view does nothing to inhibit the proper conduct of the affairs of this Government in regard to that portfolio. My judgment is that the great initiatives that have already been taken by my Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, will in no way be inhibited by any statements that were made by the acting Minister in his absence . Mrs KELLY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government allow its decisions on the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments to be influenced by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which is reported to be planning a totally unjustified ban on flights in and out of Canbera in protest at the Government's position? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for her question. The immediate answer is no, we will not. But I think it is appropriate that all honourable members have the opportunity of understanding this Government's position on this matter. In respect of the particular organisation concerned, that of the airline pilots-I shall have a bit more to say about it-I suggest that it would be appropriate that it should conduct itself like the umbrella organisation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to which it is not affiliated, and in respect of that organisation there has been an admirable course of conduct. Discussions have been held between the Treasurer and the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty, in the absence overseas of Mr Dolan. As a result of those amicable discussions a meeting will be held in Sydney tomorrow at 2 o'clock between the Treasurer and representatives of the ACTU. There is no threat of industrial action on the part of the ACTU. It has concerns but it has said: 'We would like to talk about the matter'. Sensibly, rationally and in a civilised fashion that is what is going to happen. I suggest it would be appropriate if the airline pilots organisation could learn to conduct itself in a similar fashion. Instead of threatening to impose action which will affect all members of this House and all other people who are wanting to commute to Canberra by air, it should request to meet with the Treasurer. I take this opportunity of saying to the airline pilots-who I believe are to meet, or may be meeting at this moment-that if they seek to have discussions with the Treasurer, he will meet with them, just as he will meet with the ACTU tomorrow. But he will not meet with them if they are in the process of taking industrial action. That is an unqualified position of this Government. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I understand from the noises that are coming from honourable members opposite that that is a position which is not accepted by them. The airline pilots organisation should understand, as indeed should all citizens of Australia, what the Government is about in this matter. The airline pilots are talking from a position of very considerable privilege. Since 1 July 1980 pilots of Ansett Airlines of Australia have received an increase in salary of 42.7 per cent, and pilots of Trans Australia Airlines have received an increase of 38.8 per cent. In other words, we are talking about a group of people who, since 1 July 1980, have received an increase in their salaries of around 40 per cent, for working a 74-hour month. These are the people who in the context of the actions of this Government have taken this action. Our job creation programs have been designed to assist the young men and women of this country in the 15- year-old to 19-year-old age group. One in three of these young people is without a job. Our programs, including what we have done in regard to superannuation, have been calculated to put this Government in a financial position in which it can undertake programs which will create jobs for people, including the one in three young people who cannot get jobs. This Government regards it as somewhat offensive, in a situation in which we are asking the community, including those best placed, to make some sacrifice, that perhaps the most privileged group in this country in terms of remuneration per hour worked should refuse to bear some burden and threaten the rest of the community because it is asked to play some part in this process which will help us to put young people to work. I make it clear that if the airline pilots adopt the program of threatening to take industrial action and take industrial action we will not in those circumstances talk to them. But if they will behave, like the rest of the organised trade union movement, and say 'We wish to talk with you' then we are prepared to listen to them. It is quite possible that they may have some concerns which are worthy of discussion. This Government stands ready to meet with them if they will conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the peculiarly privileged position which they have in this community. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the answer he gave yesterday in which he indicated that revised official forecasts about growth next financial year were not yet available to him and, in fact, might not be available until close to the Budget. Is it a fact that last Thursday night at a Press briefing conducted by Dr Barry Hughes of his private office and Mr Ross Garnaut of the Prime Minister's private office, those attending were informed that revised gross domestic product forecasts available to the Government indicated a growth outcome in 1983-84 of approximately 4.1 per cent? If so, why did the Treasurer mislead the House yesterday? Mr KEATING —I did not mislead the House at all. Yesterday the former Treasurer asked me about the growth forecasts of the Department of the Treasury. I indicated to him that the Treasury Department was just beginning its next forecasting round and that the likelihood was that those figures would be ready for the Government well ahead of the Budget. I also indicated that it was never the former Treasurer's practice to publish or to give information on growth forecasts on a regular basis. The only growth forecast that we ever received from the former Treasurer was in the Budget. As far as Dr Barry Hughes and Mr Ross Garnaut are concerned, apparently some journalists expressed the wish to have a background briefing on certain areas of the Government's statement made last week. Dr Hughes and Mr Garnaut were made available to explain certain areas of the statement which I had introduced that night that were under query. I am not aware of any precise estimates or forecasts which either gentleman gave to members of the Press. But I indicate to the honourable member that I know there were discussions on what one may term an 'on the back of an envelope' basis about what changes, if any, had taken place in, if you like, the inflation growth forecasts and the illustrative scenario I put to the National Economic Summit Conference. Since that time there have been extensive drought-breaking rains. There would be every expectation that next year farm sector growth will be far higher than projected at the time scenario A was put together. I think both Mr Garnaut and Dr Hughes were alluding to that fact, that the likelihood was that, as far as farm GDP is concerned-I do not think any precision can be brought to estimates for non-farm GDP-there is every likelihood that the farm sector will grow further. One has only to look out the window to see that. The point of the former Treasurer's question was that the $9.6 billion deficit, the fiscal inheritance which was left to this Government by the irresponsible fiscal recklessness of the former Government, was, in some way, only a sort of stab in the dark figure which would be wound back by growth. At the time the Government was presented with that figure the prospects for growth in 1983-84 were, in actuality, far less than they are now, given the fact that the farm sector is likely to be a lot stronger. It was worked out on the basis of 1.5 per cent of GDP, as the former Treasurer well knows. I told him that. I indicated in scenario A that the increase we were looking at was 2.7 per cent. I further indicate that since the drought-breaking rains there may be further growth. I have no information to give the honourable gentleman today, any more than I had yesterday, about precise forecasts coming from the forecasting round by the Treasury. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as temporary Leader of the House. Has his attention been drawn to the speech during the adjournment debate on Tuesday night by the honourable member for Melbourne alleging the secret involvement of the now Leader of the Opposition with the previous Soviet Ambassador and other Soviet apparatchiks as late as January 1983? In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has now been briefed by the Prime Minister and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on material which appears at least potentially related to the question of agents of influence, and that this is the last day of sitting, will the Minister arrange for the Leader of the Opposition to have the fullest opportunity to explain to this House his relationship with the Soviet Embassy and its agents to prevent the necessity of his being called before the Hope Royal Commission? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I did note what was said in the speech on the adjournment by the honourable member for Melbourne the other evening. I noticed particularly that apart from the Soviet personnel who were nominated other people were also nominated. It is a matter of significance, particularly in view of recent allegations. The Leader of the Opposition might well want to make an explanation that he did not have access to any intelligence. On that basis we would be very happy for him to make a statement at any time after Question Time. Mr MOORE —My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, arises out of attachment B to the economic statement. Does the Treasurer recall saying that if lump sums received by the executor or the dependants of a deceased person represent amounts from superannuation funds they will be treated within the new arrangement, as though they had been received by that person while living? Drawing the distinction between a benefit paid to a living person and a benefit paid to a deceased, does this mean the Government is now involved in a policy of death duties? Mr KEATING —The principle which the Government articulated in the statement last week holds up in all cases. Yesterday a similar question was asked by the honourable member for Mitchell in respect of a widow. If a widow were to receive from an estate a lump sum that lump sum would be taxed at the rate of 30 per cent. If, however, that was invested in an annuity it would be exempt from tax. I have indicated also that the Government will look at making the income from annuities very much more attractive than it would otherwise be. That was the purpose of the superannuation scheme in the first place. Mr BEDDALL —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a report that the French Government has exploded a nuclear device on Mururoa Atoll? If so, can he indicate the Government's attitude to this report? Mr HAYDEN —I acknowledge the long standing concern that the honourable member for Fadden has had on the issue of arms control and disarmament and his oft expressed concern about the dangers of an untrammelled nuclear arms race. In that respect I appreciate his question. I received advice literally in the last five minutes that the French have exploded, according to initial reports, a 70 kiloton nuclear device at Mururoa Atoll. That makes it a large device if the reports are correct-it is much larger than a trigger device which is what the French authorities declared to me they were restricting themselves to testing at Mururoa Atoll when I was in France a few weeks ago. What it makes abundantly clear is justification for greater emphasis which the Opposition is devoting to the issue of arms control and disarmament and especially to the nuclear arms race. I anticipate bipartisan concern and support on this issue. I recall that my two predecessors frequently voiced protests on this matter. In Paris recently I expressed the strongest protest to the French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Cheysson, about French testing in the South West Pacific. I have to say for the record that he, equally as strongly, rejected my protest and made it clear that France will continue testing in the South West Pacific. In that regard the concern of the Government to raise at the forthcoming South Pacific Forum meeting in Canberra the possibility of a nuclear-free South West Pacific, as a first step in what would be a very long journey towards a nuclear-free South Pacific, is well and truly justified. It is a matter that I signalled to Mr Namaliu, the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea, who will take the matter back to his Government for discussion. The Prime Minister has indicated to me that the testing of nuclear weaponry by the French in the South West Pacific is also a matter which he will take up with the French when he is there in a little over a week's time. He will put quite firmly Australia's concern about the use of the South West Pacific as a nuclear testing ground by the French, or indeed by any other power. I express our concern about this. I am registering a strong protest. That protest will be going to the French authorities. I acknowledge that protests in the past have not discouraged the French authorities, nor has the International Court of Justice. Accordingly I re-emphasise my determination to push ahead as quickly but as sensibly as I can to achieve some sort of concept of a nuclear-free South West Pacific. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the Minister's rejection of the proposal of the private health insurance funds to handle Medicare on an agency basis and his decision to centralise all basic insurance under Medibank. Is it a fact that he is spending $80m of taxpayers' money in this time of high unemployment to create a net loss of at least 2,000 jobs in this industry? Does this not represent a job destruction cost of $40,000 per job ? Is this part of the Government's program of national consensus, recovery and reconstruction? Dr BLEWETT —As I have pointed out on previous occasions, in making this decision, which as I have said was a difficult one, we had to look at the long term interests in the health field, which certainly were not addressed by the previous Government in changing scheme after scheme. In making the decision to spend somewhat greater in the short term, we believed we were justified on the grounds of producing a system which, firstly, would be much more cost efficient for some of the reasons implicit in the question asked by the honourable member for Mackellar. Secondly, it would provide a central monitoring system far more effective in reviewing and dealing with fraud and overservicing. As the honourable member suggested, while overall jobs are endangered in the field, there will be an expansion of job opportunities in Medicare and we are giving preference to people from the private funds for those jobs. Also, as the Minister for Health in New South Wales indicated yesterday, his Government will give support in giving preference for jobs within the Department of Health to people from the private funds. Finally, as I have pointed out time and again, despite the misinformation that is being circulated, the turnover rate of jobs- that is, the wastage rate-is quite high in the private funds. Therefore, if the funds are prepared to co-operate with the Government, coupled with some future steps that will be taken in relation to private health insurance, I believe no individual redundancies should occur. Mr SNOW —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Government' s decision to support a return to a centralised system of wage fixation at the next national wage case. What are the essential conditions required for the success of a centralised wages system? Can the Australian community as a whole make any contribution to ensure that the new wages system will be a success? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. On a number of occasions in the last few weeks I have outlined to the House the commitment of this Government to a wages policy which is coherent, understandable, workable and equitable. I repeat that the essential ingredient of that policy, which is quite clear on our part, is that there be a suppression of wage claims outside the national wage case hearings except in the most exceptional circumstances. In regard to that part of the honourable member's question as to what would be the best conditions for the operation of such a policy in this country, I have to say-I think most honourable members would agree-that a precondition for having this system work most efficiently is a degree of bipartisan support for such a policy. However, as we look at the Press over recent days we lose all hope of reaching a position of such bipartisan support. The other day the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred rather tellingly to the meanderings of the Leader of the Opposition in his previous capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs-meanderings particularly, as I recall, between Los Angeles and New York. Here on the domestic front there is certainly a lot of meandering going on as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned on this question of wages policy. I refer to the Canberra Times of 24 May, which contains a report of a fascinating interview that the Leader of the Opposition had with one Colin Brammall. Mr Peacock stated: But in the meantime we are doing a full reappraisal of our wages policy. Mr Peacock went on, in his lovely, colloquial, direct way of talking with people : But, mate . . . I just don't regard criticism that 'Ah, well you haven't got a policy in this area' as meaning anything other than, you know, a short-term criticism because if we were to re-enunciate last year's stuff we'd be going backwards. Indeed, they would. Our understanding of the possibility of getting this bipartisan basis of support for a wages policy is made clearer by the references in this morning's Press. The Sydney Morning Herald states: The Opposition spokesman on employment, Mr Macphee, has launched a major criticism of the wages policy of the shadow Treasurer, Mr Howard . . . It goes on: The split within the Liberal Party over wages policy has deepened since Mr Macphee circulated a five-page paper to his shadow ministry colleagues . . . The article further states: Mr Macphee says the Fraser Government move towards a decentralised system had devastating economic consequences . . . A similar report in the Canberra Times today states: The issue is potentially so divisive that the Opposition front bench is believed to have agreed to avoid making public statements on it until an ' official' position is reached. In those circumstances one can see the total inability of any reasonable person to take seriously the Opposition's protestations in the area of wage policy when its critically important shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations says that the policy of the shadow Treasurer, which had been pursued, was economically disastrous for this country. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He had better listen to it; I have a real telex here. In the light of reports that independent petroleum agents and contractors will not be permitted to pick up product from oil company terminals after 22 May 1983 and that product is to be delivered only by Transport Workers Union oil industry drivers, with the threat of industrial action by the Federated Storemen and Packers Union and the Transport Workers Union, will the Minister advise us of his attitude to the Laidely agreement which seeks to maintain fair opportunities for independent petrol distributors, agents and retailers? Is he aware of a definite threatened national TWU campaign for the wage rise promised by the union from 1 January 1983-yet another indication that the 3 to 4 per cent increase in wages this year-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I do not want to stop the honourable member but he is putting far too much information in his question. Mr GOODLUCK —It is very important, Mr Speaker. This telex tells everything. We are talking about a coherent wages policy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. May I point out to the honourable member that, while the matter he is raising might be very important, it is outside the Standing Orders which this House gives me to supervise. I invite him to bring his question to its point. Mr GOODLUCK —Mr Speaker, I apologise to you. I think you are a real gentleman. Is this yet another indication that the 3 to 4 per cent increase in wages this year foreshadowed by the Government is unrealistic and if the TWU does not get what it wants we will have a strike? Mr WILLIS —In response to the histrionic or hysterical honourable member for Franklin, let me say that there is no possibility of the wages system in this country in the second half of this year resulting in a greater increase than the 3 or 4 per cent that the Government has said is its policy in respect of wage increases in that time. We have-as the Prime Minister, I, the Treasurer and other spokesmen have said many times in the course of the last month-adopted a policy which will ensure that we have a centralised system of wage fixation operating in this country and that that system will result in an increase in wages of no more than 4 per cent. In regard to transport workers, I think it was only last week that the Transport Workers Union federal conference was held in Canberra. At that conference the transport workers made it clear that they fully supported the move to a centralised wages system and that they would accept the national wage increase in terms of wage increases for transport workers in the rest of this year. So at that top level of the Transport Workers Union there has quite recently been a full acceptance of the Government's policy in that area. I am not aware of the specific elements in respect of independent contractors that the honourable member mentioned in his question. I am aware, however, that this is an important area of controversy in the transport industry. It is a matter which has been discussed at the National Labour Consultative Council. It will come up for discussion again later on. I will certainly pay close attention to developments in that area. I hope we can come to a satisfactory resolution of this long-standing problem in the near future. Mr CAMPBELL —Does the Minister for Primary Industry agree that with cattle numbers in Australia at an all time low it would be an opportune time to accelerate the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign? Does the Minister accept that a potential threat to our markets exists if Australia does not eradicate these diseases? Does the Minister acknowledge that there can be no hope of eradicating tuberculosis unless the feral buffalo herd, principally in the Northern Territory, is destroyed? Does he recognise that disease in northern cattle poses a threat to all cattle in Australia and control cannot therefore be left entirely to the caprices of the extravagant and irresponsible Northern Territory Government? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling the Minister to answer, I think I should just remind honourable members on both sides of the House to observe please in asking questions that only that information which is necessary to have the question properly answered is included. Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, I thank you for your advice in respect of the last part of the question. I would have been delighted to respond. The honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Leichhardt have also raised this question with me in recent days and weeks. A lot of information on this matter is publicly available. There have been two Industries Assistance Commission reports on this question. The State governments also have a lot of information. The Australian Agricultural Council on 28 April this year took a decision to request the Federal Government to accelerate in conjunction with it and the industry the final phases of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign known as BATEC. The Cattle Council of Australia followed this up with a meeting early in May and came out again with a very detailed backing of not only the IAC reports and AAC decision but also the very detailed and excellent work by the Department of Primary Industry in terms of the national planning group. To answer the honourable member's question, it is opportune to take action now, but what we are talking about is an acceleration because the program is very much an ongoing one. It is exceptionally important that we proceed to the final stages of the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis for the sake of our export markets and in order to give our cattle industry, our meat industry, a real edge in the international market place. The third part of the honourable gentleman's question related to buffaloes. A very expensive part of the final phase will be concerned with the virtual destruction of the feral buffalo herd. That part of the campaign is to cost about $15m but, by definition, the whole campaign in the remote areas will be exceptionally expensive. The Commonwealth's contribution to the cost of the campaign will amount to slightly less than 25 per cent thereof and will be concerned with the payment of compensation. The major part of the cost will be met by industry and by the States. However, in respect of the campaign in the Northern Territory, it is proposed that the Commonwealth meet some 75 per cent of the cost. Tuberculosis infection in the remote areas is also exceptionally high. Perhaps we could consider some of the costs and estimates in regard to the Kimberleys, the area about which the honourable gentleman is so concerned. There are about 800,000 cattle on 110 properties, 44 of which present rather difficult problems. Of the cost of the accelerated phase of this campaign, which will proceed through 1992-some $303m-about $140m will have to be spent in the Northern Territory, the Kimberleys and North Queensland. In the Northern Territory about one and a quarter million cattle on 237 properties, of which 132 present special difficulties, are involved. In North Queensland there are 3.3 million cattle on some 3,500 properties, of which about 134 are estimated to present particular difficulties. The remainder of the funding allocated to the program will be spent on the properties and in continued testing in an effort to render the herd 100 per cent clean. The Department and the various responsible authorities are working on obtaining better test methods of detecting reactors. As the honourable member points out, it is true that cattle do move freely throughout the continent. With the breaking of the drought in the southern States, cattle will move from Alice Springs, for example, to the south west of Western Australia, through Adelaide- Mr Anthony —Make a statement to the House. Mr KERIN —If honourable gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the answer I will not proceed with it. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the Minister that a request has been made that answers be kept to a reasonable length. Mr KERIN —I assure the House that the current program will continue to June 1984 . More than $34m has been spent on it so far this year. The Government realises how important the program is. The only delay has been that caused by the need to give the matter due consideration in a budgetary context. I point out that the former Government wiped out a $23.5m debt. We are examining the matter in the context of the Budget because of the dreadful mess that the former Government left. Mr DOBIE —Does the Treasurer agree that the consumer price index consequence of the rise in prices and costs following last week's mini-Budget, including those related to telephone charges, superannuation, mortgages, health insurance, air fares and petrol prices in non-metropolitan areas, will increase the difficulty of restraining wage demands? Will the Treasurer inform the House whether he has taken these increases into account in making his wage forecasts? Mr KEATING —Fairly minimal effects will flow from the changes set out in the May statement of economic measures, which was delivered last week. In fact, the Government was very mindful of the impacts upon the consumer price index and the subsequent effect upon inflation and upon wages. That effect would be less than 0.2 per cent. I indicate that that is a very strange question to come from a government which specialised in jacking up the CPI with its indirect taxes and charges. Indeed, if we want to look at where all the soft tax options were in the period in office of the last Government, we find that they were in areas of indirect taxation, particularly in respect of the crude oil levy, which had a massive impact upon Australian inflation in the latter part of the 1970s. It was because of this easy resort to the taxing of oil, following the dramatic rise in the prices imposed by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries during 1979 and 1980, that the Fraser Government did not at any time face up to its responsibilities in terms of the sort of balance within the fiscal structure of Commonwealth outlays. That is why this Government is now in a position-given the inheritance left by the former Government in terms of the size of the Budget deficit in prospect-to look at those structural elements of outlays which will present a problem over a long period. Hence the Government's resolve in the statement last Thursday and beyond to look at some of the major structural measures, of which pensions for people aged over 70 and superannuation were but two. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the disastrous impact of low sugar prices on cane growers, sugar mills, mill employees, town businesses and towns right along the Queensland and northern New South Wales coasts? Is the Minister further aware that the end of June is a key time for the industry's finances and that decisions for Commonwealth assistance must be made as a matter of urgency? Mr KERIN —I hope that the Opposition will allow me to answer this question fully. It might show more interest in the sugar industry than it did in the beef industry. The honourable members for Herbert and Capricornia have been vitally concerned about the sugar industry. I must point out the dilatoriness with which the past Government regarded this industry. The first approach by the sugar industry to the then Government was in January 1981. It was made in respect of the domestic price formula. If something had been done then, the industry would have gained some $72m by January of this year. The industry kept approaching the past Government from then until September 1982, when the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries came to this capital and was turned away. Eventually, in November 1982, the past Government decided to have the Industries Assistance Commission report on the short term problems and later on the long term problems . During the election campaign the short term report on the request for assistance came through to the then government of the day. Although I am not at liberty to say what was in that report, Mr Nixon, the past Minister, is reported as saying in Mackay during the election campaign that there was nothing in it and the Government would be following the IAC's advice. So, there was not much response from the past Government with respect to the sugar industry. As the honourable member states, the industry is in desperate trouble. It is receiving a little over one third of the money received in 1980, due to the collapse of the international sugar market. That has been caused mainly by the fact that the European Economic Community, which was a net importer of sugar in 1977, is now putting five million to seven million tonnes of sugar on the world market, and that is a world market of 20 million tonnes. The farm cash operating surplus of the industry is negative. It is getting nowhere near the cane price equivalent this year, which would get up to $234 a tonne, the amount given as the cost of production when translated from the sugar price down to the cane price. There are long term and immediate problems. These include problems of welfare, liquidity, cash flow, mills, the drought, and the International Sugar Agreement. If honourable members opposite are not interested in dealing with these matters they have no sympathy for the sugar industry on the Queensland coast. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out that all these interruptions, of course, affect the number of questions that can be asked. Mr KERIN —Perhaps I should draw my answer to a conclusion. Mr SPEAKER —It would be very wise. Mr KERIN —The Government is concerned about the sugar industry, unlike the Opposition which has demonstrated its approach. I have met representatives of the industry on three occasions and a submission before the Government is under active consideration. We appreciate the desperate straits the industry is in. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister recall his promise to provide immediate reductions in income tax, his promise to retain the tax rebate for home loan payments, his promise to introduce a first home ownership asssistance scheme as 'an option to the existing deposit assistance scheme which will be retained', his promise not to increase tax on lump sum superannuation, his promise not to take money out of the weekly pay packet, his promise not to take money out of the pensioner's cheque, his promise not to abandon the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, his promise to extend desperately needed-- Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Consistent with your earlier rulings, Mr Speaker, this is not a preface to a question; it is a statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I accept what the honourable member says, but he realises that there is no hard and fast rule on this matter and that the Leader of the Opposition, because of his position, is allowed some indulgence-although I hope he will not stretch that indulgence. Mr PEACOCK —His promise to extend desperately needed public capital works and services, his promise to continue the Government's major airport development program, his promise to provide 'a major new concession to the small businesses of this nation', his promise to reduce the price of petrol by 3c per litre, his promise to achieve fixed term four-year parliaments and his promise to retain the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare? Will the Prime Minister tell the House from whom he received a mandate to break these promises? Mr HAWKE —I want to assure the House-although honourable members must have considerable doubt-that this question is not a Dorothy Dixer; I did not ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask this question. But it gives me a great deal of pleasure to answer the question. Yes, I remember the whole program that was put by the Australian Labor Party and through me as the Leader of the Labor Party during the last election campaign. I have very clear recollections of everything that happened in that campaign, not only the promises that were made by us but also the context in which they were made. I remind the House that it was a context in which the members opposite, then as the Government, mendaciously went around the country saying that the context in which any incoming Government would be operating would be one in which the deficit situation for 1983-84 would be about $6 billion, when at least some of them knew that that was a downright lie. I had reason to point out to the House earlier this week that at least the shadow Treasurer, deceitful as he was, has been honest enough or manful enough since the election to say: 'I am going to cop the blame'. The question has been asked as to whether I remember what happened during the campaign and the promises that were made. I remember them clearly and I remember the fact that not once during the campaign did the present Leader of the Opposition say one word to dissociate himself from the deception that was then practised. I also have a clear recollection of something else that I said in the campaign. I remember that it was in this city on 2 March, at the National Press Club, when I was giving the National Press Club address and then giving answers to questions. On 2 March at the National Press Club, Dr Summers, of the Australian Financial Review, addressed a question to me, which I remember, in respect of these promises. She said: 'Mr Hawke, should you get government, what if you find, in respect of the situation that has been put to you by the present Government, and put to the people of Australia, that the Government has not been telling the truth? What will that do in respect of these promises?' Before 5 March I responded to the question about these promises that are listed by the Leader of the Opposition. I said unequivocally to Dr Summers, and to the people of Australia: 'If I and the incoming Government find that indeed we and the people of Australia have been deceived by the Government and we inherit a larger deficit than that of which the Government has been telling us, then we shall have to review our program'. Before 5 March, in response to such a question in regard to all those promises, I made a clear statement on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that we would have to review all those promises in our program if we found that we and the Australian people had been deceived. I finally refer to that part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition when he asked where we got the mandate from. We got a clear and unequivocal mandate from the people of Australia on 5 March in the context of what I have said and made clear on the Wednesday of that last week, that if we-- Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In fact I seek your advice. Under the Standing Orders surely there is something that insists that the Prime Minister acts honestly and not like a used car salesman. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that the Chair is conscious of the Standing Orders and one of those Standing Orders provides that points of order should be points of order and not frivolous, or action may be taken. Mr HAWKE —I conclude by saying that we got the overwhelming mandate that we did on 5 March because we were honest and our opponents were dishonest. That is why for election after election from here on, while the Opposition continues as it is now, to be dishonest, and we continue to be honest, we will continue to win. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 22 of the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978, I present the 1981-82 annual report of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman 1981- 82 annual report. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976, I present the Australia-Japan Foundation 1981-82 annual report. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegate to the eleventh session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, New York, 9 March to 30 April 1982. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present the joint reports of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia on: Firstly, consultations on passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation held during 1982; and secondly, air fares consultations held during 1982. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present the Trans Australia Airlines 1981-82 annual report. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present the financial results of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of passenger air services carried on by the commission and the company for 1981-82. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to regulation 23E of the Army and Air Force Canteens Service Regulations 1981, I present the Army and Air Force Canteens Service Board of Management annual report for 1981, together with the Auditor-General's report and the audited financial statements and balance sheets. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for April 1983. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the science and technology statement for 1982-83 , together with a statement relating to the report consisting of my non- delivered tabling speech. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on British nuclear tests in Australia-a review of operational safety measures and of possible after effects, together with a statement relating to the report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the Cairns section zoning plan and the Cormorant Pass zoning plan together with a statement relating to the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on the social impact of uranium mining on Aboriginals in the Northern Territory for April to November 1982. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act, I present the 1981-82 annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Pursuant to section 40 of the Act the comments of the National Aboriginal Conference on the report will be tabled when they are available. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Nominal Defendant 1981-82 annual report. Dr Klugman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At what stage would it be appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement replying to the serious allegations-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Prospect will resume his seat. He knows that the Chair is not here to advise on procedures. He may refer to the Standing Orders and practice of the House. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I table the annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board for 1981-82. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the House. The report dated 30 June 1982 is addressed to my predecessor, the Honourable David Thomson, M.C. It covers the first full year of operation under the amendments to the 1976 Act. The retiring chairman, Dr Walter L. Hughes, C.B.E., in his letter of transmission to the former Minister for Science and Technology, expressed the frustration felt by the Board and its disappointment at government interference with the Board's freedom of action. First, legislative and administrative delays associated with amending the Act meant that the Board did not begin operating until September 1981. Second, limits imposed on forward financial obligations seriously circumscribed the Board's capacity to write new business. This meant that advance payments of grants could be made only where a company provided adequate security for the recovery of any amounts which subsequently became repayable. Third, by March 1982 the contractionary policies of the Fraser Government, and the report of the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into budgetary assistance to industry, made the future of AIRDIB very uncertain. This uncertainty affected both applicants and the Board, which felt unable to commit funds for projects spread over three years. In 1980-81 a total of $50,713,000 had been paid to applicants. However in 1981-82, of the $49,180,000 appropriated for the scheme in 1981-82, only $24,198,000 was actually spent-just 49 per cent. The reasons for the very lage shortfall are set out in the report in paragraphs 26, 32, 33 and 34. Further uncertainties were also created by the imposition of staffing constraints and at 30 June 1982 the total number of AIRDIB staff was less than it had been three years earlier. I am glad to advise that additional staff had been made available to AIRDIB during 1983. The report provides valuable information on the extent to which the Board was able to achieve the objectives of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. It indicates the potential of the scheme as an instrument for promoting the development and improving the efficiency of Australian industry. The Labor Government recognises the necessity to increase investment in industrial research in Australian industry and will use AIRDIB as an important instrument in the promotion of the sunrise industries identified in our science and technology and industry policies. New appointments to the Board, to be announced in the next few days, will reflect the Government's determination to develop such high technology industries as biotechnology, computers and software , industrial ceramics, medical technologies and scientific instrumentation. New directions will be given to AIRDIB to enable it to support projects for the development of computer software in accordance with Labor Party policy and the Act will need clarification in this respect. The party policy also provides scope for legislation to extend the powers of the Board to offer loans, guarantees or equity participation in addition to, or in lieu of, grants as appropriate. At present the Board can make grants in only three categories-commencement grants, projects grants and public interest grants . Among the most intersting of the public interest grants has been support for the bionic ear, which I showed the House yesterday, being developed by the University of Melbourne and Nucleus Ltd, and Australia's participation in the Starlab project, a joint United States-Canada-Australian venture in which we will provide the scientific instrumentation for this orbiting telescope, which we hope will be up by the time of the bicentennary. The Government congratulates the Board for what it was able to achieve in a very difficult year and expresses its gratitude to Dr Hughes and the other outgoing members. Sitting suspended from 1.3 to 2.15 p.m. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —by leave-The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), for whom I have a high regard, spoke today rather more moderately than is often his wont. Only yesterday in this House he took his customary swipe at the alleged failings of the previous Liberal-National Party Government in research and development and science and technology. On 11 May, he said: One of the major reasons for Australia's failure in the last seven years has been the sabotage-- Hear that, 'sabotage' he says- by the people opposite of Australia's intellectual and research and development base. The Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives scheme is primarily concerned with fostering research and development by private enterprises. I am not one of those inclined to hark back to the dismal years of Labor's previous stint in power from 1973-75. But, unlike the Minister, I was in the Parliament then, in opposition, and what I saw was truly the sabotage of Australia's private research and development base. It was under the Whitlam Labor Government that Australia's research and development effort was brought down. That is not just my say-so. It is pictured in the figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its publication No. 8105 which contains figures for research and development expenditure by private enterprises given in constant 1979-80 prices-that is, adjusted for inflation. The figures in the document are as follows: Year $m 1973-74 409.8 1976-77 215.6 1978-79 226.5 1981-82 220.6 They show that in 1973-74 private enterprises' expenditure on research and development was nearly $410m which was typical of the decade of the 1960s and early 1970s. But then it practically halved-to $216m by 1976-77. At pages 227 to 230 of the May 1979 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on Industrial Research and Development in Australia much the same point is made, namely, that the continued fall in private research and development was 'a lingering response' to the Whitlam Government's sabotage of Australia's manufacturing industry from 1973 to 1975 via the massive expansion of government spending of that period-up 46 per cent in the one year 1974-75-and hence rampant inflation, the halving of the prevailing export incentives, the abolition of the investment allowance, and record industrial disruption, not to mention the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut that Mr Barrie Unsworth reminded us of the other day. That is what brought down private research and development activity in Australia. I concede that since 1976-77, as ABS figures show, the increase has been minimal. The Minister has referred to it as being virtually static. The causes are many and complex. But what the Minister will learn, when he has had a bit of experience of real life and real government, is this: It is a darned sight easier to knock a hard won thing down than it is, having knocked it down, to build it back up again. That is why there has been this lag. Therefore, I suggest that from now on we cut out this talk of sabotage, look to the future and get on with the job that has to be done for this country. Meanwhile, I draw attention to the fact-it is recorded in the other statement that the Minister tabled-that direct government spending on research and development and science and technology increased under the previous Government from 1978-79 to 1982-83 at a real rate of 3 to 4 per cent per annum. From 1978 to 1980 there was an actual doubling in money terms for research and development grants. It will be interesting to see whether under this Minister and this Government that rate is kept up. The Minister was lucky that, in the recent mini-Budget exercise the Labor Party razor gang, the Expenditure Review Committee, did not reach his Department in the time available. I wish him luck. The report tabled today relates to 1981-82 which was an atypical year for the Board and a disappointing one from the viewpoint of my predecessor, the Honourable David Thomson, who laboured hard to upgrade and streamline the system during 1980-81. The Minister for Science and Technology foreshadowed some further changes to the scheme. I could suggest some others but the princpal point I want to make in these few minutes available to me is this: The Minister said that it is his party's policy to extend the powers of the Board to enable it to invest in enterprises by way of equity participation. I am very hesitant about that-although it is typical of the Australian Labor Party approach of large direct government funding with more substantial government intervention. That is the normal line of its thinking. But what I want to stress is that the Minister has had in his hands a report by an eminent committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, referred to as the Espie report after its distinguished Chairman, Sir Frank Espie. In this report is a ready-made blueprint for immediate action in one major way. I know there are other ways to promote not only research and development but also the very growth of new high technology industry. It is a program to get fledgling new high technology companies through the difficult start-up and early growth phase so that they can then become enterprises and industries with sales volumes of many millions, indeed billions, of dollars, with very significant employment effects. There is a ready made blueprint here with an initial pricetag on it of a mere $ 20m per annum via tax deductibility for money subscribed as venture capital. Half that program-$10m-would be of inestimable value. It has been worked out by a committee of practical down-to-earth people headed by Sir Frank Espie of CRA, Bougainville and Westpac fame. Now this Minister at the drop of a hat will regale us all with the urgency, the priority and the overriding importance of action in this area. I agree with him that it is important, that Australia is lagging in this context in a quite frightening way. Mr Barry Jones —Yes, absolutely. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The Minister agrees. But what does he do? The other day, flourishing the report, he came into this House and said: 'I hope I shall be able to say something about this very early in the spring session'. He hopes to be able to say something-for goodness sake, why can we not have some action? It is many times more important that this action be taken than all the heavy-handed legislation on taxation or the mini-Budget last week that the Parliament has been concerned with. I want to put clearly on the record that it was my predecessor, or perhaps more correctly the Minister's predecessor, the Honourable David Thomson, striving to find ways to build up research and development and high technology industry in this country, who among other initiatives, commissioned the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, specifically through Sir Ian McLennan and then Sir Frank Espie, to come up with an evaluation of the issues and what could be done. That is, what could be done in a practical way-not all the air, froth and bubble with which the Minister so often comes forth, but real practical way in which Australia can get some significant new high technology industries in place; to use a phrase that my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Sir James Killen) would appreciate, to get some starters actually to the gate with a real chance of winning in the high technology industry race. My former colleague the Honourable David Thomson initiated that action over two years ago. If the Comittee's report had become available a year ago I can safely aver that the tax incentives that the report recommends to help launch high technology industries, with a limited role for government as catalyst but no government involvement at all-I stress that-in the key area of picking commercial winners and losers, at which governments are notoriously very bad, would have been in pace by now. I put this to the Minister and to the Government, without detracting from the significance of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme which, indeed, ought to be enlarged, but the priorities of which should be somewhat more directed towards smaller high growth, high technology enterprises: The priority at this moment-I am keen to put this to the Government before its Budget considerations-should be to fund this Australian Academy of Technological Sciences program, the Espie report proposal for tax incentives, along with the complementary measures which that report proposes. The real issue is whether the main emphasis should be on developing a private rather than a public sector predominantly venture capital market. Middle Australians had an object lesson from the mini-Budget last Thursday as to what the Hawke Labor Government is all about. They may well also come to learn-and if it so turns out, it will be to their cost-that this Labor Government is not about entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Yet-I emphasise this to the Government-the economic growth and rising living standards that the Government is so anxious to achieve depend above all on entrepreneurship, innovation and enterprise, and implementing this report of the Academy of Technological Sciences is twice as important-nay, many times more important-for raising the living standards of Australians than all the macroeconomic chopping and changing of last Thursday night's mini-Budget. Ministerial Statement Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-The matter I wish to raise is one that causes me some disappointment because it involves my referring to comments made in the Senate last night by my Australian Labor Party colleague Senator Primmer. It also involves my referring to a series of questions which he has put on the Senate Notice Paper, and generally to the course of conduct upon which he has embarked over some time. I do not in any way impugn the character, nor indeed the motivation, of Senator Primmer. I am sure that his motivation, as is his character, is the best, but I do deplore his actions and his persistence with those actions in the light of an extensive explanation I have given to him about investigations which have been made into his complaints and the findings of those investigations. In summary, his actions refer to the head of my Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Henderson, and a First Assistant Secretary of the Department, Mr R. J. Smith. A number of other names have also been raised; however, it is Mr Henderson and Mr Smith about whom I am particularly concerned at this stage. They are both responsible officers and, from my dealings with them, honourable men. They have always conducted themselves in an upright and proper way; they have discharged their responsibilities to the government of the day faithfully and well. I have no room for complaint about them either as public servants or, to the extent that I know them privately-that is very limited-as private persons. In relation to the complaints raised by Senator Primmer, I want to remind him that his persistence with this course of conduct is potentially seriously damaging to the character of the people to whom he is referring. It is causing them great social embarrassment and it interferes with the self respect and confidence of the family and social lives of members of the families of the men I have mentioned. The situation has arisen where we are witnessing, effectively, trial by Hansard, conviction by innuendo and I believe, an inexcusable smudging of the character of the people to whom I have referred. It may well have been that Senator Primmer felt justified in initiating action on these matters. Certain information was conveyed to him. I think there was a way in which those matters could have been raised in this Parliament if it was his conclusion that they had to be raised. I say that allowing for the fact that when we deal with people from outside this Parliament the standards are a little different in that they are not here to protect themselves. I say also that Senator Primmer should have exercised more restraint, at least more recently, because only this week I had a discussion with him to explain the results of investigations into these matters, which he has raised largely on behalf of a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Witheford. The allegations concern other members of the Foreign Affairs Department as well as Mr Henderson and Mr Smith. There are allegations of corruption, of misuse of office, of cash, or resources, of privilege for relations and of conspiracy to cover up these matters involving senior officials of the Department. These matters are well known to the records of this Parliament. My predecessor, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), reported to this Parliament that investigations available to him had found no evidence to support the allegations . I want to state that, and I want to state something further. There have been two police reports into the allegations made by Mr Witheford which are the basis of Sentor Primmer's complaints. The first of those police reports concerns charges against a Mr Bowden, the former Australian Ambassador to Tehran, of embezzlement and related matters. I have read the police report but am not in a position to divulge its contents. The report has been provided on a strictly confidential basis. However, I find the police report professional and convincing. It seems to have investigated exhaustively all the matters which were raised. It finds that in no case is there evidence to support a charge of a criminal offence. In fact, in a number of instances Mr Witheford was unable to produce any evidence to substantiate his charges. In other cases where he referred to other persons as sources of information in relation to the charges he had made, those other persons were not prepared to support his allegations. That information has been conveyed to Senator Primmer. In those circumstances, I regret very much that in spite of that the honourable senator proceeded with the statement he made to the Parliament last night, as well as listing a wide range of questions on the Senate Notice Paper. The second report from the police concerned allegations raised by Senator Primmer about Mr Max Loveday, a former Ambassador to Bonn, relating to the misuse of transport. The report covered also allegations about the handling of Sir Nicholas Parkinson's retirement on invalidity grounds and allegations that some impropriety was attached to the return to Australia of a piano owned by Mr Bowden. I have a letter dated 15 April 1983 from the Special Minister of State ( Mr Young) which states: On 1 and 20 December 1982, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs asked that certain allegations by Senator Primmer in the Parliament be investigated by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). These allegations principally involved the former Australian Ambassador to Tehran, Mr I. G. Bowden, the former Australian Ambassador to Bonn, Mr H. M. Loveday, the former Australian Ambassador to Washington, Sir Nicholas Parkinson and the Permanent Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr P. G. F. Henderson. I am informed that the AFP has now completed its investigation and has found no evidence- I repeat, no evidence- that would substantiate any criminal offence against any person named in the allegations. So there have been two substantial police investigations into Mr Witheford's claims, which he has either made directly or apparently had transmitted one way or another to Senator Primmer. In each case the police found conclusively that there was no evidence of any criminal offence against any of the persons named in the complaints. Additionally, an exhaustive investigation was conducted by the Department of Finance. Its report is headed 'Report of Investigation into Allegations of Improper Financial Dealings at the Australian Embassy, Teheran'. I can quote the last paragraph of that report with some sense of repetition because my predecessor, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), tabled this report in the Parliament. The report is dated 15 July 1982. This is the conclusion: The investigating officers are satisfied that, on the evidence available, there is no basis for action against Bowden by the Commonwealth in respect of the financial matters examined. Again, a thorough report by professional people whose impartiality, and sense of propriety and justice in these matters, I believe, would be beyond impugning. They, like the police, found no evidence to support these matters. One wonders how many more investigations must be undertaken before either Senator Primmer or Mr Witheford will be satisfied that these complaints have been properly attended to. For my part, I know nothing personally of any of the matters which have been raised. I have relied entirely on the investigations conducted properly by the properly established and experienced bodies to conduct those investigations. I find myself persuaded on the face of the material which has been produced by those reports that the complaints of Mr Witheford, and those of Senator Primmer on behalf of Mr Witheford, are without foundation. Therefore, I regret very much the persistence with this types of campaign against officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Witheford has currently an exhaustive-I say quite advisedly exhaustive- investigation being conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into complaints made by Mr Witheford as to the conduct of the police in their interviews of Mr and Mrs Witheford arising from his other complaints about officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is moving, albeit very slowly, towards completion. The laggardliness of progress is no fault of the Ombudsman. It is a matter of providing, as I understand it, maximum opportunity to Mr Witheford to participate in the processes of analysis and investigation. Mr Witheford also has under way a Public Service Board inquiry. In fact, the Board appointed especially a very senior officer full time to exercise the Board's power under the Public Service Act to investigate whether Mr Witheford has been unfairly disadvantaged in his career by officers of the Department. That investigation is in progress at present. Additionally, Mr Witheford, who is a class 11 officer appealed against all provisional departmental promotions to level 1 gazetted in August 1982. The report on those appeals has been recently received. But in the meantime, promotions within the Department to level 1 had been frozen because of the action which Mr Witheford took, and obviously took, for the purpose of impeding the proper processes of the Department's promotions and disrupting the Department. I mention that range of matters which have been undertaken because of the complaints raised by Mr Witheford. A little, quick, simple, arithmetic would suggest that the cost so far of responding to this range of complaints which is constantly being trotted out by Mr Witheford must be somewhere near a six figure amount. This is being borne by the Australian taxpayer. An extraordinarily large amount of money is being spent on these inquiries. I repeat: How much longer does this sort of prosecution have to continue? How many more inquiries will have to be completed before Mr Witheford and Senator Primmer are satisfied? In the meantime, great damage has been done to the morale and confidence of the administration of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A great deal of personal damage is being done to the self-respect and community regard not just for the people from the Department of Foreign Affairs who are directly involved but also to their wives and children. That I find more embarrassing in a sense of projecting my own feelings on the situation they find themselves in than the experiences the party principals are suffering as a result of this. I make two further comments about these matters. Senator Primmer has placed on the Notice Paper of the Senate a long list of questions on notice-I understand as many as 90. They are loaded with quite damaging innuendo. But I think the flavour, the quality and the reliability of these questions can be gauged by just two instances which I draw upon. There is strong innuendo of unfair advantage being provided for a person named Adam Smith who was appointed to the Australian Public Service at first in the Fourth Division and subsequently in the Third Division, working as a clerk in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Adam Smith is the son of Mr R. J. Smith, whom I mentioned earlier, who is a First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Adam Smith was appointed to the Public Service after contesting the normal entry examination. His appointment was made by the Public Service Board. I am told by his father and members of the Department of Foreign Affairs that it was to the surprise of the father that the lad was appointed to the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, put that to one side should there be any doubts about that-I have none and I do not see why I should. I should not have thought that a Fourth Division cum Third Division clerical position is exactly snapping the grand prize of the Public Service from the hands of more worthy or more meritorious applicants. The case of Douglas L. Sparkes is raised in circumstances with a strong implication that Sparkes has been given preferential treatment in obtaining his appointment to the Foreign Affairs Department. Sparkes is the son of Sir Robert Sparkes, President of the Queensland Branch of the National Party of Australia. The implication is clear: People with party affiliations of a particular type, by the nature of those party affiliations or those of their parents, are ineligible for appointment to the Foreign Affairs Department or, perhaps, the very fact that they are there is evidence of privilege. If that is the principle by which these things are to proceed, it is going to be extraordinarily discomfiting for the Whitlam family. Mr Stephen Whitlam is a diplomat in the Australian Foreign Affairs Department and serves this nation well. He served the previous conservative Government well and impartially. As far as I am aware his appointment was never criticised by that previous Government. That is the standard I would aim at maintaining in my administration of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I find the implications, the innuendo of the proposition clearly contained in that question nonsense and disreputable like so much else of what has taken place. I repeat: I know nothing personally of these matters. Like any reasonable and fair minded person, I make certain conclusions when I am presented with a range of reports from inquiries which, as far as I can see, have been properly conducted. I presume that I can make some judgment in relation to Australian Federal Police reports. I believe they are very professionally done. They have been prepared with a very high level of competence. They have ranged over the issues which have been presented as complaints. I believe that they convincingly arrived at conclusion. In every case the conclusions were that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made. There are two such reports. There is the report of the Finance Department. The Ombudsman's report is currently under way. There is the investigation currently under way by the Public Service Board to which a special investigator has been appointed. How much more money of the taxpayers has to be provided to meet the whims and the obsessions of the people who are central to all of these problems? I suggest that the best course of action for both Mr Witheford and Senator Primmer is to cease the initiatives with which they have been proceeding, allow these remaining inquiries to be concluded and concluded properly and allow a balanced and sensible judgment to be made on the basis of those reports. I ask them to take a deep mental breath, allow themselves to relax and recognise that already the reports available seem to be quite conclusive-certainly they are conclusive to a dispassionate outsider like me-as to the substance or otherwise of these allegations. It is a matter of great melancholy for me that people who are reputable servants of this community, who in my dealings have discharged their responsibilities to the community and government regardless of its political colour in a very proper and competent way, have been subjected to this unrelenting campaign. I repeat: I trust it will cease. Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.45) —Before lunch I made reference to the setting of the power of both engines of the aircraft in question at levels that would seriously curtail output, and to the awareness of senior officers of the Department of Transport concerning the practice. I referred also to the finding or conclusion expressed by the Board as to the relationship between the lower engine setting and the accident. I had read from part of the report, to which I shall now refer once again, at page 272. I will quote but one paragraph: 2. The use by Advance Airlines of reduced power on take-off was not, however, an isolated case. The practice was introduced particularly for turbine-powered aircraft as early as 1975. It became widespread throughout the general aviation industry and was not confined to the NSW Region. Senior officers of the Department were aware of rumours of the practice, but took no action to alert Examiners of Airmen to the risks involved or the need to put a stop to it. When in June 1980 the Department decided to act, mention was made of these rumours, but there is little doubt that at that stage senior officers were also aware that the use of reduced power had emerged as a factor in the accident. It is most unfortunate that the Department did not take action at an earlier stage. However, in the final analysis the senior officers were entitled to rely on field officers to bring to their attention any evidence of unauthorised practices. It may be that, concerning that level of the hierarchy, that is a correct statement. I do not wish unnecessarily to criticise senior officers of the Department of Aviation but it seems to me that if senior officers had become aware of rumours of the practice, which had been going on for some time, and it was unsafe, it was their duty to investigate it or cause it to be investigated to ascertain whether it was going on and, if so, what possible safety implications it had. The last matter to which I wish to refer relates to the crew complement of commuter aircraft. The safety record of commuter aircraft in this country is very high. Indeed, the report points out that the safety record of commuter aircraft is very comparable to that of major aircraft. However, the Board's recommendation on the subject of crew complement, which appeared at page 276 of the report, was: The Board recommends, therefore, that a minimum crew of two pilots be required on all aircraft operating under Regulation 203, which are pressurised or have normal cruise speed in excess of 250 knots True Airspeed (TAS) and operate into primary airports. The Minister did not accept that proposal and stated that he would accept a different proposal that had come to him from the Department. He referred, of course, to safety, which is a most important and indeed paramount element. He referred as well to the cost element involved in the proposal which he has implemented. However, without entering into a discussion of the technical merits of the two proposals, and whilst agreeing with him entirely that safety factors should be paramount, I ask that the Minister re-examine the Board's proposal since I would assume that the same information was before the Board as was before the Department whose advice he has accepted. I also ask the Minister to expand on his reasons for adopting the departmental recommendation, in respect of which he said: The Board's proposal, however, suggests different criteria which I do not believe would achieve the safety objective implicit in the criteria adopted by my Department. The Minister was not in a position to go into the details of all of the matters that arose out of the accident but I believe that the industry itself would like to know his reasons for reaching that decision. It would also be very relevant to know the added cost considerations for commuter aircraft that the Minister's decision will have as contrasted, for example, with adopting the Board's proposal. I do not for a moment suggest that cost considerations should override safety considerations but those aspects could well be developed by the Minister with a view to ensuring greater public knowledge of these matters. I conclude by saying that a number of lessons have emerged from this accident but it is sad that we must learn at such high human cost. Question resolved in the affirmative. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Ms Fatin: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before I call the honourable member for Deakin, I remind the House that the honourable gentleman is about to deliver his maiden speech. Accordingly, I know that the usual customs will be observed. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(2.54) —Mr Deputy speaker, I congratulate you on your election to your high office and hope that you will pass on a similar message to the Speaker of the House. In taking this opportunity to speak I would like to point out that I am the first Australian Labor Party member to represent the seat of Deakin. It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand on this side of the House knowing that many party members who have toiled for so many years have for the first time obtained representation in this House. I also feel the responsibility bestowed on me by the electors of Deakin and I am sure that the representation that I will provide them will meet their expectations. At this stage, I would like to thank all of the members of my campaign committee who toiled so hard during the six months leading up to the election. Particularly, I would like to thank Phil Decker, my campaign manager, whose assistance and initiatives during the campaign were invaluable. I would also like to thank my wife and family, whose support was of great value to me. The seat of Deakin, which was created in 1937 and which takes in a large section of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, has always been-until 5 March of this year-a Liberal seat. With the State elections of 1982 the first signs of change became clear and in March of this year the electors of the eastern suburbs showed quite dramatically that they had rejected totally the discredited philosophies of the Liberal Party. Electorates such as Deakin and Chisholm have clearly swung to the policies of the Labor Party. The Labor Party is in government and has already taken steps to begin the process of reconstruction, reconciliation and recovery; but it is important that the enormity of the task that we now face should be clearly understood. Before I expand on these problems and the reasons for them, I would like to make a comment in relation to remarks made by a member of the Opposition during his contribution to the debate on the Address-in-reply. Reference was made to the tradition of the House that maiden speeches should be heard in silence. Because of that tradition, there is also the expectation that the person making the maiden speech will not be unduly provocative. I certainly believe that it is not being provocative to point out the historical facts and the problems that this nation is now burdened with. I also point out that the tradition of hearing a maiden speech in silence means nothing if Opposition members decline to attend the Parliament while the speech is being made. Mind you, it is sometimes very difficult to detect whether they are in attendance or not, because their numbers are so few. I return to the problems that we now face in Government and the reasons for them. The current economic situation we have inherited from the previous Government is the result of its incompetent management of the country over the last seven years. The previous Government was probably the most incompetent that this House has seen since Federation. Over the last seven years more than 20 Ministers were sacked or resigned because of bungling, pure incompetence or a scandal associated with their name or office. On average, there was a change of more than one Minister at each sitting of Parliament over those seven years. That is a disgraceful record in itself. If that had been all, it would have been enough to condemn the previous Government, but those sackings and dismissals were merely an indication of the incompetence and lack of planning which was a hallmark of the previous Government. The previous Government usurped power in 1975 and maintained it with the use of deception, political opportunism and divisiveness. In 1975 it promised jobs for all. We are now faced with more than 700,000 unemployed and an accelerating unemployment rate. In 1975 it indicated that it would take care of young Australians and provide them with a future. We now find youth unemployment has reached more than 25 per cent of those in that age group. To further show its lack of compassion for the youth of Australia, it restricted the unemployment benefit rate for the young to that which applied in 1975; it was not increased until 1982. In 1975 the former Government promised to maintain Medibank. We have since seen numerous revisions of Medibank and revised medical schemes, all of which have been ill-planned and ill-managed, with the result now that medical costs have gone through the roof, health cover has gone beyond the means of low income earners and the medical and health cover area is in a shambles. Fortunately, this Government has moved quickly to correct this shambles. The introduction of Medicare will provide proper health care within the reach of all Australians. In 1975 the former Government promised to care for those on fixed incomes. We now find that the level of fixed incomes has dropped from 25 per cent to 22 per cent of the minimum wage. The burdens of the last seven years were placed on the shoulders of the fixed and low income earners, while the wealthy and privileged groups within Australia had their already light burden eased. Our Government has already set about reversing that trend. What was probably the worst aspect of the previous Government was the way it used divisions within society to promote its political fortunes. In 1975 it almost destroyed democracy within this country in order to gain power. It then turned the community against those who were unable to find jobs and made those who were unable to defend themselves the scapegoats. When it became obvious that community awareness was such that that particular line would no longer work, it turned the blame for the problems of the nation on those who had jobs. During this seven-year period it continually attempted to turn the community against the trade union movement. The continual confrontation approach of the previous Government was aimed at diverting attention away from its incompetence so that it could maintain power and continue to serve its own masters. During the first couple of weeks of this Parliament, the Opposition has attempted to make great play of the wage increases which took place during 1981 and 1982 and our current wage policy which resulted from the National Economic Summit Conference. It has failed to point out that those wage increases during 1981 and 1982 came as a direct result of its own inept wage policies. The Fraser Government caused the abandoning of wage indexation and provided the basis for a wage race. Malcolm Fraser, the previous member for Wannon, argued that market forces should prevail. Having caused the problem, he attempted to blame everybody else for the result. The facts are very plain. The problems, both economic and social, are a direct result of the previous Government's mismanagement. Having made these points, I return to the hopes of the new Labor Government. As I said earlier, the result of the election of March 1983 was a clear indication that people had tired of the Fraser Government. They accepted willingly the concept of reconstruction, reconciliation and recovery that the Labor Government had presented to them. Within the short period that we have been in office, we have already moved significantly to provide the framework for those things to take place. The National Economic Summit has provided, and will continue to provide, the basis from which that recovery will take place. The only group attempting to break down the results of that Summit is the current Opposition. We have already taken steps to raise by $4 the benefits paid to young unemployed , in addition to the normal increase they would receive. We have instituted changes to remove the inherent delay in indexed increases that the previous Government introduced. Regarding recognition of the importance of our national heritage, we have already introduced Bills aimed at protecting South West Tasmania from the desecration which has been and would continue to be done to the region by the Tasmanian Government. I pause here to raise another matter in relation to the representatives of the Opposition. It is with some disappointment that we find that some members of the Opposition have come here not to provide rational or reasoned argument, to attempt to make Australia a better community, but simply to disrupt the running of Parliament. On 3 May the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) indicated his intention and that of his fellow members from Tasmania. In Hansard, he is reported as saying: Even though I could not get kicked out last week, we shall try again. I am sure that all my fellow members on this side of the House are most disconcerted to find that people would come into this House, not with the intention of improving the quality of Australian life, but simply to get themselves kicked out of Parliament. We gave a commitment in relation to South West Tasmania and we will maintain that commitment and ensure the preservation of our national heritage, not just in Tasmania, but right around Australia, so that future generations will be able to enjoy the wonders that nature has presented our unique land. Last week, we saw the first steps taken towards creating the basis for the strong recovery that this Government will provide during the next three years. The mini-Budget has laid the groundwork to overcome the difficulties of the $9.6 billion deficit left us by the previous Government, a deficit which it deliberately kept secret from the Australian public during the recent election campaign. It not only kept it secret but also misled the community by arguing that, indeed, the deficit was lower than it knew it to be. As I have said, the mini-Budget has begun to correct that and we have reduced the deficit by nearly $1 billion. We have instituted an expenditure program of some $500m, which is aimed at providing both immediate short term community jobs and long term stability and additional jobs in the housing area. These initiatives will provide substantial jobs for the future, and, at the same time, we are overcoming one of the most serious problems around Australia, that is the terrible shortage of public housing. The mini-Budget has also focused on removing some of the tax lurks and perks which the previous Government provided for its masters. Our initiatives in relation to security have shown that we have the national security as a main concern. Unlike those members opposite who have shown that they are prepared to abuse the positions that they have and to deny the rights of individuals for the sake of political opportunism, we have set about to ensure, firstly, not only that the security organisations that exist within Australia operate efficiently but also that the rights of all Australians are not trampled upon by those organisations or the political opportunists. We believe that the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies will show the deficiencies that exist in the security organisations and provide us with recommendations which will give us a more efficient and accountable security organisation. It should be pointed out that all of the problems which have existed in the security organisations of Australia have occurred during the administration of the previous Government. The leaking of the articles to the National Times, and other incidents which have been shown by those articles, occurred under the Liberal Administration. It is not us who have been shown to be unfit to take care of this nation's security, rather, it is the Opposition. It is well known that the Australian Labor Party is the party of reform; it is the progressive party which always leads in innovation. It is pleasing to me to note that this Parliament has the largest representation of women since Federation. It is also indicative that all of the women represented in the House of Representatives are of the Labor Party. For the first time since Federation we now have, as Deputy Speakers, two women. I believe that it is an indication that this Party is setting about removing the discrimination which for so long has applied to females in the Australian community. I congratulate both the member for Henty (Mrs Child) and the member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) on their election to the position, and I am sure that they are conscious of being the first two women in it and of their responsibilities not only to the position but also to the cause of equality. I applaud the move by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in indicating that Australia will sign the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Because we are committed to removing discrimination, it does not mean that we are, therefore, going to compel the women who wish to remain at home with their families to join the work force. The Labor Party recognises the many roles that exist in the community and the rights of every individual to choose which role he or she wishes to play. We are simply saying that the ability to choose should be equal for males and females. The first Labor Government in 23 years came to office in 1972. The then Liberals, some of whom are still in this Parliament, refused to accept the decision of the people. They did not allow that Government to operate and achieve that for which it had been elected. They used every obstructionist means within their power to hamper the running of that Government, and in the three year period we saw three elections, in 1972, 1974 and 1975. The 1974 and 1975 elections came as a result of the Liberals' inability to accept the decision of the people. They had acquired the born-to-rule syndrome. It has become apparent, even in the few weeks of this Parliament, that there are some in the ranks of the Opposition who still have that belief. It is thankful that their numbers are so diminished that they will not be able to disrupt as they did during the Whitlam Government. It is a damning insight to the born-to-rule syndrome that from December 1972 to March 1983, Australia has been through six elections all of which were brought about by the obstructionist political opportunism of the Liberal-National Party coalition. Since 1972 we have had an election every one year and nine months. It is no wonder that Australia is in the mess that it is in when we find that no government has run for the full term of three years; in fact, governments have barely run for half of that period. Typical of that obstructionism, the Federal Liberal Party Opposition used the recent Australian Constitutional Convention to throw out years of joint work by previous Labor and Liberal Party Federal parliamentarians in order to gain what they saw as some political advantage. In finishing off, Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that the Labor Government is here to stay. We intend to carry out reforms, and we shall not tolerate obstructionism from the Opposition. In fact, we hope that the Opposition will change the stance that it has held for the last 11 years and begin to provide constructive opposition to the Government. The Hawkespeak, to use a term that is being used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), makes a lot more sense that the Peacock prattle. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.10) —I congratulate the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) on his maiden speech. However, I offer him a word of advice. I warn him not to tangle with the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). The honourable member for Franklin comes here strongly to defend his constituents' rights, and he does so most capably and fearlessly under all governments and against all opposition to what he sees as being in the best interests of his constituents and the people of Tasmania. Perhaps he should take a bow. The administration of the current Government commenced, I believe, with the accord which was struck by the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. The accord, which was followed by the election, with the result that the current Government was elected, was succeeded by the National Economic Summit Conference, the Governor-General's Speech, and finally, the recent mini- Budget. I will trace through the progress of policy development and implementation by the current Government, because some factors are emerging which must be causing some concern to sections of the community. The key factor of the accord which was not addressed by those taking part in the discussions was wages. Every other area of government activity and policy was mentioned in the document published by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party. For instance, the proposal that migrant intake be reduced was fully explored, and we have seen the implementation by the current Government of the agreement entered into in the accord to reduce the number of migrants entering Australia. The Summit Conference, significantly enough, did not deal with the sensitive areas that had been fully agreed by the ALP and the union movement. These two groups are interlocked, and one never knows whether it is the Labor Party speaking in this chamber or the union movement. One can never be sure which wing of the Australian Labor Party is giving vent to opinion. However, the accord did not come to grips with what needs to be a policy for wages and permanent wage settlements. There was a stated generalised agreement about seeking full indexation, when it could be achieved. But nothing in the 37- page document sought to establish a permanent wages policy for the Australian Labor Party or, taking the need for such a policy, consider the impact that wages have had on the economy, particularly in the loss of employment that has occurred due to wage claims and wage settlements over the last two years. Mr Groom —Frank Crean. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member mentions a former Treasurer, Mr Frank Crean, who said that one man's pay rise is another man's job. That has been amply demonstrated by wage claims and wage settlements over the last two years. But the accord did not deal with that sensitive matter. There was no way in which the ALP tried to come to grips with what is the most difficult area of administration for it in government. I think it is generally agreed that there has been a significant growth in real wages over the last two years which the country will not be able to afford unless the current wage pause continues. There is no mention of the wage pause in the accord between the Australian Labor Party and the union movement. These are sensitive areas. I give no credit to either of those bodies for failing to come to grips with what is a difficult problem. They have skated around it. Like many policy statements, the accord presented the positive elements but failed to deal with the difficulties. The production of the accord was in fact a plank of the Labor Party's platform at the last election. The claim was made: 'We are as one. We have agreed on all areas and we will move forward together, both the government and the unions'. It would have been responsible at that stage thoroughly to convince the Australian people of the veracity of that claim by coming forward with an effective wage policy signed and agreed to by all elements of the union movement-not just a group of representatives of the ACTU, but in fact representatives right down to branch secretaries and even job delegates. I am afraid that in Australia today one has to get down to that level before one can accept that there is agreement or a binding commitment. Following the accord we had the National Economic Summit Conference, a process adopted by the Government to raise issues and give information and to make sure that the accord was generally accepted by so-called representatives of the Australian community. I find it distressing that the Opposition was not invited because we represent almost half the Australian community. I was not aware of a special Tasmanian representative being there to speak for the people of Tasmania in such a way that it could be said that there is an understanding of Federal issues in the House. There were no representatives of the people of New South Wales. Instead, there was a select group of people, picked by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-100 people purporting to represent the views of Australians. I cannot really subscribe to that process as being a representative one. It is a third hand or fourth hand elective process. A group of individuals is selected and from that group people are appointed to a national body within their organisations. From that national group people were then selected by the Prime Minister to sit in this chamber, as representatives of the Australian people- that is what the Prime Minister called them-and discuss what they wanted done for the Australian community. In fact it was not a representative process, as is the case in respect of this chamber. There was then a discussion on how the accord previously agreed to could be put into place. The Summit issued a communique which evidently means all things to all people because I have noticed both business and union representatives saying: 'We went in there and we stuck to our line. We did not give an inch'. Yet the communique claims to speak for all these disparate views, none of which claimed to have achieved concensus. None of the representatives have claimed that they have given an inch or modified their outlook, but this document claims to represent their views in a spirit of reconciliation and consensus. Of course the people who attended the Summit Conference went back to their constituent bodies and said: 'We have been up to Canberra and told them what we want'. In reality they were allowed to deliver a document and make a 10 minute speech. That process has removed any prospect of effective consultations on economic matters because the Government is not going to enter into Budget consultations. Previously various groups representing interests within the community consulted for over an hour or two with the Cabinet and were questioned and queried on the attitudes and the policies they thought the Government should develop. So there has been a complete change in the process, one that has some element of hope, but on the other hand one which has denied parliamentary discussion and has denied effective consultations at length and in depth-a process which sought to get agreement on an accord previously agreed to by this Government. In Question Time today the Prime Minister indicated what I believe to be his concern about how things were not going quite as well as they could be for the Government. I think he is concerned about the prospects for the future and about some of the decisions that have been taken. Things started to drift and go off the rails when the selective consultative process was established; a process whereby an accord was reached with a section of the community. Others were selected to endorse that accord. It was a selective process all the way through. So the Government finished up with a group of people who happen to agree with its outlook. That will not produce results which will attract the support, the attention and the concensus of the Australian community. The Australian Labor Party selected people who could be convinced to adopt its point of view. The problems of wages and long term wage policies have not been settled. That is one of the key factors that at this point has not been dealt with. Both the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Prime Minister have made statements in the chamber about what they expect to occur for the rest of the year. They have no possible way of knowing whether what they want will be delivered. I notice that Mr Sharkey of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia said: 'Well, the accord was one thing but the boss 's Summit was something different'. I think that is the attitude of many people in the union movement, despite the commitment given by their representatives at the Summit. On the other hand concern was expressed by employers that there should be a continuing wage pause to allow Australia to catch its breath for a period of 12 months. Decisions previously made and wage settlements agreed to have been far in advance of inflation. They have made Australia uncompetitive on world markets and have made goods produced overseas even more attractive to the Australian consumer. We have become uncompetitive but the wage pause is starting to have its effect. Perhaps with some good luck, but certainly not by good management, we might extend the wage pause on a fairly reasonable basis for a period of nine months. It appears at this stage that the wage pause will hold only for six months. Certainly two significant State Governments-New South Wales and South Australia-have committed themselves for only a six-month period. Other States want a 12-month wage pause. I believe that States such as Tasmania and Queensland will seek to retain that wage pause. By doing so I believe that they will lift their prospects to such a significant level that they will prosper. There will be an increased difference between the States due to this process. What honourable members opposite fail to recognise is that the wage pause is one of the key factors in preserving jobs and holding people in positions they currently possess. A dramatic increase in wages will ensure a continuation of disemployment. More people will be put out of work. The advantage of the wages pause is that it will preserve jobs. All Australian workers should be prepared to say: 'We will make this tiny sacrifice with our wages to ensure that our mates keep their jobs'. The sacrifices being asked of Australians at the moment, however, is that they should give up prospects of owning their own homes, of saving for their retirement or of preparing their superannuation for retirement. These are the savings that are being asked of them. Yet, the real savings in the work place are obvious and have been agreed to by all economic commentators and everyone who has any understanding of the difficulties facing Australia today. Yet all we hear is inane giggles from honourable members on the Government side. I think that some honourable members on the Government side display an unbelievable lack of understanding when we come to deal with these important issues. A survey was conducted early this year of significant financial institutions and economists to try to gather some of the key factors for the future economic development of Australia. It indicated that the expectation for the 12 months of 1983 was that all economists and financial institutions expected a drop in domestic demand, a drop in farm gross domestic product-that is obvious because of the drought-an increase for the 12 months of 0.2 per cent in non-farm gross domestic product, and in fact, a drop of gross domestic demand by 0.5 per cent. They expected the country to go backwards during 1983. They predicted that prices would increase at a rate of around 9 per cent, but that unemployment would continue to remain very high during all of 1983 at 802,000. This survey of all expert groups found that interest rates were not expected to move downwards. They predicted the deficit and the money supply would remain at about the level predicted in the previous Budget. Australia's place in the world of international markets is interesting. All experts agreed that the value of the Australian dollar would hold at about its current rate and, depending on domestic policies, it could drop slightly. That was the result of the survey of experts. Difficult problems will have to be resolved by this nation. The Opposition came into this place with a great deal of good will and willingness to work constructively for the resolution of those problems. The mini-Budget process has made it more difficult for the Government to gain the Opposition support. Indeed , some of the decisions and announcements by the Prime Minister have been most difficult, not only for the Opposition to accept, but also for the whole of the Australian community to accept. The statements made by the Prime Minister are provocative. On the Mike Walsh Show last year Mr Hawke said: People have been able to test me as to whether I am honest, whether I say what I mean and adhere to what I say. In the Labor Party policy speech he said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Again, in his policy speech he said: Immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers. Three days after he was elected he said: We will have to reconsider the whole thing. Following the National Economic Summit Conference he blamed the Summit for forcing him not to give tax cuts. He went to the Summit knowing he had no capacity to make tax cuts. These similar areas offer real difficulty in moving forward in a constructive way. He immediately revoked his promise to reduce income tax and his promise to retain the tax rebate for home loan payments. That has been wiped by the mini-Budget. He promised to introduce a First Home Owners Assistance Scheme as an option to the existing Home Deposit Assistance Scheme which will be retained. I find it very difficult when I look at list after list and item after item of broken promises. It is not possible. The latest fiasco was with the superannuation scheme. Commitments were given before and after the election and after the Summit that no changes would be made. In his speech to the electors of Wills following his election, the Prime Minister said: And I give you the pledge that in respect of this electorate Wills-you have now a representative in the person of the Prime Minister of the country-I will assure you, the electorate of Wills, that I won't let you down . . . Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Presentation to Governor-General Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have ascertained that his Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply at Government House at 5 p.m. this afternoon. I should be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the Address. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.31) —The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was brought into existence for the purposes of giving effect to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was upheld in the High Court of Australia last year when a challenge arose concerning it. It was upheld in Koowarta's case. A consequence of that decision, of course, was that if the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 evinced an intention to cover the field then, by reason of the operation of section 109 of the Constitution, other legislation would be rendered invalid. On 19 May 1983 the High Court of Australia delivered judgment in a case which had been heard by the Chief Justice and Justices Mason, Murphy, Wilson and Brennan. That was in the case of Viskauskas and Niland. In that judgment it was held that, by reason of the operation of section 109, certain provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 of New South Wales were invalid. The particularity of those provisions is of no importance here. What is, of course, important is that the result of the decision of the High Court, which the High Court made in the interpretation of the Constitution, was that State legislation was rendered invalid or might be rendered invalid. Therefore, the present Bill which the Opposition supports has been introduced into this House. The purpose of the Bill has been stated in the second reading speech by the Minister for Trade (Mr Bowen). He concluded his second reading speech by saying: In New South Wales there were a large number of complaints in various stages of investigation when the Court decision was announced. The Bill has been drafted in such a way as to allow those cases to continue under the State legislation. As it will be possible in many cases for a person to pursue a remedy under either Commonwealth or State law, provisions have been included to prevent a person from taking action under both laws in respect of the same matter and also to prevent the difficulty presented by double penalties. The Bill is short, as indeed was the second reading speech. It will be seen that by the operation of the Bill it is intended that State and Territory laws which are compatible with the Racial Discrimination Act should remain in force and effect. Proposed new section 6A (2) provides: Where- (a) a law of a State or Territory that furthers the objects of the Convention deals with a matter dealt with by this Act; and (b) a person has, whether before or after the commencement of this section, made a complaint, instituted a proceeding or taken any other action under that law in respect of an act or omission in respect of which he would, but for this sub-section, have been entitled to make a complaint under this Act, the person shall be deemed never to have been, and is not, entitled to make a complaint or institute a proceeding under this Act in respect of that act or omission and any proceedings pending under this Act at the commencement of this section in respect of such a compalint made before that commencement are, by force of this sub-section, terminated. Effectively what that means very simply is this: If one makes a complaint under the law of a State or Territory one is not entitled to take proceedings under the Act itself. Of course, there will be cases where, as the Minister pointed out, it will be open for a person who claims to be affected by an act which is discriminatory of him on the grounds of race to take action under either one or other of the Acts. That will be a matter for the individual to decide, although it does promote some degree of forum shopping which is unavoidable. This was pointed out by the High Court. In contrasting the two Acts-that is, the New South Wales Act and the Commonwealth Act-it said: The consequences provided by the respective Acts for breaches of the sections, although in some respects similar, are not the same. Under the Commonwealth Act the powers to make orders against a person who has committed an act of discrimination are vested in a court, in proceedings which can only be instituted upon a certificate . . . Under the State Act, the powers are entrusted to a tribunal. Under the Commonwealth Act the court may award damages in respect of . . . loss of dignity, humiliation and injury to feelings, and no limit is provided to the amount of damages that may be awarded. Under the State Act the damages that may be awarded are 'for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the respondent's conduct'-- That is to say, the person who is the subject of the complaint- and there is a pecuniary limit. On the face of things the Commonwealth Act, as contrasted to the New South Wales Government, does provide a higher and wider range of remedies to persons who claim to be injured. Despite the problem of forum shopping which will no doubt arise I agree that the amendment which is proposed is a necessary and, I hope, useful one. I hope it will have the effect that it is intended to have. I believe all of us in this House oppose racial discrimination. It will probably never be eliminated but it is up to us to do whatever we can to make sure that so far as is possible by laws passed in this House racial discrimination, if not eliminated at all levels, will be made a very costly exercise for those who offend. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(3.40) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) when, for a change, I am in agreement with him. He has dealt with many of the legal provisions of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill. It is quite clear that the amendment has arisen partly because when the Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Act came into place there was considerable recalcitrance by some State governments regarding any anti- discrimination legislation being placed on the books. Considerable progress has been made in a variety of States regarding this matter. There has been a problem in that the overlap has resulted in a challenge in the High Court of Australia. Therefore, it is necessary for us to pass a further amendment to the Act in order to ensure that where there is harmony in principles between State and Commonwealth racial discrimination Acts people can take action under both Acts. We must have a situation in which good and morally just State legislation in these matters is not destroyed or overridden. The section which is to be amended in the original Act is section 6A. It will provide that nothing in this legislation renders Australia or a State liable to be prosecuted for an offence. As I said, the amendments will now involve the harmonising of these two sets of measures in the States. I want to address myself more generally as to why anti- discrimination legislation of this kind is absolutely essential. One cannot go past what has been stated in the Schedule to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975; that is, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was passed by the United Nations. The first paragraph is worth repeating. It states: Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action, in co- operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, The second paragraph, which is important, states: Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin, This passage is especially topical in Australia at present: Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere. Those declarations are worth repeating because although there is agreement on all sides of this House about the abhorrence of racial discrimination, individuals and groups in this community are still trying to stir up racial and ethnic differences on the basis of doctrines of superiority-doctrines which can be described only as obnoxious and ignorant. In particular, with the economic crisis in Australia, there are attempts to blame various minority groups, be they Asians, southern Europeans, Middle Eastern, Latin American or even the Australian Aborigines. Particular groups are blamed for the problems of the economic situation. I am sure that all honourable members on both sides of the House abhor this kind of logic. I am sure that they do not agree that migrants to this country, Asian refugees or any other ethnic group in this country, should be treated differently from the way in which the rest of the community is treated. The problems within the community are structural in character and of an economic nature. I will not go into the causes of those problems in this speech because I have done so in many others. It is intolerable that we have people preaching the gospel of hatred, putting one group against another, in this community. The Racial Discrimination Act is an excellent Act. What we need are better modes of enforcement of the Act against groups and individuals who resort to these sorts of tactics. It is time for more action to ensure that the principles and the spirit of the Act are carried out. If they are not, we will have groups whose principles are based on the gospel of hatred and those groups and individuals will start to have an insidious influence within the community. We may find that, instead of a bringing together of all Australians-to use a phrase that has been used recently-to deal with the problems of this nation which need to be dealt with by the Government, some people will try to take the opposite approach and act in a negative and derogatory fashion. It is in this sense that I support the Bill. The Government will endorse and assist with anything that any State government is prepared to do to assist in the spirit of co-operation, to destroy completely racial discrimination and to promote harmony within a multicultural community. In that sense this Bill is a positive measure because it endorses and assists in that general process. On the other hand, I make it clear that nothing in the new amendments will change our resolve in relation to those State governments which have refused to introduce racial discrimination and which implicitly, if not explicitly, continue to have racist practices. I refer to their attitudes towards the Aboriginal people. Unfortunately some State governments have not been prepared to introduce legislation to carry out the principles of the Federal Racial Discrimination Act in their States. In fact, they have gone further and tried to undermine the implementation of that Act. We recall all of the problems which the former Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby, had with the Premier of Queensland in trying to obtain some agreement on these matters-through dialogue; not through the use of any punitive powers-but who increasingly found himself frustrated. The very validity of the Act was challenged by certain people. It is disgraceful that anyone in public office should feel entitled to challenge the validity of an Act which tries to encourage harmony and equality in our community and which gives every Australian, irrespective of race or culture, a fair go. In conclusion, I applaud the quick action being taken by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) to ensure that we have progress and continuity in the long campaign to eradicate racial prejudice and discrimination in this country. Their actions are to be applauded in that they will allow us to continue with our program and to ensure that all State governments will have this progressive legislation and all persons who wish to take action under either State or Federal legislation will be able to do so. I end with a plea that by the time of the next parliament we will be able to say that every State government has commensurate legislation in the area of racial discrimination. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.53) —We are resuming the second reading debate on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. Its purpose is to reintroduce income tests on pensions of people over 70 years of age. The legislation will affect some 220,000 elderly people in their seventies, eighties , nineties or more. Of these 220,000 people, some 6,000 will have service pensions and they will be affected by this legislation. I refer to those people who currently enjoy income test-free age and service pensions. At the moment 220 ,000 people will come into the net of this legislation. In 1983-84 the amount taken from those elderly people will be $167m, so we are talking about a fairly large sum of money and therefore about something of great seriousness to our elderly citizens. Mr Ruddock —Which old people are these? Mr CARLTON —I say to the honourable member for Dundas that these old people are over 70 and currently enjoy a smallish old age pension free of a means test. Prior to the election the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that they would not touch or change these pensions. But, as we have come to expect with this Government, it has broken its promise to these elderly people and from November will impose a means test on those 220,000 people. This morning at Question Time we had an indication of the Prime Minister's philosophy on election promises. He was asked about a list of some 15 or so promises that had clearly been broken since the election. He indicated basically that promises were things that came out during election campaigns. They were all subject to what the Australian Labor Party found when it got into office. In keeping with his no doubt high expectations, he came in to office but found that he did not have the wherewithal, once he won office on the basis of those promises, to meet them. Therefore they became inoperative. This is one aspect of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has termed Hawkespeak. Hawkespeak is the form of address used by the Prime Minister when he is making firm and honest commitments. They are commitments made by a person of integrity, as opposed to the kind of commitments made by people on the other side of the House -namley, us. We are always lying and deceitful. If promises are made by the master of Hawkespeak, they are promises which are perfectly honourable and absolutely intended right up the point at which they are to be delivered, at which time there is some profound excuse as to why they are inoperative. Mr Steele Hall —They have an inbuilt deniability. Mr CARLTON —They have an inbuilt deniability, as my friend the honourable member for Boothby quite rightly says. In principle the Opposition does not oppose this measure because we believe in giving support to those most in need. Therefore, we are not in principle opposed to the income testing of age pensions. What we are concerned about is that elderly people-who are those least able to change their circumstances-perhaps because of illness or just increasing debility through age and certainly an incapacity to change their earning circumstances will be frightened by any material change of this kind forced upon them. It certainly would have been a much more humane approach to apply this measure to those who turn 70 years of age from the day of the announcement. That might have been a way of doing it which would not have disturbed the individual arrangements of a number of people who are really quite elderly. In fact, many of them would be relying on arrangements set up over a long period for their accommodation either at home, in rental accommodation or in nursing homes for which a supplement might have to be paid in order for them to stay there. A large proportion of these 220,000 people would be well into their eighties- some of them into their nineties-and would be affected by inflation. Presumably, they would have discussed with their relatives at earlier times the kinds of financial arrangements they hoped would provide them with reasonable security in their old age. My belief is that in looking for ways and means of reducing public expenditure and directing assistance to those who are in most need the Government might have considered the particular plight of these elderly people, many of whom are frail aged, and said that the measures would not apply almost retrospectively, as it were, but would apply to those who turn the age of 70 years after the date of announcement. The Opposition certainly believes that that would have been a more civilised thing to do. These people, when listening to the policy speech of the Prime Minister would have felt quite secure with the financial arrangements that they had set up. They would have relied on his assurance that he had no intention of disturbing our oldest citizens. However, following the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week their lives are sorely affected. Many of them will be in a state of considerable anxiety. Some will be able to speak with relatives and friends; others will be in much more lonely circumstances and no doubt as November approaches many will be in great distress. If that is the case, that will be one of the unfortunate consequences of the continuing march of this Government's in breaking its promises. These elderly people will join those who are in a situation of great uncertainty over their superannuation arrangements. Because of the new arrangements for the taxing of lump sum superannuation payments, partly announced by the Treasurer last week, nobody knows exactly what arrangements will apply in their old age. That uncertainty is just another aspect of what has happened and, of course, it is another example of a promise clearly given in the election campaign, clearly repeated during the National Economic Summit Conference, clearly made in private meetings with members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and equally clearly broken last Thursday night. Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the principle of this measure-it will not vote against the second reading of the Bill-it draws attention to its sudden death nature. The Opposition would have wished to have it phased in by applying it to those who turn 70 years of age after the date of announcement. That would have been effective over a reasonable period and it would have been worth the difference in money recouped to provide those elderly citizens with the peace of mind which I believe they have earned-particularly those getting into greater old age, the frail and the sick. Therefore I move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time, as follows: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that it disadvantages one of the most vulnerable sections of our community and fails to address the vital question of equity for all social security beneficiaries'. This measure is one of the ad hoc shopping list arrangements of the Treasurer's economic statement. It does seem that such a shopping list-one might even call it a laundry list-has been prepared by a committee of the Cabinet without proper discussions with all Ministers. I believe that Ministers were present for only short periods of the examination of this legislation, and the committee picked items off the shopping list without considering their full consequences. The whole of the Treasurer's statement reads like that-there is a bit from here and a bit from there. Some of the measures, such as that which affects the livelihood of very old citizens, have been taken without regard to the general picture of superannuation arrangements, pensions, housing support and the various other social security measures which really ought to be considered as a consistent and total framework. But the Government has decided not to do that. It decided to rush in, in an unfortunate fashion, in the same way that it has rushed into the question of lump sum superannuation payments. Perhaps the income test affects more citizens than the Government realised. The fact that in November some 220, 000 of our oldest citizens will be in a state of distress and difficulty because of this measure is something which did not occur to the cost cutters of the Cabinet committee. Of course the measure was subsequently endorsed by the full Cabinet with the full approval of the Prime Minister, who in only February of this year so solemnly promised not to do this very thing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Steele Hall —I second the amendment. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(4.4) —I listened with great interest to the words of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I am sorry that I must differ to a certain degree. I oppose this legislation absolutely. I have given it a lot of thought and I consider that it is against every Liberal principle that I believe in. The pensioners have been let down. They were told a certain thing- Dr Blewett —Are you supporting the amendment? Mr GOODLUCK —No, I am not supporting the amendment. I am opposing the Bill absolutely. I believe that a promise has been broken. It is not so much the money that I am concerned about; it is the fact that the Government has taken a certain section of the community and has treated it in a particular way when it could have taken a different direction. The Government has singled out the elderly. We hear a lot about the pensions received by people like Sir William McMahon. That seems to be the example that is used. I am not talking about money ; I am talking about the principle of introducing legislation which will effect 70-year-old people who can ill afford to be affected in this way. Nothing is taken into consideration. Some elderly people may be living in and looking after their own homes; others may be living in welfare housing. However, this is not taken into consideration at all. The legislation will be applied right across the board. The Government says: 'Bang, we will get stuck into the old age pensioners. We will use this legislation first of all. We will introduce a means test in respect of people over 70 years of age'. I believe that the legislation is a mistake. I believe that my own party also has made a mistake; it should oppose the legislation. We should not be mucking around moving amendments and so on. We should oppose the legislation completely. I oppose it completely and I hope that a few of my colleagues will do the same. If we do not start standing up to these sort of things the crowd across the way will move into other areas. The Government is trying to even out the distribution of wealth. It is trying to say to a certain section of the community: 'Look, you are getting too much; we want others to have the same too'. I have dealt with a lot of elderly people in the seven years I have been in this place. They do not understand the implications of means tests. They start to worry when anything new is put forward. When one gets to the age of 70 everything is forgotten, in the sense that one worries about every single cent that one gets. One worries about certain moves by governments which seem to think that the elderly of this nation understand what they are talking about. I can assure honourable members that some elderly people do not understand. Only yesterday the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) presented a report which contained certain statistics on the elderly in the nation. From memory I think the report said that the number of women over 65 years of age will treble by the year 2021. The fact is that a lot of elderly widows are left to look after their own home. If, perchance, their husband was able to support them with a pension they should get any additional amount. Forget about the McMahons and others who get large amounts. They are in the minority. There are very few of them. However, they are used as the example all the time and the other people who have been careful all their lives are forgotten. I am afraid that the Labor Party has introduced this legislation so as to level out the distribution of income. Honourable members opposite talk about equity; they talk about levelling out income. Look, there are two types of pensioners. Mr Kerin —Yes, males and females. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I would expect that remark from the Minister. Mr McVeigh —It is terrible to say that. Mr GOODLUCK —That is all right. I will carry on. I have a great respect for the elderly of this country. Many elderly people in this country, some through bad luck and misfortune, are living in welfare housing and are to a degree dependent on the State. Those people are being supported. There are other pensioners who love to stay in their own homes. They love to look after their own homes and love to pay the maintenance and so on for the privilege of staying where they want to stay. They also should be helped and supported. Mr McVeigh —You are helping them. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I am. I have a lot of respect for the elderly. This attack should not be made on them. Honourable members opposite talk about equity. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the Government. What about the 17 1/2 per cent loading for public servants? Would it not be a better idea to attack that first of all rather than attack the vulnerable people in our community, the 70- year olds? I think that the Government's legislation is a mistake. I think the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) supports me fully on this. I think he believes, as I do, that members of the Opposition should fight this legislation right to the very end. We should not give the Government the opportunity to pass this legislation because it is the start, the first foot in the door. One never knows what will happen later on. As I have pointed out, the number of elderly people over the age of 65 will treble by the year 2021. Although there will be problems in the future the Government introduces this sort of legislation. The Government cannot be serious about the elderly of this country. Honourable members opposite think that by smiling they can whitewash this matter. However, there is going to be a backlash . Elderly people in all parts of Australia are starting to complain and write letters. Every paper in this country has written about this matter. These people who the Government seems to think are going to be affected by this legislation are not the real rich. They are just ordinary people who have saved a bit. Surely to goodness in this country we should encourage people to be careful and try to get a little extra. I do not agree with the principle that we should all be the same, that people aged 70 should all be treated the same irrespective of whether they have worked harder than someone else. I violently oppose this legislation. The Government has engaged in sheer hyprocrisy. There was a hue and cry when Sir Phillip Lynch talked about means testing pensions. What about the half yearly indexation of pensions? The then Opposition opposed everything we said about pensions. I am afraid we have to face up to the fact that we will stay in opposition if we do not fight some of the things that the Government is trying to introduce. We should fight a lot harder than we are. Honourable members opposite were against everything we said about pensions when we were in government. Some of the pensioner unions of Australia also should be ashamed of themselves. They were against everything we said when we were in government. They have gone very quiet now on this issue. Yet, turn the clock around: When we decided to introduce this sort of legislation we were a monstrous government; Fraser was this and Fraser was that. But all of a sudden Mr Hawke is forgotten. He is still a good fellow even though he is trying to introduce legislation that honourable members opposite fought against when we were in government. I ask members of the Opposition to fight these sorts of measures because that is the only way we will get back into government. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.12) —I found it very illuminating to hear the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I do not remember him talking very often about pensions in the past two and a half years in which I have been a member of this place. In fact, during that period of two and half years the real level of pensions dropped. Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order. I think that that remark should be withdrawn because it is completely untrue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point order. Mr Goodluck —But if- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is point of order. The honourable member has expressed a view. It is not the prerogative of the Chair to judge the question. There is no point of order. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. The honourable member for La Trobe made very disparaging remarks about the little Australian battler and he should be asked to withdraw them because everyone knows that he is a great fighter for pensioners. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr MILTON —It is not surprising that I cannot remember what the honourable member for Franklin had to say because the level of pensions dropped considerably during the past two and a half years and what did he do about that? In supporting the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 I am supporting a measure which is aimed at ensuring that welfare funds are distributed equitably and are available to those pensioners who are most in need . Under the terms of this Bill, pensioners aged 70 years and over will no longer be eligible for age and service pensions free of an income test if, in the case of a single pensioner, their income is over $200 per week or, in the case of a married couple, the combined income is more than $333 per week. Pensions will continue to be paid above those rates but will be reduced by $1 for each $2 in excess. This will mean that the pension will no longer be payable to a single person whose income reaches $303 per week or a married couple whose combined income reaches $505 per week. Very few of such pensioners can be classified as needy and those who may be in financial difficulties through actual illness or other extenuating circumstances can turn to other means of welfare assistance. It is argued that people who have paid taxes all their lives should be entitled to a pension. I cannot accept that argument because taxes are used by governments as a means of redistributing the wealth of the community from the haves to the have nots. If the pension is to be paid to all regardless of income it must follow that higher taxes will be levied in order to pay for the total pension outlay, or some other essential government service such as education or health must be reduced. There was no doubt that the Federal Government could not continue to provide pensions to all people over the age of 70 years. This would involve some $300m in additional pension payments-money which could be redistributed to pensioners who are in need and require an increase in the base levels of their pension. The population includes a rapidly increasing proportion of aged people. The number of people over 65 years is expected to increase 58 per cent in the 20 years to 1991 while the age group under 14 years will remain virtually static in number. The significance of our aging population is borne out by the fact that, whereas in 1972 only 54.7 per cent of people of pensionable age received the pension, by 1978 the proportion had grown to 78.2 per cent. Mr Hodgman —Doesn't it matter to you that you have broken a promise? Mr MILTON —The honourable member talks about broken promises! What about all the promises broken over the last seven years by the Government which he supported? He ought not to talk to me about broken promises. The previous Government did nothing in the face of the growing cost of the social welfare budget. The Australian Labor Party is committed to the introduction of a national superannuation scheme and all the changes which are being proposed in the areas of both superannuation and pensions are made with the aim of providing all retired people with an income which will enable them to retire in security and comfort. The Fraser Government had seven years in which to do something about a national superannuation scheme but it did nothing. In fact, it took measures which reduced the age pension from 24 per cent of average weekly earnings to a low of 21 per cent. This was the Government which put the people of Australia in the worst economic situation since the great slump of the 1930s. In such circumstances it was essential that the present Government take measures to arrest the decline in the economy and to provide an economic climate of job creation. The purpose of the recent economic statement, of which the present changes to the over-70 income test were a part, was designed to provide funds for job creation schemes. The long term savings as a result of the proposals indicated in the economic statement will amount to $2,000m. It represents the first step by the new Government to redistribute the wealth of this nation in favour of the have-nots of our society. The previous Government had no sympathy for, or understanding of, the impossible situation in which such people found themselves when, for instance, trying to live in rental accommodation on the pension or on the dole. It is interesting to note that a proposed national superannuation scheme, which was presented in a report to the Parliament by the Whitlam Government, was shelved by the Fraser Government. It was a two tiered scheme. The first tier consisted of benefits to be supported by the ordinary revenue resources of the Commonwealth Government. The second comprised the additional benefits that would be available as a result of contributions. The primary objective of the scheme was, to quote the report: To enhance the economic security and living standards of the aged. In the pursuit of this objective we are constrained by the need to avoid imposing unrealistic burdens upon the Australian economy and public finance. In these terms one can see the direction in which the Government-as the rightful heir of the Whitlam Government, which set in train so many far-reaching reforms- is leading in relation to the Bill before us. The Government must avoid imposing unrealistic burdens upon Australians. In view of the complete irresponsibility of the previous Government in shelving the report of the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry I want to say more about it. The basic national superannuation pension proposed in the report had three components. One was a universal pension. The second was a purchased pension. The third was supplementation. The universal pension was to be identical for all pensioners and to equal 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The purchased pension was to depend upon past contributions and would therefore differ as between pensioners. Supplementation was to be paid on a tapered basis to all persons with purchased pensions below 40 per cent of the universal pension, and was to ensure a minimum total pension equal to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. Ancillary benefits were also proposed in relation to dependent children, pensioners living alone, or dependent spouses who were below the age of 65 years . The payment of certain death benefits was also envisaged. The liability to pay contributions began at 19 years of age and ended at 63 years of age. Contributions amounted to 5 per cent of income, above the exempted amount of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings, and were to be collected with income tax. It was, of course, clear that whilst the recommended scheme would provide for most people incomes sufficient to support living standards similar to those enjoyed before retirement, it would not do so for people with relatively high pre-retirement incomes. Much higher rates of contribution would have been necessary to preserve real income levels in such cases. The problem presented by having a more ambitious scheme has a twofold aspect. First, it represents the transfer of spending power from the economically active to retired people. Secondly, it involves what one might call the compulsory deferment of spending by those who pay taxes or contributions during their working lives but receive pensions later in life. Either aspect means that the goal of higher pensions must be related to a reduction of living standards for non-pensioners. As the report indicated, there will always be people who attract a low priority to their present living standards and support a generous provision for the aged. However, others such as young wage earners with large families, often cannot afford, and certainly begrudge, a loss of current income. A national superannuation scheme that has universal application should attempt to reach a compromise between those two conflicting views. It is in the light of such an objective analysis that the Bill before us has been framed. The previous Government had washed its hands of any attempts to provide a proper retirement pension. In fact, it was gradually reducing the real level of existing pensions. It is important to remember that the contributions to the national superannuation scheme, as proposed by the Whitlam Government committee, was not a form of disguised taxation, but was designed to yield to contributors benefits which would be equitably related to the amounts collected. There is no doubt that the present non-contributory flat rate pension does not offer satisfactory provision for the aged and for repatriation beneficiaries such as accord with reasonable expectations under a national superannuation scheme. Mr Goodluck —And introduce a means test for 70-year-olds! Mr MILTON —I would like to hear why the honourable member's Government did not take it up. The provisions of the Bill should be fully supported on both sides of the House, as leading towards attainment of the aim of providing an equitable system of retirement incomes for those in greatest need. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.23) —The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill before us seeks to reduce spending in an area where it is argued by the Government that those who are affected are best able to carry the burden. I refer to pensioners who have attained the age of 70 years and have taxable non -pension income exceeding $200 a week, if single, and $333 a week if married. Upon the passage of this legislation such people will have the pension payment that they now enjoy either reduced substantially or discontinued. Some 6,000 of these people, as a result of giving a number of their more youthful and productive years to the defence of their country, also receive a service pension . That pension was far from generous in that, due to decisions of the Fraser Government, it ceased to be subject to automatic indexation in 1978 and has not increased, in money terms, since. Australia's welfare Bill is certainly the greatest single burden that is placed upon the Australian taxpayer. The social security component of the welfare Bill represents by far the greatest proportion of Commonwealth expenditure on welfare . Reference to the 1982-83 Budget Estimates indicates that social security expenditure totals approximately $12 billion, or some 26.4 per cent of outlays. Against a background of declining revenue, the figure has now blown out. Speaking in less macro terms, such an expenditure represents a cost of $1,320 to a taxpayer whose total contribution to the revenue is $5,000. Such a person represents the typical taxpaying citizen. Of that $1,320 the same taxpayer will contribute $540 to the support of the aged. All of this proves that this area of expenditure is one of great importance. There is an obligation on government to monitor carefully the demands of the welfare sector. Expenditure on aged persons represents approximately 41 per cent of total social security expenditure. However, I submit that any survey of younger Australians would clearly indicate a high level of support for this area of expenditure. Australia does not have the close family ties of Asian or European countries. We expect the young to leave the nest and the aged to remain personally self-supporting. Nevertheless, in financial terms, we concede their contribution to our society and economy and we expect to contribute through the welfare system to their financial needs. The pensionable age is currently 65 years for men and 60 years for women. It has also always been accepted that a means test could apply to those early years of retirement, in particular to those under 70 years who could attract earnings and who perhaps even choose to continue with full or part-time employment. Nevertheless, it is a fact that few people over 70 years of age profit from personal effort. Their only source of revenue other than their pension is their savings, which in more cases than not have been accumulated by forgoing some of the pleasures or needs during their working lives. Very few benefit from funds they have not generated from their own efforts. Contrary to the belief of the Australian Labor Party, the financial establishment in Australia is both in the minority and in decline. Protecting one's inheritance without substantial personal effort has become almost impossible. This therefore raises the issue of one's right to a pension. It raises questions about the background to the principle of greatest need. When need is created by hard times, low earning capacity during one's working life or many of the unavoidable factors that can affect a human life, quite clearly a right to a pension exists. Society recognises that one has done one's best. When need is the result of idleness and/or extravagance during one's earning years, society is entitled to question the demands that such people place upon it. However, humanity demands that the ants support these butterflies. Conversely, this Bill sets out to place a penalty upon those who have made efforts to provide for their old age. I was proud of the efforts of the Fraser Government on behalf of aged persons. I was particularly proud of its recognition that aged persons living in country areas, such as those I represent, were entitled to spend their declining years amongst family and friends. I took great pride in participating in the opening of aged persons accommodation throughout the many small centres in the electorate of O'Connor. This Bill suggests that some of those people will have the pension taken away from them if profits, which might be only paper profits, accrue to them from a family company or such that is, today, really the property of their children. If any paper profits accrue to them they will have the cash- which they had in hand to spend in their years when they are not able to be productive or to earn by their hands-taken away. I suggest that many people will now find themselves in considerable hardship because of this decision. The previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), mentioned the declining rate of pensions as a percentage of average weekly earnings and suggested, I believe, that this was some fault of the Fraser Government during its seven years of office. He failed to mention that average weekly earnings rose during that period at a substantial rate which was even above the rate of rise of the consumer price index. That is the reason that this relationship has changed. That particular shift was caused by a group of people still in employment and getting benefits that Australia as a nation provides. These people met together and forced up inflation by making unreasonable claims on their employers and using their monopoly of the labour system to achieve those results. They created inflation. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that anybody but those people created the inflation that is now the burden of the aged people from whom the Government is to take away the pension. Dr Klugman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable member for O'Connor is reading a speech which he gave the other day on a different topic. This is not at all relevant to this Bill. Mr TUCKEY —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not at all reading a speech. I regret to say that- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! A point of order has been raised. It is the Chair's prerogative to rule on it. I rule that there is no point of order. The honourable member will resume the debate. Mr TUCKEY —I am responding at this stage to comments made by the previous speaker on the Government side about average weekly earnings. In responding, I am making it quite clear that when people go out to increase inflation, to demand more dollars for the same or less effort, they will hurt the aged or any person who is on a fixed income. That brings me to another point raised by the honourable member for La Trobe about a wonderful national superannuation scheme. The principle of such a scheme is fine. I do not think any Australian can object to the principles behind national superannuation arrangements. What stops them from total agreement is the reality of it. The honourable member for Prospect ( Dr Klugman) and others would be well and truly aware that the proposal has always fallen on the rocks of inflation and the inability of invested money to keep up with the inflation that has been created in Australia over many years, because people still believe that if they get more dollars they have more money. Unfortunately, that proposition is again to be contributed to by the Government. It says that it will have wage increases of 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent and hopes that some taxpayer can find the amount of money necessary to fund the people whom we are talking about in this Bill. Whether such people are receiving a pension or the proceeds of their own savings, we know that such receipts will not keep up with the inflation that is created by greedy people in other sectors of the community. I oppose strongly this move to take money away from aged people. They have done their part in Australia. They did it through extremely hard times. Many of them were forced to leave our shores to ensure that we could be here today. This sector of the welfare area, of all the areas that need to be looked into, is the last one we should be touching. Recently in this House, during an adjournment debate, I identified areas of abuse, waste and bad management in the social security area. Those areas should be attacked well before the over 70s age group . If the Government were looking into some of the situations I raised, it would be justified. I refer, for example, to the instance I raised about paternity. A resident from another country can be forced to keep a child in that country but he cannot be forced to keep his child in this country because he does not choose to live with or marry the woman concerned. It seems remarkable to me that the Government can ignore and turn its back on that area of expenditure which is so huge today-expenditure in this area amounts to some $800m-yet it can chase after the aged because they are least able to defend themselves. I support the amendment that has been put. I condemn the Government for what it has done. It has more than broken a promise; it has attacked people who should not be attacked, our aged. I put them at the top of our welfare priorities. I will never object to the percentage of my taxes that goes to them, but I have plenty of complaints about the percentage that goes to other sectors of welfare. It is a pity that we have to find $400m for a very doubtful health scheme when we cannot find money for our aged. I sincerely hope that enough people in some part of this House, and possibly the Senate, will have the type of sentiments that I have expressed today and will reject this proposition from the Government . Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(4.34) —In listening to the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), it was initially difficult to understand whether he supported this measure, the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. If there is any honesty in him, I am sure that he would admit that deep in his heart he supported the measure but felt that as a justification of the position in which he sits in this House he had to rise and join the others of the Opposition who have been raving about the changes that we are now considering. I remind honourable members that what we are doing is debating legislation which is the outcome of the economic statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Thursday evening. The whole basis of that statement is that this Government has very quickly shown the people of Australia that it is prepared to take a responsible stand and to rein in some of the previous Government's excesses; that it is prepared to take a stand and to reduce the expenditure level that was embarked upon by the previous Government; and that it has been prepared to move quickly to do these things. I am sure that all honourable members on the Government side would agree with me when I say that we are not happy to see introduced any measures whereby any section of the community would be affected adversely. However, this measure-in fact all measures covered by the Treasurer's statement of last Thursday evening- have been directed at those sections of the community which this Government knows can bear the changes, and which the Government fully appreciates are able to withstand the changes that are being forced on them-not by the will of this Government but by the decisions that we have been forced to take because of the previous Government's irresponsible handling of the economy. I remind the House that it was this Labor Government's predecessor, the Government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in the years 1972 to 1975, which introduced a whole range of beneficial welfare measures, and that the abolition of the means test was included in those changes. So people can well appreciate that the present Government would not be making this change because of being anxious to change the situation introduced by that previous Labor Government. We are making the change because it has been forced upon us to take some action in a responsible fashion to pull the country back on to the rails of economic responsibility. The previous Government indulged in excesses over its seven years in office. Had it been more responsible in its handling of the economy, this measure and the other measures that the Government has introduced-and measures which will probably be introduced in the Budget in August-would probably not have been necessary. This measure is estimated to reduce Budget outlays by $167m in 1983-84. It takes on something with which successive governments have grappled over the years-the problem of seeing that support for those in need is provided responsibly. The problem that has bedevilled previous governments, especially over the last seven years, is that they have sprayed around their favours in the direction of those whom they felt could bring support to them to keep them in office, rather than considering those in need in determining who should receive benefits under their legislation. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) adequately illustrated to the House the fact that these measures are directed as a first step towards the ultimate introduction of a national superannuation and compensation scheme, which is part of this Government's platform, and that with this and various other sound economic measures which will be introduced by the Government it will not be too many years before the people finally see the achievement of that long awaited national superannuation scheme. I support this legislation wholeheartedly. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to someone else who has publicly stated his support for this measure. It is someone whom I and many others have criticised in the past for being only too eager to participate in a means test-free pension, when everyone was well aware that he had no need of such a pension. I refer to the former Liberal Prime Minister and Treasurer, Sir William McMahon. He has been quite happy publicly to acclaim this measure and to express his support for it. When questioned about the fact that he was about to lose the age pension, he said that he could not be happier. He went on to say that he believed that the Hawke Labor Government was quite right in introducing this measure. I should like to quote his words to remind honourable members of the Opposition of the hypocrisy that they are showing in this House in their new-found interest in and concern for the welfare of people in the over 70 age group. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take offence at the word 'hypocrisy'. Mr KEOGH —I withdraw the reference to Opposition members as being hypocritical, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member has withdrawn. Mr KEOGH —I draw the Opposition's attention to the fact that support for this legislation has come from a former Liberal Prime Minister, who has said that it was quite right that someone as wealthy as he should lose his right to an age pension because of the reintroduction of the means test. He said: Personally, I think it is quite right. He is at least honest in his assessment of the decision of this Government and the results of the decision. I congratulate him on making that public statement. I congratulate the Government on what it has done. I suggest to honourable members opposite who are coming into the House now and suggesting that these things should not be done and would not have been done had they been in office that they might, in all honesty, face the fact that these things are being done by the present Government because of the need for us to take action to show responsibility in the handling of the nation's affairs-and that is something that those members failed to do. Debate interrupted. Address-in-Reply: Presentation to Governor-General Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I suspend the sitting until 8 p.m. in order that Mr Speaker may present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. Mr Speaker will be glad if the mover of and the seconder to the motion, together with other honourable members, will accompany him to present the Address. Sitting suspended from 4.43 to 8 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency's Speech on the opening of the first session of the Thirty-third Parliament, agreed to by the House today. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Mr Speaker: Thank your for your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me. It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the Message of Loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression. Debate resumed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.1) —In speaking in support of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill I think it is important to emphasise that this part of the May economic statement is one of the aspects that this Government is taking seriously with respect to changes in the Australian society . One of the things we went to pains to point out in the May statement is that it has been necessary to take over a very difficult economic condition and to try to do some restructuring of the direction of the Australian economy. This measure goes a long way towards doing that. When we are moving towards subjecting certain categories of age pensions to an income test we are providing a recognition at the level of government that we have to do something about structuring resources for the aged. The provisions in the Bill are quite significant in that they refer to a change in the arrangements for pensions. I predicate my remarks by suggesting that the important reason for this is that we are facing a substantially aging population in Australia. It is not possible to go ahead and allow these sorts of structural changes to occur without, at the same time, doing something to change the arrangements for social security. I think the general thrust of the May statement suggests that we simply cannot go ahead in future without paying some close attention to the use of resources. This Government takes a very responsible view of the use of resources. I think that we have had much comment in the Press recently about our attitude towards such measures as superannuation. It is in the light of that responsible use of resources that we speak tonight in this area. To predicate my remarks on the changes in income tests it is perhaps pertinent to look at some social security data for 1982. I will deal with age pensions, and refer to those pensioners who are 70 years of age and over. The structure of these figures points out quite an alarming development with respect to age pensions and that is, that those pensioners who have held the age pension for one year and under constitute 2.1 per cent of the total population of that group . Those pensioners who have held pensions for one to five years constitute 10.2 per cent; those who have held pensions for five to 10 years constitute 39.9 per cent; and those who have held pensions for 10 years and over constitute 47.9 per cent. People who have held pensions from five to 10 years and those who have held them for 10 years and over constitute 39.9 per cent and 47.9 per cent of the category of persons who are 70 years of age and over. What we are seeing is a substantial aging of the population. In other words there is a very large ballooning of the population in that area. It is not good enough for the Government simply to stand back from that changing environment and say that it will not do anything with the pension. This Government has decided, as part of the May statement, to take an initiative in that area. Some would argue that this is a controversial initiative because, in effect, it imposes an income test on pensioners aged 70 years and over. But we would argue, on this side, that it is a very necessary measure. The reason it is necessary is that in the past resources in the social security area, along with resources generally, have been allowed to be sprayed around in the economy without any general attention being paid to the effect that they produce. Nowhere more dramatically can that be seen than in changes to the taxation system. We saw in the run up to the election and in the Budget of 1982-83 that scant regard was paid to economic considerations but enormous respect was paid to electoral considerations. Changes in the tax system that were brought about in the Budget were designed specifically to win an election. We are well aware that those changes did not win an election. So it is in the light of that irresponsible behaviour of the previous Government that this Government has taken some initiatives. I have already referred to the superannuation area, and in referring to pensions I think it is important to emphasise that this Government takes a very serious view over the use of resources. It would be quite a nonsense in this place to pretend that we have a very large volume of resources and that we can dispose of them carelessly. If we look at the fact that we have very scarce resources and must dispose of them with a good deal of care, clearly the measures that have been announced are very necessary. We are trying to make some changes to the income arrangements for pensioners aged 70 years and over. In effect what we are saying in the May economic statement is that single pensioners with non-pension incomes of up to $200 a week and married pensioner couples with non-pension incomes of up to $333 a week will continue to receive the same pension as at present. In other words, single pensioners who have incomes of up to $200 a week and, married pensioner couples who have incomes of up to $333 a week, will continue to receive the pension they receive at present. Above those amounts the current income test-free component will be reduced by $1 for every $2 of non-pension income received. In other words we take away 50 per cent of what people earn over and above the income limit. I think it is important to emphasise that when changes of this kind are made they are not easy to make, they are not changes that one would want to make without any recognition that they cause some disturbance in the community. I emphasise one thing that I believe we, as a government, have a responsibility to do: We must make sure that the electorate and those affected by these changes are made well aware of their impact. One of the things that comes across whenever changes are made in the social security area is that those affected must be brought into the discussion and made aware of the impact of those changes, particularly when one is dealing with an aged population, because any changes often constitute quite a degree of trouble for aged people. I think there is a great responsibility on the Government to make sure that these changes are explained carefully. I suggest that, in the debate we are having in the chamber tonight, it is important that the electorate understands very clearly that the measure that has been taken has been taken because of the substantial growth in the age of our population. We face a very serious situation. As the population continues to age and the number of people who contribute to the tax area continue to diminish as a proportion of the population, we are facing an ultimate squeeze in resources. Mass unemployment has continued to reduce the amount of pay-as-you-earn taxpayers' income. I do not have to refer to the area of avoided tax because we are debating that matter in other legislation. But clearly when the tax base is reduced substantially and at the same time the population continues to age, in effect a larger proportion of the population is continuing to depend upon an ever smaller proportion that is deriving income. At some point we have to take a decision, and ask ourselves: How are we going to rearrange those resources, bearing in mind the important goal of equity so we can try to make the most effective use of resources? I put to the House and to the electorate of Australia that in the May statement we have tried to make some very serious and sincere decisions. Some of them are decisions that members of the electorate will have to pay close attention to, and we are experiencing their attention. I do not think there is any reason why we, as a government, should be at all reluctant to say that we made these decisions in the best interests of the community. It was not good enough to proceed as we were, allowing things to drift along with a substantial growth in our expenditure pattern, with changes in the tax area that were designed simply to win elections and, at the same time, paying no attention to the fact that with this aging population and a diminishing tax base we were facing a very serious crunch. This Government has had the courage to make these tough decisions. I believe it deserves applause for that. I think honourable members opposite must pay attention to the fact that we are recognising the difficulties facing the Australian economy. They avoided them over the past seven years. In consequence of having recognised those facts we are now, at least, trying to bring the social security system somewhat into line with the changes in the nature of the Australian population. That is a very important thing to recognise. I believe that with this measure we have made a move towards recognising that we can restore some order and stability in the economy and in our social security system. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.12) —In concluding this debate on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. I make a couple of points on the arguments we have heard from the Opposition. I think we can divide those arguments into two parts. We got a rather passionate or quite violent opposition to the measure from some of the back benchers of the Opposition and, from the front bench, we got what can be described as a rather convuluted opposition. Let me deal first of all with the violent opposition most typified by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). We had from him, as we frequently have from the honourable member for Franklin, a spurious sincerity disguising that he had given no hard thought or hard work to the very difficult problems addressed by the Government. It was a very typical attitude of that member in dealing with very difficult problems which I think honourable members on both sides of the House realise. Yet we had a rather spurious sincerity or a spurious passion disguising the fact that no hard thought or work had been given to the serious problems addressed in this Bill. Secondly, we got what can only be described as convoluted opposition from the front bench spokesmen. They did tell us, in their amendment, that this Bill somehow disadvantages one of the most vulnerable sections of the community. They said that it failed to address vital questions of equity for all social security beneficiaries. But then, having made these very powerful and strong statements, they said that they would not oppose the Bill. I think there is an odd discrepancy between making these very powerful statements and then saying that nevertheless they would not oppose it. I think the reason for that rather convoluted opposition is that in fact they do not really believe the major statements in their amendment. Those statements cannot, in fact, be justified. I want to deal briefly with both of them. It is argued in the Opposition's amendment that the Bill disadvantages one of the most vulnerable sections of the community. Let me make it clear, as every person who has spoken from this side of the House has made it clear, that we are not taking action against the vulnerable aged or the poor aged. In fact, we are dealing with a segment of the well-off aged. Let us look at the figures. For instance, a single person is not affected by this measure until that person's income passes $200 a week. In fact, that person goes on receiving a pension until he reaches $302.90 a week. That person is then in the upper 40 per cent of all income earners without dependants in this society. In this case we are looking at the relatively well off single persons without dependants. The kind of income which they earn before they lose the pension completely is an income which puts them amongst the 40 per cent best off people without dependants in the community. The income test does not apply at all to married couples until the couple receives an income greater than $333 a week. Some pension is still paid up until an income of $504.60 a week is received. That kind of income puts these people in the upper one-third of all family incomes. So let us get rid of the notion that somehow we are striking at a particularly vulnerable group. We have had to make a tough decision but we have made it in relation to the well-off aged. We made it, in fact, in relation to the second allegation made against us-that is, we have not considered vital questions of equity for all social security beneficiaries. However peculiar the Opposition's notions of equity are, the essence of equity is that we use limited community resources for those who most need them. We have made this decision because we need those resources for those in the community who are really vulnerable and who really need them. It is our belief that this measure typifies superbly a basic concept of equity. In a tough economic situation with limited resources, equity demands that we try to use those resources for those in the community most in need. I commend the Bill to the House. I am strongly critical of what is a very convoluted and, I think, rather hypocritical amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.17) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1983) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1983). Excise Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1983) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1983) which I have just tabled place before Parliament alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1983 respectively. These alterations were foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his economic statement in this House on 19 May 1983. The Treasurer announced that in lieu of an increase in air navigation charges during 1983-84, the rate of excise on avgas and avtur will increase by 2 cents per litre as from 1 July 1983. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1983) imposes a complementary increase on imports of avgas and avtur. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members and on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I present the final report of the Commonwealth Task Force on Occupational Superannuation. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the first report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members. Report-by leave-adopted. (Quorum formed). 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 amendments- No. 1-Page 7, clause 11, sub-clause (3), lines 12 to 15, leave out the sub- clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The functions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council are- (a) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Board, to furnish advice to the Board on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs of the corporation; and (b) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director in accordance with sub-section 82 (3).'. No. 2-Page 7, clause 11, sub-clause (4), lines 16 to 21, leave out the sub- clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(4) The functions of an Advisory Council established under sub-section (2) are - (a) in the case of an Advisory Council established in relation to a State, Territory or region-either on its own initiative or at the request of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council, to furnish advice to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs of the Corporation in that State, Territory of region, as the case may be; and (b) in the case of an Advisory Council established in relation to a State or Territory-either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director with respect to the appointment of Community Affairs Officers in relation to that State or Territory .'. No. 3-Page 16, clause 27, before sub-clause (1), insert the following new sub- clause: '(1A) The Corporation shall develop and maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information by the Corporation pursuant to this section.' No. 4-Page 52, clause 82, sub-clause (3), lines 1 to 8, leave out the sub- clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The Managing Director shall- (a) on the recommendation of- (i) the Advisory Council established in relation to the State or Territory concerned; or (ii) if no such Advisory Council has been established-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council, appoint, in each State, in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory, a person or persons, to be known as Community Affairs Officers, to consider complaints mentioned in sub-section (1); and (b) on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council, appoint an officer of the Corporation, to be known as the Principal Community Affairs Officer, whose duties will consist of or include the co- ordination of the activities of the Community Affairs Officers.'. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.25) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill was amended after extensive debate in the Senate. The amendments were moved by the Australian Democrats and agreed to by all parties in the Senate. The amendments to clauses 82 and 11 provide for the appointment of community affairs officers, who will consider complaints under clause 82, to be appointed on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's advisory councils. The amendments to sub-clause (3) of clause 11 and paragraph (b) of sub-clause (3) of clause 82 provide for the appointment of a Principal Community Affairs Officer to be made by the Managing Director on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. The amendments to sub-clause (4) of clause 11 and paragraph (a ) of sub-clause (3) of clause 82 provide for the relevant State or Territory Advisory Council to advise on the appointment of a community affairs officer in that State or Territory. In the event that no advisory council has been established in a State or Territory the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council will make the necessary recommendation. The amendments go some way to meeting the concerns that have been expressed that community affairs officers will be appointed by the Managing Director of the ABC. It is considered that this altered basis for appointing community affairs officers will effectively give those bodies established to provide advice on a national State and Territory basis the responsibility of making recommendations on the persons who should deal with the complaints. The other proposed amendment is an addition to clause 27 which explicitly states: The Corporation shall develop and maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information . . . The Government has already incorporated words in sub-clause (3) of clause 27 to satisfy the concerns of people worried that the ABC's independent service might be compromised by allowing the ABC to procure news and information from domestic news agencies and other sources. The proposed amendment reinforces this assurance. The matters that I have just covered in relation to the amendments therefore affect two aspects of the Bill. The first one relates to the method of appointment of the community affairs officers. Some concern was expressed regarding the fact that the appointment was to be directly made by the Managing Director. That has now been overcome by the fact that the Managing Director shall make the appointments on the advice and the recommendation of the Advisory Council. The second matter is merely a reinforcement of the existing provisions in respect of news services. It must be said that the amendments which were moved in the Senate by the Australian Democrats are very thoughtful amendments. When one looks at the extensive debate which took place in this chamber on the Bill one will see that if amendments of substance are put to this Government it is prepared to consider them on their merits, as was done in this case. We consider that the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats were significant and worth while. For that reason they were accepted by the Government. As I indicated earlier, they were accepted by all parties in the Senate. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.29) —One thing is obvious regarding the Senate's amendments; that is, the Government does not have the numbers in the Senate. Therefore, one of two things has to happen. The Government can agree to what I believe are correct amendments that the Opposition proposes to provide a completely independent complaints procedure; that is, a complaints procedure for which the personnel are appointed from outside the ABC, outside the influence of the ABC and answerable to the people of Australia rather than to the ABC. I believe this is the correct path to follow. It follows the path of the United Kingdom and the complaints procedure that is adopted there so that justice appears to be done as well as being done. I cannot understand why the Government did not accept and include that procedure in this Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. I believe that in the long run it will regret it. The ABC certainly regrets it because it is very much aware that it must be answerable to the people of Australia, not just to the government of the day when the legislation is passed. The Government did not accept the only arrangement for complaints against the ABC that will stand the test of time; it accepted a deal with the Australian Democrats. The Democrats are in a curious position. One could possibly say that they are always in a curious position. When we introduced the legislation to create an independent Australian Broadcasting Corporation last year the Democrats were the strongest supporters and pushers for an independent complaints procedure. That was a matter of high and holy principle to them. Now, by a remarkable about-face, the Democrats have come back to accepting community affairs officers. In spite of the minor amendments that the Government has accepted from the Democrats, basically those community affairs officers belong to and are part of the ABC because the advisory councils in each State are part of the greater ABC network. What have the Democrats got in return and what has the Government got in return from this deal? First of all, the Government will have the passage of this legislation virtually unchanged. That, from the Government's point of view, is a highly desirable position. The Democrats have some short term recognition because they have stated that they believe there should be some sort of parliamentary seal of approval for the new Board of Directors for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. So the Government has offered them a committee comprising three Government members including the Minister for Communications as Chairman, with the casting vote-two Opposition members and one Democrat. That committee will not actually appoint the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It will look at a short list provided by the Minister. I and others would like the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to tell us tonight what he is able to do about the procedures for this committee-when it is likely to meet, what deadlines there will be, et cetera. There is a fairly short time scale for the appointment of the new Board. It is important for those who will be on the committee that they have some idea as quickly as possible of when the committee is likely to meet so that the necessary arrangements can be made. The committee will look at a short list provided by the Minister-not provided by everybody who may have an interest in the subject-and the Government will have the majority on the committee. So the Democrats have gained their short term recognition without any real power to influence events or appointments. The amendment proposed is very superficial because it does not really change anything to any degree. The fundamental issue is whether we will have an independent procedure or one within the ABC. If one looks back at the performance of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) of this country and the attack he has made on the ABC-one of the far-reaching attacks that he has made in the last two weeks, with comments about putting people into countries as part of multinational defence forces among other things-that shows more than ever the need for an independent situation. Mr Steele Hall —Protection from the political process. Mr LLOYD —That is right, and I think it is more obvious than ever from the way we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister of this country carry on inside and outside this House in the last two weeks. I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has accepted the invitation from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for two members of the Opposition to be on that committee. I will be one of those members and Senator Peter Baume will be the other. Hence, in order to make our arrangements it is important for all of us to know as quickly as possible details of meetings, et cetera and what the rules and possibilities will be. The Government has now made the decision to have some sort of informal parliamentary checking system or affirming system for appointments to the Board of the new Corporation. Within the next month four of the seven members of the Special Broadcasting Service Commission will lose their appointments; their time will expire. Thus, within the next month-I would like the Minister to listen to this-- Mr Dawkins —You are bunging it on a bit, Bruce, aren't you? Mr LLOYD —I am just asking for the Minister's attention, which I know he is prepared to give if the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) will leave him alone. Mr Dawkins —He is very clever. He can do more than two things at once. Mr LLOYD —This Government has shown so far that it cannot do half a thing at once. Let us concentrate on one thing at once for a change. That is not being critical of the Minister for Communications but it is a fair comment about the Minister for Finance at present. I am putting to the Minister that, at the same time that the Government is changing the membership of those who control the ABC with a completely new Corporation, four of the seven members of the Special Broadcasting Service Commission-they are in a similar situation; the controlling majority of the Special Broadcasting Service-will lose their positions because their time will expire. Therefore, I ask the Minister to extend the reference of this committee to include also the Special Broadcasting Service appointments. The Government has said that it is sincere, that it has chosen a particular road and that it has not just given in to some deal with the Democrats. It says that it is sincere in believing that there should be some sort of parliamentary committee to confirm the membership of this Corporation. If the Government is sincere, genuine and legitimate it should extend the powers and the reference of that committee to include the appointments to the Special Broadcasting Service. The Opposition does not oppose this amendment. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.38) —I would like to reply to a couple of matters which have been raised by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I have no doubt that the Opposition has some problem in understanding the consultative process because it is something totally unknown to it. The newfound concern that it has for a committee to oversee appointments such as those to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board is indeed commendable, but a classic Johnny-come-lately exhibition by the Opposition. The other point that ought to be made, because it was referred to by the honourable member for Murray, is that the question of the consultative process, which I am pleased to learn the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has decided to allow the Opposition to be part of, was in no way related to the amendments in the Senate. An unfounded aspersion was cast upon the Australian Democrats on that point. When their amendments were put forward at no stage was the question of the consultative process raised by them. The honourable member for Murray talked about a deal on these amendments being accepted by the Government in return for the Australian Democrats obtaining, as he put it, some form of recognition by being involved in that consultative process. That is an allegation which is totally without foundation. If I may say so, it is also a very unfair view to have taken of the Australian Democrats in this situation because it was not a matter that they raised at any stage. Having referred to those couple of matters , I again congratulate the Opposition on engaging in the consultative process and on its new found delight in making some sort of attempt to reach consensus. It is something that has come a bit late, but better late than never. Mr Spender —Like you. Mr DUFFY —I will not bother replying to that. As I indicated earlier the amendments that have come forward not only are acceptable to us but also were acceptable, fortunately, to all parties in the Senate. It is with some pleasure tonight that at least we see the ABC established on a basis which will enable the recommendations of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to be implemented and the ABC to get its independence, and that all the other matters in relation to the ABC that we on this side of the chamber feel very strongly about can commence. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.42) —I raise just two points, the first of which concerns the Australian Democrats and whether they were in favour of parliamentary approval. An integral part of the amendments that the Democrats originally proposed in the Senate was that not only would there be some sort of consultative process but also it would have to be subject to parliamentary approval. That was still their position as recently as a couple of weeks ago. What has been finally worked out between the Government and them- Mr Duffy —I have already told you that that issue was not raised by the Democrats. Mr LLOYD —I accept what the Minister for Communications tells me. But he said that we have made unfounded comments about the Democrats. All I am saying is that those comments were not unfounded. I am giving chapter and verse what their position and attitude was, until very recently, in any comments that they made publicly in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation legislation. As to whether they raised it with the Government, the Minister has made a point and I do not argue with that. I am saying in return that, from what the Democrats have said and have been quoted publicly as saying in regard to their position, it is not the case that they did not have a view on the matter. Secondly, I support the Minister's statement that he was pleased that at long last the Australian Broadcasting Commission would have its own legislation and that the legislation would go through with changes that are basically supported by both sides of this place. These measures were originally introduced by the Fraser-Anthony Government; therefore, on that basis also, this side derives some pleasure from having this ABC legislation finally go through. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Clause 1 (Short title). Consideration resumed from 25 May. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(8.45) —I move: Clause 2, page 2, lines 1 and 2, omit sub-clause (3). I take the opportunity to speak to the range of amendments moved by the Government because they are related. I first of all point out that what the Government is moving tonight does not represent any abrogation of the basic principles which have been enunciated by the Government in relation to the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill but indicates its preparedness to amend its approach to accommodate certain views which have been put to it. The principal amendment concerns the facility for persons to meet their tax liability under the legislation by arrangements with the Commissioner of Taxation whereby, typically, they are allowed 12 months to pay without late payment penalty being charged. The existing law contains provision on these lines for former owners of companies who are liable to pay a share of unpaid company tax. Clause 19 of the Bill proposes the deletion of this provision, but only from a date to be proclaimed. The Government has now accepted that provision for payment over 12 months should be retained and indeed extended to the personal tax liability and associated dividend recoupment tax liability in respect of profits of stripped companies that are proposed by the Bill now before the Committee. Amendment (3) will ensure the retention of the special facility to pay over 12 months and, in consequence, amendment (1) will omit the provision in the Bill that would have abolished the facility from a proclaimed date. The provisions governing the facility are being changed so that a time-to-pay arrangement need apply only to a company's unpaid primary company tax and not also its unpaid undistributed profits tax. These changes reflect the fact that when, in due course, the persons concerned are made liable for personal tax in respect of the company's profits-on the basis that the profits have been distributed to them- there is then no case for retention of the undistributed profits tax liability and it is, by the Bill as it stands, being abolished. Amendment (3) will insert in the law a facility to pay over 12 months, modelled on the existing provisions that are now to be retained, for persons who, by the Bill, become liable to personal income tax in respect of a share of a stripped company's accumulated profits. An application for time to pay will need to be made within 30 days after service of the notice of assessment relating to the personal tax. Consistent with this, and with the proposed strict limitation to 12 months of the period for which an arrangement to pay unpaid company tax may be made, it is envisaged that it will generally be necessary that applications for such arrangements be made within 30 days after the company's tax liability is notified to former owners. A similar facility is also included for companies or trusts that become liable to the dividend recoupment tax that may be levied at the interposed company or trust level as an alternative to collection of personal income tax. These measures will, of course, have a revenue impact in 1983-84. Payment of personal tax by instalments over a period of 12 months in lieu of payment within 30 days will result in revenue which would otherwise have been collected in 1983-84 not being collected until 1984-85. This is not revenue lost but merely revenue deferred. An accurate estimate of the amount involved has not , in the time available, been possible. Preliminary estimates indicate that a figure of up to $100m could be involved. Studies are currently being made of administrative measures by which this impact on revenue in 1983-84 might be lessened. I draw attention also to amendment (2). This amendment arises against the background that the hardship relief provisions of the income tax law are available to provide relief to persons who are, or become, liable under the recoupment legislation to pay recoupment tax or personal tax. Amendment (2) will ensure that the relief provisions cannot stand in the way of a transfer of recoupment liability from an interposed company or trust to the owners of that entity in a situation where any of the owners are entitled to relief from the transferred liability on the grounds of hardship. I take this opportunity to refer again to one matter that has been the subject of much debate, and that is that personal tax liability under the Bill attaches to profits of stripped companies that have been effectively distributed to former owners, regardless of whether those profits were, in the hands of the company, of a revenue or a capital kind. This rule reflects the clear and long- standing position that a distribution by a company out of any kind of profit is classed as taxable income of the shareholders. But it also does no more than follow the way in which Part IVA of the income tax law-which received the unanimous support of this Parliament when it was introduced in 1981-operates in cases of dividend stripping and similar schemes, including schemes of pre-tax profit stripping. Where Part IVA operates, the shareholders concerned are liable to tax on profits that are stripped from the company under the scheme, and that is so regardless of whether those profits are of a revenue or capital kind. In other words, we are not by this Bill introducing any new concept of taxation in relation to distributions to shareholders out of capital profits of companies. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.52) —The Opposition will not oppose these amendments because in reality they make a deplorable Bill marginally less deplorable by inserting into the legislation just a zephyr of commercial recognition and commercial reasonableness regarding the payment of the tax liability under this legislation. I take the opportunity of saying that those people who either in this chamber or in another chamber regard the so-called concessions by the Government to reasonable representations on this legislation as some kind of triumph of the reasonable approach of this Government in relation to the legislation have no idea at all as to the real implications of this piece of legislation. These amendments do nothing to alter the fact that this Bill imposes a retrospective capital gains tax in defiance of the clear promise and undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that there would never be a capital gains tax under a Labor government in Australia. This legislation will do nothing other than defer the inevitable liquidation of some companies which will face a tax liability far in excess of their asset position-a reality that does not appear to have impressed itself at all upon members of the Government who are supporting this legislation. It is one thing to pass legislation to recoup unpaid company tax; it is another thing to pass legislation to tax retrospectively retained earnings, some of which may go back 60 or 70 years, on which both ordinary company tax and probably Division 7 tax has been paid. To suggest that those two acts are in some way complementary to each other, as I said yesterday, defies all reasonable understanding of those words and the reasonable implications of this legislation . So, in expressing the Opposition's support for these amendments, let me make it perfectly plain that the only reason we do so is that in a very marginal way they make slightly less deplorable the deplorable concept and nature of this piece of legislation. I make one other comment on the speech of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) . The Minister said that all that this legislation does in respect of retained earnings is to apply, albeit retrospectively, the principles of Part IVA which were passed at the instigation of the former Government. Let me remind the Committee that Part IVA is that general anti-avoidance section of the Income Tax Assessment Act passed by the Fraser Government which has done more to smash the sophisticated tax avoidance industry in this country than any other single piece of legislation supported or sponsored by any government or any political party in this country's history. To suggest that in some way it is an explanation of what the Government is doing to say that the legislation applies retrospectively the approach of Part IVA is totally to misunderstand reality. This legislation deems that a hypothetical situation must automatically exist before tax liability can be imposed. The hypothetical situation in practice as a result of Part IVA will simply never in the future arise unless people, quite in defiance of normal commercial practice and common sense, having paid ordinary company tax and perhaps Division 7 tax, and having retained earnings in their company, indulge in the sort of conduct and make the sort of dividend declarations that this legislation hypothetically deems to occur before taxation liability attaches. So I say to the Minister for Finance that it is no excuse, it is no explanation , it is of no satisfaction to the community or to this Parliament to say: 'Oh, we are not imposing a retrospective capital gains tax because all we are doing is retrospectively applying the principles of Part IVA'. He knows as well as anyone else who knows anything about taxation that as a consequence of Part IVA in practice people simply would not do the things which hypothetically this legislation deems are done so as to attract the liability for personal income tax. So we have the quite extraordinary situation that not only does this legislation retrospectively impose a capital gains tax but also it creates two classes of taxpayers so far as certain commercial arrangements are concerned. A very large group of taxpayers have indulged in what are colloquially called dry Slutzkin arrangements over a long period. Companies with retained earnings have been sold and no taxation liabilities, because of the Slutzkin decision, have been incurred. Those practices were effectively and prospectively brought to an end by the Fraser Government passing in May 1981 Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That group of taxpayers is totally and properly unaffected by the reach of this legislation. Another group of taxpayers, as well as doing that , as part of the same transaction have sold companies that have current year profits and have subsequently been caught by the operation of the recoupment legislation passed last year. As a result of that recoupment legislation primary company tax has to be paid on those current year profits. That is fair enough. But having paid that company tax, having recouped the unpaid taxation liability that has been illegally evaded because of the stripping of the company's assets subsequent to the sale and having redeemed their obligations to the Commonwealth Treasury and the Australian community, as some kind of punishment the dry Slutzkin element of their transactions, the proceeds of the sale of the retained earnings which have borne company tax and probably Division 7 tax, are also to be subjected to some kind of personal taxation. However, the other group, which has done exactly the same thing in respect of the sale of retained earnings, is totally unaffected, as it should be, by this legislation. There is no excuse for that other than a decision by the Government not to levy taxation by this legislation but to use the taxation power to punish those people. It is one thing to recoup retrospectively taxation that should have been paid in the first place; it is entirely a different thing, on top of that, to put a retrospective monetary penalty on the people who have engaged in those transactions. Nothing has been said by the Minister for Finance in the course of this debate that can possibly justify the Government drawing a distinction between the group of people who have simply engaged in so-called dry Slutzkin arrangements and those who have engaged in those arrangements along with arrangements, as part of the same transaction, which were caught by the former Government's recoupment legislation of last year. No argument has been advanced as to why a different treatment should be meted out to those two groups of people. The only possible conclusion that I can reach is that the Government has made some kind of moral judgment that as well as the sale of the retained earnings there has also been a sale, in effect, of the company which had current year profits. Although the Government has recouped the taxation payable it is also going to punish those people through the penal imposition of what is contained in this legislation. So I say very simply to the Government on behalf of the Opposition that whilst we will support these amendments, because they make slightly less deplorable a very deplorable Bill, no one either here or in the Senate should believe that some great compromise has been engineered. I read in the Press that some people in another place believe they have saved the day, that they have been the great heroes in respect of the legislation and have saved hundreds of firms from bankruptcy. Nothing in these amendments will stand in the way of bankruptcies if , in consequence of the passage of the legislation, that is to happen. While these amendments make slightly better a very bad piece of legislation, let no one imagine that they in any way reduce the culpability of the Government or ameliorate the fact that, despite the promise of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), made during the election campaign, that we would not have a capital gains tax, this legislation imposes upon a small group of Australian taxpayers a capital gains tax and for good measure, does so retrospectively. Amendment agreed to. Clause agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.1) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 10, page 13, line 23, insert 'or would, but for the operation of section 265 of the Assessment Act, be paid' after 'will be paid'. (3) Clause 19, page 22, lines 4 and 5, omit the clause, substitute the following clauses: Arrangements for payment of company tax 19. Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in paragraphs (1) (a) and (c) 'ordinary' before 'company tax'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'and undistributed profits tax' (wherever occurring); and (c) by inserting in sub-section (2) 'ordinary' before 'company tax' (wherever occurring). Instalment arrangements in relation to payment of company tax 19A. Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in paragraphs (1) (a), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) 'ordinary' before 'company tax'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'and undistributed profits tax' (wherever occurring); and (c) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'or such longer period as the Commissoner, in special circumstances, determines'. 19B. After section 21 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Instalment arrangements in relation to payment of income tax or dividend recoupment tax 21A. (1) Where- (a) an assessment has been made under which income tax is payable by a person; (b) the whole or a part of the income tax payable under the assessment (which whole or part is in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant tax') is attributable to the inclusion of an amount in the assessable income of the person by virtue of the operation of section 6C or 6D; (c) no objection has been lodged against the assessment on a ground relating to the inclusion of that amount in the assessable income of the person; and (d) the person has, within 30 days after service of the notice of the assessment, made an application in writing to the Commissioner for an arrangement under this section in relation to the payment of the relevant tax by instalment, the Commissioner may enter into an arrangement with the person in relation to the payment by instalments, over a period of 12 months commencing on the date of service of the notice of assessment, of the relevant tax and, where such an arrangement is entered into, all payments made in accordance with the arrangement shall, for the purposes of the Assessment Act, be deemed to have been made at the time when the first payment was made in accordance with the arrangement. (2) Where- (a) an assessment has been made under which dividend recoupment tax is payable by a person; (b) no objection has been lodged against the assessment; and (c) the person has, within 30 days after service of the notice of the assessment, made an application in writing to the Commissioner for an arrangement under this section in relation to the payment of the dividend recoupment tax by instalments, the Commissioner may enter into an arrangement with the person in relation to the payment by instalments, over a period of 12 months commencing on the date of service of the notice of assessment, of the dividend recoupment tax and, where such an arrangement is entered into, all payments made in accordance with the arrangement shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been made at the time when the first payment was made in accordance with the arrangement. (3) Where, after an arrangement referred to in sub-section (1) or (2) is entered into, an objection is lodged against the assessment referred to in paragraph (1) (a) on a ground referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or an objection is lodged against the assessment referred to in paragraph (2) (a), as the case may be, the arrangement shall be deemed never to have been entered into.'. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.2) —I would like to dwell for a moment on clause 6 and proposed new sub-section 4 (3A), which authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to draw to the attention of the Parliament amounts due and payable by individuals, and to name such individual or individuals. The failure of a person to pay this tax, and the late payment penalty that attaches, allows the Commissioner to name that individual in his annual report. That seems to me to smack of intimidation but, possible intimidation aside, the meaning of the provision is unclear. It becomes even more unclear if we look for enlightenment in statements that have been made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). When does a person fail to pay? If he does not pay by the due date, which is some 30 days after the notice of assessment has been issued, has he at that stage failed to pay in terms of this amendment? If that is the due date, will the fact that he has paid a few days late mean that he has failed to pay in the sense expressed in the Bill? May he expect to see his name in the Commissioner's annual report, for every newspaper in Australia to publish at will? If someone is slow to pay, successful recovery action by the Commissioner would indicate that that person has not failed to pay in any real sense. Surely the threat of inflicting on a tardy taxpayer the notoriety of public naming is not a tool which the Commissioner needs in order to secure observance of tax laws. The Commissioner already has available to him the anti-avoidance provisions of section 22 of the principal Act, which void any attempt to alienate property in order to avoid payment of the tax. The Commissioner also has available to him common law judgment and execution procedures. It seems to me that a person can be deemed to have failed to pay only if, after successful recovery action by the Commissioner has taken place, payment is still not made. I repeat, the Bill is far from clear on the point. There is also, of course, the probability that the person who is assessed has failed to pay because he is unable to do so. In the circumstances, what is the point of publishing the name of someone who is unable to pay, unless it is to bring that person further into public disrepute. There is surely no point in naming such a person if there is to be no benefit thereby to the revenue. Perhaps we could get a clue from the second reading speech of the Minister for Finance in which he said that people of Australia 'should know those who remain unrepentant of their attempt to escape their rightful share of the tax burden.' That was the reason offered by the Minister. Surely the reasonable view is that in the main people fail to pay assessed taxes because they are unable to do so. Under other tax legislation, failure to pay does not lead to one's name being published by the Commissioner. Those who have been named hitherto have failed to disclose their full income or have claimed excessive deductions. They have earned, in every real sense of the word, the displeasure of the Commissioner, as well as an additional penalty tax. Vendor shareholders, under this Bill, would not have evaded tax. If they had there would have been no need for the principal Act. In this context it should be noted that the provisions regarding the Commissioner's annual report apparently do not apply to dividend recoupment tax. Even at this stage it is not too late for the Government to withdraw proposed new sub-section 4 (3A), if only on the basis that there seems to be no point in besmirching the names and reputations of those who are unable to pay these new taxes. Bankruptcy proceedings in themselves, instituted by the Commissioner or even other creditors, would achieve that end if it were desirable. There is no need for persons to be named. If someone is unable to pay, naming him will not enhance the revenue or have a chastening effect on others who may be unable to pay. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.8) —The remarks of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) might have been more in place if the Government had not decided to provide for a penalty-free period in which the outstanding tax could be paid. The other point that ought to be made in this context is that failure to pay is not simply failure to pay on time. Of course, the publication of names will not be invoked simply as a result of a taxpayer being unable to pay within a prescribed period. Mr Rocher —The Act is not clear on that. Mr DAWKINS —The way in which it will be administered will ensure that, so long as the tax is paid, the question of publication of a name will not arise. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.9) —The comments that have been made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) are illuminating because they reveal his lack of understanding of the subject and of how he thinks the Government should work. What he has said, in answer to the interjection by my honourable colleague, is that, in the case of failure to pay, while the provision may not be clear, it will be administered in a certain way. If he had any basic understanding of how the laws of this country work he would know that it is the duty of the Commissioner of Taxation to administer those laws according to their proper interpretation, not according to some idle thought that the Minister might throw off in the midst of some ill-conceived remarks made in the course of this debate . I wish to say something more about the provision. The question arose last year of the insertion of the same provision-that reference should be made in the Commissioner's annual report to the failure of a person to pay recoupment tax. If the Commissioner's advisers were here they would be able to confirm that I asked them the reasons for its insertion, since I suspected that it was there- finally it was not inserted-simply to place pressure on those who otherwise would believe that they had a right to resist. Whether we agree with their right is beside the point. That they have a right to resist and a right to litigate is of fundamental importance. But the answer was given with disarming honesty, ' Well yes, the purpose was to place pressure on them'. If we contrast that with the provision which exists in section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act-if the Minister has ever glanced at that provision, which I doubt very greatly-we will find that that provision is directed at something which is quite different. Section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides that in the report which the Commissioner makes annually he shall draw attention to any breaches or evasions of this Act that come under his notice. Breaches or evasions are quite different things from the proposals in this Bill. This Bill provides for the Commissioner to draw attention to a failure of a person to pay vendors' recoupment tax. The Minister has said that there will be a generous, charitable interpretation of the meaning of 'failure'. From what the Minister has said thus far, it is perfectly apparent that he really does not know what he means by a failure to pay. A failure to pay is, one would think, no more than that. If, by the due date, the tax is not paid, regardless of the reason, it is a failure to pay. If one does not pay, and that is a fact of life, then one is subject to report. Mr Dawkins —Failure to pay means exactly that. Mr SPENDER —The Minister interjects quietly across the table in some confused fashion to say that a failure to pay is a fact of life. Certainly, it is a fact of life. It is that proposition that I am trying to inject into the confines of his brain because once that failure to pay exists, it is open to the Commissioner to report. The Minister would know that it is for the Commissioner to administer the Act and not for the Treasurer, or the Minister for Finance. If the Commissioner's view of the administration of the Act is that after the time has expired and payment has not been made, that constitutes a failure, then so be it. There is nothing that the Minister for Finance can do about it. It goes in regardless of what his transitory thoughts at the table this evening may be. The other provision to which I want to refer at this stage is the Government's proposal that sub-section 12 of section 3 of the principal Act be omitted. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. Anybody who had listened to the debates, read the explanatory memorandum and the Act itself would have known the logic of that provision. The logic was that where, at the time the relevant scheme was entered into, it would have been reasonable to assume that there would be a successful scheme to avoid tax put in place, and that scheme was not part of the stripping arrangements, there should be, as it were, an escape clause, an innocence clause, simply because it was thought that persons who organised their affairs on the basis not that there was to be an evasion, but a reasonable attempt at legal avoidance, should not be subjected to the imposition of tax under the recoupment measures posed by the last Government. That was the logic of it. That was the justice of it. Whether honourable members on the Government side like it or not-it is perfectly apparent that many on the other side do not-there is a very great difference between what is legally wrong and what is legally permissible. I repeat what I said yesterday. Whether we think that a certain measure is desirable or undesirable is a matter of social and political policy. If we think it is undesirable, we legislate against it. Whilst, however, it is legal to operate in a certain way, no matter how much we may disagree with the way in which others operate, so long as it is open to them to do so, then that is the law. This Bill seeks, on a wide basis, to set aside a decision of the High Court in Slutzkin's case and retrospectively-as the honourable member for Bennelong ( Mr Howard) has pointed out-impose a capital gains tax. However, since we have two opportunities to speak on this subject, I will return to that matter later. But I would like to say now that I would like the Minister to answer the following proposition: Does he realise that capital profits under the legislation which he proposes, which would not attract tax under a distribution under section 47 because they are capital profits, will attract tax under his proposals? I would be very glad to hear from him if he could answer yes or no to that proposition, because thus far he has not displayed any understanding at all of the Bill that he is seeking to pilot through this House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(9.16) —I think it is pretty well known by this House that I am a firm believer in the rule of law and natural justice. I believe that people ought to be able to plan their affairs on the basis of the laws which exist at the time. Retrospective legislation, except in very limited circumstances, is absolutely abhorrent. I have made my views known in previous debates on similar legislation. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat them now. I was one who fully supported the previous Government's exempting from the original recoupment legislation those who were termed 'innocent'. I made it clear at the time that I did not and I still do not seek in any way to protect those who fraudulently evaded their taxation responsibility. However, this legislation goes much further. Rather than repeat the arguments, I merely state that I support the statements which have been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in particular, yesterday and this evening. I want to refer to one portion of the legislation, that is clause 8 and related clauses. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has already admitted in this House in his contribution yesterday that: . . . if these companies had been liquidated, rather than sent to the bottom of the harbour, the capital profits would not have been taxed. I will put it in a very simple terms. A company's assets can be divided into three basic categories. I will define them very basically. A company's assets are made up firstly of its paid up capital and its share premium reserve. Let us call that the paid up capital. Second there is the capital revaluation account. The assets of the company which, over time, may have increased in value are reported in the company's accounts in the capital revaluation account. Thirdly over time, as companies make profits after paying company tax they pay some of them out in dividend and retain some. Those are the retained profits. In the past, if the shareholders wanted to liquidate their company, they were able to do so. What then is the taxable position regarding the three categories I have outlined? Firstly, on distribution the paid up capital is not taxed in the hands of the shareholders. Secondly is the capital revaluation-the amount in the capital revaluation account which if distributed by way of irredeemable bonus shares-is not taxable in the hands of the shareholders. But the third category of assets-the accumulated profits-will be taxable as dividends. There is no question about that and that, I think, is what the Minister for Finance was admitting in his statement yesterday; that if the companies had been liquidated, then the capital profits-that is, the portion in the capital revaluation account -would not be taxed. Now that is all changed by this legislation, and it is changed retrospectively. If the shareholders of a company, instead of liquidating the company, sold the company and it was subsequently subject to this recoupment tax, then the shareholders are not only to become liable for the imputed distribution of the retained earnings with a penalty under this legislation but, also, now they will be made liable for the imputed distribution of the amount in the capital revaluation account, that being the revaluation of assets which the company held , maybe over some long period. When distributed, under this legislation-although it was never done; but when it is imputed to be done by this legislation-that capital profit which the company has made will also now be taxed in the hands of the shareholders. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, this legislation imposes a penalty that is totally unrelated to the amount of tax which has been evaded. It could be that the amount of tax evaded to make this company the subject of this recoupment tax was, say, $1,000, but the capital revaluation amount may have assets of $1m in it. The Government is imposing taxation at the rate of probably 60c in the dollar on, in that case, $1m for $1,000-worth of evaded tax. If the Government wants to introduce legislation that imposes a penalty then it should do it, and let us debate the merits of the size of that penalty, but the Government in this legislation is imposing a penalty that is totally unrelated to the tax that has been evaded. It is doing so retrospectively on capital. I believe that is totally reprehensible, and I will not support the legislation. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.23) —There are a couple of other areas to which I should like to talk briefly. Sections 15 and 18 will now require that fewer persons need to be served with copies of a company assessment. The logical outcome of this is that it will increase the possibility of some shareholders being unaware of their company's liability and, of course, being unaware of their ability and entitlement to object. Amended sections 15 and 18 will be retrograde and they will enhance the likelihood of even more being unable to exercise their rights and to know of their obligations. For that reason, and that reason alone, it is probably counter-productive. The new sub-section 22 (5A) extends the provisions of section 22 to dividend recoupment tax. However, the provisions operate from 5 March, even though the subject legislation was not introduced into this place until 18 May. The provision, therefore, is not only retrospective but also appears to be retroactive. I guess that that is a double reason to treat it with contempt. In any event, the wording of new sub-section 22 (5A) is ambiguous. It provides that arrangements entered into or carried out after 5 March 1983 shall be void, in relation to: income tax that could reasonably have been expected by the person at the time when the scheme was entered into or carried out to become payable by the person after that time by virtue of the operation of section 6C or 6D. When a vendor-shareholder sold his shares during the period in relation to which the principal Act applies-that is, from 1 January 1972 until 4 December 1980-he could not reasonably have expected, at the time when the scheme was entered into or carried out, to become liable for tax arising by the operation of section 6C or 6D. There may be no hint of the possibility of the creation of such a new liability. Even when the principal Act was introduced there was no such provision and no such foreshadowing of it. The first mention of a possible liability under section 6C or 6D was when the legislation was introduced last week. To emphasise a point made by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard), I turn briefly to the formula set out in new sub-section 5A (3). That sets out how the amount of undistributed profits is calculated. It shows an algebraic formula, A - (P + L + T). This certainly includes in undistributed profits the capital assets of the business, such as goodwill and profits on sale of properties. This is the provision which leads to the capital gains tax referred to by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Some of these capital gains were not realised in the hands of the vendor-shareholders but they arose during transactions associated with the sale of the shares, the paper profits still being locked up in the business which the new company purchased. I dealt with that matter in my speech in the second reading. I just want the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to be quite clear that as the formula stands these capital assets are included in A and they are not excluded by any one of P, L or T. Accordingly, the Bill taxes not only accumulated profits but also capital profits which, if the company shares had not been sold, would not have been subjected to income tax. I want to put to rest the claim by the Minister the other evening that capital tax is not involved and that it is not being applied retrospectively. It is, perhaps, an indication of something to come. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.27) —We have not heard from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and I doubt that we shall hear from him until the end of the debate , when he will read us a few notes and retire, sitting, as he has, like a stone dwarf at the bottom of the garden and unable to comprehend what it is that has been said to him. Let me concentrate attention on two matters. The first is section 5 (1) (h) of the Act. Perhaps the Minister might scuttle back to his advisers to see whether they can tell him what section 5 (1) (h) means. Section 5 (1) (h) was the very thing on which the 1982 Act was originally predicated- that is, the need for there to be an arrangement whereunder the company was rendered unable to pay its company tax. That is to go, and now the legislation will apply to any circumstances in which a company, after shares have been sold, has not paid its tax. Section 5 (1) (h) is perfectly explicit on this. It refers to an arrangement or transaction which secured or achieved the result that the company was unable, having regard to other debts of the company, to pay to the Commissioner of Taxation all the company tax due and payable by the company at the relevant time. That is to go, so that no considerations of equity are to remain in the Act. Next, let me return to what has already been referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and by me in relation to the question of the tax and how it is to be calculated. So that the Minister will understand what he is putting to this House-I put this to him last night-let me go over it again. Where there is a distributable amount of undistributed profits, a primary dividend amount shall be taken to exist. Those two components are technical, I grant, but this is within the Minister's portfolio and I trust he understands the words. That primary dividend amount is to be ascertained in a certain manner . We then come to the formula, which is to be found in proposed section 5A (3). It is a perfectly simple formula. It has four components which even the Minister should be able to understand. It is ascertained by taking the total value of the assets of a company and from that total value subtracting three components: First, the total amount of paid up capital; secondly, the total amount of liabilities of the company immediately before the last sale time; and, thirdly, the amount of the company tax liability. I explained this last night and I will put it again by way of a simple illustration. Let us take a company with two shareholders, which may have been trading for many years. Let us assume that it has made $200,000 in profits, half of which are capital profits and half of which are revenue profits. Let us also assume that it has $20,000 of paid up capital and an unpaid tax liability of $1, 000. The answer is that it is caught, the vendor shareholders are caught. What are they caught for? They are not caught for the $1,000 but for an amount of $ 179,000, on which they are to be assessed at rates, which the Minister will well understand since he introduced the legislation into this House, which can go up to 69 per cent. That can apply no matter how large the capital part of the sum on which the tax is to be levied, and that is by any meaning of any language a capital tax. It is a capital tax which is applied retrospectively. It is a capital tax which overturns Slutzkin's case. As I said before, it is a dishonest piece of legislation dishonestly put before this House because at no time has there been a willingness on the part of the Minister and his Government to say to this country: 'Yes, it is a capital gains tax. Yes, we are taxing you in a way which has never before taken place. Yes, we are taxing you in a way which would never happen had you wound up the company and distributed the profits under section 47'. He nods his head, which means that he understands about one- tenth of what he has put to this House, because that happens in relation to profits-it does not happen in relation to capital. The Minister today made that crystal clear in reading his prepared notes. I would hate to see him come into this House without a brief to read when he has to explain taxation legislation, or indeed anything which engages his mind, because this is what he said: I take this opportunity to refer again to one matter that has been the subject of much debate, and that is that personal tax liability under the Bill attaches to profits of stripped companies that have been effectively distributed to former owners, regardless of whether those profits were, in the hands of the company, of a revenue or a capital kind. With a little bit of prodding from his departmental officers we have finally got the Minister to admit that he is imposing a capital gains tax, because that is what it is. Yet before the prodding which has taken place from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others not one word of this was put out to the Australian public. What do we face? We face a piece of legislation which has been put through in the space of a week, in respect of which none of the professional organisations that have an understanding of this highly technical kind of legislation have had an opportunity to put views; in respect of which people who would be affected by it have not had an opportunity to put views; and in respect of which the media have not had an opportunity to become informed and to put views. The Government has sometimes been described as a government of taxation by stealth. This is an exercise in taxation by dishonesty, and by dishonesty that can only be described as, not dishonesty from imcompetence but dishonesty by design. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.35) —I do not want at this stage to canvass further any of the arguments. I think they have been very ably put by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and by others in the second reading debate. I ask whether the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) will respond to some of those questions that have been raised, without closing the debate, because there are points we would like to pursue with him. If he is prepared to respond at this stage we can get on with that. Mr Dawkins —If you sit down, when you have all had a go I will respond. Mr LUSHER —We want the Minister to respond now so we can debate the matter. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.36) —As a final contribution to this Committee debate I go back to the point that was made so very well and so very clearly by my colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender); that is, that this legislation is and has been dishonestly described by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The pinnacle of that dishonest description is the employment of the words 'bottom-of-the-harbour' to describe this legislation. The use of that description in the whole debate about these dreadful bottom-of- the-harbour schemes that has gone on in Australia over the last 12 months has really got out of hand. My understanding is that the origin of the expression is the cases of a number of Sydney promoters of tax avoidance arrangements. After the companies were effectively denuded of assets, then left unable to meet their taxation liabilities, the records of the companies were thrown into Sydney harbour and presumably, as one commentator has it, got lodged in a reef somewhere between Manly and Dee Why. Be that as it may, that is the origin of the expression. There is nothing technical about the description 'bottom-of-the- harbour'. What is dishonest about using that expression in relation to this legislation is that the assets which are attacked and which are subject to a capital gains tax, to the penalty of this legislation, are not assets that in any way can be described as having been transferred to vendor-shareholders in consequence of a transaction that really is in the nature of a bottom-of-the-harbour transaction, because that expression encompassed a situation in which a company was rendered unable to meet its tax liabilities. Because that was an illegal act it is only reasonable that the tax so evaded should be recouped. But what is happening here is that tax that has not been illegally evaded is to be recouped. So the colloquial expression 'bottom-of-the-harbour' has been used to describe a course of conduct which renders a company unable to meet its tax liability and, because that is illegal the tax thereby left unpaid should be recouped. To use that description to excuse a piece of legislation which, in reality, imposes a retrospective capital gains tax, is very dishonest of the Minister. If he is going to assign culpability for emotion in last year's debate he carries as much , if not more, culpability than anybody else in this chamber. He knows that by using that expression he will be able to gather support from many people in the community who, because of the inherently technical nature of this legislation, do not fully understand what is involved in it but say that if it has something to do with that wicked bottom-of-the-harbour business involving those people with criminal connections, of course, it must be justified and the Government must be doing the right thing. This legislation does not just recoup taxation which has been evaded as a result of illegal conduct which was the subject matter of last year's legislation, it goes beyond that. It reaches into the assets of companies which could never, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded, under the present laws of Australia, as being subject to legislation. As my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney said, it reaches to the capital assets of companies which, under a distribution under section 47 of the Income Tax Assessment Act-the present law-would not be liable for tax in the hands of the shareholders. Capital reserves of a company which, under no law in Australia at present could possibly be liable for income tax, by dint of the hypothetical contortions of this legislation are being made liable under this legislation for a penal rate of taxation. The Government, through a Minister who, unless he turns on an absolute blinder in the next 10 minutes, manifestly does not fully understand the ramifications of this legislation in reality, is using this totally emotive expression. It is the old Goebbels technique. If something is said often enough eventually people will start to believe it. That is exactly what the Government is doing with this piece of legislation. It is saying 'bottom-of-the-harbour, bottom-of-the-harbour , bottom-of-the-harbour. Is it not terrible? Shock! Horror! We must do something about it.' The legislation that I introduced into this Parliament last year dealt with bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. It went no further than those. The amendments we put into that legislation guaranteed that it was restricted in its operation to bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. That is why we put those amendments in. We were determined to circumscribe that legislation so that it operated retrospectively only in respect of taxation that had been evaded as a result of illegal conduct. I conclude my remarks on this legislation by saying that the most dishonest aspect of the Government's handling of it is its presumption, its thoroughly misleading behaviour in describing the legislation as being bottom-of-the- harbour legislation. That is a dishonest and inaccurate description but it has been deliberately used by the Minister to gather, in a thoroughly emotional and discreditable fashion, support for a thoroughly deplorable piece of legislation. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.45) —I have listened attentively and patiently to the remarks of the Opposition. Nothing new has emerged this evening which was not patently clear last night. Opposition members are searching and thrashing around like beached whales trying to defend the indefensible. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that it is inaccurate to describe what we are doing tonight as having anything to do with bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. Yet, in his remarks earlier this evening, he indicated that we were dealing with only an aspect of those companies which had been involved in bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. What he likes to ascribe is that it is only the wet Slutzkin part which can be described as bottom-of-the-harbour and not the dry Slutzkin component which is partially the subject of the extension of the measures which we are discussing tonight. But, where an attempt has been made to retrieve the personal income tax, it has, in every instance, been associated with the bottom-of-the-harbour scheme and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that. Mr Spender —Absolute nonsense. Mr DAWKINS —It is not complete nonsense because if the honourable member looks at the legislation-- Mr Howard —You don't understand your own legislation. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have both had adequate opportunity to speak. Mr DAWKINS —The pompous prig from North Sydney is having a marvellous night out. I hope some day someone will give him an interesting job because obviously he is totally frustrated in the mindlessness of the Opposition. I hope that he learns to get used to it or gets out and finds something more to his- Mr Spender —No, I find you a very easy target. You will stay there for some time -a year or so. Mr DAWKINS —You will be staying there for quite some time. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I invite the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair. I advise the honourable member for North Sydney to cease interjecting . Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for North Sydney tries to ascribe to me certain notions of deceit and dishonesty. The fact is that last night I perfectly happily acknowledged that if the companies with which we are concerned tonight had, in fact, liquidated, of course, the capital profits would not have been taxed. He made a big issue of that tonight, as though it had never been mentioned. It was mentioned last night quite clearly. I mentioned it again tonight. The point is that if the people involved in these operations had been interested only in not paying the tax relating to the capital profits no doubt they would have liquidated because that would have been the clear course for them to get out of paying that tax. But they did not liquidate and the reason they did not liquidate-- Mr Howard —But there was no tax. You don't pay tax on capital profits. Mr DAWKINS —Exactly. I understand that. If that was what they were interested in that is what they would have done. But that is not what they were interested in. Mr Spender —You are taxing on capital profits, aren't you? Mr DAWKINS —I said that tonight and I said that last night. If anyone has an incapacity to understand I suggest that it is the honourable member for North Sydney. If the people involved in these companies were concerned about whether their capital profits would be taxed they would have liquidated, surely. But, of course, that was not what they were interested in. They were interested in dodging the tax on the revenue income of those companies whether they were current year profits or whether they were accumulated profits. That was their primary objective. That is why they chose to bottom the companies. If, as I said , they had been interested only in liberating the capital profits from the companies and getting those profits into the hands of the shareholders clearly they would have liquidated as any sensible person would have liquidated. That is not what they were on about. Usually, when a company liquidates it does not continue in business. In fact, most, if not all of the companies involved in these exercises continued in business in another name or in another form. So, to describe these transactions as being analagous to liquidations is, I suggest-I am sure the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) quite clearly understands-quite wrong. The next point that the honourable member for North Sydney rebukes me for is some helpful comments which I tried to offer to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) in respect of the publication of the names of the people who failed to pay the tax. He said that I do not understand what is in the legislation and that I do not understand the obligations which the legislation imposes on the Commissioner of Taxation. He obviously ignored the fact that the Commissioner of Taxation is not required to publish the names of people who fail pay. The Commissioner may-- Mr Spender —It is a discretion which he invariably exercises according to certain guidelines. Mr DAWKINS —Now we have the qualification. Now the great Q.C. from North Sydney offers the qualification which he did not offer a few moments ago when he sought to rebuke me for giving inadequate information to the honourable member for Curtin. What I said to the honourable member for Curtin-he, if not the honourable member for North Sydney, acknowledged that it was a helpful remark- was that it was not a mandatory requirement of the Commissioner of Taxation to publish the names of those who failed to pay within 30 days. The honourable member for North Sydney, in a way which he obviously finds entertaining but the rest of us find totally boring, decided to make some great issue of that point. I was challenged-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, led off on it tonight-in respect of my comments about the consequences of Part IVA which is, after all, the piece de resistance of the honourable member's efforts. Mr Howard —It is a very good piece of legislation. Mr DAWKINS —The legislation was passed unanimously in this chamber which means but one thing. That would be crystal clear even to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and maybe even the honourable member for North Sydney-that is, we supported it. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot escape from is that if a company was involved in behaviour which this legislation ceases to attack, and if it indulged in that behaviour after the application of Part IVA, the consequences would be exactly the same as in the legislation which we introduced and which will pass through the Committee tonight. The honourable member has suggested that we have introduced something new. Mr Howard —Retrospectively. Mr DAWKINS —I am not going to the point of retrospectivity. I make absolutely no apologies for that. What I am saying to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-the burden of his remarks last night was this this is a new tax-is that this is the same sort of tax which Part IVA would seek to impose prospectively. It is not a new tax. It is the same tax which was involved in Part IVA. I was particularly intrigued by the remarks of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). He went to great pains to defend the people who were involved in these activities. He would have us believe that these people were as pure as driven snow and that they had quite legitimate motives in mind-the employment of Australian people. He knows as well as anybody that all the people who will be the subject of this legislation were involved in some kind of fraudulent activity which was the subject of legislation passed by the former Government last year. Try as I did I was not able to conjure up one single tear as a result of the honourable member' s heart-rending defence of people who, for years have defrauded the revenue of so many hundreds of millions of dollars. Let me return to the opening remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last evening. In one breath he said: 'Now we have it: The new Labor Government, despite all its fulmination last year, is unable to uncover the $7 billion worth of avoided and evaded tax which we were able to identify last year'. In the other breath he disparaged our attempts to retrieve the massive amount of revenue which has been lost over the last few years. Yet when we do make an attempt, when we do introduce legislation to give effect to a clear undertaking, a clearly enunciated proposition which goes back for months-- Mr Howard —It is the only promise you have kept. Mr DAWKINS —At least the Deputy Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that we made perfectly clear before the election that this is what we intended to do. When we do attempt to retrieve some of the revenue which his neglect allowed to be lost to the Australian taxpayers, he rebukes us again. I repeat what I said last night: The honourable members cannot have it both ways. I can provide a table-I will have it incorporated in Hansard if the honourable member and you, Mr Deputy Chairman, agree-which I have prepared. The table indicates the revenue foregone as a result of the former Government's neglect over the period from 1975 to 1982. Mr Howard —Let me have a look at it. Mr DAWKINS —I will table it. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like it to be incorporated I will move in that direction. The table indicates that during that period, on the basis of clearly available and undisputable evidence, something in the order of $2.7 billion of tax was avoided as a result of the neglect of the former Government. That does not go to the point which the Deputy Leader made last night-that the amount of tax evaded exceeds many times the amount which was avoided under the schemes which were or were not the subject of legislation introduced by the former Government. A huge amount of revenue has been foregone as a result of the neglect of the former Government. In consequence of election promises and announcements we made during the debates last year, we have moved to retrieve part of that foregone revenue. We have, however, acknowledged that there is a limit to the amount of revenue which can be retrieved. Therefore, we have decided to limit the scope of this legislation only to those companies which were involved in the sorts of operations which were the subject of the legislation introduced by the former Government. On the question of dishonesty and deceit, which seems to be the last remnant of the argument, I repeat that this Government, unlike the former Government, made absolutely crystal clear what we intended to do. During the debate last year we made crystal clear what we considered to be the inadequacies of the legislation. During the election campain we made crystal clear what we intended to do. We have kept faith with the people of Australia in respect of the measures which we introduced last night and which will be passed tonight. I wish to refer briefly to one other matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that it was he who finally killed tax avoidance in this country. I have acknowledged, and will acknowledge again, his substantial, albeit delayed contribution. The cackling honourable member for North Sydney, who is trying to interject, might like me to go through a chronological critique of the telephone book of documents from last year to indicate the scope and extent of the neglect of the former Government during the years in which it sat on the advice of the Commissioner of Taxation without taking any action. Mr Spender —You didn't understand it then and you won't understand it now. Mr DAWKINS —It was long before the honourable member for North Sydney arrived in this place. When I want a mark out of 10 from him for the speeches I make I will ask for it. Notwithstanding the substantial, although belated, contributions to the statute books of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer, the one action which he failed to take, which this Government has now taken, will be the last nail in the coffin of tax avoidance in this country. That is the statement which I made earlier this year on 20 April when I indicated that our approach to any emerging tax avoidance schemes-that is, tax avoidance schemes which emerged during the period of this Government-would be that, in instances where there were blatantly and unambiguously contrived schemes that had no commercial value other than that associated with the avoidance of tax, we would go back to the time of first use of those particular schemes. That is the only sure deterrent which will eliminate the scourge of tax avoidance from the landscape in this country. Indeed, an instance of a scheme has emerged. I gave details of it on 28 April and, of course, the Government will act on it. I expect that tax avoidance will be a thing of the past and that the legislation that we are passing tonight hopefully will be among the last pieces of legislation that will have to be passed in respect of tax avoidance. I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I think the legislation which will be passed by the House tonight-the second reading was passed last night and the third reading will be passed tonight-really does draw the curtains on the sorry saga of the bottom-of-the-harbour episode which, I repeat, would not have gathered the pace or reached the crescendo that it did had it not been for the neglect of successive Treasurers under the former Government. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.3) —The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has asked me about a document he has handed to me. Mr Chairman, may I ask him a question about the document before I make a decision on whether it can be incorporated? It contains the statement: The Tax Office has identified over $2.7 billion in avoided tax not collected due to the previous Government's failure to legislate quickly enough. Does that represent the value judgment of the Australian Taxation Office or the political assertion of the Minister? Mr Dawkins —For what it is worth, what I said was that it was a document that I had prepared. Mr HOWARD —The Minister should be careful what he says because I am reading from his document. Mr Dawkins —I said it was a document that I had prepared. Mr HOWARD —So the comments are the Minister's political assertions and not the value judgment of the Taxation Office? Mr Dawkins —If the honourable member really wants me to indicate, the first page is a summary of the next three and was prepared in my office. The next three pages were prepared by the Taxation Office. Mr HOWARD —So much for it. I do not care whether it is tabled or not. Mr Dawkins —The honourable member cannot stop me tabling it. What he can stop my doing is incorporating it in Hansard. Mr HOWARD —I would not clutter the Hansard. Mr Dawkins —Does that mean that he is denying leave? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr Dawkins —If the honourable member gives it back to me I will table the document. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) -Order! The Minister needs leave even to table the document. Mr Dawkins —I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(10.4) —I want to touch on a couple of the points that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) raised in this debate by way of response. He dealt with two basic points. The first was the question of whether there was a capital tax element in what the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 seeks to introduce. The second one that interested me was whether there was in fact any new tax element in what the Bill seeks to do. In relation to the capital tax aspect, what concerns me greatly is that the Minister obviously believes that he is dealing with fraud. He obviously believes that he is redressing some horrible ill that has existed in situations that have developed over the period. He totally misses the point when he talks about the fact that people should have liquidated companies, that they did not liquidate companies, indicating that they had some ill intent and that they were trying to avoid taxation or whatever by selling, as opposed to liquidating the companies and shares. We are dealing in this circumstance with a period when people were changing the structures of their business, changing the way in which they held assets and carried on their affairs quite legitimately under the laws that existed at the time. It is my understanding that the question of the sale of an asset and the treatment of that asset as being capital was validated by the High Court of Australia. People who were indulging in that practice were acting quite properly. They were perfectly entitled to take that course of action so as to order their affairs. In all ways they were acting legally and in all ways they were acting in a manner that was not improper to the slightest degree. It concerns me that the Minister imputes motives to people who were legitimately restructuring their affairs and who were legitimately using the laws of the land to order their affairs to the best advantage. As the Minister would have to acknowledge, it is not incumbent upon the taxpayer, or the holder of assets, to order his affairs or to take what action he chooses in relation to those matters, in such a way as to maximise his taxation liability. He is perfectly entitled to order his affairs in such a way as to minimise any tax liability he may have. But what this legislation does is redefine something that was not income and redefine it retrospectively. Having redefined something that was capital and called it income, it then imposes a tax retrospectively on it. The Minister equally walks around the question of whether there is any new tax concept in what he is introducing. The Part IVA legislation was not in any way retrospective. The Minister has acknowledged that it was prospective. The other important thing to be recognised about Part IVA is that it does not apply to anything because nothing happened after it was introduced and passed by the House. The fact is that when in Opposition it was certainly apparent to everybody that the then Opposition, the now Government, had views about retrospectivity. The Opposition members made it clear that they would legislate retrospectively. But it is one thing to legislate retrospectively where fraud is involved; it is totally another thing to legislate retrospectively when there is no fraud and where there is totally innocent behaviour on the part of shareholders, directors and citizens of this country. To come in and introduce legislation that tries to impute motive, which tries to suggest that people who were quite legitimately, under the laws of this land and under proper decisions of the High Court, re-ordering or restructuring their affairs, is quite reprehensible. The law is the law and people are entitled to be able to operate under the law as it exists. The way in which the Minister has responded to the points that have been raised from the Opposition side of the House is not satisfactory. He has missed the point. The reality is that he is introducing a retrospective tax on capital and it is a new concept in taxation in this country . The legislation deserves to be condemned. The other thing is that I want to support the views that have been put by other people. I said in the second reading debate that this legislation deserves to be left on the table. It deserves to have much better scrutiny than anyone has been able to give it in the course of the week since it was introduced and first exposed. It was put through this House with unseemly haste yesterday, after seven days, and we are now expected to pass it through the Committee stage this evening. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave- proposed: That Standing Order 48A as amended by the sessional order of 4 May 1983 relating to the adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, the 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(10.12) —It is necessary, albeit that it is after 10 past 10, that I point out to the people of Australia that the House is rising tonight after a brief four-week sitting. This is the first session of the Thirty -third Parliament. The Government is in total disarray. It has made blunder after blunder. We are here at this hour of night having the 11 o'clock rule suspended simply because the Government is not prepared to come back next week. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is about to go on a tour around the world; he is too busy with other matters to worry about the elected representatives of Australia. The 11 o'clock rule is not being suspended because we need to get this business through tonight; we all know the Senate will be here next week, although members of the House of Representatives will disappear from this place until 23 August. The reason the Budget is being brought down on 23 August is that the Government has not yet been able to get its house in order. I understand that it has not yet started its pre-Budget deliberations. It has extended by one week the expected date for presentation of the Budget and we are therefore now in the position of having the Government running away from the Parliament in which it ought to be properly answerable to the elected representatives of the Australian people. This Government has absolutely no excuse to offer. From the Prime Minister down it has broken promise after promise. Last Thursday it presented a very weak excuse for an economic package. We know that next week the trade union movement, from Mr Unsworth in New South Wales to Mr Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, will force on the Government changes to a significant element of the economic package. Changes to the superannuation measures, if they happen, will completely negate that economic package and we will not have the opportunity in this place to say anything about it. Whilst the Opposition will not resist the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), it is critical that the people of Australia know that this is all a farce as far as the Government is concerned. We believe that the Parliament should rise next week- Mr West —You're a farce! Mr SINCLAIR —You are the farce; do not make any mistake about that, my friend. Mr West —Why don't you sit down? Mr SINCLAIR —I am happy to talk; I have another 13 minutes. If the honourable member wants to address himself to the problems of Australia I will be quite happy to tell him a little about them. It is important that the people of Australia remember that they have elected this Government. The Government brought down an economic package which is about to be changed and it is running away from this, the forum of the people of Australia, because it is not prepared to face up to questions and is not prepared to acknowledge that it has broken promise after promise and that its economic package is already in disarray. Whilst we accept that the 11 o'clock rule should be suspended, the Government should hang its head in shame at finding it necessary to ask that that should happen. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.14) —in reply-We are not anxious to run away. I appreciate the vitriolic experience of our opponent but the sad part is that we have 75 members and he has 50. It will take the Opposition three years to get the opportunity to change that. We will put up with the situation in that time and then beat the Opposition again. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) (10.16) I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 4 May 1983, when announcing the Government's criminal deportation policy in this House, I said that the Government would be introducing legislation to amend the Migration Act to remove the discrimination which exists against non- Commonwealth citizens in their liability for deportation as a result of crimes committed in Australia. Discrimination is also found in other legislation within my portfolio and this is clearly inconsistent with the Australian Labor Government's policy of removing all forms of discrimination, wherever it may exist, in the Australian community. The main purpose of the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 is to reform the Migration Act to remove the discrimination between aliens and other immigrants contained in the criminal deportation provisions. Permanent resident aliens- persons not United Kingdom, Irish or 'Commonwealth' citizens-are treated differently from other immigrants in these provisions: In the period they are liable to deportation as criminals-aliens remain always liable, other immigrants cannot be deported after 5 years from entry; and the types of crimes for which they may be ordered deported. This discrimination is totally unacceptable to me and to the Government. Accordingly this Bill is being introduced to put all non- Australian citizens on the same footing in the Migration Act 1958. The Migration Act was passed in 1958, almost 25 years ago. It has been amended on a number of occasions but has never been the subject of a complete review in the light of developments since 1958. The Act provides the machinery through which Government immigration policies are implemented. During the past 25 years immigration policies have changed radically in response to changing community attitudes and interests, economic and employment conditions, conditions in other countries and the increasingly multicultural nature of our society. The number of movements into and out of Australia has increased significantly and the method of travel is now predominantly by aircraft. It is the intention of the Government to review not only the Migration Act but also other legislation in my portfolio, including the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to reflect the changes I have mentioned and to ensure that these acts provide for the equal treatment of all non-citizens, whilst at the same time ensuring that appropriate controls are maintained. The amendments included in this Bill should therefore be regarded as the first steps towards achieving this end. They will remove obvious discrimination and correct other deficiencies of immediate concern-for example, the power to deport prostitutes or persons admitted to mental hospitals or public charitable institutions. Further amendments to the Migration Act, which is obviously in need of reform, will depend upon the outcome of the review. I would expect that review to take into account the views of the Human Rights Commission, which has signalled already its intention to examine the Migration Act. As I said when I announced the Government's criminal deportation policy on 4 May, the amendments introduced by this Bill will form a package under which consistent, firm, just and humane decisions can be made on the sensitive matter of the deportation of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Australia. The proposed legislative provisions relating to criminal deportation cannot be considered in isolation from the policy. The legislation does not define the basis on which decisions are to be taken; that is the purpose of the policy. Experience has shown that it is not feasible, nor do I believe that it is proper , to define by legislation precisely who must be deported from Australia. Discretion must continue to be vested in the Minister to consider each case on its merits. The exercise of discretion under the Act must continue to be guided by statements of government policy. The Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non- citizens whose serious crimes show that they are a threat to the community. The Government must retain the legislative power to remove criminals and undesirables who have chosen not to commit themselves fully to Australia or who, through their own criminal actions, do not qualify for membership of the Australian community. The legislative power given by the Migration Act must, however, apply equally to all non-Australian citizens and not, as it now does, discriminate between 'aliens' and 'immigrants' both in respect of the types of crimes committed and the period during which they are committed. Apart from removing the distinction and discrimination between non-Commonwealth and other overseas-born residents who are not Australian citizens, the Bill also limits liability for deportation, generally speaking, to those non-citizens who commit offences during the first 10 years of permanent residence and introduces a more exact measure of the seriousness of the crime, that being an actual penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or more. The introduction of a statutory liability period of 10 years authorised residence fulfils a pre-election commitment by my Government that non-citizens should be free from the threat of deportation after a certain period. Currently persons who are citizens of non-Commonwealth countries remain always liable to deportation unless they become Australian citizens. This is unacceptable. In administering a large-scale immigration program the Government and the community must be prepared to accept some 'bad with the good'. The overwhelming majority of non-citizens who settle in this country are law-abiding members of the community and have a right to expect, after 10 years of lawful residence, that they will not be expelled. Honourable members will note, when I turn to the details of the proposed amendments, that time actually spent in prison will not be regarded as authorised permanent residence. The objective of this exemption is to ensure that a non-citizen with a repetitive, and sometimes worsening, criminal record, if not deported on the basis of earlier convictions, will remain subject to deportation for a longer period. The community will also be protected from those non-citizens who pose a national security risk, including those who are convicted of espionage, sedition , treason or similar crimes. Such persons will always be liable for deportation. Honourable members will also note that the proposed section 12 includes a reference to the death penalty. This reference will be deleted from the Act when the death penalty has been abolished in all States. I particularly refer to Western Australia. I must emphasise that the purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community. Deportation is not imposed as a punishment and must not in any sense be regarded as punishment. It is for the courts to determine the sentences imposed for crimes committed and for the appropriate State authorities, or the Governor-General in the case of Federal offenders, to decide when the person is to be released from prison. While deportation may produce hardship, it is not done as a punishment. My responsibility as Minister is to weigh that hardship to the offender, and others whose interests would be affected by deportation, against harm to the community which might result from the person's continued presence in this country. Under this Government deportation is not automatic. A deportation order is made only after a full investigation of the case and a careful consideration of factors, including the legitimate rights of individuals, as outlined in the Government's criminal deportation policy statement. I now turn to the details of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill is an interpretation clause. It omits the definitions of 'alien', 'immigrant' and ' protected person' and inserts a definition of 'non-citizen' to mean a person who is not an Australian citizen. This definition is central to the operation of the Migration Act 1958, as it will be amended, because it puts all non-Australian citizens on the same footing. The clause also empowers the Minister to make valid decisions when at present only 'officers' and 'authorised officers' as defined in the Act may take such decisions. A new section dealing with criminal deportation is to be inserted into the principal Act by clause 10. The new section 12 will render liable to deportation any non-citizen who has, within 10 years of being granted permanent residence, committed a crime for which he has been sentenced to death-as I have said, the reference to the death penalty will be removed when all the States take it off their statute books-or to imprisonment for life or for a period of no less than one year. The period of 10 years shall be determined on the basis of legal presence or the aggregate of periods of legal presence in Australia, of the person as a permanent resident. It shall, however, exclude a period for which the person was confined in a prison as a result of conviction for any offence. For the purpose of this 10-year period, a period of presence in Australia of the person as an Australian citizen shall be included, to avoid an unintended adverse effect against a non-citizen who, during the length of his legal presence in Australia, acquired Australian citizenship and subsequently lost it, either by choice or by operation of law. The proposed section has no application with respect to prohibited non-citizens. It deals only with deportation of legal permanent residents who are non-citizens and who have committed crimes and have been sentenced as specified. Clause 11 amends section 14 by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2). The clause inserts new sub-sections which remove the discrimination between the treatment of aliens and immigrants and confine and specify the basis upon which deportation may be ordered irrespective of the limitations applying to criminal deportations under section 12. The new sub-section 14 (1) considerably reduces the existing power of the Minister to order the deportation of an alien when it appears that his conduct ' had been such that he should not be allowed to remain in Australia'-what a scandal it is that this power has been allowed to remain for so long-by restricting it to cases where the conduct of a non-citizen has been such as to constitute a threat to the security of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. The new sub-section 14 (2) specifies the particular offences-that is, espionage , sedition, treason or similar crimes-a conviction for which would empower the Minister to order deportation of a non-citizen. This replaces the existing sub- section 14 (2), which requires only that it appear to the Minister that the immigrant had engaged in conduct which would comprise espionage, sedition, treason or similar crimes; that is, at present it has only to appear to the Minister that a person would do these things to make that person liable to deportation. Even though the width of the powers under the existing section 14 is greatly reduced, the ministerial exercise of the reduced powers remains subject to appeal to a commissioner within section 14 of the Act. Further, the Government proposes to re-examine the scope of section 14 in its further review of the Migration Act. We propose to review it still further and an obvious area for review is the appeal system. Clause 15 inserts a new sub-section into section 20 to provide that a deportation order will not become invalid through any delay in the execution of the order. Clause 23 amends section 36A to omit the requirement to serve notice under the section within 24 hours after a person is taken into custody under the section, because this time limitation is often administratively impractable. Clause 33 contains amendments to section 55 consequential upon the removal of the definition of 'Alien'. Clause 36 amends various sections as set out in the Schedule. The amendments substitute, for references to 'immigrants' and ' prohibited immigrants', 'non-citizens' and 'prohibited non-citizens' respectively, and include other minor amendments of a technical nature. Clause 37 is a transitional provision which deems a person who was a prohibited immigrant, before the commencement of this amending Act, to be a prohibited non- citizen. The clause also provides that an entry permit, visa, return endorsement or any other instrument that was in force under the Principal Act immediately before the commencement of this amending Act, shall have effect as though it were in force under the provisions of the Principal Act as so amended. The clause also preserves the validity of a deportation order which was made under the Principal Act prior to the commencement of the amending Act and which has not been revoked before the commencement of the amending Act. The Government sees the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 as an important step in the reform of the Migration Act, for which the Government has a mandate following the recent election. I trust that it will be well received in the ethnic communities of Australia. It is further evidence that this Government is implementing its priority pledges to those ethnic communities. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Message received from the Senate returning the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill 1983 and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate. Message received from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House varying the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House. Message received from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House relating to a reference to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Of course, separate questions will be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(10.33) —The Opposition supports these two Bills. They are, in essence, the measures that were presented to the Parliament by the former Minister for Transport, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, last year. The preservation of Australia's marine and coastal environment has always been of concern to the parties presently on this side of the House. Throughout the years when we were in government, legislation was introduced to keep Australia up to date with developments in international treaties. In 1981 we introduced into the Parliament protection of the sea legislation which included specific measures to provide improved protection of the marine and coastal environments, powers of intervention in the case of actual or threatened marine pollution incidents and ability to demand compensation to pay for the combating and cleaning up of tanker sourced oil pollution. This protection of the sea package is a further step towards winning the fight against marine pollution. The origins of these Bills go back to the Commonwealth 's obligations under the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by the 1978 Protocol to the Convention. The two instruments are widely referred to as MARPOL. Before the former Government introduced these measures, discussions were held with a number of people who had a concern and interest in the legislation. They included the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, National Development and Energy, Foreign Affairs, Primary Industry, Finance, the Attorney-General, Science and Technology and Home Affairs and Environment. Discussions were also held with the State and Northern Territory Ministers in the Marine and Ports Council of Australia. These Ministers agreed that their governments would follow the Commonwealth's legislation with complementary legislation in order to complete fully Australia's commitment to the MARPOL Convention. The shipping industry and port operators were also consulted about the legislation. Overall, the previous Government relied heavily on the consensus and information sharing to take these Bills to the stage they have now reached. The other important point about the legislation is that the cost to the taxpayer of enactment of these two important Bills is nil. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill introduces new and improved pollution control provisions relating to oil pollution, including special arrangements for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. It introduces controls on the operation of ships carrying noxious liquid in bulk and the discharging and cleaning of cargo tanks. Depending on the catergorisation of the substance, different rules are applied. The Navigation ( Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill repeals section 12 of the Navigation Act. The repeal of this section allows the MARPOL Convention to supersede the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This Bill inserts a new section 12 relating to oil carrying ships. As all matters relating to the construction, safety and survey of ships are incorporated in the Navigation Act, MARPOL Convention requirements have also been included in the Act for simplicity of administration and understanding by the industry. The Opposition has no objection to the Bills. I congratulate the Hawke Government and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table upon carrying on the good work of the field of protection against pollution that was started by the former Government. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.38) —The legislation before the House implements the provisions of Annexes I and II of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL as it is known, as amended by the 1978 Protocol to that Convention. Annex I covers the prevention of pollution by oil or oil mixtures and Annex II by noxious substances. The MARPOL preamble says , in part, that the parties to the Convention are: Desiring to achieve the complete elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment by oil and other harmful substances and the minimisation of accidental discharge of such substances. The legislation goes a long way towards carrying out this desire. The current huge oil spill from the Iranian well in the Persian Gulf has dramatically illustrated the ecologically disastrous nature of oil pollution. It has devastated local marine life, thus severely damaging the rich fishing and shrimping industries of the Gulf nations and threatening vital water desalination and power plants. In fact, it is affecting the whole livelihood of these countries. This disaster is easy to appreciate-it is on such a large and impressive scale. Easy to appreciate also is the impact of major disasters involving oil tankers-the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz come to mind. Such incidents attract world-wide publicity even though they account for only 10 to 15 percent of oil spills. How much more difficult it is to grab world attention with news of the jettisoning of oil from ships and tankers. There is no drama in this. It happens every day around the world. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is slowly but inevitably having the same effect on world marine ecology as the oil well disaster is rapidly having on the Gulf marine ecology and, with the aid of legislation such as this, it can be prevented with sufficient effort and good will. Much of the accidental spillage from tankers has been eliminated in recent years due to a combination of more sophisticated loading methods and the world- wide adverse publicity resulting from the more spectacular oil spills. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that some 40 per cent of all oil entering the sea is deliberately jettisoned when oil tankers flush their ballast water. The legislation now before the House seeks to prevent this source of pollution. Information available on the subject shows that prevention is imperative because there is no effective cure, even if a spill is notified, which occurs much less frequently than it should. There are basically two methods of treating spills. The first method, which is favoured strongly by such countries as the United States of America, Canada and France, is the mechanical control and removal of the oil using collecting devices to scoop or skim the oil from the surface of the water. The problems with this method are many. It requires a calm sea state. Mechanical dispensers are ineffective in even average conditions. Also, the rapid spread and thinning nature of an oil spill militates against its mechanical collection. It has been estimated that within seven hours of a spill the oil film will be only 0.08 millimetres thick. The second major method of dealing with spills is by chemical dispersal. This is the method principally favoured by Australia where our contingency plan is to provide low-toxicity chemicals and spraying equipment at nine points around the Australian coast. Of course these chemicals cannot be used near land because of their unfavourable environmental impact. Apart from these two methods, oil slicks may have to be left to biodegrade or even to come ashore if this will cause the least harm. When an oil slick is left untreated-as most are-about one third of the oil volume evaporates within 24 hours. While this limits the spreading slick, the remaining matter tends to form greasy lumps up to 5 millimetres in diameter which drop below the surface of the water and then take a very long time to bio-degrade. I understand that that is referred to as chocolate mousse. I would not wish to draw any analogy between that and the chocolate bavarian cream served in the parliamentary dining room. I certainly would not begin to suggest such an analogy for a minute. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the deep sea ecology. After all, it represents easily the largest single environment on earth. It is probably because it is so immense that we have felt up to now that we can get away with using it as the world's garbage dump. The popular misconception that oil and water do not mix and that therefore the deep sea environment is relatively immune to oil has prevailed until recently. Evidence now shows that hydrocarbons can reach the sediments of the continental shelf where they pose an immense threat to the world's fishing industry. Of course, this hydrocarbon invasion occurs from many sources, some of them not caused by man, but it is reasonable to assume that oil from ships supplies a significant degree of this pollution. This legislation will go a long way towards removing this problem. I am pleased to see that these Bills offer some protection to the Great Barrier Reef, in that the term 'nearest land' is defined in the Convention as meaning, among other things, the outer edge of the Barrier Reef, and they provide that no operating discharge can take place within 50 nautical miles of the nearest land in the case of a tanker or within 12 nautical miles for other ships-this difference being intended to allow for the differing pollution potential between various types of ships. This might seem like small potatoes compared with the danger of actual oil drilling on the Reef but nonetheless it is certainly a move in the right direction. Part III of the first Bill, which relates to pollution by noxious liquid substances, follows the same format as Part II, similarly defining duty to report discharges, the keeping of record books and penalties for false entries in these books. Noxious substances have been divided into categories according to the degree of environmental hazard they provide and the provisions on discharge into the sea vary accordingly. Part III will be deferred for three years as permitted by the 1978 Protocol of MARPOL, which was intended to ensure that participating countries had prepared adequate reception facilites for discharge. This section is also extremely important as these liquids, by their very nature, are almost impossible to recover once they enter the sea. Although this package of Bills only implement annexes I and II of the MARPOL Convention, I believe that they go a long way towards preventing this deliberate pollution of one of the world's greatest resources. On this basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend these Bills to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.44) —The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill was originally introduced by the previous Government but, with the bringing on of the election, it was not passed through the Parliament and consequently has been introduced by our successors. The Bill repeals and replaces the 1981 Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships ) Act and gives effect to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the 1978 protocol, which is known as MARPOL. The new international convention and its protocol offers considerable advantages to the 1954 OILPOL convention which had previously been the international criterion for controlling this type of pollution. The advantages which are particularly worth noting are that the time which has passed since 1954, some 20 years or more, provides very much improved technical operational requirements for ships at sea. The Convention further widens the application of anti-pollution laws to cover noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, while introducing improved oil pollution provisions. It also provides the basis for future legislation to deal with harmful packaged substances, sewage and garbage. In addition, protection of the Great Barrier Reef is included in the MARPOL Convention and is extended to both oil and noxious liquid substances. As the Opposition spokesman for the environment, my support is naturally taken for granted, I presume, in relation to this Bill. The Opposition, like the Government, is considerably concerned about the damage which oil spillages can do to the marine environment of Australia. It is worth noting that the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation presented a report in 1978 entitled 'Oil Spills-Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution in the Marine Environment'. In that report, the Senate committee noted that ship generated spills were estimated as contributing 35 per cent of the total input of oil into the ocean. These included minor accidental spills occurring during loading and unloading at docks; major accidents such as the Amoco Cadiz, and the other serious accident caused by the Torrey Canyon spills; and, further, deliberate spills which were usually a result of tank cleaning at sea. Anyone who has had the experience of living in the area of the Mediterranean, in particular the eastern Mediterranean, would appreciate the severe pollution which this has caused, especially on the beaches of the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean Sea. More recently, we have seen the critical situation caused in the Arabian Gulf as a result of the Iran-Iraq war and the destruction of oil rigs which has caused significant pollution in that area. This has been most damaging to all forms of marine life, and it is very regrettable that so little appears to have been successfully achieved in the control of the flow of oil because of the warlike situation in that area. I would like to put on record that I put out a release during that period calling upon the Australian Government to use its endeavours to try to have a ceasefire established between Iran and Iraq for the purpose of closing off the oil wells so that a continuation of the oil spill could be prevented. I think it is important to keep a close watch on the reality of the situation; namely, that the marine environment belongs to the world at large. Australia, therefore, has as much right as any other nation to take a leading role in the prevention of oil spillages and the control of other problems of the environment in that regard. It is of concern to me that the Government did not take up the opportunity which was offered by the major oil spillage in the Iran Gulf to take a world leading role at that time. In addition to these observations, it is worth noting that the Senate committee also found that it was possible that most of the oil spilt in the sea originated from a large number of small spills rather than a small number of large spills, such as the Torrey Canyon and the Amoco Cadiz incidents. The extent and degree of damage by oil will be determined by a number of factors, not least of which are the site of the oil spill, the condition of surface currents and the sea at the time of the spill, the volume of oil which has been spilled, the physical and chemical properties of that oil, the method of clean-up adopted and, of course, a number of other variables. However, the Committee concluded that there is presently no effective means of evaluating these factors to enable soundly based counter measures to be taken in the event of a major spill. This is why preventative measures, such as strict laws and considerable fines for breaking those laws, must be the basis for legislation. These are taken account of in this Bill. Putting it quite simply, prevention is undoubtedly better than cure. It is worth noting that once an oil spill occurs, it is usually too late to save the communities of plants and wildlife which have been affected. The Torrey Canyon incident in the English Channel demonstrated quite clearly the massive loss of life, especially bird life, as well as crustaceans and fish, which took place as a result of that massive flow of oil into the Channel. The effects of oil on marine ecosystems are extremely serious. For example, there is the difficulty created by direct coating which leads to suffocation. Oil is toxic and when absorbed it will cause death. In addition, there is the problem of habitation for marine life being severely damaged or often lost. Furthermore, there is the accumulation of hydrocarbons which cause behavioural response differences in marine life. The effects of oil in particular go beyond the obvious visual coating of sea birds and fish. Thus, any suspension of fine oil droplets can be expected to harm underwater animals and plant life most seriously, and these otherwise are only slightly affected by floating oil. Recent findings indicate that oil spills may be having detrimental effects on the deep sea environment, as deep as 200 metres. This is a matter for concern, because one phenomenon associated with high productivity in coastal waters, especially for fishing, namely, the upwelling of nutrient rich water, is dependent upon conditions in the adjacent deep sea environment, and this could have serious effects on future fish populations. Another serious problem with oil spills is that usually non-biodegradable detergents have been used to break up the slick. But these detergents also have a considerable toxic effect of their own on the marine ecosystem. The gravity of oil spills in Australian waters, therefore, cannot be over-estimated. In areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, the home of unique coral formations and organisms, bird life and fish, the environmental costs of damage are incalculable. It is thus a matter of some concern that under clauses 9 and 10 of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill which we are debating, discharges are only prohibited inside the 50 nautical miles distance of the nearest land. In terms of the Bill, the nearest land, among other things, includes the Great Barrier Reef. I recognise that this is in accordance with the MARPOL convention and that any change, perhaps extending it, for example, to the 200 nautical mile zone on the basis of the Law of the Sea Convention's economic zone, would require considerable international debate. Under the previous Government this was being given consideration by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, but we have not been advised whether the present Government intends to examine this matter further because it is worthy of consideration, particularly in the context of the next international convention discussions. In conclusion, the Opposition expresses its commitment to the complete elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment and the minimisation of accidental discharges of such substances. We therefore support these Bills as recognising their ultimate objectives. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.52) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for their thoughtful and constructive contributions in this short debate. Unfortunately, the debate has been truncated because of time and because it has been the desire of both the Government and the Opposition to get this legislation passed and on the statute book. This is one of those occasions which does not draw the headlines, but it is an important occasion when the Parliament is at one on a very significant international convention that has major implications for our marine environment. I just want to note the point that there are occasions when the national interest supercedes the short term party-political interest, and tonight is one of those. There has been a bipartisan approach to the legislation . My colleague the member for Sydney mentioned the oil discharge in the Persian Gulf, which was also referred to by the honourable member for Bradfield. In the reporting of that incident, there has been some exaggeration of the level of discharge of oil that has occurred in the Gulf. It seems to be what can probably be described as a deal of misinformation on the quantity of oil discharged. My understanding, without referring to specific notes, is that one well is on fire and that that arose as a result of war action, one well is discharging as a result of collision by ship, and I think that one other well is discharging for other reasons. But the amount of oil discharged to date, I think, has been about 216,000 tonnes, which is equivalent to not a supertanker but to a large tanker quantity of oil. But still, that is not to decry the potential for damage both to the marine environment and to the littoral environment. In those circumstances the comments made by both honourable members still hold good. The honourable member for Bradfield raised the matter of the toxicity of the dispersants used in the event of oil spill. I am advised that modern dispersants used in combating oil pollution are biodegradeable and that great care was taken in the selection of dispersants that have been used and particularly those that have been stockpiled. I can give the actual details to the honourable member on a later occasion, in respect of the national oil plan. The other matter to which I want to refer is that whilst the legislation picks up annexes I and II of the MARPOL convention, there still remain annexes III, IV and V. They cover, respectively, packaging materials, sewage and garbage. There are a number of main ports around Australia, resource export ports such as Newcastle, Port Kembla and Port Hedland, where waiting vessels, in the course of their normal transit times, discharge materials that come under those categories . In some cases they are bound to be materials and garbages of organic origin which carries with it the potential for foot and mouth disease and the transmission of other diseases. So until such time as we develop a system of collection of such discharges from vessels, there remains a danger, more so to Australia than to a number of other ports that I can think of in similar circumstances around the world. I mention that because there is a danger and because we intend, as a Government, to give prominence to that danger, and to try to stimulate greater activity internationally in bringing into force those annexes III, IV and V. I thank honourable members for their contribution to this important legislation . As I have said, it is a marked improvement on the existing arrangements. Its passage will place Australia in the international forefront in the field of international marine pollution convention implementation. Question 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. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question 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 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.58) —The Opposition supports the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983. My remarks on it will be brief. It has become recognised that there is a necessity to bring in, year by year, what might be called a housekeeping Bill where, what has been described by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech as non-contentious matters, are dealt with. The definition of non-contentious seems to be becoming increasingly elastic, and I suppose that that is one of the problems that all governments face. Flowing from that is the problem of advisers, the legal profession, accountants and the like, and those who have to pay tax, in keeping up with what is happening. In this Bill we have more than 90 amendments. I instance two only. One is a sensible amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act. It provides that where a periodic report has to be furnished to a Minister and no time is specified for its furnishing then it must be done in a specified period. That, of course, is sensible. As well, there is a proposed amendment to section 80 of the Trade Practices Act. I refer to that amendment because it has an important practical application in the conduct of trade practices cases and, of course, in the rights and liabilities of parties in courts. That kind of amendment I should have thought ideally should have been brought down in a Bill of its own because it can easily become lost when it appears in an omnibus Bill of this kind. I will not spend time referring to the guidelines which were mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in his second reading speech, save to observe that they do tend to become stretched in practice. On the dissemination of information about the Bill, he said: To assist the dissemination of the contents of this Bill, the Attorney-General' s Department has now forwarded copies of the Bill and explanatory material to the Law Council of Australia so that that body can inform the profession through its member State bodies. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would consider having the Attorney- General's Department disseminate the Bill and the explanatory memorandum also to professional bodies in all States, such as the Bar Association of New South Wales, and to publishers of professional and legal literature so that those bodies can be kept up to date. It would make it very much easier. I am sure he would agree that whilst housekeeping measures are useful it is essential to try to keep the public and professional advisers as well informed as possible of legislation which deals with a wide variety of matters in the one Act of the Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.3) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for his remarks and co-operation . I agree with him that it would be very worth while to guarantee the circulation of the amendments in Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No . 1) and the explanatory memorandum to the professional bodies and legal publishers. I will arrange for that to be done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.4) —The amendments that were foreshadowed in my second reading speech were suggested by the Senate, and the Government agrees to them. They have been circulated. Amendment (1) relates to the Honey Levy Collection Act 1962. Honourable members will see that the amendment is to omit 'ten per centum' and substitute '20%'. The second amendment omits 'on the security of the honey' and substitutes 'on such security as the Board considers adequate'. In respect of that I did indicate-I say it again-that the Honey Board of Australia has the power to make advances. Rather than having the advance limited to the owner of the honey-there could be difficulties about security-the amendment ensures more effective security. Of course, it enables the Board to make advances on different forms of security and thereby ensure that the Commonwealth is a secured creditor in relation to the advance. Amendment (2), which I shall advert to now relates to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The provisions of that Act establish a procedure for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable in respect of any acquisition. There is a provision for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to inquire into the matter. If the property is within a State, the Premier of the State is entitled to nominate one of three members of the commission. The idea of this amendment is to put the Northern Territory in a similar position to the States; that is, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory will be entitled to nominate one member of the commission where the property acquired is within the Northern Territory. I believe the amendments are very worth while and I commend them to the House. Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask leave to move the two amendments together. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I move: (1) Page 29, Schedule 1, before- ''Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 Sub-section 8 (1)-Omit 'ten per centum', substitute '20%'.''. insert- ''Honey Industry Act 1962 Paragraph 18 (1) (c)-Omit 'on the security of the honey', substitute 'on such security as the Board considers adequate' ''. (2) Page 55, Schedule 1, add at the end of that Schedule- ''World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 Paragraph 17 (9) (a)-After ' State', insert 'or in the Northern Territory'. Paragraph 17 (9) (b)-After 'State', insert 'or the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, as the case may be'.''. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.8) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of major city earth station buildings at Sydney and Perth for Aussat Proprietary Limited. Tonight I have not only to seek this exemption but also, I am pleased to say- because I prefer doing it-to seek the approval of the House to refer three other matters to the attention of the Public Works Committee. I give notice that notice No. 8 has been withdrawn, so this is the only further exemption I am seeking and I hope it will be the last I seek for a long time. The proposal is for two buildings at Sydney and Perth to house tracking, telemetry control and monitoring equipment required for the control of satellites to be launched as part of Australia's national satellite system. The national satellite system is owned and managed by Aussat Pty Ltd. Aussat has entered into major contracts for satellites, tracking, telemetry command and monitoring station equipment, satellite launch support facilities, receiving- transmitting equipment and the actual satellite launch services. These technical services are not subject to the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act but the major city earth station buildings at Sydney and Perth are. Aussat requires the buildings to be available for installation of equipment, commissioning and training of operational personnel by July 1984. Any delays could prejudice launch dates-in fact, I am informed they would prejudice launch dates-and result in cost increases greatly in excess of the total cost of the works involved in this motion. One figure I have noted is that the cost could well be as much as $35m if there are delays. To meet this timing it will be necessary to finalise building contracts well before the House resumes for the Budget session. Consideration of the proposals by the Committee during the recess is thus not practicable. Earlier reference was not possible as information on essential technical requirements for earth stations was not available at a sufficiently early date to enable the reference of the projects to the Committee. The estimated cost of these earth station buildings is $9m out of a total of around $330m, which is the estimated expenditure at the time of the first launch. If the House agrees to support this motion, construction can proceed. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.11) —The Opposition raises no objection to the proposal outlined by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). We understand the urgency of the measure and fully support the actions he has taken . As Deputy Chairman of the Public Works Committee I need to point out to the House, however, that the Committee accepts that the Public Works Committee Act provides that proposed work may be exempted from its scrutiny on the grounds of urgency. I also inform the House that the Committee was given two briefings by departmental officers, which it appreciated, on the background to the proposal and the reasons for the urgent nature of the work. Should the Committee have agreed to the exemption of the work it would, of course, have been giving tacit approval to the project. The Committee, of course, is not in a position to do that without a public hearing. I am advised that the Chairman has written to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) stating that it would have been able to conduct a public hearing into the proposal during the winter recess and to table the report early in the Budget session. But, as I said at the outset, the Opposition, and indeed members of the Committee, fully appreciate the need for urgency. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.13) —I move: That, in accordance with the provision 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: Provision of air conditioning to main instructional building, Schools of Transport and Catering, Puckapunyal, Victoria. The proposal is for the installation of air conditioning and other control measures in the main instructional building to overcome the unacceptable working conditions that have prevailed hitherto. The elements of the work comprise: A new central air conditioning plant and ducting; replacement of glazing with reflective glass to reduce solar heat again ; and provision of transportable buildings to enable instruction to continue during alterations. The estimated cost of the proposal at April 1983 prices is $ 2.26m. I table plans of the proposed work. I trust the House will agree to this reference. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.14) —I support the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) to refer this proposal to the Public Works Committee. Honourable members will be aware that the Puckapunyal Army base to which the work refers is Australia's major armoured and transport corps and an important base. The Minister has indicated that it is proposed that the already high standard of defence training maintained by the base is further enhanced by the provision of environmental controls to the main constructional block at the School of Transport and Catering. Comprehensive air conditioning is to be installed and all windows will be double glazed. These improvements are very long awaited and are much needed, particularly in the warm and humid conditions of the catering school. Temperatures climb to well over 42 degrees celsius in that massive three-storey concrete building in the summer months. During last summer, when I visited Puckapunyal Army base, instruction was commenced at 5 o'clock every morning and concluded at 11 o'clock to avoid the excessive heat felt in the building by early afternoon. Obviously the proposed works are also vital to improve training conditions at the base. The project is also a major capital undertaking, estimated to cost almost $2.2m. The labour intensive nature of much of the work, particularly the double glazing , will require a considerable number of site workers of both skilled and unskilled categories. All in all it is an extremely worthwhile and much needed project. These proposed works are a very welcome follow on for major capital works announced at the base only one month ago by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes ). In what is in anyone's terms a massive boost to defence construction works, more than $14m was allocated for comprehensive redevelopment of the armoured centre at the Puckapunyal base. That $14m for the redevelopment project will provide direct and indirect employment for more than 500 people, including a peak on-site work force of 175 during the first half of 1984. It is expected that that project will be completed by 1985 and, in conjunction with the proposal put tonight by the Minister for Housing and Construction, should ensure a very substantial improvement in overall facilities at the Army base. I have a lot to do with the Army base. I am a regular visitor at Puckapunyal. As I said, I had a good look last summer at the appalling conditions in the catering and transport school. This is a very much needed proposal. If I can offer any assistance at all to the Public Works Committee I shall do so to ensure that consideration and report is completed with the maximum of urgency. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.17) —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: Garden Island, NSW, modernisation stage 2. Surface preparation and preservation facility and oily bilge waste treatment plant. This project is a component of the $79m, in April 1981 prices, modernisation works examined and reported on by the Committee on 26 August 1981. It was referred back to the Committee on 27 May 1982 and the Committee conducted a public hearing of evidence on 4 August 1982. A number of matters which were raised during the public hearing had not been resolved before the double dissolution of Parliament in February and thus the reference lapsed. The Government is now in a position again to refer these outstanding elements of the stage 2 modernisation program to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. The proposal involves construction of a building which will accommodate the surface preparation and preservation treatment plant, as well as the oily bilge waste treatment plant, in an area where grit blasting of ships components is currently done in the open. The proposed facility will enable the bulk of grit blasting to be done under cover, thereby substantially reducing dust and noise pollution and enable oily bilge wastes to be pumped directly for treatment and disposal in accordance with State pollution control commission requirements. I need hardly mention in this House that all of this is taking place very close to a residential area on Garden Island. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $5.775m at April 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and trust that the House will agree to this reference. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.20) —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: RAAF Base Williamtown, N.S.W.-FA- 18 Hornet facilities development. This proposal is for the provision of facilities required to meet the need of the tactical fighter force during and subsequent to the re-equipment of the force with FA-18 fighter aircraft together with works needed for the eventual relocation of No. 3 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, from Butterworth, Malaysia. The proposal comprises the following elements: Facilities for No. 481 Maintenance Squadron; fighter unit facilities for No. 77 Squadron and No. 3 Squadron; facilities for No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit; Army parachute training school; administration and domestic facilities; sleeping accommodation; off-base married quarter accommodation; and associated engineering works and services. The estimated cost of the proposal at April 1983 prices is $90.74m. The estimated cost does not include a number of time critical facilities to the value of $15m which the House resolved only yesterday in a separate motion to exempt from Committee consideration on the grounds of urgency. It is nice on this occasion, however, to refer these matters to the Public Works Committee as we value the scrutiny of that Committee. I table plans of the proposed work. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.21) —I did not take up the time of the House by seeking to speak on each of the three references which have just been proposed by the Government. On behalf of the Opposition I express its strong support for the references that have been made to the Public Works Committee. All the works should proceed expeditiously. I feel sure they will be dealt with by the Public Works Committee as quickly as possible. All the projects referred to by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) this evening were at an advanced stage of planning and close to being referred to the Public Works Committee at the time of the change of government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I present the 46th general report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr COWAN —by leave-I wish to say a few words in appreciation of the honourable members who served on the Public Works Committee during the term of this report. Naturally I pay respect first to the former honourable member for Canning in Western Australia, Mr Mel Bungey. Mr Bungey served a term of almost five years as the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. In fact, he is the second longest serving member of the Committee since it was set up in 1914. Mr Bungey was respected by all who had the privilege to serve with him because of his ability to interrogate witnesses. He was held in high regard over the years. I mention also the work of the former honourable member for Sydney, Mr Les McMahon, who was the Vice-Chairman of the Committee. Mr McMahon certainly made a contribution to the welfare of the Committee. Other members who served at the time were Senator Martyr, Mr Ted Innes and Mr Murray Sainsbury. We must not forget the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) who is now the Government Whip. All of those men made a contribution to the Public Works Committee. The Committee kept up a certain amount of tradition over the years. Party politics never entered into the general work or undertakings of the Committee. We certainly welcome, on the new Public Works Committee the new Vice-Chairman, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), who has a vast amount of experience behind him. I am sure he will make a contribution to the Committee over the years to come. The present report reviews the 1982 year. Sixteen reports are contained within it. I recommend to all honourable members that they study closely the work of the Committee over the year. The value of the work referred to the Committee amounted to $318m. The value of the work approved amounted to $313m. Honourable members will see that a saving of $5m was made throughout the year. I think all honourable members are fully aware that, basically, the duty of the Committee is to ensure that the works which are referred to it, such as those which the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) mentioned tonight, are necessary, generally acceptable and that the in cost is in keeping with what it ought to be. On behalf of the Committee I refer to the very strong support received from its staff, particularly Mr Dick Fenton. I strongly recommend the report to honourable members. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-I would have liked to acknowledge at greater length the work of the Public Works Committee and the excellence of its forty-sixth report, but I merely say this: The Committee, in the view of the Government-certainly in my view-exercises a responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia for public works. This is a very valuable and healthy responsibility and is, I believe, a very necessary discipline on departments and authorities. The forty-sixth general report of the Committee makes a number of observations and raises a number of matters which warrant further attention by Ministers. I will ensure that those matters are brought to Minister's attention and are examined carefully and promptly by them. I congratulate the Committee on its work. Report Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in 1982. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I had the honour of leading the Australian Delegation to meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Lagos and Rome in 1982, and I now present to the House the official report of the delegation. As the only world- wide organisation of parliaments, the Union is a major international forum. It was formed in 1889 and had a membership of 98 countries at the time of the Sixty -ninth Conference, in Rome, in September 1982. Since Australia became a member in 1956, when there were only 39 member countries, the emergence of new nations, particularly in Africa, has led to a rapid growth in membership and to the presence within the Union of a large group of non-aligned nations. The Union holds two regular sessions each year, though these arrangements are now under review. The spring meetings are held in April each year, when the standing study committees meet to consider the topics in the work program for the year and to prepare draft resolutions for consideration at the Inter- Parliamentary Conference which is held in September of each year. The stated objectives of the IPU are primarily to contribute to international understanding and peace, to strengthen parliamentary institutions and to support the objectives of the United Nations. In recent years, many participants have questioned whether it has been effectively pursuing these objectives. This questioning became particularly widespread after the events of the Conference held in Havana, Cuba, in September 1981, which was discussed in the report of the Australian delegation for 1981. Both meetings in 1982 were held in a more conciliatory spirit, with a notable lessening of the confrontation and bitterness engendered at Havana. The IPU is composed of national groups belonging to a wide variety of parliaments. Many are greatly different in nature from the multi-party democratic institution that we have in Australia. The Union affords an opportunity for all who take part to inform themselves about the views and aspirations of their fellow delegates as representatives of their own parliaments. This I believe to be of value as part of the process of seeking better understanding among all peoples. Every effort must continue to be made within the Union to achieve greater understanding between its members, regardless of their political persuasions and the characteristics of their parliaments and governments. I emphasise, as I have said before, that Australia has played a part in promoting international understanding. Our natural resources and commodity exports, together with our industrial base and our geographical position in relation to Asia, provide a network of important links with both developed and developing countries. Our participation within the IPU, with its widespread opportunities for direct contact between parliamentarians, I believe enables us more effectively to use our unique opportunities for developing good relationships with other countries. Dealing directly with the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1982, I remind honourable members of two spheres of activity which, I think, are now well known. First, the Union, on its own or as co-sponsor with other international organisations, promotes and supports a variety of significant international meetings around the world each year. In 1982, such activities extended to participation in the Second Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament, as well as in a special session of the United Nations Environment Program. In addition, the Union took part in major international meetings on the control of pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, and , in conjunction with the United Nations Children's Fund, organised the Inter- Parliamentary Conference on Policies, Programs and Legislation for Children in Africa last November. Second, the IPU, through its Special Committee on Violations of the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, continues to achieve a considerable measure of success in its work to protect the human rights of parliamentarians everywhere. I remind the House also of Australia's continuing membership of, and active participation in what is known as the Ten Plus Group within the IPU-an informal association developed for the purpose of facilitating discussion on matters of importance which arise in the context of the Union's activities. Within this Group, Australia played a significant role in 1982, being represented on a small study group appointed at the Group's meeting in Frankfurt, prior to the Lagos spring meetings, to consider an Israeli application for membership of the Ten Plus and to examine the membership and role of the Group generally. A number of Ten Plus proposals for the consideration of supplementary items by the Rome Conference succeeded. On behalf of the Group, Australia proposed a draft resolution calling for a definitive peace between Iraq and Iran, which was adopted by the Conference. It also supported two successful Ten Plus proposals for the inclusion of supplementary items on the invasion of Afghanistan and on the Ethiopian aggression against the Somali Democratic Republic. I have already mentioned current proposals to reorganise the sessions of the Union. These were the subject of a study by a working group which met in Geneva from 18 to 20 January 1982 and in which the honourable member for Berowra, Dr Harry Edwards, was an active participant. Recommendations made by the working group were approved in principle at the Rome Conference, and the Inter-Parliamentary Council directed that necessary amendments of the statutes and rules be drafted for consideration at the spring meetings in April 1983. The recommendations of the working group envisage two Conference sessions each year, accompanied by meetings of two Standing Study Committees. Each Conference session would be shorter than the September Conference as now constituted. Another feature is that consideration of a topic by both of the Study Committees and the Conference would be completed at the one meeting instead of being divided between two meetings as at present. If these proposals succeed, as now seems likely, it will be necessary for the Australian national group to consider its implications for future Australian delegations. The honourable member for Port Adelaide, now the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) served as deputy leader of the delegation at Lagos, and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) served as deputy leader at the Rome Conference. I thank them both for their support and co-operation as well as their active participation in the Delegation's work. I also thank all other members of the Delegation for their work and support. I particularly mention the former honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Charles Jones, who had a long association with the IPU and who, on the occasion of the last conference, participated with significant zeal and the kind of interest that we were accustomed to observing when he participated in this House. On behalf of the Delegation, I wish also to acknowledge the assistance given by Mr Peter Gregg of the Department of Foreign Affairs as the delegation's adviser, and the Delegation's Secretary, Mr R. G. Thomson, an officer of the Senate, for his service to the Delegation and for the dedication which he applied to this work at all times. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —by leave-I wish to join with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) in thanking all the people who helped us at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Rome. It was the only one I have attended. I would like to make a couple of possibly more controversial points about the IPU Conference. The important thing to remember is that the IPU consists of some 98 countries and the delegations, in theory, consist of parliamentarians from every one of those 98 countries. But the great majority of those countries have no parliaments-that is parliaments with an Opposition-as we understand parliaments. Among the groups is the Ten Plus Group which consists of the western European countries plus other Western democracies such as Australia, the United States of America and Canada-a total of 21 countries. There is also the Eastern European bloc and the Third World countries whose systems vary from an occasional democracy to typical one-party States, such as the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, Yemen and Vietnam. The impression I had mainly relates to a meeting we attended of the Ten Plus Group to plan what we would do at the Conference. The first impression I had of the Ten Plus meeting was the utter pessimism on the part of members of the Group . The only suggestion made was to try to improve marginally the motions proposed by the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, et cetera. They were particularly extravagant motions blaming the West for everything and attacking us for our lack of democracy. My suggestion at that meeting was that we propose motions attacking the totalitarian countries but that was considered unrealistic because a two-thirds majority was required to put these items on the agenda at a late stage. In the end, especially with the help of the Irish delegation and some of the Austrians, we persuaded the Ten Plus Group to go ahead and do this but it did not really expect any success. We decided to propose motions condemning the invasion of Afghanistan, the Ethiopian aggression against the Somali Democratic Republic and to raise, during discussion of credentials, the position of the Polish Parliament during martial law. What I would call the Ten Plus establishment was extremely pessimistic about the chances of success. However, we won easily, both on the procedural and substantive votes on Afghanistan and Ethiopia. On the question of Ethiopian aggression, the voting was 413 to 198 so we had an easy two-thirds majority, which we needed. On the question of the invasion of Afghanistan, the vote was 496 for and 209 against. Again there was easily an absolute majority. The point I am trying to make is that it is important for the countries which do have democratic governments to participate in the IPU, to make up their minds and to make specific proposals. They should lobby for those proposals and hope that they get support for them at the conference. If we just go in there, in the way we often do and in the way we do quite frequently at the United Nations, that is by taking the line that nothing much can be done about it because the Soviet Union with the help of some of the Third World nations has a majority, then we will never get anywhere. One has to be aggressive. I enjoy being aggressive and I know that the leader of the delegation to the IPU for the next three years, during the duration of this Parliament, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), takes a similar point of view. I hope that the rest of the Australian delegation which attends the Union in September will also take that attitude. It is pointless to go along and always be on the defensive. I conclude by giving one specific example of that. The Soviet Union brought forward a motion on neo-colonialism, condemning the usual countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States in regard to Puerto Rico, and so on. The Irish delegation moved an amendment, with our help, to include Afghanistan. The amendment was carried and it took the Soviet Union some two hours to get permission from the Chair to withdraw its original motion about colonialism. The important thing is to organise, to have facts at our fingertips, especially at conferences which, in theory at least, represent parliaments and therefore should be democratic or have a significant number of democratic countries represented, so that we can keep on taking the fight to the other side and show that we can win. I know that Senator Missen, who was one of the members of the delegation, takes a slightly more pessimistic view and feels that we should withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That may well become necessary if the organisation becomes more and more totalitarian. It may be necessary to form an organisation of parliamentarians from what we would call the democratic countries where there is at least an opposition. In the meantime, it is important from an international point of view that we participate, try to persuade people and try to win arguments. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Hungary and Bulgaria. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The Australian delegation to the sixty-ninth Inter- Parliamentary Union conference, held in Rome, to which I referred earlier was privileged to be invited to visit, as a delegation from this Parliament, Hungary and Bulgaria. I had the honour to lead that delegation. The visit to Hungary was the second by an Australian parliamentary delegation, the first having taken place in July 1978. In the meantime, a Hungarian parliamentary delegation visited Australia in October 1981, and a trade delegation visited in March 1982. Bulgaria had not previously been visited by a parliamentary delegation from Australia. An interest was expressed by representatives of that country in making a return visit to Australia and I know an official invitation has been extended. I hope that the visit will occur in the not too distant future. The delegation considered that the purposes of its visits were, particularly, to foster friendly and mutually beneficial relations between Australia and the host country, to demonstrate Australia's interests and goodwill, to achieve a better understanding of the political and economic structures in both countries and to develop a greater awareness of their implications, and to gain first hand insights into the social and cultural conditions prevailing in the countries. The program in each country was quite rigorous for the delegation because of the short time available. Its success owed much to the generous and hospitable manner in which we were received and to the warmth, friendliness and unfailing consideration that greeted us wherever we went. Though unable to meet with heads of state because of their commitments, we were afforded the opportunity of meeting with Ministers, senior parliamentary officials, district and civic dignitaries, government officials and the representatives of industry. As a consequence we were able to engage in a wide range of discussions. As a parliamentary delegation undertaking such a program, we depended greatly on the assistance of a great number of people from our Department of Foreign Affairs representation in that part of Europe and of those who had liaison with the countries that we visited to enable us to make the best of the opportunity. Without their efforts the success of the visits could not have been assured. Due acknowledgment is given in the body of the report and I emphasise again the importance of our gratitude to all concerned. Finally, I wish to express my own appreciation to the members of the delegation for their strong support and co- operation throughout the visit. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —by leave-I was only able to go to Hungary after the Inter- Parliamentary Union Conference. The most interesting thing about Hungary was its so-called new economic mechanism, which lays stress on what we call capitalist attitudes to production. Hungary is very keen on supply and demand, on profit and incentives, and to some extent its political authoritarianism has decreased. It has developed an unreal belief that incentives and capitalist incentives will solve their problems, which seems to be just as silly as the belief of some of our simpletons that nationalisation is the answer across the board. Hungary has certain problems and I do not think they will be solved simply by bringing in incentives. Half of Hungary's gross domestic product allegedly is derived from international trade, and half of that international trade is with the non-Soviet bloc. I wish Hungary well. Certainly in private conversations the Hungarians seem to have a fairly anti-authoritarian attitude. One of the things that surprised me about them was their very strong historical sense. They seem to emphasise their relationship with the old Austria-Hungarian empire. They seem very proud of that, which comes as a bit of a surprise because it is, after all, a socialist republic. I think they were upset when some of us lumped them in with the so-called Eastern Europeans. They consider themselves to be Central Europeans rather than Eastern Europeans, and dissociated themselves from what are generally considered to be the attitudes of the so-called Eastern European states. To conclude, I would like to tell a quick joke which is told by two stand-up comedians. It shows their new attitude as far as political satire is concerned. The two comedians are standing together and the first one says: Isn't inflation getting terribly bad'. The other one says: 'Why?' The other one says: 'Well, the Hungarian Communist Party newspaper Magnar Nemzet costs 8 forints whilst Pravda, the newspaper of the Russian Communist Party, costs only 4 forints'. The second one says: 'What about the cost of translation?' I think that sort of criticism of their Soviet Communist Party probably would not have been allowed until fairly recently. I was certainly pleased to hear that the Hungarians have a sarcastic attitude about the Soviet Union. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 23 August 1983, unless otherwise called together by Mr Speaker or, in the event of Mr Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Report on Yellow Rain-Wimmera-Mallee Water Supply System-Cadet Research Assistants-Ms Caroline Graham Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.52) —I want to refer the House's attention again to the Crone report of the Department of Defence on yellow rain or rather to the use or misuse of this report both in Australia and overseas, especially overseas . This report is misused by the usual organisations to bolster the case that there is no such thing as Soviet or Vietnamese use of yellow rain to kill people in Kampuchea and Afghanistan-in violation of the 1972 biological weapons convention and the 1925 Geneva protocol. Honourable members will recall that in April last year the Materials Research Laboratories of the Department of Defence received some suspected yellow rain samples for analysis. There were three small packages and a glass bottle. The contents were leaves and pebbles given to Australian officials in northern Laos. The report, prepared by H. D. Crone, concluded that the samples were not toxic and showed no presence of any chemical warfare agent. In fact, they were 'composed of yellow pollen grains, probably with a small amount of binder'. The samples, however, were not natural phenomena ; they had been manufactured or fabricated. The report continued: 'The conclusion is therefore that the yellow spots'-on the leaves or pebbles-'were deliberately applied either by brush or by a spraying process'. They were in other words 'obvious fakes'. but-and this is the important element in the Crone report-the report twice warns against generalising from its finding in this case to reject other evidence of yellow rain killings. It says: 'Since the samples are obvious fakes they convey no information at all as to the veracity or otherwise of the reports of chemical attacks. The reasons for their fabrication can only be guessed at; monetary gain, desire to ingratiate oneself with authority or as a disinformation campaign'. The report repeats this later with the words: 'In conclusion, I reiterate the statement that the examination of these fake specimens sheds no light at all on the main questions as to whether mycotoxins have been used as warfare agents in Laos or Kampuchea'. The evidence for Soviet and Vietnamese use of yellow rain remains overwhelming. People are being killed by it almost daily. This fact has been generally accepted since the report of the United States Secretary of State on the matter six months ago. His report and evidence received support from a range of usually sceptical United States newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was also persuaded as the evidence mounted from survivors, refugees, medical workers and communist defectors. Now the Crone report is being used or misused both here and in the United States and elsewhere to cast doubts on the evidence as a whole and to present the evidence as a Central Intelligence Agency stunt. As I have shown, the Crone report does no such thing. Of the three possible explanations offered in the report for the fakes-money, ingratiation or disinformation-the first two are of course plausible but the third, namely communist disinformation, also carries weight. It reminds one of the recent Canadian inquiry led by Lieutenant-Colonel G. R. Humphreys of the Canadian Defence Department which confirmed that yellow rain is being used in South East Asia. It also reported a strange attack by a small plane on a Thai village near the Kampuchean border in which the village was covered with yellow powder but no one died. The Thai authorities saw this as part of a disinformation campaign to discredit reports of lethal yellow rain. Later it turned out that about a score of the villagers suffered respiratory and other symptoms resembling a mild manifestation of those the Hmong tribesmen had described as resulting from yellow rain. One theory was that the Vietnamese had decided to trick the Thais with harmless pollen but they failed to clean the tanks of their previous yellow rain contents. In any event, there is an increasing attempt, principally by disinformation, to discredit the evidence for yellow rain killings and it is deplorable that a fine and professional report by an Australian scientist should be misused to support this foolish or squalid campaign. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.56) —Over a period of some decades the people of north central Victoria, the Mallee and the Wimmera have been concerned at the availability, conservation and distribution of water supplies. Water demands for domestic, stock and irrigation purposes have been streadily increasing, and the recent drought has highlighted the very precarious situation in which Victoria as a whole is situated in regard to the lack of adequate water resources. The major source of water supply throughout the Wimmera and Mallee areas, and to a lesser extent north central Victoria, is via the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic water supply system. It is worth noting the Wimmera-Mallee system is the largest of its kind in the world. The water supply is derived from storages in the Grampians, from river flows and from the diversion of southern-flowing streams. Distribution of the water over an area of 28,500 square kilometres-almost one-seventh of Victoria-is by means of a massive 16,000 kilometres of earthen channel. Deliveries are made for stock and domestic purposes to 22,000 farm dams and 51 towns annually, and for irrigation purposes to some 2,800 hectares in the vicinity of Horsham and Murtoa. Because the distribution of the water is through an open earth channel system, enormous seepage and evaporative losses occur. Of the 165,000 megalitres released into the channels each year for the system, a mere 43,000 megalitres-or 26 per cent-of the water is delivered to town storages and farm dams. Seepage over more than 60 years has built of up regional ground water levels, which in many areas have been close enough to the surface for salting to occur. Water quality has also been affected. Water entering the system from the Grampians is of excellent quality, yet by the time it reaches some properties near the end of the line it is virtually undrinkable. In Wedderburn, in my electorate of Bendigo, domestic water tested last year by the Department of Agriculture gave a reading of 1,250 p.p.m.-parts per million-total desolved salts, more than double the World Health Organisation recommended standard. The only permanent solution to the problems of evaporation, seepage and water quality is to replace the open earthen channels with pipes. Piping of the Wimmera-Mallee system was first proposed in 1944, but government funding shortages have continually delayed commencement of the project. The Victorian State Rivers and Water Supply Commission has estimated that piping the system would save 144,000 megalitres of water a year-a massive amount , and almost twice the capacity of Lake Bellfield in the Grampians. The cost of piping the whole system-estimated at some $300m-is less than the cost of constructing a new water storage facility of comparable size, and obviously represents a more efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource. Just as importantly, such a scheme would conserve our vital water resources, improve the living standards of country Victorians, and safeguard the $900m of income generated annually by agriculture in the Wimmera-Mallee area. As a very strong supporter of this scheme over a long time I was, of course, naturally disappointed that our Government announced in last week's economic statement that this project is to be indefinitely postponed because of the severe budgetary limitations presently facing this Government and the Australian people. While I am disappointed, I must also place on the record that I totally support the Government's economic statement and management priorities, particularly in regard to reducing the massive Budget deficit of $9.6 billion inherited from the previous Government and now Opposition. I would add that in my view the best chance that the Wimmera-Mallee scheme has of proceeding and progressing in the future will be by way of sustained economic growth and increased employment and a return to economic prosperity. I have no doubt that the continued responsible economic policies adopted by this Government will lead to that sustained economic growth. It will lead to a higher employment level and greater prosperity and, through that economic responsibility, enhance the future possibilities and opportunities of this scheme proceeding. Tuesday, 27 May 1983 Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12 midnight) — The O'Connor electorate is of course a very large electorate in terms of most Australian electorates-in fact, it can be said to be almost three-quarters the size of Victoria-yet within it there are only 14 high schools. Also, most of the students who attend those high schools do not have the advantages of students in city areas, particularly in the eastern States, of visiting the Commonwealth Parliament. To redress this to a very small degree I set about the task of trying to bring some of those students to Canberra to participate actively in the business of parliament-not in this House certainly but as what one might call cadet research assistants. Consequently, with the co-operation of the school principlals and, I might add, Trans Australia Airlines and Skywest Airlines, I have been able to arrange a program whereby four students a year can be brought to Canberra to spend a week with me during a parliamentary sitting. In talking with the schools we were able to arrange that selection would be their responsibility. We then had to conduct a poll. Two students have been with me here this week. They come from the extemities of my electorate, namely Moora, which is in the north-west, and Esperance, which is in the south-east. The two students are Greg Burgess of Moora and Jamie King of Esperence. Those two young gentlemen are in the Speaker' s Gallery at this time. I might say that the balance of this speech represents part of their program in that it has been written by them. They are great young Australians and I am very glad to have them with me this week. They tell me that they were not concerned about the proposed pilots' strike; they would have been quite happy to stay for a couple of days more. Greg Burgess is in his final year at Central Midlands Senior High School, which is in the important wheat and sheep farming town of Moora, located 180 kilometres north of Perth and 110 kilometres from the coast. The school has an enrolment of approximately 300 pupils and a hostel caters for about 90 students who come from centres up to 200 kilometres away, including the fishing and holiday towns of Jurien and Cervantes. Moora is the largest town in the central midlands area, having a population of approximately 1,700, a further 1,500 persons living in the Shire, which encompasses the smaller towns of Miling, Watheroo and Bindi Bindi. The Shire of Moora has 13 councillors, who represent the surrounding wards and districts. The Shire President is Mr Bob Scott. Moora is a long established farming community, the surrounding Berkshire Valley having been settled in 1840 and the actual town having been established in 1847. It has a reliable rainfall area, which makes it one of the State's best wheat and sheep areas. All modern amenities are provided, including medical, hospital and dental services. A wide variety of sporting activities are catered for throughout the district. Jamie King is a year 11 student from Esperance Senior High School. Esperance is 700 kilometres south of Perth and is in the far south-eastern corner of the O' Connor electorate. When the two French ships, Recherche and L'Esperance harboured in the 1700s, in what later was to be called Esperance Bay, the area must have looked greatly different from that which now includes the town. The Dempster family settled the area as a port from which to provide supplies for the stations to the north. It was expected that Esperance would remain a small country town, but research in the 1950s made the people rethink the matter. It was found that the infertility of the soil of the region was caused by a deficiency of trace elements. The Esperance fertiliser works were opened in the early 1960s to refine phosphate rock delivered from Nauru, and produces superphosphate which is an invaluable aid to the development of wheat growing in Esperance. People came to Esperance to clear the bushland and to establish farms on the potentially fertile lands. Agriculture boomed in the town and a co-operative bulk handling depot was established in Esperance to complement the land backed wharf then under construction. With the increase in agriculture the town grew to its present size of 10,000 people. It is capable of supporting three primary schools , a senior high school, a hospital and numerous other services. Looking towards the future, Esperance has brown coal deposits which, if mined, will create employment for the population. A recent census has shown that the population of Esperance may double by the year 2000 due to the culmination of coal mining, the growth of agriculture and the promotion of the town's tourist industry. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(12.5 a.m.) —I would like to raise an episode that involves a constituent of mine and a fellow member of the Australian Labor Party. It is of particular interest in the light of recent allegations published in the National Times. However, it should not be inferred from what I am about to say that I am necessarily alleging the involvement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation although, if the National Times allegations are well founded, this would not be at all implausible. The incident to which I refer is the discovery of a bugging device at the home of Ms Caroline Graham. The device was concealed behind a panel at the base of a kitchen cupboard. It seems that the device was placed at some time since January of this year and was discovered on Monday by one of Ms Graham's children. The incident received some television coverage on Monday night but minimal newspaper coverage the following day. The device has been examined by a number of people who have expertise in these types of devices. It is currently in the possession of the New South Wales Special Branch. There is no doubt that it is of a type used by professional security organisations. It is not commercially available. There is no doubt that the device was placed where it was in order to monitor Ms Graham's political activity and in particular her involvement with the Palestine human rights campaign. This organisation has gone some way towards redressing what was until recently the overwhelmingly negative treatment of the Palestinian position by the media of this country. I believe that it would be true to say that the popular conception of a Palestinian here was that he was a bomb throwing terrorist. The notion that these people are somehow subhuman has been reinforced by, to take one example, the publication of casualty figures on the Lebanon invasion, derived from Israeli military sources, which failed to include Palestinian civilians in the human toll, the implication being that they are to be accorded less than human status. One does not, I believe, have to be a sympathiser of terrorist activities, or even for that matter an uncritical apoligist for the Arab position, to be involved in the sort of political activity that Ms Graham has taken up. As I said earlier, this episode is clearly the work of a professional intelligence organisation of either domestic or foreign origin. Either way, the fact that participation in legitimate political activity should lead to this type of harassment and invasion of privacy should be a matter of concern to us all. Motion (by Mr Cunningham) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.08 a.m., until Tuesday, 23 August 1983, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 May 1983: Defence Act-Determinations-1983- No. 7-Sinai Allowance. No. 8-Advance and Rear Parties Allowance. No. 9-Ceremonial Duties Allowance. No. 10-Recreation Leave. Public Service Act-Determination-1983/7. The following paper was presented: Mr Dawkins-Tax avoidance-Cost under the coalition Government 1975-82 together with table (3). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 2 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What was the estimated median family income in Australia, in 1982 dollars, in ( a) 1968-69, (b) 1973-74, (c) 1978-79 and (d) in any later year for which estimates are available. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The estimated median family income in Australia in the financial years 1968-69, 1973-74 and 1978-79, as derived from sample surveys for these years, was $4,480, $7,880 and $14,980 respectively. The All Groups Consumer Price Index numbers for the weighted average of the six State capital cities for these years were 33.7, 46.7 and 83.0 respectively, using the base year 1980-81 as 100. From these index numbers, used in conjunction with that for the June quarter of 1982, which was 114.5, the following estimates of median family income, calculated in 1982 dollars, are derived: 1968-69-$15,220 1973-74-$19,320 1978-79-$20,670 Income data collected in a survey conducted for 1981-82 are currently being processed. Question No. 42 Dr Everingham asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Will he establish a departmental division, bureau, commission, task force or working party to promote or investigate the advisability of providing peace studies, including study of issues raised in the report of the Second Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, pages 373-382, Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, June 1982. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In accordance with the Government's policy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has asked his Department to commence a study on the establishment of a Peace and Development Studies Institute. Question No. 101 Mr Keogh asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Will the Attorney-General provide the names, addresses and dates of appointment of each person currently authorised as a civil marriage celebrant in the Electoral Division of Bowman. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Mrs M. D. Baxendell, Marawah Street, Burbank (5.12.1973) Mrs D. Clelland, 41 Coburg Street, Cleveland (7.1.1982) Mrs P. M. Davies, Rainbow Crescent, Dunwich (21.1.1979) Mr K. W. Hughes, 17 Mudlo Street, Redland Bay (25.1.1974) Mrs J. M. Shaw, 54 Melville Terrace, Wynnum (3.11.1975) Mr L. A. Stevens, 87 Carranya Street, Camp Hill (16.1.1980) Mr B. V. Walsh, 834 Old Cleveland Road, Carina (29.6.1975) Question No. 104 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 May 83: (1) How many Australia-based officers of his Department were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in (a) 1980, (b) 1981 and (c) 1982. (2) What was the total expenditure of the Department on international telephone calls to and from Australia in each of those years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The numbers of Australia-based officers of the Department of Defence in overseas posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in 1980, 1981 and 1982 are included in the attached table. (2) The total expenditure of the Department of Defence on international telephone calls to and from Australia in 1980, 1981 and 1982, is not readily available as charges of this nature are not separately recorded. I am not prepared to commit the considerable manpower resources which would be required to manually extract the details requested. AUSTRALIA-BASED OFFICERS IN OVERSEAS POSTS 1980 1981 1982 as at as at as at 30 June 30 June 30 June China . . . . 2 France 12 12 8 India 2 2 2 Indonesia 10 10 10 Japan 4 4 4 Korea 2 2 2 Malaysia 4 4 4 New Zealand 3 2 2 Pakistan 2 2 2 Papua New Guinea 5 4 6 Philippines 2 2 2 Singapore 2 2 3 Thailand 2 3 3 United Kingdom 44 44 12 USA 90 91 54 Question No. 114 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: Was the company Interscan Pty Ltd set up by the Government to produce and market the Interscan aircraft landing guidance system; if so, (a) where and when was the company registered, (b) what is its share capital, (c) who owns the shares, (d) who are the directors, (e) how many persons are employed by Interscan, (f) from where does the company operate, (g) is it subject to tax, (h) does it make annual reports and (j) what is its financial record. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Interscan microwave landing system (MLS) project is a government-funded development program aimed at the eventual commercial exploitation by Australian industry of an invention by the CSIRO. Interscan Australia Pty Ltd (IAPL) was formed to be a vehicle for Australian industry to participate in the ongoing development stage of the project. At a later time the company could also be a vehicle for commercial activities and to that end will bid for a large US contract for the supply of MLS. (a) In 1978 the company was incorporated in the A.C.T. as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). (b) The share capital of the company was 10 000 shares of $1 each but was recently increased to an authorised capital of $10 million, the issue capital to 10 000 fully paid and 3 million ($1 shares partly paid to 13 cents,) and paid capital to $400 000. AIDC provided the additional capital to IAPL, both to enhance its bid to supply Microwave Landing Systems (MLS) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States, and to meet the funding requirements for the production and supply of the MLS if the bid is successful. In that event, calls would be made on the partly-paid shares from time to time as required to fund the Company's operations in the production and sale of MLS. (c) AIDC currently owns all the shares of IAPL but two Australian companies Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd, (AWA) and Hawker de Havilland (HDH) have options to take up shares in the company. These options derive from a ' Participation Agreement' between IAPL, AIDC, The Commonwealth of Australia, AWA, and HDH and are currently under review by the Board of IAPL. (d) The Directors of IAPL are: Sir Ian McLennan, KCMG, KBE, FTS, FAA, (Chairman ), Sir Walter Leonard, DFC, Dr W. J. McG. Tegart, FTS, Mr J. R. Thomas, Dr J. P. Wild, CBE, FTS, FAA, FRS, Dr J. L. Farrands, CB, FTS, Mr B. S. Price, Mr C. C. Halton, CBE, Mr J. A. L. Hooke, CBE, The Managing Director is Mr J. Drennan. (e) IAPL has 13 permanent employees and in addition engages consultants as required. (f) IAPL currently operates from Ryde, Sydney, N.S.W. but in July 1983 will move to industrial premises in Brodie St., Rydalmere N.S.W. (g) Yes, the company is subject to tax. (h) Yes, the company files annual reports with the Companies Registrar. (j) The financial record of the company reflects that the project is not yet at a stage of commercial operation. Todate the company has depended almost entirely on development funds provided by the Government to balance its various expenditures. In that sense the acompany operates on an approximately break-even basis. The 1982 annual report of the AIDC includes detailed financial statements of IAPL. Question No. 144 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Does the Government accept the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry's recommendations on Halal slaughter and certification; if so, will the recommendations be implemented. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government accepts the recommendation of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry that there be established a single system of Halal slaughter and certification in Australia, under direct and continuous supervision by the Export Inspection Service of the Department of Primary Industry. The Government intends that this recommendation be implemented. Question No. 1 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What was the average subsidy paid per bed during 1981-82 for nursing home patients in (a) private gain, (b) voluntary non-profit, (c) non-participating and (d) deficit financing nursing homes. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nursing homes approved under the National Health Act for the payment of nursing home benefits are identified as participating nursing homes which include private gain and some voluntary non-profit homes. The benefit payments to the private gain and the voluntary non-profit homes cannot be separately identified under current program administration. Nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act for the payment of their approved operating deficits also include voluntary non-profit homes as well as those run by local government bodies. The term 'non-participating' nursing homes has been taken to mean State Government nursing homes in that it excludes deficit financed and participating nursing homes. The average subsidies paid per bed during 1981-82 for nursing home patients were as follows: Participating Nursing homes- Non- Deficit private gain participating financed and voluntary (government) (non-profit) non-profit nursing homes nursing homes(1) $ $ $ New South Wales 8 209 7 995 10 545 Victoria 12 317 12 426 14 115 Queensland 7 760 7 795 10 355 South Australia 10 559 11 020 12 591 Western Australia 7 214 7 813 12 144 Tasmania 8 089 8 286 10 315 (1) These figures include small amounts paid for non-nursing home patients using approved services in deficit financed homes. Question No. 4 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Is he able to supply any estimates of taxation rates foregone by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States and (c) local government because of exemptions available to (i) religious institutions (including schools) and (ii) donors to religious institutions. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As regards taxation exemptions available to religious institutions (including schools): Statistics that would enable an estimate to be made of the cost to Commonwealth revenue of exempting religious institutions from income tax or pay-roll tax are not available. Sales tax is payable on goods purchased by religious institutions but goods bought for use, but not for sale, by schools, including those owned by religious institutions, are exempt from sales tax. Estimates of the revenue involved are not available. Wages and salaries paid by religious institutions, including those paid by certain non-government schools, are exempt from pay-roll tax in the ACT. The cost of exempting from pay-roll tax wages and salaries paid by schools controlled by religious institutions in the ACT is not known but is estimated to be less than $1m annually. No information is available which would enable estimates to be made of taxation revenue forgone by the States, the Northern Territory and local government. In the Australian Capital Territory, there are at present 110 properties which receive a concession under the Rates Ordinance 1926 resulting from their classification as Religious Institutions. Under Section 6 of the Rates Ordinance, these properties are exempt from General Rates and as such no valuations are made in respect of these properties. The Valuation Section of the Australian Taxation Office advises that these sites would be extremely difficult to value without an alternative use being specified . It is, therefore, not possible to estimate the amount of general rates forgone with any degree of accuracy. Under Section 6 (d) (i) of the ACT Sewerage Rates Ordinance 1968 the abovementioned properties are defined as Class 4, which are ratable at the full rate for the first two flushing units, and half rate for any additional flushing fixtures. The amount of revenue forgone for the 1982-83 rating year in regard to sewerage rates (58(d)), for the 100 properties is $84,734.50. Under Section 6 (b) (ii) of the ACT Water Rates Ordinance 1959, religious institutions received a concession of half the rate payable for water consumed in excess of the basic allowance of 455 kilolitres. The concessional rate applicable to these institutions during 1981-82 was 9c. The amount forgone for the 1981-82 rating year in regards to excess water rates for the 110 properties is $32,586.75. As regards donors to religious institutions, the position is that generally income tax deductions are not allowable for gifts to religious institutions. Gifts made by religious institutions which can be shown to be in the nature of business expenses may, however, be deductible as outgoings necessarily incurred in gaining assessable income. Estimates of the amounts involved are not available. Statistics are available, however, of gifts by individual taxpayers to school building funds, which in many cases relate to schools operated by religious institutions. The cost of income tax revenue for individuals in respect of the 1980-81 income year (the latest for which information is available) of gifts to school building funds has been estimated at about $18m. Question No. 25 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What is the estimated annual number of premature deaths in Australia due to the consumption of tobacco and tobacco products. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Estimates based on the latest cause of death statistics compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in 1981, the number of tobacco-related deaths was 16 524. This represents a slight increase over the 1980 estimates, the increase being almost entirely among people over 65 years of age. When population growth is allowed for, the rate of such deaths per 100 000 adults decreased marginally in the 12 month period. Question No. 96 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: 1. Can he say whether problems are being experienced by members of the Defence Forces, when transferred interstate, as a result of differing motor drivers' licence requirements in each State. 2. If so, has any action been taken to examine the feasibility of uniform drivers' licences. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Members of the Defence Forces and their immediate families experience very few problems with the minor differences in motor drivers' licence requirements in each State, when they are transferred interstate. Each State and Territory, other than New South Wales, treats all Defence Forces personnel movements as being of a temporary nature and only requires a change of drivers' licence if the expiry date falls due during the temporary posting to that State or Territory. New South Wales differs in that all postings are considered permanent except for Defence personnel attending courses of instruction and who will be returning to their home State, irrespective of the duration of the course. New South Wales requires Defence personnel transferred from interstate to immediately obtain a New South Wales licence unless they are on temporary posting. 2. A proposal for uniform driver licence classifications to apply throughout Australia is to be discussed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) when next it meets in July this year. Other aspects of uniform licensing arrangements are under consideration in ATAC's Technical Committees. Question No. 102 Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) What was the weekly hire and operation costs of the dredges used for the sand dumping on the reclamation work for the new Brisbane Airport. (2) Can he say what action had been initiated by the former Prime Minister or any Minister of the former Government, between election in December 1975 and defeat at the recent election to support any proposal to re-sand the Wynnum- Manly foreshores by (a) making those dredges available, (b) proposing to meet fully or partially the cost, (c) seeking agreement with the Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Council to undertake the work and, (d) considering any proposal of this kind for re-sanding. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Dredging and reclamation work at Brisbane Airport has been carried out on a lump sum contract basis. No weekly costs are available. Average costs over the duration of the work are estimated at $600 000 per week. (2) The Wynnum-Manly foreshores are vested for management in the Brisbane City Council and any maintenance or replenishment is entirely its responsibility. The Brisbane City Council has made no formal approaches to the Australian Government with beach re-sanding proposals. Question No. 140 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Does the Government support the policy, approved on 5 May 1983 by the Congress of the United States of America, of a US/Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons; if so , will the Government indicate its support for such a freeze to President Reagan . Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The United States House of Representatives on 4 May passed a resolution by a vote 278-149 calling on the President to negotiate 'a mutual and verifiable freeze and reductions in nuclear weapons' with the freeze to be revoked if it were not followed by negotiated arms reductions 'within a reasonable, specified period of time'. It is understood that this proposal is still to be considered by the United States Senate. In principle the Government is attracted to the concept of a nuclear freeze as a means of achieving reductions of nuclear forces. In considering the case for a nuclear freeze however it is important that the result be mutually agreed and verifiable. A freeze at excessively high levels of armaments which did not look forward to reductions in those levels would be likely to perpetuate anxiety and uncertainty about risks of nuclear war. A freeze which gave advantage to one side would not contribute to a stable peace. The Government will make known its approach on arms control and disarmament questions to the United States Government during the visit to Washington by the Prime Minister in June. There will be a further opportunity for high level consultations with the United States during the ANZUS Council meeting in Washington in July.