Wednesday, 5 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Fisher,Mr Lloyd,Mr Mildren,Mr Milton,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Scott,Mr Steedman and Dr Theophanous. 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 the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Free. 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. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members in 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 '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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the majority of Australian pensioners are denied the human right to share fully in one of the foremost scientific advancements in communication of our time, namely, telephone communication. For 20 years the telephone rental rebate has remained frozen. Successive Governments have exhibited a 'deaf ear' and/or a 'stoney-heart' to all appeals that this resource be more readily available at a time when it is most needed to maintain health and well-being. It is regrettable that the Government in announcing the pending increased charges in telephone rental and installation has not shown humane understanding in absolving pensioners from such increases, and indeed, in giving attention to maintaining the service as a vital necessity for daily living-for many, their only contact with the outside world. These facts of life impel your petitioners to call on the Federal Government as a matter of urgency to: Absolve pensioners from increased telephone charges. Adopt a policy that pensioners enjoy the benefits of scientific advancement, only calls be a charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth. last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter and Mr Scott. 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-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens 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, states: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'. 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-Holdens to retain its operation at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the- (a) proud record of the Queensland Government in doubling the jobs available in that State from 487,300 to 976,300 over the past 15 years; (b) undertaking given by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services to exclude penalty rates from industrial awards affecting the travel and tourist industry; and (c) additional jobs that would be opened in the fast growing tourist industry in northern Australia by the removal of penalty rates and the subsequent reduction in the cost of travel and recreation for the tourist; (2) Calls on the Government to cease its penalising of northern Australia and to honour its pre-election commitment to remove such penalty rates to create further jobs for our young people and improve on the already impressive record of the Queensland Government. Mr Cadman proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member knows that he is using unparliamentary language. I give him the opportunity to reword his notice of motion. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with pride that Tasmanian Mr Ken O'Brien was Australia II's head sailmaker, and (2) congratulates Mr O'Brien on again proving that in matters maritime Tasmania , the island State, leads the nation. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Treasurer provide details of- (1) the number of income earners on average wages who will move into the 46c tax bracket following the recent Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (2) how many hundreds of thousands of workers will move into the 46c tax bracket during 1983-84 assuming a minimum 7.3 per cent increase in wages. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses support and confidence in the junior tennis coaching programs conducted by the Australian Institute of Sport and the Tony Roche Clinic; (2) believes that these programs will lift Australian tennis to its former world dominance; and (3) congratulates the 18-year-old Tasmanian player, Mr Simon Youl, for his magnificent win on 4 October 1983 over the world No. 7 player, Mr Kevin Curren. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the adjournment debates of this House are not broadcast; and (2) expresses its belief that the Australian people are entitled to hear the adjournment proceedings of this Parliament. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) records its support for the Speaker in his action to rule out of order, on the grounds of frivolity and mockery, the notice of motion given by the member for O'Connor on 4 October 1983; and (2) congratulates the Speaker on his prompt action to maintain the dignity of the Parliament and protect it from further attempts at using humour to accent a serious message. Mr SPEAKER —Not being without a sense of humour, I note that it might be appropriate if that notice of motion was debated forthwith! Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for his constant seeking of publicity by attendance at national sporting venues; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to spend more time in his office to better grapple with Australia's increasing unemployment and declining economy. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983 Public Service Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1983 Bill presented by Mr Holding, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 is an omnibus Bill, implementing most of the social security and welfare initiatives of the 1983-84 Budget falling within the portfolio of the Minister for Social Security. Part II of the Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act 1947. Part III amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, Part IV amends the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, Part V amends the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974, and Part VI amends the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969. The Bill also deals, in Part II, with amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 of a law revision kind which are intended to update existing provisions of the Act. Since the greater part of these amendments are of a machinery nature and do not involve expenditure, I do not propose to deal with them in detail. The Bill does not deal with the Government's decision, announced in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to re-introduce a means test that takes account of both income and assets for assessing entitlement to pension. That measure will be the subject of separate legislation to be introduced later in the present parliamentary sittings. In 1983-84, total direct outlays by the Department of Social Security are estimated to be some $14,500m. This constitutes an estimated 25.6 per cent of total Budget outlays, the estimated increase over 1982-83 being $2,330m or 19.2 per cent. These amounts are considerable and reflect the high priority that this Government gives to providing assistance, in a responsible way, to the disadvantaged in our community. Indeed, the Government would have wished to have done more in the social security area this year. But it has been constrained in what it can achieve in its first Budget by current economic conditions. I will give further details of the financial impact of the Bill as I deal with each of its major initiatives. Social Security Act 1947 Several Budget initiatives require amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 and are dealt with in Part II of this Bill. These measures are directed at providing additional assistance to the most disadvantaged in our community, in particular the unemployed and pensioners and beneficiaries with children. I will turn first to the measures for assisting the unemployed. One of the Government's major election commitments was to restore progressively the rate of unemployment benefit for single adults to parity with the standard rate of pension. The level of assistance provided to these people had been set at the same level as the pension prior to its exclusion from the indexation arrangements in 1978. In May this year, we acted to increase the rate by $4.25 a week and, in keeping with our election commitment, this Bill provides further assistance. From November 1983, the rate of unemployment benefit for people aged 18 years and over who have no dependants will be increased by $4.95, bringing that rate to $73.60 a week. This rate will be equal to half the indexed married rate of unemployment benefit plus an additional $2. The Bill also provides that this rate will be indexed in line with the consumer price index in the same manner as other payments are indexed. This first increase in line with movements in the CPI will occur in May 1984. A further $2 a week increase, in addition to that first CPI increase, will be made from 1 May 1984. These initiatives will affect an estimated average of some 452,000 beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $97.5m in the current financial year and $ 232.5m in a full year. In line with our election commitment, the Bill also provides for the rate of benefit for single unemployment and sickness beneficiaries aged 16 and 17 years to be increased by $5, to $45 a week, from November 1983. This increase will be of benefit to a group which has been substantially disadvantaged over recent years. In addition, the Government is continuing to examine the whole area of income support and services for youth, particularly for those who are homeless. An estimated average of some 66,000 young beneficiaries will benefit from this increase. The estimated cost will be $11.5m in the current financial year and $ 17.2m in a full year. The Bill also provides for the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits to be eased to encourage unemployed people to undertake casual or part time work without losing entitlement to benefit. The new income test limits will apply from 1 March 1984 and will mean that people will be permitted to have income of up to $20 a week-twice the amount previously allowed-before losing any benefit. Benefit will be reduced by 50c for every $1 earned over $20, up to $70 a week, compared to the present $60 limit. Income over $70 a week will reduce benefit by $1 for every $1 earned. This initative will benefit an estimated 62,000 beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $7.8m in the current financial year and $23.3m in a full year. The Government has also given priority to assisting low income families in this year's Budget. This Bill provides for the maximum rate of additional pension or benefit provided to pensioners and beneficiaries with dependent children to be increased by 20 per cent to $12 a week per child from November 1983. This rate of assistance has not increased since 1980. This measure will benefit about 424, 000 pensioner and beneficiary families and will cost an estimated $57.9m in the current financial year and $84.8m in a full year. In line with this, the maximum rate of family income supplement for non-pensioner and non-beneficiary low income families will also be increased to $12 a week for each child from November 1983. In combination with the measures contained in this Bill to liberalise the benefits income test, this measure will result in a relaxation of the income limits for family income supplement. These measures will benefit an estimated 30,000 families at an estimated cost of $6.8m in the current financial year and $11.3m in a full year. The Bill also provides for changes to the eligibility conditions and rate of payment of mother's-guardian's allowance. This allowance is currently payable to single pensioners, including supporting parent beneficiaries, with a dependent child or children, in addition to the extra pension paid in respect of each child. Where a single pensioner has a dependent child under the age of six years or an invalid child, the amount of allowance payable is $8 a week; otherwise it is $6 a week. This Bill provides for the allowance to be paid at a uniform rate of $8 a week from 1 May 1984. Single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with children will also be paid mother's-guardian's allowance from May 1984. Members of this group were previously excluded from eligibility, even though their need for this assistance was no different from that of sole parent pensioners. An estimated 139,000 pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from these measures at an estimated cost of $3.3m in the current financial year and $ 17.6m in a full year. In recognition of the additional costs incurred by pensioners and beneficiaries who live in remote areas, and their exclusion, in many cases, from the benefit of the income tax zone rebates, this Bill provides for the introduction of a special payment. From May 1984, residents of income tax zone A who are in receipt of a pension, benefit, sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance will be paid a new remote area allowance. The Bill proposes the insertion of a new Part IIA of the Social Security Act which will deal with remote area allowance. I refer honourable members to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill for the precise details of how the new Part IIA will operate. I propose to deal now with the principal features of this measure. Remote area allowance will be payable to a person who is physically present in, and whose usual place of residence is in, income tax zone A. The allowance will also be payable in respect of the dependants of a person in the remote area as long as the dependants also satisfy the residential requirements. Temporary absences from the remote area of up to eight weeks will not affect payment, unless the person leaves Australia. Pensioners aged 70 or over whose pensions will be subject to the special income test applicable from 1 November 1983 will not generally be eligible for remote area allowance. However, they may receive the amount of pension payable under the normal income test and the relevant amount of remote area allowance, if those combined amounts are greater than the amount of pension they would receive under the special income test. The allowance will be tax-free, but will be deducted from any income tax zone rebates for residence in zone A. It will be paid at the following rates: For a single person, $7 a week; for a couple, $12 a week, combined; and per child, $3. 50 a week. It is estimated that 30,000 pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from the introduction of remote area allowance. The estimated cost of this measure will be $2.7m in the current financial year and $15.7m in a full year. A further new payment provided for by this Bill is the introduction of a spouse carer's pension from December 1983. This pension will assist men providing constant care and attention for their age or invalid pensioner wives at home. At present, many men in these circumstances may qualify only for special benefit which has carried a harsher income test and no pensioner fringe benefit entitlement. This measure will enable such men to provide better care for their wives. The rate of spouse carer's pension will be the same as the basic rate of wife's pension which from 1 November 1983 will be $71.60 a week. The pension will be paid under the conditions normally applying to wife's pensions. It is not possible to estimate accurately the likely number of recipients of the new pension or its costs. A best guess is that some 2,000 men may be eligible for the spouse carer's pension at an estimated cost of some $2.3m in the current financial year and $5m in a full year. The Government has also decided to make a number of changes to eligibility for supporting parent's benefit. They will be of substantial assistance to the relatively small number who will benefit from them and will remove anomalies in the Social Security Act. From December 1983, eligibility for supporting parent's benefit will be extended to a married person who is left to care for a child or children because his or her spouse is absent indefinitely from the matrimonial home due to illness or infirmity. At present, if such a person is not of age pension age, he or she is generally unable to qualify for any assistance other than special benefit. Eligibility for supporting parent's benefit is also to be extended to people who acquire the legal custody of a child by means of an order of a court. This will include single persons who adopt children and persons who obtain custody of children from the Family Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court. The number of people who will benefit from these extensions of eligibility for supporting parent's benefit is small. The cost of both these initiatives is estimated to be in the order of $0.3m in the current financial year and $0.5m in a full year. The Bill also incorporates provisions to index the basic income limits for fringe benefit entitlement bi-annually in line with movements in the CPI, commencing in November 1983. This will overcome a major difficulty for pensioners, particularly those on modest indexed superannuation pensions who under current provisions may lose entitlement to their pensioner health benefit cards when they receive superannuation increases. From November 1983 the basic income limits will be $57 a week for a single person, and $94 a week for a couple. The existing additional $20 a week for each child will continue to apply . There are currently 1.7m pensioners and beneficiaries who are eligible for fringe benefits. The estimated cost to the Department of Social Security of this proposal is $0.1m in the current financial year and $0.2m in a full year. Additional costs of some $1m in the current financial year and $3m in a full year will be met by the Departments of Health and Transport. I turn now to the pension income test. With effect from 1 November 1983, payments received by way of benefit from friendly societies and payments received from trade unions in respect of illness, infirmity and old age will no longer be exempt for the purposes of the pension income test. This change will apply to payments received on or after 1 November 1983. Savings in social security outlays resulting from this measure are difficult to estimate but are expected to be $7m in the current financial year and $10m in a full year. Other minor amendments are to be made to the definition of income for pension purposes . The amendments will exempt income in the form of relief by way of lump sum insurance compensation for loss or damage to a house, personal effects or a business. Exempted also will be various forms of emergency relief and charitable assistance, and payments under Commonwealth housing assistance legislation. Similar amendments are proposed to the definition of income for benefit purposes . This Bill also provides for the modification of the existing rule that disqualifies a trade unionist who is not himself on strike from receiving unemployment benefit if his unemployment is due to other members of his trade union being on strike. The existing rule was introduced in October 1979 and has the effect of discriminating against trade unionists. Under the proposed amendment, a trade unionist will not be disqualified for the purposes of unemployment benefit if the industrial action did not occur at the place where he was employed. With the introduction of this amendment, the rules governing qualification for unemployment benefit in strike situations will be as follows- (1) direct participants in a strike will not be qualified for benefit (2) members of a striking union at the establishment at which a strike takes place will not be qualified for benefit (3) members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike takes place who are not themselves on strike will be qualified for benefit (4) persons stood down at other establishments as a result of a strike will be qualified for benefit, irrespective of their union membership. The opportunity has also been taken by means of this Bill to make a number of machinery amendments which will enhance the readability of the Social Security Act and will lead to improved administration. The principal matters relate to claims provisions, manner of payment provisions, notification and review requirements for pensioners and beneficiaries, information gathering provisions and provisions dealing with cancellation, suspension or variation of payments. One such measure I will single out deals with general increases in penalties for breaches of the Social Security Act. In particular, the penalty for breach of the confidentiality provision by an officer will be increased from $500 to $5, 000 or 2 years' imprisonment and the penalty for fraud or like serious offences will be increased from $500 or 6 months' imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months' imprisonment. These machinery amendments do not involve any costs. Aged and Disabled Persons Welfare Programs The Government has a continuing commitment to help those members of the community who are aged or disabled. Several initiatives are proposed in this Bill to provide assistance for those people. The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 will be amended to make new arrangements for the payment of subsidy to eligible organisations providing hostel and personal care services. The object of these changes is to encourage the provision of hostel services predominantly for care of the frail aged. From 1 January 1984, organisations will no longer be entitled automatically to personal care subsidy for persons aged 80 years or over. New hostel care subsidy will be paid to eligible organisations in respect of current and future residents who are assessed as needing approved hostel care services. The subsidy is to be paid at a rate of $10 a week for each eligible person. A further personal care subsidy of $40 a week is to be paid for each person receiving hostel care who requires and is receiving personal care services. These proposals will take effect from 1 January 1984. The estimated cost of the measures is $5.1m for the current financial year and $11.6m in a full year. The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 will be amended to permit a remuneration subsidy of up to 80 per cent of the salary of certain specialist staff to be paid to an organisation conducting an approved prescribed service under that Act. This amendment will operate from 1 January 1984 and will supplement existing provisions for remuneration subsidy of up to 50 per cent for approved staff. The categories of equipment which may be subsidised under that Act will be extended to include equipment under hire purchase and leasing arrangements. The existing restriction on the subsidy of replacement equipment used for income producing purposes in connection with sheltered employment will be lifted. The amendments in relation to equipment subsidies will operate from 1 October 1983. A new measure to be introduced under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act is an open employment incentive bonus. Recipients of sheltered employment allowance of six month's standing or more who move to full time paid open employment, including self-employment, and remain there for a continuous period of at least 12 months will be eligible to receive the bonus from 1 October 1983. The amount of the bonus will be $500, which will be tax free and excluded as income for social security income test purposes. It will be paid on a once only basis. The estimated cost of these measures is $2m in the current financial year and $5m in a full year. Amendments will be made to the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 with regard to salary subsidies, and meal and accommodation subsidies. A subsidy of up to 100 per cent of salary or wages will be provided for one approved social welfare worker position in an approved homeless persons assistance centre from 1 January 1984. The existing subsidy of up to 50 per cent of the salary or wages of additional approved social welfare worker positions is to be retained. From 1 January 1984, separate meal and accommodation subsidies will be provided . They will be payable to homeless persons assistance centres on the following basis: For each meal provided to residents and non-residents at an approved centre, a subsidy of 50c will be paid. For each night's accommodation provided, a subsidy of $1.50 will be paid. The effect of these changes is to increase the subsidy payable for accommodation and three meals from $1.35 to $3. Accommodation vouchers, equivalent in value to the accommodation subsidy will be introduced from 1 January 1984. They will be isssued by approved centres to homeless persons who will be able to exchange them for accommodation in approved places. The estimated cost of these measures will be $1.6m in the current financial year and $2.5m in a full year. A minor amendment is also proposed in relation to each of the two Acts with which I have just dealt, as well as the State Grants (Home Care) Act 1969. The amendment ensures that a grant of financial assistance in respect of salaries will include lump sums paid to employees on retirement or termination of employment. The initiatives which I have announced form an integral part of this Government's commitment to assisting the disadvantaged members of the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.5) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for amendment of the Repatriation Act and associated Acts to give legislative authority for the Government's Budget decisions and to make certain amendments to repatriation and defence service homes legislation. Income limits for fringe benefit eligibility are to be indexed; eligibility for service pension is to be extended to a man providing constant care and attention to a severely handicapped female service pensioner; a remote area allowance is to be introduced for service pensioners and guardian's allowance is to be extended to a veteran separated from his wife because of ill-health, where he has care of the children. In addition, pensions payable for amputations or loss of vision are to be increased as are attendant allowance and pensions payable to orphaned children. This Bill also includes amendments to the Defence Services Homes Act 1918. They deal with some administrative matters for the conduct of the defence service homes insurance scheme. The indexation of fringe benefit levels will provide a major benefit to service pensioners. This step will mean that many pensioners will not lose eligibility for these benefits when they receive a small increase in income. Fringe benefits provide significant additional benefits to pensioners in the form of free medical treatment, telephone rental concessions and many other concessions, provided by Commonwealth, State and local government authorities as well as private organisations. Indexation of these levels will provide assistance for those most in need. The indexation provisions will apply from 1 November this year. Service pensions for veterans who served in a theatre of war are similar to age and invalid pensions paid by the Department of Social Security but are available five years earlier than the social security pensions. They have not been available normally to the husbands of female veterans. This Bill proposes that eligibility for service pension be extended to a husband of a severely handicapped female service pensioner where the husband provides constant care and attention for his wife in their home. This measure will assist those men who would not normally qualify for benefits because, but for caring for their wives, they would be part of the work force. This provision will come into effect on 8 December 1983. The Bill also proposes that guardian's allowance, which at the moment is payable only to single service pensioners who have the custody, care and control of a child, be extended from 8 December this year to veterans who are unable to live with their spouses because of illness or infirmity and who have the custody, care and control of a child or children. In effect, the Government has recognised that these veterans are in the same position as single supporting parents. The Government has also recognised that additional costs are incurred by people living in areas remote from Australia's major centres. Taxpayers in these areas receive concessions but pensioners have received no assistance in coping with the higher costs of goods and services. This Bill proposes to pay a remote area allowance, from 10 May 1984, to those service pensioners who live in those areas recognised under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as remote areas in zone A. The proposal is that eligible pensioners living in these areas will receive an additional $7 a week if single and $6 a week to each of a married couple with $3 .50 a week for each child. The Bill proposes that income from friendly societies and trade unions will no longer be exempt income under the income test for service pensions. This relates to periodical payments since annuities from these organisations are not exempt. Payments from other sources are, however, to be exempted along the same lines as exemptions are proposed for social security pensioners. These include the value of emergency relief, such as that provided following bushfires or floods and insurance or compensation payments following loss of, or damage to buildings, plant or personal effects. Moneys from the investment of these payments will be exempt for a reasonable period to allow the lost or damaged goods to be replaced . Other exemptions covered are assistance by way of accommodation or meals provided to homeless persons, an open employment incentive bonus, domiciliary nursing care benefits and Commonwealth housing assistance. Provision is made in the Bill for increases in pensions paid to veterans suffering amputations and loss of vision, in attendant allowance and in pensions paid to orphans. The increases are to have effect from 10 November 1983. The increases are in line with movements in the consumer price index since the previous increases. The increases for amputation and loss of vision mean that the total amount payable for loss of vision in one eye will be $38.77 a week, ranging up to $96.60 a week for the loss of both legs, one above and one below the knee. Higher amounts for more serious amputations are automatically adjusted twice each year in line with movements in the consumer price index. The rate of attendant allowance is to be increased from $23.30 to $25.90 a week in the case of a veteran who is blind or suffering a cerebro spinal injury. In the case of a veteran who has had both arms amputated or who is blind and has lost hearing or speech, the allowance is to be increased from $46.60 to $51.80 a week. A single orphan's pension will be increased from $16.60 to $18.45 a week while the increase for a double orphan will be from $33.20 to $36.90 a week. The Bill also proposes that the position of Deputy Chairman of the Repatriation Commission be appointed by the Governor-General. At present the person is appointed by the Governor-General as a Commissioner and then elected by the Commission to the position of Deputy Chairman. The proposal will overcome some administrative difficulties in the operation of the Commission and it will also enable the office of Deputy Chairman to be a public office for the purpose of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. The Defence Service Homes Corporation has been offering insurance cover in accordance with the statement of conditions tabled in Parliament in November 1980. The amendments to the Defence Service Homes Act are designed to remove any doubt that the cover specified in the statement may extend to domestic improvements of a structural nature and to property owner's liability. Because it would not be feasible for the Corporation to refuse to meet claims legitimately made under its statement of conditions or to attempt to recover moneys paid out in settlement of past claims, the Bill proposes the validation of any such payments. Other Budget decisions affecting veterans will be provided for by amendment to the regulations. These include increases in recreation transport allowance and clothing allowance and the indexation of pensions payable to Papua New Guinea veterans. Mr Speaker, the provisions of this Bill will cost the Government $0.92m in 1983 -84; $2.225m in 1984-85 and $3.34m in 1985-86. Additional costs will be incurred by the increased benefits to be effected by amendments to the regulations. Some savings will be generated by the removal of the exemption from income of payments by trade unions and friendly societies, but they cannot be estimated as it is not known how many service pensioners receive such payments. Removal of the exemption is justifiable on the ground of equity. The biggest single cost is the indexation of fringe benefits levels: $0.565m in 1983-84, $1.488m in 1984-85 and $2.578m in 1985-86. This provision, as I have already stated, is designed to help those most in need of assistance. The fact that the Government has been able to make increases at all in what is a large Veterans' Affairs budget, at a time when it is attempting to keep costs down, is evidence of its commitment to those veterans who are seriously incapacitated and to those totally or substantially dependent on government assistance. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983 and the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, 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 the measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.16) —The three Bills before the House are fairly straightforward in their intent. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill proposes to increase the maximum rate of the levy to 24c per 100 litres of milk and the operative rate to 19c per 100 litres of whole milk. The increases were sought by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, and I am pleased that the Government has accepted that request. The Opposition also supports these amendments. The Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill contains two main amendments; one is to include in the definition of 'dairy products', and therefore in the stabilisation scheme, buttermilk powder and whole milk powder which have been produced by the removal of water from a mixture of buttermilk or whole milk and one or more other substances. The other amendment provides for a refund to be made in certain circumstances of the stabilisation levy on dairy products contained in other products that are exported. In fact I am advised that this amendment merely formalises a practice which the Australian Dairy Corporation has been following for some time in any case. Some points should be made about this amendment which is contained in clause 4 of the amending Bill. Under current marketing arrangements use of a manufactured dairy product as an input into another product is regarded as a domestic sale and triggers payment of the levy. If the product is then exported the Australian Dairy Corporation, the ADC, offers a rebate only of the levy on products which have at least 50 per cent leviable dairy component and at least 7.5 tonnes of leviable dairy product in any shipment. This amendment proposes to fix these minimums at 50 per cent and 15 tonnes. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation believe this arrangement is too restrictive in that it discourages rather than encourages the export of high value added products such as Ovaltine which contains 18 per cent mixed solids and is therefore ineligible for any rebate of the levy. The manufacturers of Ovaltine, a company called Wander (Australia) Pty Limited of Melbourne, has submitted that milk powders and butter oil should be available to all exporters of milk products at export prices. I am aware that the Dairy Corporation argues that the minimums are necessary on the grounds of administrative efficiency. I must say I am not too convinced by that argument, especially when we consider that a perfectly suitable system exists for export sugar rebates which does not require high minimum limits. Wander (Australia) has claimed that continuation of the present system will eventually cause a loss of all export Ovaltine contracts, probably during 1984. The company says that this will have the immediate effect of causing the loss of 11 jobs and will put at risk, because of reduced throughput, the company's entire operation at Devonport in Tasmania on which 300 to 400 jobs are dependent . All of this information was submitted by Wander (Australia) to the recent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the dairy industry. This raises the surprising point about the Government bringing forward this amendment at this time. The Government is bringing down a legislative change on an issue which has been covered by the IAC and which is the subject of a draft report. It is reported on page 39 of that draft report: The Commission considers that if exported dairy produce is to be exempt from the levy then all dairy produce exported, irrespective of its level or whether it has been processed into another product, should be exempt. The only cut off point should be the cost of administering such an arrangement. Clearly the IAC does not support the existing system, yet the Government has brought forward amendments to entrench the system before the final hearing of the Commission is held on 11 October 1983 and before the Commission's final report is prepared and submitted. Members of the Industries Assistance Commission must be wondering why they bother to undertake any inquiries at all. The Opposition is of the view that this clause should not be proceeded with until after the IAC has made its final report and a proper opportunity has been given to consider the Commission's final recommendations in this regard. We shall accordingly seek from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) an assurance that this clause of the Bill will not be enacted at present. I hope the Minister will respond to that point in his reply. Mr Kerin —I will be moving an amendment. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister indicated that he will move an amendment to this clause . I look forward to seeing a copy of that amendment so that the Opposition can state its point. But it is an anomaly; it was brought to our attention and it was difficult for us to understand how the Minister, bringing in legislation, had not taken cognisance of that draft IAC report. However we will look forward to that amendment in due course. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill. In the main this Bill enhances administrative procedures under three Acts, the Dairy Produce Act 1924, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977 and the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972. From the Opposition's point of view there are no fundamental problems with the proposed changes as far as they go. However, a serious question arises with regard to clause 6 and the proposed new section 24A of the Act. The clause can relate to two basic situations. On the one hand if it is applied to straightforward, simple trading operations such as the Australian Dairy Corporation's attempts to sell cheese products to Japan, the legislation is quite acceptable. In this case the ADC is trading on a day to day basis in exactly the same way as private companies trade on behalf of Australian producers. In other words, if cheese were not sold to Japan exclusively by the ADC acting as a sole trader, it would be handled by private traders. If private traders sold that commodity at a loss, without question the industry would bear such a loss. Therefore, if the ADC should trade at a loss it is fairly well accepted within the industry that the loss should be borne in this case by the cheese export pool. There is therefore no problem in the situation I have outlined. The Minister may direct the Corporation to credit or debit surpluses or deficits to accounts kept under the export return pooling system. I note that provision is made for the Minister to receive advice with regard to this sort of direction from the Corporation which in turn is required to consult with the Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will in fact follow this course. I feel very strongly that not only should industry be consulted but also that, wherever possible, agreement should be reached before any trading losses are covered by export pools. I hope that the Minister can give the House this assurance during this debate. The second aspect of this legislation is far less simple. It concerns how losses that are not purely trading losses should be covered. It is an open secret within the industry that a major reason for clause 6 is the declining financial position of a company known as PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. otherwise known as PT Indomilk or PTI. PT Indomilk is a joint venture milk recombining plant operated by the Australian Dairy Corporation and an Indonesian company PD and I Marison N.V. know as Marison. The ADC and Marison each hold 50 per cent of the shares in PT Indomilk. The ADC's interests in the company are managed by its wholly-owned Asian subsidiary Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd known as ADI. The Australian dairy industry, through ADC and ADI, supplies PT Indomilk with raw materials. The fact is that at present PT Indomilk owes ADI in excess of $13m for raw materials supplied, technical fees, interest and other matters. It is a debt which has been accumulating over the past three years and which, very importantly, is still growing. The danger is that these debts might- and I stress the word 'might'-materialise into actual losses. Given that situation, under the legislation currently before the House provision would be made for those losses to be accounted for through the export pools. The industry is very strongly of the view that use of the pools in this way would be totally and utterly unacceptable, indeed inequitable. The reason is basically that the industry would not regard any losses incurred by PT Indomilk as merely trading losses. Rather, they would be losses incurred in supporting the overall industry's total investment in PT Indomilk. They would be investment as opposed to straight-out trading losses. Given this differentiation, the industry believes, I think quite rightly, that any investment losses would be more appropriately covered by other means such as from the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund-or DISF, as it is commonly called-rather than through the export pools. This seems a perfectly logical argument. The initial finance required to set up Australia's shareholding in PT Indomilk came from the DISF. On 16 September 1982 the then Minister for Primary Industry made a statement in this place in which he said that, as the funds originally used to establish the DISF were derived from export sales of dairy produce and were at that time the property of the industry, the ownership of the DISF should be regarded as belonging to the dairy industry. The Minister in that statement to this Parliament also stated that agreement had been reached in May of last year that the DISF should continue to be used for the benefit of the industry generally and in accordance with section 11 of the Dairy Industry Act. The present Minister, in response to the then Minister's statement on 16 September- this is terribly important-generally agreed with the then Government's decision regarding the ownership, future use and control of the DISF. Also on 16 September the then Minister tabled a set of guidelines that had been drawn up by the Department of Primary Industry-honourable members should note this-in consultation with representatives of the Australian Diary Industry Conference and the ADC. Under these guidelines expenditure from the DISF continued to be on the recommendation of the ADC after consultation with the Dairy Industry Conference and required ministerial approval. I give that background to the definition of the DISF, its ownership and role because it is relevant to the industry's arguments about who should pay for any losses that might occur with regard to the operations of PT Indomilk. Any profits or dividends from PT Indomilk or ADI go into the DISF. Furthermore, the Australian dairy industry's shareholding in PT Indomilk is held by the ADC on behalf of the DISF. Therefore, if the Australian shareholding in PT Indomilk is sold, any proceeds would also go into the DISF. Therefore, the industry contends that, as profits are channelled into the DISF, so too should any losses be deducted from it if the need arises. This is especially so as any losses incurred by PTI would not be simple straight-out trading losses but would be losses incurred in supporting the overall investment in PT Indomilk. What I am saying-and I will mention some of the complicating factors with regard to PT Indomilk's financial situation in a moment-is that those financial problems are inextricably bound up with the overall investments in PTI. Therefore, should any loss occur it should be borne out of the export pools as an absolute last resort . What the Minister has not done but what he should have done is make separate provision to cover the possibility of losses incurred by PTI in the above circumstances. All the other options must first be considered. There must first be recourse to the assets of PTI, of ADI and of the DISF before there is any call on the export pools, should the need arise. Furthermore, the Minister must seek the concurrence of the industry through the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation before he makes any decision on how any loss that might have occurred should be paid. Therefore, in the Committee stage on behalf of the Opposition I will be moving an amendment to safeguard the above procedures. It is quite unbelievable that the Minister has put this legislation before the Parliament in the way that he has. He made absolutely no mention of the financial difficulties facing PTI and the obvious fact that those difficulties were a major contributing factor to the drafting of these amendments in the first place. It is almost as though the Minister wanted to mislead the Parliament by omission. He has explained nothing to the House about the difficulties involved. From my conversations with industry representatives from all over Australia, I am advised that he never even bothered to consult with them before deciding on the path he would follow. Had he done so I am sure he would have realised that there is a clear need for a separate set of procedures that can apply in the PT Indomilk case should the company's current debts turn into actual losses. Mr Hollis —That was Nixon. Mr McVEIGH —With respect, I am talking about the Bill that this Minister introduced. He was the person who did not mention it. I regret that it is too difficult for the honourable member to follow. As I said, the Minister never even mentioned PT Indomilk and, therefore, I feel I must raise some of the issues concerning this company's financial position so that honourable members may get a full appreciation of precisely what is involved in this situation. There is a highly complex set of circumstances surrounding PT Indomilk's current financial dilemma. The fact is that PT Indomilk competes in the Asian market with two other companies, Nestles and Fresian Flag which also owns the 'Foremost ' operations. PT Indomilk's share of the Indonesian retail market for processed milk products has fallen from 81 per cent in 1973 to 18.3 per cent in 1981. By contrast, Nestles' share rose from 18.9 per cent in 1973 to 33.8 per cent in 1981 and Fresian Flag's share from 36 per cent in 1974 to 48 per cent in 1981. Both competitor companies since 1974 have shown an annual average net profit of about 10 per cent, whereas PT Indomilk's has been less than 2 per cent with operating losses of 7.8 per cent in 1981 and 5.4 per cent in 1982. No dividend has been declared by the company since 1977. By contrast, Foremost, whose production and turnover is very similar to that of PT Indomilk, has paid dividends of over $US8m over the two years 1981 and 1982. A number of factors could be seen to have contributed to this situation. One is the fact that PT Indomilk pays a distribution fee of 15 per cent to a company owned by the Indonesian partner Marison for the distribution of its finished products. I understand that this arrangement has been in existence for several years. The company which receives this distribution allowance is known as PT Marison Nusantara Agency. I understand that it currently owes PTI some $5m. Mr Lusher —How much? Mr McVEIGH —Some $5m. The point is that the normal rate for this sort of distribution activity is about 5 per cent rather than 15 per cent. It could therefore be assumed that the arrangements between PTI and Marison Nusantara are nothing short of a rip-off. Furthermore, it is a rip-off which has a greater impact on the Australian interests in PTI than on the Indonesian interests. The profitability of PT Indomilk is vital to the ADC and the Australian dairy industry. However, it is nowhere near as important to Marison because its major return on its investment in PTI comes from the distribution allowance. The increasing PTI debt to Asia Dairy Industries is also a matter of concern. As I said earlier, PTI currently owes ADI in excess of $13m and unfortunately this debt is growing. Indeed, since about March-April-that is when the Hawke Labor Government came into office-the debt owed by PTI to ADI increased from $11 .4m to the present level of $13m. So to emphasise the statistics, I remind the House that during the time when the Hawke Labor Government has been in power, the debt has increased from $11.4m to $13m, that is, a short period of six months. Of course, I am in no way suggesting that this Government is responsible for the increasing debt. What I am saying is that it should be noted that the Labor Government, despite highly vitriolic accusations while it was in opposition, also seems to be unable to do anything to try to contain this spiralling situation. PTI is keeping its day to day operations going through finance provided by non- banking financial institutions-called NBFIs-in Jakarta. Under these arrangements entered into in late 1981, the NBFIs agreed to provde PTI with finance on the understanding that for every $1 they provide, ADI agrees to provide $1.40; in other words, there is a debt ratio of one to 1.4. However, my understanding is that this debt ratio has not been maintained. PTI has extended the amounts it owes to ADI and reduced what it owes to the NBFIs. This must be a contributing factor to the increasing debt of PTI to ADI. It amounts to the Indonesian side of the partnership unfairly using the Australian side, all of which is against the interests of the Australian dairy industry, whose investment is at stake. There is also the question of the proposed sale of the ADC's 50 per cent shareholding in PT Indomilk. It is well known that the ADC signed a heads of agreement with a company known as PT Kebun Bunga in September 1981 for the sale or purchase of its shares in the company for a total of $US10m. PTKB made a deposit, on the direction of the ADC, of $US1m to ADI to be held in trust as a performance bond. I should state that there is speculation in the industry as to what has become of that $US1m. I ask the Minister, not with any sense of achieving political mileage, whether he would clarify that matter for the Parliament and the industry-the Australian manufacturers and the Australian dairy farmers. The proposed sale to PTKB required the approval of the Australian Minister for Primary Industry under section 25A of the Dairy Produce Act. The Hon. Peter Nixon, as Minister, stated that his approval would be given provided the proposed transfer was approved by the relevant Indonesian authorities. All of this, of course, is public knowledge. So, too, is the fact that at the time the present Minister, then in opposition, accused Mr Nixon of interfering in a normal commercial transaction, costing the Australian dairy industry, as he said , $5.5m. This is terribly important, and it is honest and factual. Now that he is in government, the Minister has changed his tune. He is following the Peter Nixon line. He confirmed to me in a letter dated 11 July 1983 that his policy in this regard was exactly the same as that of his predecessor. This issue is currently the subject of legal action and it is therefore not appropriate for me to enter into further detail, except to stress that the Minister, when in opposition, expressed criticism, and when he became Minister, sent a letter to me saying: 'Peter Nixon was right and I will follow him'. I recall that the present Minister when in opposition used to try to catch headlines by accusing Mr Nixon of trying to cover up the issues of the Asia Dairy Industries affair. I have since heard on very reliable authority that he has expressed the view that, while he previously thought Mr Nixon was trying to cover things up, he has now realised that he, Minister Kerin, was wrong and has indicated that Mr Nixon was trying with every possible endeavour to clean things up. At least he has been educated. In opposition his voice was that of the empty vessel making a lot of noise. When he became Minister and obtained the facts, he came around to the responsible attitude and realised that the Honourable Peter Nixon was a great Minister. I hope the Minister will confirm that view to the House. We know that he stated it. We on this side of the House appreciate that a highly complicated situation is involved in this issue. We realise very importantly that dairy farmers' money is involved. We are not satisfied that everything is running as it should. We in government were working on these problems and trying to rectify them. The Minister has now admitted that that was so. We would like to know what he will do now that he is in government to continue that work. I look forward to his response. For instance, on 16 September 1982, the present Minister, in speaking on the problem of having the Chairman of the ADC also the Chairman of the ADI, made certain comments. What has he done in the past seven months to change this situation? Similarly, we found that because ADI was registered in Hong Kong there was virtually nothing that the responsible Australian Government Minister could do to influence or control its operation. It was a world unto itself. Prior to the election, we were in the process of reviewing general guidelines for statutory authorities through an interdepartmental committee. I inform the Minister that we would be most interested to know what is the present Government's view towards Asia Dairy Industries. Does it believe that ADI should continue? If so, does it intend to change its charter? All of these issues appear to point to the fact that the Australian partners in the PT Indomilk venture-and therefore, the Australian dairy industry, made up of manufacturers and dairy farmers-is being taken to the cleaners by its Indonesian partners. There are clearly some very important issues involved in this situation. I hope the Minister will fully advise the House of them and that he will answer in detail the questions that I have posed to him. I find it extremely disappointing that the Minister in introducing this legislation into the Parliament made absolutely no reference to the PT Indomilk situation, despite its very obvious relevance to the legislation. It was one of the reasons why the legislation was introduced. If PT Indomilk is reaching the point where its debts could imminently become losses, the Parliament should be fully informed. Above all, we require from the Minister detailed replies to the questions that I have raised in this debate. I formally advise that, in the Committee stage of the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, we will move an amendment to cover the points that the Minister has not seen fit to cover either in his second reading speech or in his indications to me across the table . Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.44) —The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has discussed at some length the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill and also the associated Bills-the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. I wish to raise the issue which he has mentioned with regard to PT Indomilk. But let us be clear on the meaning of the Bill. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) explained when he introduced the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the amendments are intended to bring up to date the Corporation's power over contracts for the carriage of dairy products by sea to places beyond Australia; to provide a legislative basis for the manner in which the Corporation administers certain provisions of the export return pooling scheme and to make other minor adjustments to the scheme; to require the Australian Dairy Corporation to credit any surplus or debit any deficit incurred by it in respect of its export sales of dairy produce to accounts maintained under the export return pooling scheme; and to bring into line with current levels the penalties for offences under the Act. The existing legislation is administratively unworkable. In just seven months this Government has commenced to improve the mess of dairy legislation in our national laws. The amendments mean that exporters will receive directly the proceeds of their export sales and will remit to the Corporation any required contribution to the export return pooling scheme. The amendments will facilitate the recovery from exporters of amounts which they are required to pay under the export return pooling scheme. The amendments also give legislative authority to the ADC to credit surpluses to pool accounts, debit deficits and give legal procedure to factories to pass levy refunds on to exporters. The honourable member for Darling Downs has raised the matter of PT Australian Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. I remind him that its losses commenced in 1981. Unlike the Opposition, this Government is prepared after only seven months in office to do something about the mess. The previous Government was in power for two years after the losses commenced. The honourable member for Darling Downs failed to mention the fact that the industry has benefited from some of the profits that have been received by the ADC, and the dairy industry has gained from the operations of the subsidiary. He has tried to confuse the industry by confusing trading profits with non-trading profits. He does not help the industry at all by confusing that issue and by obscuring the real fact that the industry has had some benefit from profits. I believe that PT Indomilk will be able to trade out of its present difficulties. As the shadow Minister for Primary Industry explained, there have been difficulties in trading and these are still going on. However, there should be-I believe that with the Government' s co-operation there will be-a way of trading out of these difficulties. When dealing with one of the other Bills which are being debated cognately today, the honourable member for Darling Downs spoke about the objection by Wander (Australia) Pty Ltd to its product, Ovaltine, not qualifying for a refund of levy on export under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill. Ovaltine apparently contains just 18 per cent of leviable dairy products, far less than the 50 per cent limit. I am sure, from the Minister's exchange across the table with the shadow Minister, that he is giving sympathetic consideration to the representations of Wander. I also refer to the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1983 which accedes to the recommendations of the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation that falling export returns necessitate more active promotion of dairy products. It is good that the Opposition has welcomed this Bill and will co-operate with us in securing its passage, particularly in regard to cheese. Cheese is the largest single dairy product sold and, unlike other dairy products, its market is expanding. This makes cheese a logical target for promotion. Cheese demand increases as consumer demand increases, and with the hoped for improvement in the national economy there could well be an increase in cheese demand. Therefore cheese should be the dairy product which is the most responsive to additional promotion. The Australian Dairy Corporation, in its 1981-82 annual report, stated that it: . . . believes that cheese consumption can be increased from the current 6.9 kilograms per head per annum to 8.4 kilograms per head per annum by 1986. The Corporation's marketing strategies are aimed at increasing cheese consumption. The ADC's annual report stated: The National Marketing Department of the Australian Dairy Corporation has proposed a doubling of the levy for promotion to finance a greatly extended national cheese campaign. Most of the other dairy products, perhaps with the exception of milk products such as flavoured milk, would be less likely to have the same potential as cheese to respond to additional promotion. The nature of products such as butter , milk powder, et cetera, ensures that the elasticity of demand is low. In other words they do not respond to changes in income as much as cheese and, say, flavoured milk. Perhaps the best that can be achieved for these other products is the maintenance of the existing market share. This is the case with butter which holds about 40 per cent, by value, of the yellow fats market. The Dairy Corporation has stated that its objective will be to maintain that position. The importance of marketing has been emphasised by the Australian Dairy Corporation. The principle of market improvements and streamlining of the industry so that it can better market has been supported by the Minister. There can be no doubt that the recent Industries Assistance Commission report on the dairy industry sidetracks the real need of marketing in the dairy industry, even though it purports to support that need. The IAC thinks a lot of airy-fairy nonsense if it thinks that Australia can isolate itself from the corrupted world dairy markets. Dairy markets are affected by dumping and other international rorts and there is no way that we can isolate ourselves from that fact. The IAC makes a misleading assumption. It talks of Australians paying 6c a litre more than they should for milk when really no more than 1c of that 6c can be said to go to the dairy farmer. It is the responsibility of city newspapers, which reported that misleading assumption and misled city consumers, to straighten out this matter, state the truth and explain to people that not more than 1c of the 6c mentioned in the IAC report can be said to go to the dairy farmer. The IAC has made an error, in its desire to free the national market between States, by taking no account of the fact that local arrangements are always the prerogative of the States. It is very easy for the IAC to make a simple statement about the need for freedom of trade when it knows that it is hard to get the co-operation of various State governments, which have various dairying policies and interests, in ensuring the freeing of the market within the country. So in short, Australia has to accommodate manipulated overseas markets either by controls or by increasing domestic promotion, or both. It also has to accommodate the fact that there are separate State markets which are primarily the prerogative of State Governments. In conclusion, I say that the Government has been presented by the previous Government with dairy legislation which is in an unholy mess. The legislation is often administratively impossible; hence the introduction of these amendments at this early stage of the period of the Hawke Government. The Minister for Primary Industry is doing a stirling job in tidying up that mess. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.56) —As the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has pointed out, there is a serious question involved in the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 relating to the proposed section 24A. Of particular concern to me and to Victorian dairy farmers is the question of how any losses that might occur with PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc . are to be covered. As I understand it, this Bill provides for any such losses to be covered from the relevant export pools. Further, the Minister may direct the Australian Dairy Corporation to credit or debit, as the case may be, surpluses or deficits to the most appropriate production year pool or pools. The dairy industry is very strongly of the view that, if any losses should occur in regard to PT Indomilk, those losses will not simply be trading losses, but rather losses incurred in supporting the total investment of the enterprise. Under these circumstances the industry believes it would be totally inappropriate for the export pools to be used. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) would no doubt be aware of the concern that his recent decisions to withhold payment from the butter and skim milk powder pools have caused among dairy farmers, especially in Gippsland, my electorate. He declined to authorise these payments last July, with the result that dairy companies have had their deferred payments to suppliers completely thrown up in the air. This situation of confusion is continuing. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that he has still not authorised the payments from these pools, even though the recommendation that they be made has again been placed before him. Victorian dairy farmers are quite naturally deeply concerned. They want to know what is going on and the Minister is not informing them. Now we have this legislation before the House. It is obviously pertinent to the Minister's withholding payment from the butter oil and skim milk powder pools-extremely pertinent. It seems to me that the Minister went ahead with this legislation without seeking prior advice from the industry. In a nutshell, he is stuck with the legislation on the table, knowing full well that the industry does not agree with it because it does not adequately cover the possible situation of a loss developing in the operations of PT Indomilk. The Minister has been told that the industry does not accept proposed section 24A. He has further been told that the industry will not accept a situation, which this legislation proposes, whereby any losses incurred by PT Indomilk, which would be overall investment losses, will be covered by the export pools. I am aware of a number of varying views within the industry as to how best any such losses should be covered. One view, for instance, is that, should PTI default on payment to Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd and therefore the ADC, ADI should be put into liquidation and all other shares in other partnerships should be liquidated prior to the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund being used. That is one view from within the dairy industry. Others may differ from that view, but everyone, at least in Victoria, seems to be unanimous in the view that the export pools should be touched only as an absolute last resort. There is nothing within this legislation which will ensure that that concern is properly protected. I am not trying to suggest whether the Stabilisation Fund should be used first, whether the assets of ADI should be used first, or what. I agree with the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment, which seeks to ensure, firstly, that the export pools are used as an absolute last resort and, secondly, that the Minister consults with the industry and examines all options available for paying out any such losses. This is the obvious course that the Government should have adopted in the first place. Together with my colleagues the honourable member for Darling Downs and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I am at an absolute loss to know why this Minister has not properly consulted with the dairy industry of Victoria as my colleagues and I have. The Government came into office strong on its promise of consultation. Its action to date has been less promising. Regrettably, there has been virtually no demonstration of any worthwhile government consultation with industry organisations. This is a classic example to be added to the other examples that are well known to and deeply resented by the industry. All the dairy industry is saying to the Minister in effect is: 'We are aware of and concerned about the deteriorating financial situation of PT Indomilk. We seek your assurance that no action will be taken relating to product pools until full consultations have taken place and all other options full canvassed'. That is all the dairy industry, in its most reasonable manner, is putting to the Minister. I call on the Minister to give those assurances at the conclusion of this debate and, moreover, to accept the Opposition amendment, which enshrines them. Otherwise his assurances will not be backed up by legislation. It is not good enough for him to say: 'I will speak with the dairy industry'. He must amend proposed section 24A. Surely, that is not too much to ask. The amendment that the Opposition has suggested will meet the requests of the industry. I therefore hope that the Minister will also see the merit of the amendment and accede to it without hesitation. If he refuses to accede to the amendment, let him place on public record his reasons for not acceding to it so that those within the dairy industry and the electorate of Gippsland will be able to judge for themselves this Minister's true commitment to consultation. My colleague the very distinguished honourable member for Darling Downs has raised specific concerns about PT Indomilk. I am pleased that they are also now on the public record for answer by the Minister. I remind the Minister that it is incumbent upon him to provide the Parliament, the industry and the public with the answers to the specific concerns raised by the honourable member for Darling Downs. He must demonstrate that he is committed to correcting the PT Indomilk situation and not merely picking up the losses. As proposed section 24A stands, it is the easy option; it is putting the problem to one side. There has been nothing to date in either administrative or legislative form to show that this Minister and this Government are committed to correcting a most unhappy situation, a situation which is of increasing concern to the dairy industry and dairy farmers of Victoria. My colleagues have raised a number of points for the Minister to answer. We raise them on behalf of the dairy industry and we wait expectantly for the Minister to provide these answers . We realise that it is a difficult and complicated situation. We certainly do not attempt to make political gain. We seek only to correct an unhappy situation that ought not to be allowed to continue any longer. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(12.06) —It has been interesting to listen to honourable members of the National Party who are leading for the Opposition in the debate today. After seven months in government, this Government has inherited a massive problem in the dairy industry. The legislation before the House today clearly indicates that. The legislation that has received the most attention from the Opposition, the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, deals with possibly the biggest problem that the Government has to face. It is certainly the biggest problem it has inherited in the dairy industry from the previous Government. As has been clearly stated, the situation involving losses that are being incurred at the moment in Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd because of what is going on with PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. is something that has been going on now since 1981. The previous Government had ample time to bring legislation into this House to deal with the subject had it been in a position even to understand what was going on. It has become quite clear during the last three to four years that the previous Government had little control or little knowledge of what was going on within the dairy industry. We have legislation right across the board in this industry. I do not think there would be another industry with more government interference than the dairy industry. That was conceded by honourable members on the opposite side of the House who are always espousing the view that we need small government. We can go right through listing the problems of the dairy industry from top to bottom. They have been completely ignored for many years. Some of the failures involve the problem with the Australian Dairy Corporation and ADI. That has been a massive problem for many years. There have been Senate select committee inquiries, but we still have not seen any solutions come forward from the now Opposition when it had a chance to do something about it. We have problems with the industry in regard to production levels. Once again, we had this hotch potch message coming across of using market forces on one hand and massive government interference on the other to try to control the industry. We have the special problems of Victoria. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), expressed great concern for his electorate, which is next to my electorate of McMillan. These two electorates are probably the best dairying areas of Australia. Special problems for the Victorian industry have been ignored for many years by honourable members on the other side of the House. They did not recognise clearly whether we were going to have a national industry or whether we were going to have a State dominated industry. The Government has inherited the situation now where Victoria clearly is the most efficient State for producing milk, but it is forced into the situation of having to sell surpluses on export markets at low prices. It is a situation which the Victorian industry cannot tolerate for very much longer or very efficient dairy farmers will be going out of business. We heard that underwriting is only a partial response to the needs of industry now that export production is so low. No State in Australia-except Victoria and a little of Tasmania-exports on world markets. These issues have to dealt with. I will quote from the IAC report entitled 'The Dairy Industry-Interim Report on Extension of Underwriting for 1983-84 Season' to see what it had to say on the matter. The report states: The stated intention of the present underwriting scheme is to 'protect producers against unexpected and sharp falls in market returns, without masking underlying long-term market trends'. In its background paper on the extension of underwriting for the 1983-84 season the Commission argued that underwriting had the potential to assist the dairy industry: directly through Government support of the underwritten price; and indirectly by making returns for various dairy products more secure. This was the accepted view of the previous Government for many years. The report continues: Most witnesses judged the likelihood of underwriting directly assisting the industry in the 1983-84 season to be small. The Victorian Government calculated that, even under extreme circumstances of export prices falling the present GATT minumum prices, the Commonwealth Government's contribution to underwriting would be 1 per cent of total revenue from leviable products. Most witnesses also argued that underwriting had provided little direct benefit to the dairy industry over the years. This is a clear indictment of the policies that the previous Government had been following. The Commission proposes to consider matters involving the calculation of underwriting values in its long term inquiry. It will not be before time. It is very important that this Government is now in a position, as it is in many other areas, to put forward legislation which will strengthen the industry not only to suit the farming sectors. We must remember also that our country towns, factories and workers in rural areas are also very dependent on this industry. It is not the sort of industry in which we can sit back and allow the very efficient part to be going out of business and inefficient parts to stay in business. It is something that this Government must address very clearly. The IAC report has been released recently. It was headlined in many newspapers that the consumer was being ripped off in respect of whole milk. That was a very sensational approach. Anyone who clearly read the IAC report would realise that in respect of only 1c could it be justifiably argued that anybody was paying too much for milk. It is clearly a situation which cannot be allowed to continue where one sector of the community pays a massive price for milk to subsidise another sector. There is a need for further structural change within the industry. There is a need for the Government to give a lead and say what size the industry should be. I hope the IAC, when it finally brings down its interim report, will be able to give us indications on just what direction the industry should take. Should it be concentrating Australia-wide on the basis of two industries? This is virtually what we have in a quota system such as in New South Wales and Queensland versus an industry which produces efficiently at the most productive times of the year. We still have not overcome those problems with the dairy industry. Honourable members on the other side of the House in the debate today have clearly honed in on this one piece of legislation in relation to Asia Dairy Industries and PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. they have tried to use this debate to blame the present Government for the problems facing the dairy industry by saying that there has been great concern amongst dairy farmers because of the decision taken by the Government. I leave it to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) when he replies to put the full facts before the Parliament as to just what the situation is with PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. and ADI. It is possibly one of the greatest scandals and mismanagement of dairy assets and dairy finances that this country had seen for a long time. It is just part of the ongoing saga of the Asia Dairy Industries and the problems that it has brought upon the dairy industry. If there are going to be losers-the honourable member for Gippsland says that he is concerned that there will be losses for the dairy industry-I think the losers will be the National Party, the people who took the responsibility and misused it. The former Minister, I must admit, worked fairly solidly to try to clear up the messes in the industry which had been initiated by a former National Party Minister, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). The former Minister created massive problems in the industry through his pure, inept approach to the dairy industry. I strongly support the legislation put forward by the Minister. I know that the Minister intends to move an amendment to one section of the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill. Representatives from Wander (Australia) Pty Ltd and honourable members on this side of the House have outlined some problems. I must say that the Minister is very receptive to representations; he listens to them. I advise the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) who is sitting at the table, that the Minister is receptive to any responsible approach. Honourable members can talk to him on the basis that he clearly understands that the industry needs restructuring. I advise the honourable member for Darling Downs that the proper approach would be to work with the industry and with the Government to solve some of the problems rather than trying to point score which he has done today. I support the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill which will increase the amount of money made available to the industry for promotion. It is another very important piece of legislation. I support also the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill and the direction that the Government is taking in trying to rectify the problems in relation to Asia Dairy Industries and PT Australia Industries. These types of things have to be done. The Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill covers many aspects. I also strongly support that Bill as there is a need for something to be done clearly to rectify the problems within this industry. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.17-I will disappoint the previous speaker, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) , by basically restricting my remarks to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill and in particular by restricting my remarks to cheese. This Government accepted the recommendation of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation to increase the maximum levy per 100 litres of milk or $3 per 100 kilograms of butter fat to 24 cents per 100 litres or $5 per 100 kilograms of butter fat. The dairy industry has recommended that the operative rate be 19 cents which will increase revenue from the levy available to the industry to $9.2m this year from $6.5m last year. In other words, it is a very substantial increase. It is also for the dairy farmers of this country a substantially increased burden to bear. I refer in particular to dairy farmers in my electorate. With due deference to dairy farming representatives from Gippsland, McMillan, Dawson and Darling Downs, the electorate of Murray has the largest number of dairy farmers in Australia and it is the major dairy farming electorate in this country. It also produces the best quality dairy products. After that advertisement I will get back to the point I was making; that is, that the dairy farmers-I am just using those in my electorate as an example-will suffer a drop in their incomes of about 20 per cent in real terms this year. That is a dramatic reduction in dairy farmers' income this year. I determined this figure of about 20 per cent after consultation with local dairy industry leaders. This figure is based on two points: Firstly, there will be a reduction in the final return to dairy farmers on a kilogram butter fat basis for manufacturing milk of between 30 cents and 40 cents per kilogram. Secondly, there will be an inflation rate for farm input costs for dairy farmers of about 10 per cent. So we have those two amounts of 10 per cent coming together. If we look at the increased Victorian Government charges which will particularly affect dairy farmers, such as electricity cost increases, irrigation water, rail freight and increased Federal and State government levies for petrol and diesel, we see that the 10 per cent calculation of increased costs for farm inputs will be conservative. I believe that it is correct for the Government to accept the recommendations of the appropriate dairy industry body to increase the maximum levy rate and the operative levy rate. But as the dairy industry has recommended these significant increases at a time when the industry is facing a substantial reduction in real returns, and as the Government has accepted that industry's recommendations, it is important for both the industry and the Government to ensure that the promotion that will follow from this increased levy money will maximise the return to the dairy farmers. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech indicated that the industry hoped that the greater promotion of dairy products on the domestic market would offset the greater levy costs. We certainly all hope that it will do so. The Minister also stated that cheese is a particularly suitable candidate for increased domestic sales if it is more extensively promoted. So cheese is the central feature of this promotion and levy Bill. It is the central point of responsibility for both the dairy industry and governments to ensure that this promotion campaign for increased domestic sales of cheese is successful. Increased sales of cheese on the Australian domestic market may follow but it does not automatically follow that those increased sales will be from Australian cheese. That is the important point that has to be made. For the additional levy money to be worthwhile any increased sales of cheese on the Australian market have to be basically due to, or brought about by , increased sales of Australian cheese. The central problem for increased sales of Australian cheese on the domestic market has been the rapidly increasing percentage of imported cheese coming into this country. Mr Cunningham —I mentioned something about that. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member should just wait a minute. I will give him all the information and also a few extra facts which he may want to forget if he keeps interjecting. The major factor concerning the percentage of imported cheese hinges on two points: Unfair competition-meaning dumping-and food standards. For the information of the honourable member for McMillan I note that the Government has taken some action. I congratulated the Government-as I do now -for accepting the fact that dumping was taking place-in other words, unfair trading-and for taking action in that regard. The Government acted just as the previous Government acted earlier on this question of dumping and on possible disease dangers as a result of certain types of cheese being imported. I am pleased that the Labor Government has acted more responsibly than the previous Labor Government when former Senator Murphy dropped anti-dumping duties against imported cheese in the early 1970s without any reference to the then Tariff Board to which he should have referred. If the honourable member for McMillan keeps trying to interject he will get that sort of stuff thrown back at him. The point I want to make is that the Government has acted on one of the points of unfair competition-that is, dumping. As the degree of subsidy on much, if not most, of the imported cheese coming into this country is as high as 100 per cent I believe that this is a completely unfair situation to be faced by any industry in this country. The next point concerns the standard of the cheese imported into this country. This is a major issue in my electorate at present because my electorate happens to be the major cheese producing and exporting electorate in Australia. At present cheese is being imported and openly sold in Australia when it is known that the cheese contains additives which are prohibited for use in Australia. In other words, people who are buying imported cheese in many cases are buying cheese which is considered by the health standards people and the various State governments to be substandard food that should not be sold in this country. No Australian cheese manufacturer is allowed to add these preservatives and additives to Australian cheese. This is a general problem with imported food. Other examples occur with imported sausages-I refer to the preservatives and the percentage of fat-with wine, with added sugar and with brandy. Problems also occur in determining whether brandy is actually made from grapes rather than potatoes or some cheaper substitute. The logical and efficient way in which to police food standards so that any food sold in this country is of a uniform standard and imported food is allowed to be sold only at a standard equal to the domestically produced product is for the Commonwealth to take control and to amend the customs prohibited imports legislation. To be fair to the Commonwealth-this is no criticism whatsoever of this Government-food standards are constitutionally a State government responsibility. I am advised that the National Health and Medical Research Council-that is, the federalist body which attempts to have uniform standards for such matters in Australia-has been trying for 40 years to establish uniform food regulations in Australia. In 1980, it provided some model legislation for the States to enact. So far, Queensland is the only State which has enacted this model food legislation. Once the States enact this uniform legislation and bring in uniform regulations, then I believe the Commonwealth should be called upon to act to police, at the point of entry into Australia, the uniform regulations for those standards. However, I concede and make the point that it is impossible for the Commonwealth to do anything at this stage when, from State to State, differing regulations and standards for different foods apply. As I said earlier, this is a major issue in my electorate in northern Victoria. It was raised initially in Echuca. Pressure was applied to the Victorian Government and to the Victorian Minister of Health who has the responsibility of policing food standards in Victoria. It was said that the Victorian Government was not carrying out its responsibilities and ensuring that the imported cheese sold in Victoria met with the food standards of its legislation and with the food standards required for any cheese produced in Victoria. Initially, Mr Roper attempted to blame the Commonwealth. It was pointed out to him that, after all, Victoria had not even bothered to pass the model food legislation which had been sitting there for about three years and, further, the question was posed: How could the Commonwealth do anything when the State was not even carrying out its responsibilities? He later accepted this responsibility and cheese containing one of those preservatives, natamycin, was temporarily banned or restricted. However, quite contrary to his earlier point that there must be uniform arrangements for the policing of food standards, he has now yielded to pressure. It would be interesting to know who provided that pressure. Perhaps it was some of the cheese importers who had stocks of this cheese on their shelves and on the wharves. Completely unilaterally, Victoria will allow one of these prohibited additives to continue to be used in Victoria and will allow that cheese to continue to be sold. The main point I make is that the Australian dairy industry is efficient by world standards. After the New Zealand industry, it is the most efficient dairy industry in the world. It is an industry which can and does export commercially. One can look at some of the other industries in Australia which this Government, at the Federal and State levels, has been very anxious to protect, such as the highly inefficient automobile industry, the steel industry and the textile industry. The Government has been providing additional protection to preserve employment in this country. But, at the same time, one of the most efficient industries in this country-the dairy industry, which is an efficient industry by world standards-is not even being assisted. Legislation exists to ensure that the dairy industry in Australia has the chance to compete fairly with these sub- standard imports. What hypocrisy and what double standards when the Government is doing nothing to protect employment by the major agricultural employer in Victoria against unfair competition. The Government is increasing this fence of protection for far less efficient industries in other sectors of our economy. I agree that in the future the Commonwealth must police the standards for the importation of all food coming into this country. But, according to what I have been advised, I do not believe that it is the Commonwealth's role to do anything at this stage until the States pass what legislation they should pass and come to the Commonwealth saying: 'We have uniform legislation but it is far more sensible for it to be policed at the point of entry rather than by health inspectors at each of the local government areas in Australia'. According to the advice given to me, only at that time when the States come to the Commonwealth will it be appropriate for the Commonwealth to act. Certainly I believe it is a responsibility that the Commonwealth, after that action by the States, must accept. The other point I wish to make relates still to this matter of promoting cheese . If we promote cheese in Australia to a greater degree than we have in the past , will Australian cheese be sold? This raises not just the question of whether, therefore, it is right and proper that any cheese imported into Australia is imported in a commercial way and to a standard acceptable to Australia. This also raises the matter of New Zealand cheese. New Zealand has a fixed percentage of the Australian domestic market. Therefore, if there is successful promotion of cheese in Australia the New Zealand dairy farmers will benefit from that expenditure incurred by Australian dairy farmers. A number of dairy farmers in my electorate, who are not particularly happy with the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation recommendation for increasing the levy, have put it to me that, if it is right and proper for Australian dairy farmers to increase their expenditure on promotion at a time of 20 per cent reduction in their income, it is right and proper for the New Zealand dairy industry to share the burden of what it knows is a captive market for a certain tonnage of New Zealand cheese. I hope that the Australian industry, in carrying through its responsibility to its members to maximise the return from that increased levy, will discuss with the New Zealand industry what is a fair share of that promotion money. The last point I wish to make is that the honourable member for McMillan was very vocal about what he considered to be the lack of consultation by the previous Government-that is the present Opposition parties-with regard to the dairy industry organisations and dairy industry matters generally. If he really believes that consultation is of the highest priority and is really sincere about this I think he should be starting to lecture his Government a little about this. I certainly believe consultation is a high priority. I believe the party to which I belong has always been most meticulous in its discussions, arrangements and agreements with the industry organisations because, after all, their representatives are the people elected or appointed to represent that industry. For example, one can look at the Victorian Government and the actions that Government has taken with regard to the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority without any consultation with the dairy industry in Victoria. I am also disappointed with the Minister. It is obvious that when this legislation was being prepared he did not consult more with the industry. If he had, the Minister would not have felt it necessary to introduce this last minute amendment after being prompted by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). This amendment is being introduced at the last moment so that the refund of the levy that is charged for milk used in the Ovaltine which is exported by a Tasmanian company will be returned to the people to whom it should be returned-the Tasmanian dairy farmers. I hope that those Tasmanian dairy farmers and the Tasmanian dairy industry generally are made very well aware of the positive action taken by the honourable member for Darling Downs on behalf of the Opposition which will mean that they will gain some justice in this matter. I support the legislation in terms of the points made and the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Darling Downs. I reiterate my major concern that at a time of decreasing real income for the dairy farmers of this country-I represent the most efficient dairy sector of Australia, which is, even in my view, the second most efficient dairy industry in the world-there is a great responsibility for both the industry and the Government to ensure that that money is not spent in vain. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.35) —I shall keep my remarks fairly brief, concentrating them mainly on the first of the Bills before the House, the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. Before making some comments on that Bill I wish to remark on some of the statements made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who referred to cost pressures on our dairy farmers and to the situation of dairy farmers at a time of decreasing real returns. I certainly sympathise totally with the dairy farmers in the present difficult situation in which real returns may be expected to decline, but I take some umbrage at the remarks that the honourable member made in terms of the cost increases to dairy farmers and the source of those increases. The honourable member for Murray referred to increases in government charges and input such as for electricity and gas. For my part, I can say only that the Government is well aware of those pressures on dairy farmers and that the whole of our economic strategy is designed to get this economy in better shape and to get interest rates down. We have already been successful in that and by next year we will have inflation down to 7 per cent or thereabouts. Mr Cunningham —No risk. Mr BRUMBY —No risk? That comment has been made time and time again by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I have absolutely no doubt that by next year the inflation rate will be down to 7 per cent. Mr McGauran —But the CPI-- Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Gippsland by way of interjection dares to refer to the consumer price index. The record of the previous Government-his own Government-in that area was quite appalling. When it took government in 1975 it promised to increase employment and reduce inflation. When it was tipped out of office in March this year the rate of inflation was no lower at all than it was some eight years before. That is the record of the previous Government. I am afraid that is true. On top of that, of course, the previous Government cost 500 ,000 Australians their jobs. It is a good thing that it was turfed out when it was. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 imposes a levy, with certain exceptions, on the production and sale of whole milk and butterfat. The proceeds of that levy are used for dairy research and to finance the Australian Dairy Corporation in its role of promoting the sale of dairy products in Australia. The rates of levy payable at any given time for the purpose of research or promotion are set by regulation, subject to maximum rates contained in the Act, and are known as the operative rates. The Australian Dairy Corporation's report for 1981-82 shows that the operative rates for domestic promotion at that time were 9c per 100 litres of whole milk and $2.25 per 100 kilograms of butterfat. It has been noted in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that the existing operative rates are 12c per 100 litres of whole milk and $3 per 100 kilograms of butterfat. Those rates are also equal to the maximum that can be levied under the Act. As the operative rate is equal to the maximum rate and as the Government has received representations from the Corporation and from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation to increase the maximum rates, this legislation gives effect to those recommendations and to commitments that the Government provided to the industry in June. So clause 3 of the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill provides for the maximum rate of levy for promotional purposes to be increased from 12c per litre to 24c per litre and clause 5 provides for the maximum rate of levy in respect of buttermilk to be increased from $3 to $6. The effect, when setting the new operative rates which the ADC has recommended-19c for whole milk and $4.75 for buttermilk-should be to lift the revenue for promotional purposes of the Australian Dairy Corporation from $6.5m in 1982-83 to in excess of $9m in 1983-84. The honourable member for Murray made some very valuable points in terms of the use to which that money is put and which products it is used to promote. He referred specifically to cheese-the difficulties in promoting our own cheese and at the same time not promoting imported cheese-and he also referred to the very important issues of dumping and food standards. The honourable member commended the Government on the action it has taken in the area of dumping. I certainly thought that his remarks about food standards were extremely pertinent to this industry. I recently attended a meeting of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria in Lockington in Victoria, which borders my electorate with that of the honourable member for Murray-it might in fact be into the honourable member's electorate- and discussed a wide range of issues with those dairy farmers. One of the main issues which were raised with me was the issue of imported cheese, particularly European Economic Community jarlsburgs and goudas which contained additives and which were adulterated particularly with the antibiotic natamycin. I discussed that issue at length. It is a matter which I have raised with the State Minister of Health, Mr Roper. I entirely agree with the honourable member for Murray that if one set of standards is good enough for our own locally produced cheeses it is certainly good enough for those that are imported. Over a period a large quantity of cheeses has been imported from the EEC. They are not up to our very stringent standards. They do not meet them. They contain antibiotics such as natamycin and other additives such as nitrates. Should any of our own producers be caught putting those types of substances in our cheeses they are subject to the most stringent sanctions, including loss of licence. I have written to the State Minister. It is a matter of concern that what I understand to be a shipment amounting to almost $2m worth of imported cheeses, which have been sitting on the dock at Melbourne, will be able to be sold through normal commercial channels even though the Minister has given, again as I understand it, an undertaking that much stricter requirements and criteria will be applied to future imports of cheese. I believe that there are grounds for the Commonwealth examining this whole matter in terms of a uniform food standard throughout Australia. As the honourable member for Murray mentioned, model food legislation has been proposed to a number of States. I reiterate that on this very important issue involving food standards and the health of consumers it is quite unacceptable that imported cheeses, which contain additives which are not permitted under our own stringent food standards, can be brought into this country and sold. It is a matter on which I will certainly be making further representations to the State Minister of Health. I propose to make my comments about the other Bills before the House quite brief. The second of the Bills is the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983. The base legislation on which the amendments contained in this Bill are made was introduced into the Parliament in 1977. That was the Dairy Industry Stabilization Bill 1977. When introducing that Bill the then Minister for Primary Industry stated: The purpose of the levies is to protect the domestic price structure for prescribed products and through their disbursement to provide each manufacturer with a equalised return from their domestic and export sales of such products. Honourable members will be aware that the levy does not have to be paid until the product is sold and is payable by the proprietor of the factory at which the product has been produced. The amendments proposed in this Bill are relatively straightforward. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in his comments earlier alluded to the difficulties which might arise in terms of the export of a product such as Ovaltine, which contains only 18 per cent of leviable dairy product. The Minister has indicated that an amendment will be put before the House. I believe that amendment certainly clarifies that difficult situation and it is one which I support. When discussing the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, certain members of the Opposition used this forum to debate government action and activity with respect to Asia Dairy Industries, particularly PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. That problem goes back to the previous Government. It goes back to 1981. Our Government is well aware of the difficulties and the very complex situation in relation to that. The Minister has already taken a number of positive initiatives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and refers to the answer given in this House last night by the Special Minister of State. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that there were discussions and communications between members of his Government and his Party and members of the New South Wales Government and Labor Party-not revealed in the answer last night by the Special Minister of State-both before and after the former Special Minister of State had discussions with the Acting Premier of New South Wales? I ask the Prime Minister to reveal now the nature and details of those communications. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I preface the answer I give to him in detail by indicating that I have received this day from the Special Minister of State this letter: Dear Prime Minister, Commissioner R. A. Grey informed myself and Mr J. Menadue this afternoon that, as he said yesterday, he was completely satisfied with the handling of the matter by the Commonwealth Ministers. I am coming to a more detailed answer, but I remind the Leader of the Opposition and all other honourable members opposite that this Commissioner is their Commissioner, the Commissioner appointed by them, as he is also our Commissioner . I have it in writing from the Minister that the Commissioner has put in writing-he has said it also-that he is completely satisfied with the handling of the matter by the Commonwealth Ministers. If the Leader of the Opposition or any of those tragic figures behind him wish to question the integrity of their Commissioner, the Commissioner appointed under their Government, they are free to do so. I will now answer in more detail the question from the Leader of the Opposition . In early May of this year the Australian Federal Police received information which gave rise to concern in the mind of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner that offences under New South Wales law may have been committed in relation to the early release of prisoners. The then Special Minister of State was informed of this matter on Wednesday, 11 May. The then Minister discussed it with me the same day and I directed him to contact the appropriate New South Wales Minister. Let me emphasise that I instructed the Special Minister of State to ensure that, as far as it was possible within the Commonwealth's capacity so to do, all necessary steps were taken to investigate fully the matters in issue. I was absolutely astringent and emphatic as soon as I received that information that it had to be conveyed and that the position of the Commonwealth was to be clear-all investigations had to be pursued and nothing was to stand in the way as far as the Commonwealth could indicate its position. That was done. Mr Young passed the information to the New South Wales Acting Premier, the Hon. L. J. Ferguson, in Sydney on Monday, 16 May. On the same day the information was passed by the AFP Commissioner to New South Wales Police Commissioner Abbott. The Australian Federal Police Commissioner has been in touch with the New South Wales Commissioner concerning this matter since 16 May to assist in any way possible. The Special Minister of State informed the House last evening that there is no foundation for any suggestion that any request was either made by New South Wales authorities or acceded to by Commonwealth authorities for removal of any Commonwealth telephone interception or that installation or removal of any particular interception during the period in question occurred for other than ordinary police operational reasons. No offences under Commonwealth law have been involved and the Commonwealth is unaware of the results of the New South Wales Police investigation. I repeat what I have said and add to it: As soon as this matter was brought to the attention of the then Special Minister of State he acted immediately and properly. He informed me. As I say and repeat, I was totally astringent about this matter. I said that this matter had to be conveyed and that our position as a Commonwealth government was made crystal clear, that this matter should be pursued with the appropriate investigation irrespective of what or who was involved. That was the position adopted by me on 11 May and fully accepted. It was not a question of my having to force it upon the then Minister. It was a position with which he completely agreed, and he proceeded. Mr Carlton —He understood and accepted. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member thinks there is something very smart in saying 'understood and accepted', I will say 'understood and accepted'. The action was followed. If there is any attempt by the Leader of the Opposition or any other honourable member on that side of the House to suggest that there is any culpability in respect of this matter, that is absolutely baseless and directly contradictory to the action taken. Of course, the propriety of the action of the Ministers, who include the then Minister, the present Minister and me, has been alluded to and endorsed by the Commissioner. The steps that were taken were to see who had to be spoken to because, as honourable members will recall, at that stage Mr Ferguson was overseas. He was to come back at the beginning of the next week. Steps were taken to see whom the information should be conveyed to. Those steps were taken. As a result of that, the Acting Premier, when he returned, was spoken to by the Special Minister of State. Mr Anthony —Pretty slow steps. It took five days to take them. Mr HAWKE —Not five days at all. They were immediately taken to find out whom to speak to. Honourable members will remember that Mr Wran had stood down and Mr Ferguson was overseas. Steps were taken immediately to see whom should be spoken to. They were spoken to, and they were spoken to in terms that the clear position of this Government was that the investigation should be pursued, and pursued without fear or favour. That is the position of this Government and, as I say, the action of all the Ministers was endorsed by the Federal Commissioner. Mr Peacock —You have not answered the question. Mr HAWKE —I have answered it. Mr SIMMONS —I ask the Prime Minister: Has the economy already bottomed out and started on an upturn? If so, does this indicate that the Federal Government's economic policies are starting to work? Mr HAWKE —I am particularly pleased to receive this question from the honourable member for Calare because over the last weekend I had the great advantage, due to his kindness and the kindness of relevant organisations, of visiting his electorate. I am very pleased to say-this is not a matter for which we can claim credit-that due predominantly to an act of nature in the breaking of the drought I have never seen the electorate of Calare looking in better shape. We thank God predominantly for that, but obviously the smiles of satisfaction on the faces of the people of Calare also reflected to a considerable measure the great degree of satisfaction they have in their representation by their new member. If I can extend my assessment of the economic situation beyond the electorate of Calare-and in great shape indeed it is-to Australia more generally, let me say yes, there are signs of recovery in the Australian economy and it does seem that the Australian economy has already bottomed out. There is no doubt that there will definitely be some economic recovery this year. We all know-or those of us who know anything about economics know-that economic forecasting is a somewhat hazardous matter. But during 1983-84 there could be economic growth of the order of 5 per cent to 6 per cent. That pick-up will reflect a number of factors. It will reflect the slowdown in the rundown of stocks; it will reflect the end of the drought; it will reflect the significant recovery of the economy of the United States of America; and, to a significant extent, it will reflect the impact of the Government's economic policies which were contained in the Budget and in other decisions. I refer briefly to some of the other signs of recovery that are involved. I think all members of the House will agree that recent reductions in interest rates on Commonwealth bonds, due to a variety of factors, will be welcomed throughout the business community. We have the evidence of a number of surveys in respect of consumer confidence. The survey by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows increased consumer confidence in the wake of the Budget. In regard to the business community, we have the surveys by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank and by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation. They show that the business community expects a lift in activity and improved conditions over the coming months. There is no doubt that there has been a very favourable reaction by the Australian business community to the Budget brought down by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, on 23 August. In the housing area there are already obvious signs of an increase in activity. There has been a very significant increase in housing loans and the coming into effect on 1 October this year of the Government's first home owners scheme will be a significant improvement. Of course, I have referred to the improvement in the rural sector. Having referred to those positive signs of improvement in actual activity and confidence, we must acknowledge that the signs are mixed. We would certainly like to see more signs of improvement in the employment area. There is no doubt that private investment is slow in picking up. But I hope that honourable members on the other side of the House will for a moment put aside their miserable partisanship and, like honourable members on this side of the chamber, recognise and welcome the signs of significant recovery in the Australian economy. I hope that the Opposition will share the confidence and hope of the Government that those signs of recovery will continue for the benefit of all Australians. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. By way of preamble I say that the Prime Minister simply reiterated the substance of the answer by the Special Minister of State. Of course, in so doing, he addressed the question in one sense by implication in denying communication between the New South Wales Government and his Government-- Mr Hawke —Ask your question. Mr PEACOCK —The Prime Minister is very toey, and understandably so. Corruption normally comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should ask his question. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark . He said: 'Corruption usually comes from the bottom up, not from the top down'. I ask for the withdrawal of that remark. Mr SPEAKER —As the Prime Minister finds it offensive, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Mr PEACOCK —If the Prime Minister accepts that it applied to him, I would not wish him to be offended by it; so I withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that it should be withdrawn unreservedly. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition is withdrawing his remark? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Is it not a fact, as I asked the Prime Minister before, that there were discussions and communications between members of his Government and his Party and members of the New South Wales Government and Labor Party-not revealed in the answer last night by the Special Minister of State-both before and after the former Special Minister of State had discussions with the Acting Premier of New South Wales? I again ask the Prime Minister to reveal now the nature and details of those communications. As just one example, and certainly not the most important, I refer the Prime Minister to the letter written by the New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services to the Federal Minister for Communications regarding the telephone taps on his phone. Does he deny that the letter was received? If not, will he table it? Mr HAWKE —The answer that was given by the Special Minister of State was absolutely appropriate to the question that was asked, was relevant and gave information that was required in terms of answering that question. We are more than prepared to facilitate for the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity for him to speak with the Commissioner in respect of those matters. In respect of the issue which he raised in his question about discussions, I have made it clear that the discussions that took-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the House come to order, otherwise honourable members will not hear the answer that the Prime Minister gives. The interjections are quite inappropriate. Mr HAWKE —In respect of the-- Mr Peacock —Don't be agitated, Kim. Mr HAWKE —He is not agitated. He is very keen to answer your question and he will have that opportunity. I refer now to the discussions which took place between this Government and the New South Wales Government after the date when we were given the information to which I have referred-that is, Wednesday, 11 May. A discussion then took place to see who was the Minister to whom the then Special Minister of State should speak in terms of the situation that then existed in New South Wales. We wanted as quickly as possible to be able to speak to the relevant Minister, and that was done on 16 May. It was done so that the information would not be conveyed only at a Minister to Minister level; also on the same day, 16 May, the Federal Commissioner spoke to the State Commissioner. So, at the Government to Government level and at the Commissioner to Commissioner level, steps were taken to see that the information in question could be available as quickly as possible so that an unqualified investigation could be immediately undertaken. This Government could not have done more. The discussions that took place were to find out whom we should speak to. I repeat-the Opposition does not want to face up to the situation-that it is well known that the Premier of New South Wales had stood aside. Mr Ferguson was overseas and was on his way back. We had to find out who was the appropriate person to speak to, and he was spoken to immediately. As far as the Government was concerned, we had done all that we could do immediately to ensure that the investigation was undertaken. There was a specific statement from me and through the then Special Minister of State that nothing should be done to prohibit or inhibit the fullness of that investigation. Mr Sinclair —There was no letter from Jackson to Duffy then? Mr HAWKE —I am coming to the question of a complaint by Mr Jackson. The matter that is involved there- Mr Peacock —That is a minor matter compared with the other communications. Mr HAWKE —It is not a minor matter. It is another area; it is unconnected with the issue of 11 May. Because the Leader of the Opposition has all the details, I invite him or any other honourable member to ask the Special Minister of State about the details concerning the letter from Mr Jackson and a full answer will be provided by the Minister, who has all the details. Mr BEDDALL —Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the House whether he has received any reply to the allegations concerning the activities of Mr P. Killoran, the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement , in respect of the upcoming Queensland State election? Mr HOLDING —The question relates to the concern that I expressed in this House with regard to Mr Killoran, the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, who, according to information I had received from Aboriginal and Islander people, was using his position to canvass support for nomination as a candidate for, and on behalf of, the National Party in the present Queensland election. At that stage, Mr Killoran had not nominated. As I have indicated to the House, I expressed my concern in a lengthy telex to the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland, Mr Bird; and I asked for his response. To date, formally, I have not received that response. However, I did see a Press statement attributed to Mr Bird in which he discounted, repudiated and indeed described as disgusting this allegation and also a comment made by an officer of the National Party in Queensland who said that the allegation was false because the National Party had already nominated its candidate for the seat of Cook. Since then, Mr Killoran has nominated for the seat. I do not know whether Mr Bird, the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland, was therefore lied to when he made his statement to the Press, because I have always found Mr Bird, in his dealings as Minister, forthright and honourable. I do not believe that he would have made a public statement of the kind that he made unless he had been seriously misinformed. Since then further serious allegations have been made about Mr Killoran's use of his position as Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland to use both the resources of that Department and the power of his position to seek, intimidate and coerce votes from Aboriginal and Islander people. I do not make that statement lightly and I would not make it unless it was on the basis of evidence. What has to be pointed out to those honourable gentlemen who perhaps do not realise it is that Mr Killoran's position in the Public Service in Queensland is probably unique. It is not a position which would have an equivalent in any other area of the Public Service. Rather than being Director of the Department he is a virtual dictator and, in that situation, he is able to determine the level of housing, the level of health and the level of education that operate in any Aboriginal community. Allegations have been made because, certainly in that part of Australia, what occurs is fairly public. The resources of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement-in the form of a radiocommunications system-have been used by Mr Killoran to seek to advance his candidacy as a member of the National Party. Mr Ian Cameron —Shame! Mr HOLDING —The honourable member can say 'shame' but when I visited the Torres Strait Islands last week and particularly the island of Saibai-this was after some-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it appropriate for questions without notice to be a vehicle for an attack on the personality and integrity of an individual? Mr SPEAKER —The Minister, in giving his answer, is quite within the Standing Orders. Mr HOLDING —I would not want to attack the dignity or the integrity of an individual. I would like to know what the Deputy Leader of the National Party, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, say about a situation in which a man who has held a very significant position in the Public Service is now an endorsed candidate. Last week when I was on the island of Saibai-the election campaign was going on-on the instructions that came from Mr Killoran, this notice which I show to the House was on a notice board in that Aboriginal community. If the right honourable gentleman is concerned about integrity, what do he, members of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition say about this notice which I am happy to table in order to confirm the feelings of integrity of the right honourable gentleman? The notice is in these terms: Notice I wish to advise today that I have been nominated-- not that he nominated- for the Cook electorate and would appreciate support from you and your people. Will visit you shortly. Regards Pat Killoran (Director). If the right honourable member had any decency or honour he would repudiate that action. Mr Sinclair —Is it signed? Mr HOLDING —The notice was put up there by an officer, on his instructions. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I remind honourable members that they are only reducing their chances of asking questions. I call the Minister-in conclusion, I hope. Mr HOLDING —I find it interesting to see the gentlemen who want to talk about integrity and honour. The Leader of the Opposition does not regard this matter as a serious breach of the duty of a public servant. This action would not be tolerated in any public service anywhere in Australia, either federally or in the States. I find it fascinating that-- Mr Carlton —There is no evidence. Mr HOLDING —There is no evidence? The evidence is there. I challenge honourable gentlemen opposite to deny the truth of the allegation that Mr Killoran has calculatedly, wilfully and determinedly obfuscated his position as a candidate on behalf of the National Party with his duties as a senior public servant. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I will deny that. I know as much about it as the Minister does. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I take it that the honourable member for O'Connor raised a point of order. I did not hear one word of it. I ask him to resubmit it. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raised a point of order. I will deny the Minister's statement because I know as much about the matter as he does. Mr SPEAKER —That is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman's relationship with the Aboriginal community would make him a worthy recruit for Mr Killoran in his activities in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Humphreys —Where is your iron bar? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOLDING —I would suggest that Mr Killoran would even provide you with an iron bar. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore the interjections and to complete his answer. Mr HOLDING —I realise that there is a tendency on behalf of certain members of the Opposition to say: 'Oh, well, it happens in Queensland and it does not really matter because its standards are different from everybody else's. If there is an exercise in political corruption, if there is an abuse of procedure, it does not really matter because it is what the National Party in Queensland is all about and we should not make any judgments in this House'. I make it perfectly clear that we regard this matter very seriously indeed. It would be a failure on my part, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, if I did not ensure the right of Aboriginal and Islander people in the electorate of Cook to be able to cast a free choice of vote. I assure the House that, as Minister, I will not adopt the cavalier attitude of members of the National Party opposite and that the full resources of my Department will be used to ensure the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people to cast their votes free of intimidation and free of this kind of political skulduggery. I table the document to which I referred earlier and I hope that it will prompt some feeling of political morality in honourable members opposite. Mr Cadman —A point of order. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Mitchell on a point of order. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, is this the Minister that Mr Justice Winneke said-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Cadman —has greater allegiance to his party than to the truth? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State and relates to the subject matter of my questions yesterday and today to him and to the Prime Minister. Will the Special Minister of State table the full details of the reasons why, at various times, the telephone intercepts were lifted? Mr BEAZLEY —I dealt with the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I pointed out to him on that occasion that at no point has there been any instruction by a Commonwealth Minister, on either the advice or a request of the New South Wales Government or on its own initiative. As the Leader of the Opposition would be aware, the Commissioner of Police has absolute discretion to determine when an operational matter requires the acquisition of a warrant for the purpose of pursuing a telephone tap. Those taps are placed at the direction of the Police Commissioner when he has the appropriate warrant. They are lifted at his discretion. They are entirely made and entirely determined by him, his operational requirement and the judicial process through which he goes. At no point of time has there been, under this Government, interference with that process. Mr STEEDMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is there any truth in recent media reports that the Government is softening its attitude towards the apartheid regime in South Africa? Mr HAWKE —I am pleased to be able to say that while there are not a great number of issues, I guess, on which there is identity of position between government and opposition, over more than a decade a firm anti-apartheid policy has characterised the foreign policy of successive Australian governments. This Government remains-as I know the Leader of the Opposition and members on the other side of the House do-unreservedly opposed to the abhorrent policy of apartheid. For example, the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, when addressing the Thirty-eighth Session of the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, emphasised the utter rejection of what he described as the repugnant system of apartheid which, as he said, despite minor cosmetic change, continues without meaningful modification in South Africa. In the sporting area this Government is firmly committed to the Gleneagles agreement. The existing ban on South African teams and representative individual sportsmen and sportswomen remains in force. We shall continue as a government to urge upon Australian sporting associations the undesirability of their having sporting contact with South Africa. The Government is currently reviewing the policy on sporting contacts in order to establish clear and consistent guidelines. The possible array of future policy options is being discussed in the processes of Caucus. Cabinet has not yet considered any aspects of that matter. The Government has decided that until the policy review has been completed the existing policy will continue to apply. It is on that basis, I may say, that six South African women squash players will be allowed entry to compete as individual players in the women's world squash championship in Perth. The Squash Racquets Association of Australia has assured the Government that the South Africans will be permitted to compete only in the individual and not in the national teams championship. In the civil aviation field, the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, recently announced that Qantas Airways Ltd and South African Airways would be permitted to operate supplementary flights during the coming summer holiday season. This is solely intended to reduce possible inconvenience to intending passengers until the current review by the Government of air links with southern Africa has been completed. It in no way reflects any softening of attitude towards South Africa. Finally, I am pleased to be able to inform the House that I have written to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr Shridath Ramphal, indicating the support of the Australian Government for the inclusion of a discussion on southern African issues on the agenda at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Delhi in November. I shall be reiterating to Mr Ramphal what I told him at our two earlier meetings this year, in London and here in Canberra, that there is no question at all of Australia modifying the vigor of its firm anti-apartheid policies. I believe that in saying that I will be speaking on behalf of all members of this House. I will be saying that it is an issue on which all Commonwealth countries should act in concert. Mr STEELE HALL —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns the early release of prisoners scandal. After Mr Young, the sacked Special Minister of State, spoke to Mr Ferguson on 16 May, what further action was taken by the Commonwealth to ensure that the very serious matters covered in those discussions were effectively pursued? Did it concern the Commonwealth that, although the New South Wales Government had been informed on 16 May, no investigation was initiated by the New South Wales Government until 20 June? Did the Commonwealth take any action in respect of this delay? I ask that particularly in light of the statement by the current Special Minister of State that the Commonwealth had made it clear to the New South Wales Government that: . . . provided sources were not compromised, there was no reason why the investigation into the prisoners matter by the State police should not proceed. Mr HAWKE —I repeat: The Commonwealth Government acted with expedition in regard to the information supplied to it, through the Special Minister of State, by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. There are two matters. Let me repeat them because, as we have had reason to observe on many occasions, we are faced by a bunch of slow learners on the other side of the House. Firstly, I repeat: We, at the government-to-government level took immediate steps to pass on the information provided by the Australian Federal Police. On the same day the Commissioner conveyed the information to the New South Wales Commissioner of Police. At that point, once we had passed over the information which had become available and which disclosed the possibility of offences under New South Wales law, the question of pursuit of that matter of possible offences under New South Wales law became a matter for handling by the authorities of New South Wales. It ill becomes the people on the other side of the House who, when it suits them, make a clear distinction between Federal and State responsibilities, now to want us, having made the State authorities aware of possible offences under State law , to intervene in the pursuit of that matter by State authorities. We did everything within our power to ensure that they had the information. We said: ' There is a possibility of an offence under your laws. Now it is over to you'. Mr Ruddock —It didn't matter if there was a cover-up. Mr HAWKE —This is a nonsense about a cover-up. I have never seen a more desperate Opposition than that in this House. I hope that members of the Opposition in this House continue to pursue this matter in this place because there is nothing in it for them at the Federal level. I hope that every question they ask today, tomorrow and all of the following week is directed to this matter because there is nothing in it for them. We conveyed to the State of New South Wales the matter concerning possible offences under its law and expressed the hope and the wish that nothing would be done which would in any way inhibit the full pursuit of that matter under the law of New South Wales. We could have done nothing more than we did. I make the further point that we ensured that there was no offence under Commonwealth law. We were so assured on that point by the Commissioner of the Federal Police. The advice was that there was no offence under the law relevant to us but there was a possibility of offences under the law of New South Wales. We made the information available at the government-to-government level and at the police-to-police level. I repeat: The Ministers of this Government-a fact attested to by Commissioner Grey-have acted with total propriety in this matter. I hope that these poor people on the other side of the House keep asking questions about this matter today, tomorrow, next week and the week after because they will finish up, if it is possible, with more egg on their collective faces than they have at the moment. Mr MILTON —Is the Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of reports that the Federal Government is backing off in dealing with the problem of soil erosion on Australian coasts? In particular, is the Minister aware of claims that the Federal Government is doing nothing about Gold Coast beach erosion? What moves has the Federal Government made to handle this problem? Does it contemplate further steps in dealing with this problem? Mr BARRY JONES —My attention has been drawn to a Gold Coast newspaper report under the heading 'Federal Group Dodges Erosion of Coast Sand' which says, among other things: The Federal Government's powerful environment committee has backed off tackling the Gold Coast beach erosion problem. The report was based on the remarks of the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the honourable member for La Trobe. It contains a photograph of him on the Gold Coast looking very thoughtfully at the Gold Coast's Eleventh Avenue groyne. The Press report also refers to the report presented in 1980 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the management of the Australian coastal zone. The matter was discussed at the Australian Environment Council's fifteenth meeting in Alice Springs on 6 July, when the Minister exchanged views with his State colleague. I can vouch for the Minister's very deep interest in groynes and other conservation measures. The Council's Standing Committee has established an ad hoc committee on coastal management to advise on the House of Representatives Committee report on the management of the Australian coastal zone. The Government is well aware of the problems such as those relating to Gold Coast beach erosion. Further steps in the development of our coastal management policies will be taken in consultation with the States-we cannot push them around-and in the light of the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Committee on the management of the Australian coastal zone. Furthermore, my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, in discussing the 1983-84 Budget at the Cultural Authorities Conference, emphasised the need to defer some projects in the light of the current economic situation brought on by honourable members opposite. He went on to identify coastal management as a project high on his list for consideration in 1984-85. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Was the brief by the counsel for the Commonwealth, Mr McHugh, before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on 26 September on the instructions of the Commonwealth? Mr HAWKE —Yes. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Special Minister of State advise the House of any information he has relating to New South Wales Minister Jackson's belief that his telephone has been tapped? Mr BEAZLEY —I am glad that the honourable gentleman has directed that question to me. I have been waiting for it to come forward from members of the Opposition after they were invited to direct it to me, but they have so far failed to do so . The answer is that a communication was received by the Minister for Communications. Mr Jackson was concerned at the possibility that, inter alia, unauthorised and unlawful interference with the telecommunications system in his office had taken place. When I received that information from the Minister for Communications, it was passed on to the Australian Federal Police. The Federal Police have conducted an investigation and are unable to find any evidence to sustain the complaints put forward by Mr Jackson in his letter to the Minister for Communications. Mr LLOYD —Has the Minister for Communications, or any other Minister to his knowledge, contacted the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or been contacted by that organisation concerning, firstly, the desirability of financially assisting an ABC journalist in his litigation against the New South Wales Premier or, secondly, the resolution of the industrial trouble at the ABC following the decision not to back the journalist? Does the Minister believe that a journalist who, in the proper conduct of his work, is possibly defamed should be entitled to some assistance and protection from his employer? Mr DUFFY —I have not been contacted, nor has any other Minister, to my knowledge. Mr Lloyd —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There were two parts to the question. The second part has not been answered. Does the Minister believe that a journalist who-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mrs DARLING —I draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to reports that ethylene dibromide, EDB, a fumigant widely used in Queensland to ripen bananas, on fruits sent interstate and overseas and as a soil fumigant to combat root disease, has been banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I ask: Firstly, in view of claims that use of the fumigant has caused cancer, sterility and birth defects in laboratory animals, will he investigate the potential health risk to Australians in its continued use? Secondly, what action will he take to ensure that consumers and growers using the fumigant are, until such time as the results of his investigations are known , not placed at risk? Mr KERIN —I am aware that ethylene dibromide has been banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a soil fumigant and for the treatment of stored grain, milling machinery and felled logs. The honourable member takes a close interest in environmental matters where human health is concerned. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has also proposed the cancellation of EDB for quarantine use in respect of citrus and tropical fruits from 1 September 1984. I am advised that this suspension follows the detection of EDB in the ground water of certain States in the United States and results of studies on the compound. EDB has a wide range of registered agricultural uses in Australia, including application as a control for nematodes in soils and as a treatment against insect pests of cereals, pineapples, sugar cane and tobacco. It is also used as a fumigant for the export of citrus fruits to Japan. Relevant committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council have had EDB under review for some time. They have been informed of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision and are taking it into account in considering the application of the compound for continued domestic use. Already there have been comments from Japan regarding the decision, suggesting that Japanese authorities may act following the Environmental Protection Agency's action. If they were to prohibit the use of EDB in citrus, this could have major implications for our newly developing market. My Department is aware of the situation, and is reviewing the situation, including the use of alternative treatments, as a matter of urgency in conjunction with other authorities with legal responsibilities in this area. These include the NHMRC, State departments responsible for agriculture and other Federal and State agencies. I will advise the House and the honourable member of the position as soon as the evidence has been reviewed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1982 report on activities of the Film Censorship Board together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission's fourth report 1983 on special assistance for the Northern Territory. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology and Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980, I present the annual report of the Museum of Australia for 1981-82. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the State Grants Commissions for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Senators and members have already been advised of the allocation within their States. Payments to the States in respect of these recommendations have been made by the Treasurer. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Speaker, during the adjournment debate last night, as recorded on page 1310 of Hansard, I claimed that I had been misrepresented and you indicated that, at the appropriate time, you would allow me to make a personal explanation . In the course of his remarks, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) said : He suggests that the State taxes in the southern States are lower than taxes in Queensland. I said in my speech that the taxes in the southern States were higher than in Queensland. In order to assist the honourable member for Petrie-I would hate people outside this Parliament really to believe that he is as foolish as his remarks indicate-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond a personal explanation. Mr McVEIGH —I suggest that either the honourable member take up the matter with Hansard and substitute the word 'higher' for the word 'lower', or have the matter corrected in public. I would hate people to think that the honourable member for Petrie is as foolish as he is. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Ministerial Statement Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer) -by leave-The Government considers that the prescribed payments system is a fundamentally sound system. However, it accepts that, in the light of experience , there is a need to refine certain of its administrative aspects so as to reduce paperwork burdens on some taxpayers and to facilitate taxpayer compliance with its requirements. To this end, the Government has decided to introduce legislation to amend the income tax law along the lines proposed in the report tabled in the Senate yesterday by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In reaching this decision, the Government was satisfied that the changes proposed would not put at risk the anti-evasion objectives of the system. Taxpayers who, as payees, have been granted exemption from source deductions on the grounds of a good compliance record are to be taken out of the system in relation to prescribed payments they receive, provided that an appropriate declaration as to the holding of an exemption certificate is lodged with each payer once a year. For such payees with large numbers of different payers, it is proposed that the Commissioner of Taxation will, on application from a payee, be able to approve special arrangements under which quotation of an exemption certificate number on an invoice or statement would be acceptable as an alternative to the declaration. These changes will result in a very significant reduction in the paperwork burdens on the exempt payees concerned and also on the payers with whom they deal. Modifications are to be made to the provisions under which a payee may submit his duly completed part of the monthly deduction form no earlier than seven days before the commencement of the month in which a payment is due. Specifically, the changes to be made in this area are as follows: Firstly, the seven-day requirement is to be extended so that a payee may lodge a deduction form at any time in the month preceding the month of payment. Secondly, where a deduction form is properly lodged by a payee, it will remain valid until the month in which payment, or a first instalment of it, is made and where a part payment is made, the payer will be required to generate deduction forms in respect of subsequent instalments. Thirdly, where a payer gives a payee notice in writing that the payer will produce fully completed deduction forms on a monthly basis, the present requirement that the payee partially complete the form will be deemed to be met if the payee lodges with the payer one completed form to cover all prescribed payments from that payer in a year of income, unless the payees circumstances change before the end of the particular year in which case a further form will be required to cover payments for the remainder of the year. These modifications will ensure that affected taxpayers can more readily accommodate the requirements of the system into their business operations. The changes to allow payers, at their convenience, to complete both parts of deduction forms will certainly be welcomed by those payers who operate computer- based business systems. In addition to the above changes which were recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-all the recommendations in this statement have come from that Committee but were anticipated by the Government-a minor amendment will be made to the provisional tax self-assessment provisions to simplify the calculations which a taxpayer who wishes to vary a professional tax liability on account of prescribed payment income is required to make. The present requirement to identify estimated taxable net income, being prescribed payments, including such payments from which deductions have been, or will be, made, is to be altered to require the taxpayer to identify gross prescribed payment income from which deductions have been, or will be, made. These amendments clearly evidence the Government's willingness to refine the system to meet valid concerns about its operation. Amending legislation to give effect to these proposals will be introduced as soon as possible. The amendments will have effect from the date the legislation receives royal assent. The requirements of the law as presently enacted will remain in force until that time. I take this opportunity to thank the Senate Committee for its valuable work in preparing the report. The Committee's recommendations are sound and workable. I am particularly pleased that this Committee, comprising representatives of the Liberal Party, the Australian Democrats and the Government, unanimously recommends the regulations for the system be not disallowed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-Whilst some sections of industry will no doubt welcome the Government's modification of regulations in regard to prescribed payments tax, the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has skated over some large and important areas involving the regulations and involving the report that has been presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations examining prescribed payments regulations. In particular, I refer the Acting Treasurer to the number of copies of forms that are available to people who apply for prescribed payment forms. Numerous industry representatives submitted to the Senate Committee that the limitation of triplicate forms precluded payees keeping accurate records within their systems. It is a simple matter to produce booklets containing four forms instead of three. The Acting Treasurer has given no attention to that matter. This is a simple matter and an administrative approach could so easily be implemented. This was one matter that was raised with some concern by the Senate Committee. I welcome the decision by the Government to exclude those who hold exemption certificates from payment and from the paper war that has been implemented by this process. I think that is welcome. The Acting Treasurer failed to give any direction as to whether it would be possible, with the passage of time, for others to gain exemption. It seems to me that a sound tax record over a period of years should gain others exemption. As those who have an exemption now for a three-year responsible tax record can gain exemption others in a similar manner should have access to exemption. The Senate Committee that conducted the inquiry also made comments about the production of computer forms and the way in which those organisations that have computer arrangements for the payment of tax and the deduction of tax should be allowed to use their computer systems for the deduction of prescribed payments. Whilst there is some argument to the effect that this may mirror the pay as you earn deduction process there is an alternative and, I believe, valid argument, that those payers with computers should make deductions on behalf of payees and submit them through their computers. There seems no real reason why the Government could not agree to that recommendation. In high volume industries many submissions received by the Senate Committee indicated that those who are responsible for very large numbers of small value deductions are harassed by the number of forms and the accountability through which they must go in the regulations for prescribed payment. In those circumstances it would seem that the Government should investigate an alternative approach for record keeping. The Committee felt that there were great difficulties for high volume users. It felt that it was an area worthy of proper investigation with reasonable resolution of the problems evident in the system. The declaration by prescribed persons and the proposals the Commissioner of Taxation made to the Committee have, in fact, resolved one obvious problem which was raised by building industry groups in particular. The Government has not sought to enter into policy discussions or to modify its policy. I raise once more with the Acting Treasurer the inequity of the situation in which owner-builders can have an exclusion up to $10,000. It seems to me that that is an area the Government is unwilling to tackle and in which there is the most evasion. It was further raised by industry representatives that backyarders in other industries also were key individuals in tax evasion. The Government has not sought to approach those measures. Indeed, the Government has sought not to make variations or changes to the legislation when the Government could well be making changes to the legislation. I would like to hear from the Minister that he will continue to monitor the progress of this taxation, that he will not tolerate an impost of paper on honest small businessmen or contractors, that he will adopt a moderate view in regard to those who deserve a moderate view and that he will chase, without any relenting, those who are avoiding the tax. There need to be policy changes. The Senate Committee did not look at policy matters. Therefore, a superficial reading of its report would have one believe that there are few problems with prescribed payments. That is not so. The Committee of the Senate which examined this matter did not in any way pursue policy matters. In fact, that is one of the shortcomings of this report and it is one of the shortcomings the Government has brought upon itself by not having a full and free examination of prescribed payments. As late as 20 September the Commissioner was still issuing orders and information regarding the implementation of this tax and the way in which it would be processed by his officers. It is no wonder that many businesses have suffered because of it. There is no wonder that the paper war that many individuals have been compelled to enter has made their businesses suffer dramatically. I press the Acting Treasurer to take up these matters and to get his house in order. I know that he understands these issues whereas the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) dismisses them as being irrelevant. I would like that commitment from the Acting Treasurer. In light of the commitments he has already made in regard to changes which will be adopted by the Government and in light of the fact that I expect him to act as a man of honour and further progress these other difficulties I have raised, I intend to withdraw my notice No. 82, General Business, standing in my name. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer) -Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Does the Acting Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented or does he claim that his speech has been misquoted or misunderstood? Mr HURFORD —No, I claim to have been misrepresented other than in that part of the speech of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in which he said, quite correctly, if I may indulge in a little uncharacteristic immodesty, that I am a very honourable man. The honourable member said earlier in his remarks that I had skated over the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and, indeed, ignored a lot of its recommendations. I need to point out to the House that the Senate Committee's recommendations appear on page 1 of that report. The first of those recommendations is that the regulations not be disallowed. Of course, we support that. Further, the Committee goes on to state that the Senate will be monitoring this scheme until 1 September 1984. We welcome that. I refer now to the second paragraph in that report. I need to point out to the House that every one of the recommendations is accepted by the Government and is to be included in the legislation which we will be bringing to this House as soon as possible. The matters which are the subject of recommendations in the report have not been skated over. It is true that other matters were canvassed in the report but the Committee was not able to make recommendations in relation to those other matters because of administrative arrangements. We do not resile in any way from the fact that we will be continuing to monitor this system. Indeed, we have promised to have another look at it at the end of February after six months of operation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —by leave-I would like to point out to the House that all of the changes to this legislation which the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has announced will be introduced by the Government arise out of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The report would never have arisen in the first place had it not been for the action of the Opposition in the other place in referring this matter to the Senate. In fact, the action taken by the Government, which it claims will improve the legislation and partially restore it to the original intent, as foreshadowed in my Budget Speech last year, derives entirely from the action of the Opposition in the other place. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer) -by leave-The fact is that the Government supported the reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. We have said all along that this system was difficult to administer and that it required a little experience of the administration in order to be able to make that administration as smooth as the present pay as you earn system. The only thing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that was true was that he introduced the outline of this system to this Parliament, and now he is trying to run away from it. He would have introduced such a system at a withholding tax rate of 25 per cent. That would have caused enormous hardship to the community generally. This is a difficult system to administer but I am pleased to tell the House that until 19 September nearly 16,500 new tax files had been applied for. All the agony of the system is worth while in smashing tax evasion. Thank goodness we have a government which is prepared to have the courage of its convictions and which is, as the Valder report recommends, looking at principles and not just running after expediency, as the Opposition is doing. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I claim to have been misrepresented. The misrepresentation was the claim made by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) that the only true statement in the short statement I made a moment ago was to the effect that I had announced this legislation in my last Budget Speech. Of course I did. The Opposition has never resiled from the position that sensible legislation in this area of the type we originally foreshadowed was absolutely necessary. The fact remains that these amendments derive from a resolution we sponsored in the Senate. It would never have been supported by the Government if we had not sponsored it with the Australian Democrats in the Senate. It is nonsense for the Minister to claim otherwise. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's unwillingness to confront the problem of organised crime, including its failure to establish a National Crimes Commission. 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 STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.10) —In referring to the question of organised crime, I do not canvass the matter whether Labor members of parliament desire to adopt an attitude which encourages organised crime and criminals, but what is clear to this House and to the community is that is what their actions do. It is quite clear that the lack of proper measures to counteract organised crime in this society has led to an increasing number of immense problems in this community associated with bribery of public officials, payments to police and, now in this House, charges of payments to Ministers of State governments. It is clear that Labor strategists believe that there is too much that is damaging to the Australian Labor Party to clean up organised crime in Australia. Dr Theophanous —Nonsense! How dare you make those allegations. Mr STEELE HALL —I make those allegations and I will prove them in the ensuing 15 minutes. I say to the honourable member that royal commissions in the last few years have revealed across this country, internally in the countryside and in State capitals, a national disease of crime which is as great as, if not greater than, any other social issue facing this country today. There is no doubt, from advice given by international experts, that the city of Sydney is as corrupt in the conduct of its public life as the most corrupt city in the United States of America. There is not the slightest doubt that States need help to clean up their administrations, and they may need help despite themselves. Mr Beazley —Pretty heavy weather, Steele. Mr STEELE HALL —I refer the Special Minister of State to today's newspaper headlines. If he remains unconvinced of the position of crime in this community I refer him to today's Sydney Morning Herald. We will see there the various headlines such as 'Poker machine gangs plunder N.S.W. clubs' and 'Wrong to call me killer', the latter in reference to a person before an inquiry at which the police are represented in a defending position. 'A cloud over our police' is the headline of the leading article and there is a reference to the matter raised here so effectively yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). The headlines in the Melbourne Age would fill a folio. One headline reads 'Jail- release bribes claim' and there is again a reference to the 'Hope, Combe QC clash'. A whole mass of matters occupies the public mind but not the minds of the Labor members of parliament and the Ministry. They are unconcerned about their public actions and they show that unconcern. We are witnessing a sordid saga of Labor politics, never far from the sour smell of scandal and the stench of corruption. I refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the remarks in this House today by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he said that the previous Special Minister of State did not know to whom to talk in New South Wales when he found a defect in the administration of that State. Why did he not know whom to talk to? It was because the Premier had been stood down and the whole public administration of New South Wales was in disgrace. Despite the exoneration of the Premier, the finding of the royal commission into that matter was a malfunction of public administration and public justice in New South Wales . That is why the Minister's predecessor could not find anyone to talk to. It was just one more episode of corruption in New South Wales. Indeed, it is a sordid saga. One thing emerges, that is, that an overwhelming public demand to clean up the mess. It is interesting, and it is heavy stuff for the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, to go back to his leader's statements on 19 May. He will find that the Prime Minister in answer to a question from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) in this House said that we would have a national crimes commission. I quote his words to remind the present Special Minister of State of them. The Prime Minister said: . . . at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over. Later in his answer he said: . . . we just cannot keep him hanging around until 1984-- he was referring to Sir Edward Williams-- when we will have the National Crimes Commission take over the work of the Costigan commission . . . Mr Ruddock —Who said that? Mr STEELE HALL —It was the Prime Minister on 19 May this year. He probably maintained that attitude until 14 July at 4.30 p.m. when the then Special Minister of State resigned and thus started a new chapter in the relationship of this Government with crime, espionage and ministerial conduct. It is interesting as I hear it that the office of the previous Special Minister of State in South Australia is sealed waiting for his return. No one is allowed to go into that office. It is sealed waiting for the report of the royal commission. We will see then whether he can get enough respectability out of that report to send him back into that office which is sealed awaiting his return. That is the way in which the Government conducts the affairs of state. The Opposition's position in this area is quite clear. I refer the Government to it. It is a position established on 21 October of last year by the then honourable member for Diamond Valley, Minister for Communications and Acting Attorney-General, Mr N. A. Brown, who introduced into this House the legislation to set up a national crimes commission. The then Minister said: As a result, the Government has concluded that existing Australian law enforcement efforts need to be supplemented by the establishment of a new standing body with the necessary expertise and powers to make an effective attack on organised crime. He went on to say: From the Government's general experience and from the information obtained by the Attorney-General during his overseas consultations, the Government came to the view that the solution to the need to improve law enforcement does not lie merely in the use of royal commissions in their traditional form. There stands the position of the coalition on the National Crimes Commission, set out not in a promise subsequently disallowed by the Prime Minister, not set out in some promoting way, but set out in legislation passed in this House. That is the position of the Opposition and the coalition today. On 28 and 29 July, the Government carried out a seminar titled 'National Crimes Commission Conference'. It was opened by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he approved the National Crimes Commission. He said: Perhaps, at the outset, the most helpful thing for me to do would be to declare this Government's attitude to the question of a National Crimes Commission. Let me say that our present disposition is to support the establishment of such a commission and to see it operating from January 1984 as a natural and continuing successor to the Costigan Royal Commission. But before he finished his speech, he said: We are open to modifying our position in the light of the views expressed in this Conference. Usually the Prime Minister takes some little decent time, such as three days or a week, to resile on a promise. But in this case he resiled on his promise before he got to the end of his speech. However, he has confirmed his position since then. Before I leave this quite valuable discussion which was hosted by the then Acting Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) I refer to a comment made by Mr Costigan. He said: . . . that a comparatively small group of people in this community are waging war on it in an organised fashion . . . I believe that their activities cannot be checked by existing law enforcement agencies with the powers that are given, and a new attack on major organised crime is essential. From then on, commissioner after commissioner stood up in support of a national crimes commission. The Record of Proceedings of that conference is an extremely valuable document in that it places in one easily read volume the views of the most experienced crime fighters in this country. It is their view that the Special Minister of State is now rejecting. It is his Party that is rejecting those views. I have to quote, unfortunately, the words of the Attorney-General after that seminar was concluded. On 30 July, the day after the conclusion of that seminar, an article in the Age reports thus: Senator Evans compromised on the Government's proposed models for the commission by adopting the thrust of Victoria's submission for a national criminal intelligence agency. Senator Evans said he believed there was a strong support for some kind of national intelligence gathering authority, but there was considerable nervousness about moving beyond that core concept. That concept was described at the seminar. It does not resemble and is not a national crimes commission. That was not the second best but the fifth best position of a government following that seminar. Whilst one would regret that the determination of the coalition to fight crime has not been taken up by the Government, a government which is so self-interested that it does not damage itself by revealing the extent of crime in New South Wales and which has so designed its self-preservation that it will let criminals in this community escape- Dr Theophanous —Look at your crooked record. Look at the crooked record during your time. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You did nothing for seven years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member for Burke will cease interjecting. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member said: 'Look at your crooked record'. I think those words should be withdrawn. Mr STEELE HALL —I appreciate the point of order. My record stands; it is public. I am not concerned with the imaginations of the honourable member. We would perhaps have had a fifth or seventh best option in the sense that we would have had some intelligence gathering body. Yesterday the Labor Party ran away from that. Mr Howard —They rolled him. Mr STEELE HALL —They rolled the Attorney-General in regard to fixed terms. They rolled this cardboard law officer who promises reforms outside, but when he meets a whiff of opposition in Caucus he decides to go down another path. He did that in regard to fixed terms. Yesterday he did it not only in regard to the National Crimes Commission but also in respect of a national intelligence gathering body. Why did he do it? It was because the sacked Minister-the Minister whose office is sealed for his return-said that he should do it. That is what the article this morning said, and no one has denied it. The article in the Age states: The Federal Labor Caucus yesterday refused to give the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, the go-ahead for the proposed national crime authority. . . . after strong speeches by several members, including the former Special Minister of State . . . Mr Young told Caucus that initially he had been in favour of this kind of ' crime busting body'. But 'certain recent events' had led him to re-evaluate the abuse of powers . . . Recent events? The personal preservation of his office! He wants to unlock that office again. That is his position with respect to fighting crime. The Prime Minister is now presiding over a party that will not even approve an intelligence gathering body. The matter of a national crimes commission is not even within its vision. It has gone. That promise that the Prime Minister made to this House is as valid as all the other promises he made. It is as deceitful as every other promise he made and broke. His veracity would simply not stand the slightest examination. That is the leadership of the Government in relation to crime. The Caucus position is clear. It is exhibiting the same old antagonism to law and security in this country. It generally sides with the Left against the established law and order forces of this country. That was revealed to honourable members yesterday. The Minister was in Caucus yesterday, I hope. He knows the debate. Let him put the Government's position and say that we will have a national crimes commission. There is no clearer difference between the Opposition and the Government than in respect of fighting crime in this country. There can be no greater difference. We offer the alternative determined by legislation and put before the public by legislation. We have determined our stance in regard to crime-to fight it at all levels, by advice, by assistance to the States, by publicity about crime and by the renewal of standards of decency and probity in the States, particularly the State of New South Wales. Let the Minister defend the position, when he has no valid policy that stands behind a national crimes commission today. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(3.25) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) made, as was anticipated, heavy weather of his speech. He started off with his evidence. He presented as his evidence a series of Press clippings from papers that he managed to read today. That evidence was a series of police court reports and a lot of matters completely unrelated to the problem of organised crime in this country. It was not surprising that he had to proceed on such flimsy evidence because he fundamentally had nothing to say. That which he managed to say was in the main completely inaccurate, both with reference to particular individuals and with reference to the collective attitude of the Australian Labor Party. He said at one point that Premier Wran had been stood down. He at least had the decency to correct the imputation that he made by pointing out that Premier Wran had been exonerated. I will excuse him for using a degree of hyperbole when he said that Premier Wran had been stood down. What happened was that the Premier, when matters related to his probity were raised, stood himself down-nobody else stood him down-and he subsequently, as everyone here is aware, was exonerated of particular matters raised in connection with him. The Opposition assumes that it has the privilege in this place to forget history and to enter into debates in this place with absolutely no holds barred. The Opposition assumes that the history of Australia began on the date on which this Government was elected; there was nothing to explain, nothing to justify and nothing in the past record to talk about. It ignores the fact that if there is any responsibility of a Federal government in the area of organised crime one must address the question of the record of a party that has been in office since 1949, except for a brief period of three years. The royal commissions, as the honourable member rightly said, have revealed an absolutely horrendous picture of organised crime in this country. Which party was in government for the seven years which that revelation covered? If that is the matter that the honourable member wants us to address, we are very pleased to address it. The report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union revealed an astonishing saga of negligence, incompetence and dishonesty at various levels of the Attorney-General's Department under the former Government. Subsequent evidence before a Senate Estimates committee disclosed an equally remarkable lack of concern at the highest levels in that Department for the failure of the Government between 1976 and 1982 to launch a single prosecution for tax evasion. The documents tabled in the Senate in September 1982 are equally revealing about the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister, disclosing, among other things, that as far back as July 1977 the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, Sir Phillip Lynch, were aware of Slutzkin-type tax schemes. On as many as 18 occasions between February 1978 and November 1980 the Commissoner of Taxation pleaded with the Treasurer to take urgently needed legislative action against bottom of the harbour schemes. At no stage prior to the introduction in November 1980 of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act was any consideration given to the adequacy of existing law as a basis for prosecuting tax evaders. The primary cause of the lengthy delays in the introduction of the 1980 legislation was the weakness of the Government in the face of pressure and attitudes that circulated on the Liberal Party back bench and amongst Liberal Party supporters in the communities that were affected. There is absolutely nothing for this Opposition to stand on when it addresses us on the question of involvement or whatever in organised crime. The Costigan report makes it clear that the failure effectively to prosecute the bottom of the harbour schemes and the failure effectively to move in and cut them off with a test case prosecution which would certainly have been successful in the mid- 1970s have cost this nation hundreds of millions of dollars. Between hundreds and thousands of individual companies have been involved in the evasion of payable taxes. Under the noses of Ministers in that Government an extraordinary situation occurred. Not only was there a small beer prostitution racket flourishing in the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office, a mini-tax avoidance industry within the Perth DCS Office, but there was also a combination of corruption, negligence and incompetence which was rife within that Office and clearly higher up the tree, too, resulting in the situation in which a prosecution which could have been launched was left under the heap for that period. All those inquiries revealed the closest possible links between that office and organised crime, and very belatedly the then Government came round to giving them consideration. Let us remember the circumstances in which this crimes commission was brought in. There was an election pending and the then Government had been obliged for months to explain in this House its failures, the failures of its administration and the failures of the performances of its Ministers. It was therefore obliged to bring forward an extraordinarily hurried suggestion, riding into the ground in the process of getting it through the very law enforcement authorities that the honourable member for Boothby referred to, despite the fact that in any law enforcement operation there will always be a very significant component of co- operation between the Federal Government and the States. As was pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Question Time, when it comes to some matters, the States rights that the Opposition so proudly touts can be ridden over whenever political expediency determines it. In an examination of the record of the suggestion of a national crimes commission, nothing could better exemplify that process. We came to office with a legacy of resentment in that matter from the very authorities with whom co-operation will be essential to make this operation effective. Since that time this Government, in a sensible and responsible fashion, has addressed itself to precisely that problem. The honourable member for Boothby quoted from the record of a conference which I had the privilege of co-chairing with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Mr Young —He did not quote very much. He could not have read it. Mr BEAZLEY —That is true. At that conference there was very wide representation of law enforcement officers, members of the legal profession, Attorneys-General and State Police Ministers. They all met to advise us on the best way to tackle this problem. The honourable member for Boothby suggested that there is something improper in the Attorney-General addressing the points that these people told us were important in forming a national crimes commission. They included the resources that ought to be devoted to police, the protection of civil liberties and the rights of individuals affected by a possible investigation, and the appropriate level of co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. But the honourable member for Boothby said: 'Walk out and ignore that completely. Strut across the stage like we did when faced with the consequences of our own incompetence, marching all over the attitudes expressed to us by members of State governments, not because we want to do anything about organised crime, not because we are deeply moved by the revelations of our own incompetence, but because we have a little election problem over the next month or two. We cannot be absolutely certain when the election will be determined by the latest public opinion poll, the state of the Prime Minister's back or the degree to which we manage to explain away the matters raised by the Opposition in this House. But in some point of time we will have an election and we will have to have a crimes commission in place before that election is brought about' . This Government is serious in its determination to deal with organised crime. We are serious in our determination to ensure that, as we go about that process, we have the co-operation of authorities whose resources, in conjunction with our own, will be absolutely essential if we are to tackle the problem of organised crime. However, we are making a useful start at our end of the period of endless neglect. One thing that the Opposition spokesman on Special Minister of State matters did not address when he spoke at the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill was the amount we have devoted in the Budget this year to the Australian Federal Police. I am not surprised that he did not address that matter because, had he done so, he would have been obliged to acknowledge that we have made an increase of $6.2m over the previous year in the provision of resources which the police need to deal with such problems. The bulk of this will be used to recruit a further 250 police, releasing resources to work on investigations into organised crime. One thing standing very clear in all the propositions that have come from the Costigan Royal Commission and other royal commissions is that at many levels, including personnel, the equipment available to them and procedures, State and Federal police forces in this country are totally inadequately served. We are addressing that problem with dollars and cents in a way that actually means something. As a result, we have provided for an extra 250 police to release those police necessary to investigate organised crime so that we do not have the Public Accounts Committee and others complaining, for instance, that there are inadequate police resources to investigate medifraud. The honourable member who will follow me in this debate, as I understand it, was a member of the Public Accounts Committee at the time it investigated medifraud. No doubt he will have more to say about the fact that a bipartisan committee in this place commented on the inadequate resources devoted to the Australian Federal Police by the previous Government, a problem addressed by this Government but ignored by the previous Government. We will undertake also a management review of AFP staff to examine the utilisation and employment of present staff as well as AFP recruitment, training and promotion practices. It will be the first externally based review of AFP staffing and will begin very shortly. Since we came to office we have appointed a second Deputy Commissioner to allow closer co-ordination of AFP operations throughout Australia. The Australian Federal Police will be dealing with the problem of organised crime. That body will provide at least some of the investigators for any national crimes authority which this Government establishes. It will be co-operating with State authorities to make absolutely certain that State authorities have the capacity to do what they need to do in this regard. We are addressing that problem; the previous Government did not. The question of the sort of authority which will ultimately be agreed on and embodied in legislation has to be sensibly and seriously addressed, first by the party which introduces it and then by the Parliament. In the fight against organised crime in this country we cannot afford to go through the type of process, the type of ad hockery and the type of response to electoral expediency represented by the activities of the previous Government. If we go through that process we will be distrusted by the States, whose co-operation will be important. That does not mean, in my view, that we have to agree with every point that the States wish to address to us or that we need to agree to follow their procedures. But if we fail to address those questions, whether or not we agree with them, we will do so at our peril and at the peril of a decent fight against organised crime in this country. The honourable member for Boothby followed in the noble tradition of his predecessors from both parties in the coalition in many front bench positions by engaging in a broad and generalised slander of the Labor Party. The Labor Party, he alleges, is the party of treasonable sentiment and the party of devotion to the criminal orders by a commitment to civil liberties questions. In that position he betrays the principles of liberalism which allegedly underpin the Liberal Party. That is a pathetic position. It is a position which honourable members opposite have dealt with in the past. It is a position which has brought them into extraordinary discredit with those groups in the community, which are growing, to whom those things are important. There is no embarrassment on this side of the House about our record in fighting organised crime. We are proud of the advances made in that regard in this Budget, and there will be advances in future Budgets. We are proud of the expedition with which we are addressing the problems that have been raised in this debate. This matter of public importance simply cannot stand. It is an irrelevancy and a piece of trivia introduced without evidence by an Opposition spokesman who made extraordinarily heavy weather of the way in which he went about it. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(3.40) —This Government and its Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are keen on emotive terms and on grabbing headlines but they are ever so weak on delivering the goods. It was the Prime Minister who, on 29 July this year in the Melbourne Herald, described organised crime as 'The cancer of Australian society '. In that newspaper article he said: Our objective is the protection of Australian society from harmful developments in criminal activities, which recognise no boundaries, state or national. The Prime Minister went on to pledge that he would eradicate the cancer of organised crime from Australia. That promise was made on the eve of the so- called Summit Conference, already referred to by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). What happened to that pledge? Have the crime lords of New South Wales got to this Government? This Government stands condemned for its failure to proceed with a national crimes commission. How much more evidence does this Government need to prove that what is needed is an organisation which can digest and consolidate the findings of both Federal and State inquiries with regard to organised crime; aim to prevent, detect, investigate and possibly prosecute those individuals involved in organised crime; and act as a co-ordinator of information so as to facilitate the work of other instrumentalities, both at the Federal and State level. It was with those objectives in mind that the previous Liberal Government introduced the National Crimes Commission Bill. The previous Government realised that what was needed was a standing body able to accumulate experience and expertise. Within its wide statutory area of inquiry it would not require a reference from government but it could have been given a particular reference by the Government. The Liberal Government proposed for the Crimes Commission a wide discretion to conduct its hearings in private. This would ensure that civil liberties were preserved and that ultimately a fair trial was possible. The Bill also proposed that self-incrimination would be expressly made a lawful excuse for failure to answer question. The Commission would not have been allowed to name persons in public reports as suspected of committing criminal offences. The Commission would not have been expected to examine under subpoena the principal target of the investigation unless that person wished to give evidence. The previous Government was very much aware of the need to protect civil liberties. It was also aware that obtaining proof of criminal violation is probably the most difficult task confronting the National Crimes Commission and that it should be vested with broad ranging powers. This approach has been strongly supported by royal commissioners, men such as the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police, Mr Miller, and by judges of our courts. But what has this Government done? It has ignored the advice and comments of men who have first hand experience in crime fighting. This Government called together a so-called summit meeting and then promptly announced that it would establish a crime intelligence gathering unit. This Government has really decided to rename the existing Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence as the National Crime Authority. Yet the Bureau's former director has publicly said that the Bureau cannot combat organised crime. But the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) told the Age newspaper on 30 July this year that he believed what was needed was: . . . police assisted by special investigators who exercise traditional powers, and further down the track contemplate a Royal Commission Inquiry. Senator Evans and this Government are not concerned about the proliferation of multimillion dollar royal commissions. 'It is only taxpayers' money', says this Government. The Government ignores comments made by men such as Justice Sir Edward Williams who, in a lengthy interview in the Melbourne Herald of 20 January this year, stated: Royal Commissions, because of their nature have not been able to present evidence of wrong doing while it was happening. Mostly they have been concerned with inquiries into what has gone on in the past. The police have found it difficult to obtain evidence for successful prosecutions. The formation of a National Crimes Commission with its additional powers is an attempt to accelerate this and to meet the problem head on. Those comments were made by a Supreme Court judge and a former drugs Royal Commissioner. Why did this mealy-mouthed Government take a toothless tiger proposal from Victoria? Let us look at the mastermind behind this proposal from Victoria. It is none other than the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Race Mathews. It was Mr Mathews who, in late 1982, made a similar proposal to the Liberal Federal Government. This proposal was rejected for what it was-a weak and toothless alternative. Why would Mr Mathews want such a weak and ineffective body as the National Crime Authority, concerned only with intelligence gathering? It is clear that Mr Mathews and the Labor Government in Victoria have much to hide. Why else would the Premier so quickly prohibit his Ministers from going before the current poker machine inquiry? The Premier has told the Victorian public that he will not allow his Ministers to go before an inquiry set up by his Government. He says it would be improper. Indeed, it would be embarrassing and disastrous for Premier Cain to allow his Ministers to go before any inquiry, least of all a national crimes commission. On 15 September I told this House of Mr Mathews and his connections with the poker machine lobby. I made serious allegations which one would have expected Mr Mathews to answer. In a very guarded way Mr Mathews addressed the Victorian Parliament on 20 September. But he was not only cautious in not answering my assertion that he had used a speech prepared by the poker machine lobby and that he had pre-empted the inquiry; he even forgot to dob in his colleague the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation, Mr Trezise. He sure dobbed him in when talking to the media. Mr Mathews said that he had hurriedly taken a copy of Mr Trezise's speech. At least, that is what he said to the Melbourne Sun News Pictorial newspaper. On the same day he told the Age that he had been offered a speech by the pokie lobby but he had refused it and had written his own speech. What could a toothless body such as the proposed National Crime Authority do with such information except record that Mr Mathews may be schizophrenic, or request an explanation from Mr Mathews? In fact, Mr Mathews should appear before the current inquiry and set the record straight. This Government does not have the courage to establish a national crimes commission because it is scared of skeletons in its cupboards. The Opposition is not scared. When the Liberal Government is returned to office-that will not be long-we will establish the National Crimes Commission. But until that occurs, the only alternative forum in which to attack organised crime and its minions is this House. I have been involved in monitoring organised crime for four years. I assure the Government that until a national crimes commission is established I will use the forms of this Parliament to make my point. Australia needs to take effective action against organised crime before it is too late. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.47) —The hypocrisy of honourable members opposite knows no bounds. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who one would have hoped could have been taken seriously-a view which I may have had until today-said that he would prove that the actions of honourable members on this side of the House encouraged organised crime. Not one piece of evidence came forward from him. We then heard the honourable member for Bruce ( Mr Aldred) who came here as a sort of modern day lone ranger, haranguing us about the fact that the Victorian Government has too much to hide. When the Victorian Government is disturbed about the sort of problems that he talked about, he will have something about which he can parade and make accusations. The Victorian Government has nothing to worry about and that is not the reason why it was not prepared to do what he suggested. In relation to the matters raised, the first point I make is that, in listening to the sanctimonious utterances from the Opposition, one would have thought that organised crime started in this country in the last six months. I will deal briefly with two matters to indicate that organised crime flourished during the term of the previous Government which is now so sanctimonious and wise about what ought to be done. Let us look at one issue-the question of medifraud. I will deal with that later in more detail. The previous Government-that is, the Fraser Government-starved the Australian Federal Police of funds and denied that the problem existed. That was the way it dealt with organised crime. It decided to starve the Australian Federal Police of funds and resources, denied that the problem existed and hoped that it would go away. It failed to deal with the developing tax problem during the late 1970s when the explosion occurred. The fact of the matter is that the previous Government presided over the worst period of tax avoidance and tax evasion that this country has seen, or is ever likely to see unless, by remote chance, the Opposition is ultimately returned to office and goes back to its old habits. The McCabe-La Franchi report was tabled in the Victorian Parliament by the Labor Government. Admittedly, it was commissioned by the previous Liberal Government, but nevertheless it was tabled at the time that John Cain had become Premier of Victoria. The reaction of the Treasurer of the Fraser Government to the McCabe-La Franchi report was to label it as a political stunt. That is what the previous Government said about the McCabe-La Franchi report. It had to be dragged by the then Opposition-members of the present Government-into taking seriously the Costigan allegations. One of the most sanctimonious performances that one has had to listen to from the Opposition is the business of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which was set up by the previous Government in an attempt to discredit a union. If honourable members opposite think that any honourable member on this side of the House believes that if Opposition members had known what was going to come out of the Costigan Royal Commission they would have established it, they are engaging in the ultimate in self-delusion. The Costigan Royal Commission was an entirely different exercise from what the Opposition had expected it to be. Had it not been for the Costigan Royal Commission the previous Government would have gone to an election in November last year. Instead of that it was faced with the most horrendous problems because the Costigan Royal Commission exposed the Fraser Government for what it was, a government which had sat back and watched tax evasion, tax avoidance and white collar crime escalate to a stage previously unknown in this country. The former Government proposed a crimes commission, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) indicated so clearly. It is all very well to say that a crimes commission ought to be established in the climate in which the Opposition said that it ought to be established. The former Government said it it in a moment of desperation, and in an attempt to fight off the criticism that it was getting as a result of its inaction over the years it was in government. We, on this side of the House, regard the suppression and eradication of organised crime as the highest priority. Through the expansion of the Australian Federal Police and the establishment of a national crimes authority we will deal with it . As the Special Minister of State indicated quite clearly there are matters which have to be looked at in establishing a crimes commission, and one of the most important matters is the involvement of the States. If we do not involve the States, if we do not involve the law enforcement authorities in the States, we will not have a successful crimes commission. We do not propose to rush into it on the basis of some political gimmick as the former Government did in a state of absolute desperation: It fooled nobody. The Australian Federal Police were not provided with proper resources to deal with white collar crime. I will deal with that matter specifically with the problem of medifraud. It was the responsibility of the Fraser Government that there had been a massive ripoff of public funds. The Australian Federal Police was treated in the way in which it was because it was left with inadequate resources. That is what happened under the former Government. The Australian Federal Police stated in paragraph 19 of its submission dated September 1982 to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts-this is in the dying days of the Fraser Government and honourable members had better listen to this because it shows what the Australian Federal Police said about the Fraser Government: At present, however, the unavailability of skilled resources in AFP divisions is a significant factor when determining the effectiveness of any concerted action taken to suppress medical fraud, or for that matter any form of criminal activity. I repeat: 'Any form of criminal activity'. The interim report of The Joint Committee of Public Accounts-a joint with honourable members opposite on it-at paragraph 118 of chapter 5 states: The Committee is concerned that the AFP have been unable to provide adequate trained police for the investigation of medical fraud, and wishes to discuss this matter with the Minister for Administrative Services. If necessary we will make further observations in the final report. No doubt there will be further observations on that matter in the final report. I will look at what we have done. We are the people who today have been accused without any substance and without any evidence. There has been an increase of $6 .2m in the Budget over that allocated in the previous year for the Australian Federal Police. The bulk of this money will be used to recruit a further 250 police, thus releasing resources to work on investigation into organised crime. That is what we have done as an immediate step. A management review of the AFP staff will be initiated to examine the utilisation and employment of present staff as well as AFP recruitment. It will be the first externally based review of AFP staffing and should begin in about a month. A second deputy commissioner, to allow closer co-ordination of AFP operations throughout Australia, has been appointed. Honourable members opposite have failed in the administration of legislation relating to criminal and civil offences which have resulted in multibillion dollar frauds against the Commonwealth during their term in office, both in the area of medifraud and, more particularly, in the area of tax avoidance. After years of inactivity and total incompetence the day of reckoning came with the revelations of the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the Costigan Royal Commission which disclosed the appalling record of the former Government. It is a matter of record that honourable members opposite filled this place with hot air, adopting an air of posturing, by legislating for the sake of it with no real result. Page 27 of Mr Costigan's report states that what became known as bottom of the harbour schemes were first detected in 1973. That is an indictment and an indication of the total hypocrisy of the matter of public importance which has been raised today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(3.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for the appropriation from Consolidated Revenue of $16.9m to be paid to the Northern Territory in 1983-84 as a special assistance grant. Financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory are based on the memorandum of understanding agreed between the two governments in 1978. In accordance with arrangements set out in that memorandum, the Territory applied for a special assistance grant in respect of 1981-82 and the Commonwealth Grants Commission has now recommended that a grant of $16.9m be paid in respect of that year. The Grants Commission report on the matter has been tabled by my colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). To assist the Territory in its early years of self-government, the memorandum of understanding specifies an additional assistance grant for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85 inclusive, and requires that the Territory be paid, in each of those years, either a special grant or the additional assistance grant, whichever is the greater. To date, the Territory has received the additional assistance grant each year. In 1981-82 the additional assistance grant was $20m and, in 1982-83, $15m. In making its assessment of the Northern Territory's application for a special grant, the Grants Commission has, as required by the memorandum, disregarded the additional assistance grant paid in 1981-82. Thus, in effect, the Commission has assessed that the Territory required only an extra $16.9m to enable it to provide standards of government services not appreciably below the standards of the States, rather than the $20m it was actually paid by way of the additional assistance grant. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear, however, that, in deciding which grant is to be paid in any year, the comparison is to be made between the additional assistance grant specified for that year and the total amount of special grant recommended in that year. That applies regardless of the year to which the latter relates. For 1983-84, the special assistance grant specified in the memorandum is $10m and the $16.9m special grant recommended in respect of 1981-82 therefore becomes payable. The arrangements I have just outlined were entered into by the previous Government and are, without doubt, very generous to the Territory. It should be said, however, that as time passes the case for the present treatment is altering and there will be a need for the financial arrangements with the Territory to be put on a comparable basis to those with the States. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1983 proposes a doubling of the existing bounty assistance to the industry producing agricultural wheeled tractors and their derivatives which have a power of not less than fifteen kilowatts at the power take-off. The additional bounty is intended as short term assistance for a period of twelve months. The Temporary Assistance Authority, in its report of 31 March 1983 on agricultural wheeled tractors, found that the market for agricultural tractors started to decline in 1981-82 and deteriorated sharply in the six months to December 1982 because of the drought and depressed economic conditions. At the same time Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, which was the only remaining major local manufacturer, suffered a significant decline in profitability and production levels. The TAA considered that a significant cause of this injury was the increased imports in 1981-82 surplus to market demand. The Authority concluded that there was a case for temporary assistance pending the outcome of an immediate review by the Industries Assistance Commission. That review is now in progress. The Government will decide its long term policy for this industry when that report is received. The TAA formally recommended no temporary assistance, but suggested that a loan of about $6m on concessional terms be made to Chamberlain John Deere. The Government announced on 10 June 1983 that temporary assistance would be granted in the form of a doubled bounty. A loan as suggested by the TAA was considered inappropriate as it would do little to improve the industry's competitive position against imports and could simply lead to further manufacture adding to existing excessive stocks. The Government considers that the bounty as proposed by this Bill will not only assist the industry to sell its output but will restore effective assistance to the industry to about the level intended by the Industries Assistance Commission when the present bounty was introduced. When the Government's decision was taken, it was estimated at that time that the additional bounty assistance could cost up to $3.4m in a full year, depending on levels of sales. However, the actual cost is now likely to be significantly less in view of the current depressed market conditions. Clause 5 of the Bill amends the provisions in the Act relating to the powers to require persons to answer questions and produce documents to exclude specifically persons, including members of the public, who purchase tractors for their own use, from being required to attend and answer questions. This is being done as a consequence of the comments by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its second report, relating to similar provisions contained in the bounty legislation which came before the Parliament in the previous sittings. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983 implements part of the Government's package of short term assistance for the tractor industry. It provides for a bounty of 15 per cent of factory cost on cabs produced and sold in Australia for fitting to imported agricultural tractors. A recent swing to increased importation of tractors in completely built up form has adversely affected local producers of tractor cabs and wheels. The Temporary Assistance Authority, in its report on agricultural wheeled tractors, considered that this trend was of a long term nature and that the consequent problems faced by the local industry were of a structural nature not amenable to solution by short term assistance measures. Accordingly, the TAA recommended no temporary assistance for cab and wheel manufacturers. The Government considers that it is not clear whether the trend to completely built up imports is long term, or whether it is as a result of current short term world conditions. It has therefore decided that a production bounty should be paid on cabs, pending completion of the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry currently in progress. The proposed level of bounty, which is 15 per cent of factory cost, roughly equates the proposed doubled bounty payable to local tractor manufacturers insofar as the latter also produce cabs for their own tractors. No bounty will be payable however, unless the cabs in question have an Australian content of 85 per cent or more. It is estimated that the additional bounty assistance as proposed in this Bill could cost up to $0.75m in a full year depending on levels of sales. In the last Autumn sitting of the Parliament, certain provisions contained in the Bounty Acts then before the Parliament were highlighted by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as being contrary to the terms of reference of the Committee in that they might be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 15 in this Bill has been drafted so that it might not be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1983 proposes the provision of temporary assistance, in the form of an additional bounty, for the Australian industry producing injection-moulding equipment, pending completion of an inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission. The goods eligible for temporary assistance are injection-moulding machines for the production of moulded plastic goods, and parts for such machines. Since 23 May 1979, local production of these goods has been assisted by a 15 per cent duty and a bounty which has been phasing down progressively and is currently 5 per cent of value added. The Temporary Assistance Authority report No. 58 of 3 March 1983 recommended that no additional assistance be provided to the industry. The TAA considered that injury to the industry was confined to only one of the two local manufacturers, Johns Consolidated, and was largely attributable to matters internal to that company. Johns went into receivership in November 1982 and has now closed. The TAA report, however, indicates that both increased import competition and reduced demand have occurred in recent times. Competitive imports in 1981-82 were valued at $16.3m, an increase of 123 per cent over the level of $7.3m in the previous year. About one-quarter of the increased imports were by local manufacturers. In the half year ended December 1982, imports remained at a high level, $8.3m, and accounted for 74 per cent of the total market compared with only 33 per cent in 1979-80. At the same time the estimated market in the December 1982 half year declined to $11.1m compared with $27.5m in 1981-82. In relation to Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd, the only remaining local producer, the TAA reported that the company experienced stable market share and employment between 1979-80 and 1981-82, but profitability during the period was at a comparatively low level. In the six months ended December 1982, Battenfeld' s sales dropped significantly and its stocks increased. This was accompanied by a worsening of profitability. The company stated that unless temporary assistance were granted its continued presence as a local manufacturer would be in doubt. Because of the performance of the local industry in recent years, the Government has decided that a review of the long term assistance arrangements is necessary. The relevant IAC reference, sent on 30 June 1983, seeks a report on or before 29 February 1984 as to whether assistance should be accorded this industry, and, if so, the nature and level of that assistance. The Department of Defence, in its submission to the TAA said that it would view with concern a situation where all injection-moulding machine manufacturing capacity in Australia were to disappear. The Commission has therefore been asked to provide additional advice on the form of assistance required if the Government wishes to maintain the industry on defence strategic grounds. As I indicated earlier, the Government decided that short term assistance is required pending an IAC inquiry. The assistance as proposed by this Bill will be an additional bounty of 20 per cent of value added to be paid on injection- moulding equipment manufactured after 23 May 1983 and sold for use in Australia. The temporary assistance will be paid until the Government takes a decision on the IAC report and will be payable to manufacturers who continue to be engaged in the manufacture of injection-moulding machines between 10 June 1983 and the date of the IAC report, and who maintain at least the level of employment existing at 10 June 1983 of persons directly involved in the manufacture of the equipment. Depending on the actual levels of production and sales it is estimated that for a full year the additional bounty will cost about $100,000. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the provisions in the Act relating to the powers to require persons to answer questions and produce documents, specifically to exclude persons, including members of the public, who purchase equipment for their own use, from being required to attend and answer questions. This is being done as a consequence of the comments by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its second report, on similar provisions contained in the bounty legislation which came before the Parliament in the previous sittings. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before the debate on the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1983, is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983 and the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.15) —in reply-To sum up the debate, some excellent factual speeches were made by honourable members. Even some of the Opposition members' speeches were a bit better than usual. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amenndment Bill and the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill contain four basic points of contention and debate. One was about promotion , the other one was about pools and the other two were basically about administration and clearing up some problems with the existing legislation. It has already been said by my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) that the legislation is in a mess but, with time, there is always need to amend legislation. That is what we have set in train. It is quite appropriate to amend legislation now, even though the Industries Assistance Commission has made some draft recommendations that have not been considered by the Government. In the meantime, it is essential that the legislation, the Acts of Parliament which the departments administer, should be as up to date as possible. What we are doing with the pools is making mandatory an existing practice. Members of the Opposition raised criticisms in a few areas. First of all they said I had a changed attitude with respect to PT Australia/Indonesia/ Milk Industries Inc. and all the problems involved. I make no bones of the fact that when one becomes a Minister one becomes aware of and has a lot more knowledge about these issues. I was fully briefed on the legal implications of all the complications of that case, given that there was a need, for commercial reasons and for reasons of good sense, for a lot of information about this case not to be made public. It is a natural thing for one to become better informed when in government than in opposition. I make no secret of that fact. The second question an honourable member raised related to the fact that I was provoked by the Opposition on the Ovaltine case. I was really provoked by the manufacturers of Ovaltine. The reasons the legislation is as it stands relate to the request of the Australian Dairy Corporation and the problems with the cost of the administering this changed procedure. We had been provoked by the case put before us. I think I received a telex on Monday this week. The amendments that I propose to move to the second Bill will allow a procedure to be entered into whereby the case raised by that firm will be able to be met. The procedure will require advice by the ADC and also regulations. The third point of criticism was that I did not highlight the PT Indomilk case. I believe that basically it would be irresponsible to raise doubts about this matter and cause more worry than is warranted. The PTI question has been discussed by me ad nauseum with the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, representatives of the Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Council as well as the Department of Primary Industry, the ministry and at the highest levels. Basically every option has been explored and re-explored. The fourth criticism is the most substantial in respect of the industry's case on the use of the pools. This is well known to me. Industry has consulted me. Industry consulted me yesterday and again this morning. Consultation on this matter, the PTI case and matters generally with respect to the dairy industry are matters of constant communication. I do not think there is any possible way I can be criticised for not consulting. I am probably a bit too accessible. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Australian Dairy Corporation and ADIAC accept the principle of trading losses being put into pools because, quite clearly, it makes mandatory an existing practice. As one honourable member pointed out, there is a question of definition between trading and investment losses, but this Bill relates only to trading losses. In general terms, any extraordinary loss by the dairy industry would involve the whole dairy industry. Again, in such an event, the ADC and the industry would be consulted. There is not any question of my not consulting industry. Any disagreement about matters between the industry and the Government is not about consultation, but simply that at times I take decisions that are not to the industry's liking. I spoke with dairy farmers in northern Queensland last week, I spoke with Mr Pyle of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria this morning, and yesterday I met representatives of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and two representatives of ADIAC. So there is not any problem with respect to consultation. The first two groups I named then, the people in Malanda and Mr Pyle, were talking on a range of matters. There is constant consultation. I do not know whether the Opposition has served the dairy industry well by putting on the public record a quantification of the PTI problem because the ADC recently informed me of some heartening news-a real possibility is that the PTI will trade out of its difficulties. I will not canvass all the pros and cons of that matter. But I am kept up to date on a regular basis by the ADC and other responsible people about what is going on there. One of the major problems-this is conceded by the Opposition-is that this case is bogged down in the Indonesian courts. The ADC has been served an injunction which prevents it from taking some steps it would like to take. As the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has said, this whole question is complicated. It is one of which I am fully aware and it is one on which the Government is working. Another matter raised concerned changes in administrative arrangements because of the conflict of people being chairman of two organisations within the whole framework of the dairy organisation. I think any changes there should be acted upon when we have the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission. The draft report already presages a range of suggested changes to the administration of the dairy industry. I have said on other occasions that the Australian Dairy Corporation is a peculiar statutory marketing organisation. The industry it serves, of course, is different from other primary industries. Some of the peculiarity is due to the differences. But there are some questions in that regard that I want to address. I will be addressing those questions when we have the final report of the IAC, again in full consultation with the industry. I hope that no one will suggest that, because people have some doubts about the draft IAC recommendations, we cannot at least look at this final IAC report when it comes down in an objective, rational and sensible way. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) raised the question of the step-up payments from export pools. I would just like to give some information on that. The Australian Dairy Corporation, after consultation with ADIAC recommended in June increases in certain stabilisation and/or export pool payments to manufacturers. I approved the Corporation's recommendations, except those for butter, skim milk powder and cheese from the 1982-83 production season . I asked ADIAC to review its recommendation on these three products. The basis for my seeking this review was that, in the case of cheese, as at 23 June this year returns had been received for around only 14,000 tonnes of the estimated 54 ,000 tonnes of cheese exports from the 1982-83 season and the ADC was having difficulties in disposing of the remainder of the cheese on acceptable terms. In the case of butter and skim milk powder, as at mid-June the ADC was owed substantial monies by Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd for the purchase of these products for use by PT Indomilk. ADIAC has now reviewed its earlier decision and this has been considered by the ADC. Again, I think I have to make a decision by 1 November. To sum up, my decision to ask ADIAC and the ADC to review the recommendation for increased payments for butter, skim milk and cheese was based on the fact that the ADC was having difficulty disposing of the cheese and that the ADC was owed substantial monies by ADI for butter oil and skim milk powder purchased for use by PT Indomilk. All this is against a background of an increase of 16 per cent in milk production in Australia. It is my understanding that ADIAC has completed the review I requested. Recently I received recommendations from the ADC. Again, I have to make a decision on that. That will be done very soon. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) made quite a sensible contribution to the debate in the areas of promotion, imports and standards. I agree with him . I have raised these questions with industry and in other areas, particularly with respect to promotion. As we are aware, cheese is now to have a greater promotional effort. Wherever I go around the country I find that the various producers of primary products think that promotion will be a way to move more product. I guess that, to a large degree, they are right. But there comes a point when promotion itself becomes competitive. If the cheese, lamb, beef, pork and fish producers, all of whom are thinking of added promotion, all go about it at the same time-I guess that their basic enemy will be chicken, which is promoted by name-brand-by and large they will be carving up different shares of the same consumer dollar spent in the protein area. With some three million to four million people on welfare and over 800,000 people unemployed, I suggest that there is not an enormous amount of give in the Australian market. In other words, promotion will not have as much of a response as one would normally expect. The honourable member for Murray also made the point that, if we promote cheese by generic name-if we promote blue vein or cheddar-there is a real possibility that we will be promoting imports. The Government is already taking action on imports. We are aware of the allegation that the European Economic Community is dumping. For some time we have been negotiating beyond cash securities to the imposition of countervailing duties. By and large we are taking action. The industry itself has initiated further action with respect to Jarlsberg and other cheeses. The honourable member for Murray raised the question of standard. As he quite rightly pointed out, this is a matter for the State governments. We have written to them on that question. I make no further comment on the generality of the legislation at this time. As honourable members are aware, I will be moving minor amendments to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr Kerin)-by leave- proposed: (1) Clause 2, page 1, lines 9 and 10, omit ''the day on which it receives the Royal Assent'', substitute ''a day to be fixed by Proclamation''. (2) Clause 4, page 3, line 27, omit ''50% or such higher'', substitute ''such'' . Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(4.28) —Before I proceed to talk about the amendments I merely take the opportunity to remind the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that he did not answer all the queries that I put to him during the second reading debate on this legislation. As the question with reference to the $1m deposit held on the sale of PT Australia Indonesia Milk Industries Inc., is the only question he did not answer, he might see fit to answer it now and then we will be able to give him a clean slate. These amendments appear to us to have been moved as a result of pressure applied by the Opposition and the dairying industry. The Minister, in his final summing-up of this legislation, indicated that he had consulted widely with the industry. Quite obviously, he must have a very short memory. If he had done so prior to the introduction of the legislation he would not have found it necessary to move these amendments because those provisions would have been included in the legislation. I want to develop this point. The submission, which the Minister has used as his basis for making the amendments, was made to the Industries Assistance Commission on 22 Febraury 1983. Quite obviously, it was public knowledge from 22 February to the present. I do not know whether the Minister has read the draft report. I have read it and mentioned it in my speech. I even gave the Minister the reference pages-pages 38 and 39-on which the IAC commented on this very point. I am advised that Wander (Australia) Pty Ltd wrote to the Minister on 3 October 1983 about this issue. Yet it was not until today in the debate, after I had actually mentioned the matter in my speech in the second reading debate, that the Minister indicated to me across the table that he would be accepting what I put forward. I make the point that the Government cannot have it both ways. The Minister cannot come into this Parliament and say that he has had consultation with industry and introduce legislation. The Minister has to admit publicly-I understand that it is difficult for him to have egg on his face-that if he had had these mythical consultations which he speaks about, it would not have been necessary to introduce the amendments for all those reasons I have indicated to him. If this is the lethargic way in which the Government moves on issues in the early days of the Parliament, I am concerned about what things will be like towards the end of the session? Having made those somewhat disparaging comments on the way the Minister has behaved, as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate because I was aware of this problem, we obviously welcome the amendments. We disagree with the machinery by which the Minister has introduced them. I can assure the Minister that the people from Wander were delighted this morning when we rang them and told them of the Government's amendments. I think they were a little disappointed that they had to receive the word from the Opposition. They would have thought that, as the Government had bowed to pressure, maybe someone from the Minister's office would have been at least interested enough to ring them and let them know about the matter. Being a mere human being, I can understand that if the Minister was utterly and totally embarrassed about a situation he would not be too keen to ring someone and admit an error. I think this is a sensible approach which I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate. It is just a pity that the Australian Labor Party does not consult more with rural industry and that it does not appreciate the contribution rural industry makes. If it had, it would have at least known about the problem. Having known, hopefully it would have understood the problem and it would not have been necessary to make the amendments because they would have been included in the original legislation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.34) —I will not respond to all the larrikin-type comments made by the honourable member for Darling Downs ( Mr McVeigh). It is true that I received a telex on Monday and we acted on it straight away. I believe that the primacy of parliament should hold in a matter when we are moving amendments. Of course we will notify Wander (Australia) Pty Ltd at the correct time and in the correct way of exactly what occurred. The honourable member for Darling Downs also asked me a question about where the $1m is. It is in a bank account in Hong Kong held by Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(4.37) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 6, page 4, at the beginning of proposed sub-section 24A (4) insert ' Subject to sub-section 8,' (2) Clause 6, page 4, at the end of proposed section 24A add the following sub- section: '' '(8) The Minister, with respect to the Australian dairy industry's investment in overseas companies- (a) shall not give a direction to the Corporation under sub-section (4); and (b) shall, in consultation with the Corporation, the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, examine all options available for the meeting of losses incurred by means of investments of this kind, with recourse to use of moneys held in export pools being considered only as a last resort.'.''. In my speech in the cognate second reading debate I indicated the concern of industry about what might happen concerning any future losses in what is generally called the PT Australia Indonesia Milk Industries situation. There is very grave concern in the industry, among manufacturers and dairy farmers, as to their legal entitlements particularly because any debts of PT Indomilk are not clear cut. Some could be what might be termed investments and some could be what might be called trading losses. Quite obviously the trading losses should quite rightly be debited to the export pool. But in the case of investments the industry believes that export pools should be used only as a last resort and that credit moneys for even the disposal of assets and the Australian Dairy Corporation's share in any investment company should be disposed of prior to pools being used for what we might term loss on investments. It is the Opposition's opinion, after meaningful consultation with many sections of the industry, that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) should not automatically have the power to direct that pools bear the brunt of this deficit but that consultation should be held with the Corporation, the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation to examine all options available to meet the losses incurred by means of investments of the kind referred to and the appropriate measures made rather than rushing in at the first instance and using pool funds. For those reasons I have moved the two amendments. The first amendment is merely a formality drawing attention to the fact that that clause is to be read subject to proposed new section 24A. The second amendment-the substantial amendment-is what one might term proposed new section 24A which gives legal expression to the points of view I expressed not only in my speech in the second reading debate but also in the Committee debate. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.40) —The Government rejects the Opposition's amendment. I have only just picked it up because the office of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) would not give me a copy when I asked for one after 1 o'clock today. This is the first time that I have seen it. I am advised that the Opposition's amendment does not make sense. Directions given under proposed new section 24A (4) relate only to surpluses and deficits on export sales of dairy products whereas the amendment proposed by the Opposition concerns the dairy industry's investment in overseas companies. Proposed new sub-section 8 (a), as moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs, is simply unnecessary. With respect to proposed new sub-section 8 (b), I do not know what is being done in any case. It seems that the honourable gentleman fails to understand exactly what the Bill before the House is about. It deals with other questions raised by other honourable members in the debate. The Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund mechanism or facility is already in place if needed. There is no way that this adds to or takes away from powers because I do not think there is any automaticity in any case as to what I should or should not do. Of course, there will be full consultation. I think the Opposition's amendment is put forward on the assumption that the PT Australia Indonesia Milk Industries Inc. will collapse. The Opposition is trying to get around it by trying to frame some sort of legislation in anticipation of a collapse. The present Bill relates only to surpluses and deficits on trading by the Australian Dairy Corporation. As the honourable member for Darling Downs noted in his earlier comments in the debate, the return on the ADC's equity into PTI have been returned to the DISF. Hence it is logical that any losses of equity-that is, non-trading losses-should be borne by the DISF. So the amendment that I have put before the House does not in itself prevent action, if it is considered appropriate, to offset trading losses, for example, the DISF sources. We are only talking about possible losses. I understand the motivations of the Opposition in this matter but, by and large, as I have said, its amendment is either plainly unnecessary in one case or simply does not make any sense in the other. I would have valued having a copy of the amendment to enable me to give a little more consideration to it, but the Government rejects it. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.44) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) is of a kind which is common in this House and which I think on this occasion is correctly described as a housekeeping measure. Its purpose is for the main part to deal with a large number of non-controversial amendments to various Acts of Parliament. It is a valuable, if for the most part fairly unexciting, exercise for those who are involved in examining it. There is one matter of considerable importance in this Bill to which I wish to refer, and that is the amendment which is proposed to the Judiciary Act. As matters presently stand, the High Court of Australia has jurisdiction in respect of writs of mandamus prohibition or injunction where a writ of mandamus, prohibition or injunction is sought against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth. These are most important writs. Broadly described, the purpose of a writ of mandamus is to compel a subordinate tribunal to hear and determine a matter in accordance with the law. The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to provide a means to challenge and to prevent a subordinate tribunal acting in excess of its jurisdiction. The purposes of a writ of injunction, which are various, may broadly be described as being to ensure that persons act in accordance with the law or to prevent them from acting in a manner which is contrary to the law. The reports of the High Court are littered with cases in which certiorari, a writ of mandamus or injunction, has been sought before that Court. To a very large extent the Court has become bogged down in that jurisdiction. Let me give an example of a case in which I was involved some years ago. The facts were very simple. The then Minister for Immigration had ordered the deportation of two people. It was claimed on their behalf that he had failed properly to consider their case; therefore he had failed to exercise his duties in accordance with the principles of natural justice and a writ should issue from the High Court compelling him to exercise his duties in accordance with those principles. For this purpose a court of seven justices was assembled one fine morning in Melbourne. This matter could very easily have been disposed of by a very much less prestigious court. It was a relatively straightforward matter. All the court needed to do was to look at the facts and consider what followed from them . But because there was then no mechanism to permit other courts to exercise the High Court's jurisdiction, that case had to go before the High Court. I commend the Government on introducing the amendment which it has introduced which should go some distance to relieving the High Court of an unnecessary workload. There are two significant omissions from what the Government proposes. It seems as though the process of drafting the Bill rather overtook the explanatory memorandum. For all those who seek to rely upon explanatory memoranda as aids in construction this might be a valuable lesson. On page 27 of the explanatory memorandum the following is stated in respect of the proposed amendments: Proposed new sub-section 39B (3) provides that the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia with respect to a matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against the President or a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or against another Tribunal constituted by a President or Deputy President of the Commission shall be exercised by a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. There is one little problem about that; there is no proposed section 39B (3). If one goes back to the preceding paragraph in the explanatory memorandum, one sees that it refers to proposed new section 39B (2) and that the powers exercisable under that provision-I paraphrase this-shall not include a reference to a member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission constituting a full bench of that Commission. The fact of the matter is that somehow, when the explanatory memorandum was being drafted, the Bill must have been in a different state from that in which it presently is. Before the explanatory memorandum hits the deck in the Senate, perhaps some adjustments could be made to reflect what the Bill actually proposes. I can only assume that there may have been within the Government some disputes as to whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-and this is a very frequent source of cases going to the High Court of Australia by prohibition-should be relegated to the Federal Court or whether the Federal Court should have any jurisdiction in respect of that body. I notice that, in his second reading speech, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) correctly points out the actual effect of what is proposed here. The second reading speech was right although the explanatory memorandum was not. The Deputy Prime Minister said this: The Federal Court will not initially have jurisdiction under the proposed new legislation in relation to matters arising before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Public Service Arbitrator, the Coal Industry Tribunal or the Family Court of Australia. However, further consideration is being given to extending the capacity of the High Court to remit matters under section 44 in relation to these areas. Might I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Government that there seems to be no reason at all why cases which arise from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and which go to the High Court on a question of jurisdiction-for example, whether there is an industrial dispute over the meaning of section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution-should not be dealt with by the Federal Court. If those cases were dealt with by the Federal Court, the High Court would be relieved of a jurisdiction which is quite unnecessary and it would also make the process very much quicker for the parties. Recalling how heavy the workload of the High Court is, I point out that the fact of the matter is that once we become involved in the process of testing the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by going to the High Court, cases which should be dealt with quickly, on their merits and with the least amount of technicality get bogged down by reason of the very heavy workload of the High Court. One may have to wait for a year or more to get a decision on a question which could be dealt with very much more quickly and indeed very much more cheaply by the Federal Court. As I said, while commending the Government for the steps it made in conferring on the Federal Court a jurisdiction to entertain these writs and also the increased power granted to the High Court to remit matters or parts of matters to the Federal Court, I ask that the most serious consideration be given by the Government to overcoming the kind of problems to which I have already referred and to conferring on the Federal Court jurisdiction to deal with prohibition mandamus matters which concern any matter arising out of a dispute before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The same comments could also apply to the Family Court. I see no reason why there should not be an appeal from the Family Court to the full Federal Court and that, thereafter, special leave be given to remit important matters from the Federal Court to the High Court if the High Court thinks that leave is requisite in all the circumstances. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(4.55) —Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the many purposes of this omnibus Bill is to add a representative of small business to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, legislation to permit the establishment of which was passed in May this year. At present EPAC has 17 members drawn from the Commonwealth and State governments, industry, the union movement, local government and community groups. It is appropriate to add a representative of small business as there is little doubt that there are major divergences of interest between firms in this sector and those in industries characterised by a relatively small number of large firms, each with significant market power. I would like to use the opportunity of speaking to the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) to make a number of comments on EPAC and the sort of planning role that is ultimately envisaged for it. Things are at a comparatively early stage at present. As I understand it, there have been a couple of meetings held so far, and the Director, Geoff Miller, formerly of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, has been appointed. Advertisements have been placed to fill the other staff vacancies on the secretariat. Its first major task will be to conduct a study of the revenue base of government. This inquiry will look at earlier examinations of this area, particularly the Asprey Taxation Review Committee report brought down in 1975. Presumably it will consider such matters as the approximate mix of direct and indirect taxes and the appropriate method of taxing capital gains and wealth holdings. I would hope that it would also look at the system of transfer payments, as these can be regarded as a form of negative taxation and consideration of them is imperative if we are to gain an accurate picture of the overall effect on income distribution of government revenue and expenditure measures. Aside from this, EPAC will initially have as its main function the facilitation of a consultative process between the Government and various interest groups in the community as regards economic policy making. This is envisaged as a two-way process, with the Government benefiting from an input from the groups involved, which will be representative of the major economic decision making units, and with the community groups having a better understanding of the premises and aims of government policy. It is envisaged that in due course EPAC will come to play a significant role in medium to long term economic planning. The term 'planning' has been taken to refer to a wide spectrum of things, ranging from the facilitation of information exchange described above through to the centralised determination of most economic activities on the east European model, with a multitude of shadings in between. EPAC'S activities will ultimately involve the planning of the 'indicative' variety, a type of planning which involves making economic forecasts, setting targets at a high level of aggregation, and indicating the course of action the Government will follow in order to achieve these targets. It does not involve the setting of targets for individual sectors or industries, or government measures directly to affect the flow of funds or resource allocation at this level. This type of planning proceeds from the expectation or hope that dissemination of information about economic prospects and government intentions and aims will have the effect of eliciting behaviour from the other economic factors consistent with these targets. Economic planning of any sort is anathema to those who see society's economic salvation in the free operation of market forces. A number of those opposite would genuinely hold this view, though the real hardliners were thinned out somewhat on 5 March, or at least I thought this was the case until last week when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) publicly endorsed the recommendations of this party's Valder report, with all its laissez-faire gobbledegook. Probably a larger number would profess nominal adherence to this type of stance, but when this conflicted with the exigencies of political survival, they would be quite prepared to throw this type of ideological baggage out the window at a rate of knots. If I could digress a little, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was amusing to see the advocates of free enterprise and small government perform in response to the Budget and the earlier economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and hear the gutteral noises, when it was suggested that some of the rorts enjoyed by the rural fat cats be cut back, rising to howls of dismay when it was suggested that the Darwin to Alice Springs railway white elephant be financed on something a bit closer to a user pays basis to which they are supposed to be committed. Obviously this crew are only against big government insofar as it involves social provision to those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap. But returning to the position of the genuine free marketeers, Mr Deputy Speaker , their argument rests on the view that, left to its own devices, a capitalist economy will gravitate to a position where resources will be allocated so as to produce a socially optimal output of goods and services, that is, a bundle of goods and services that will maximise community satisfaction. But the theory on which this is based assumes a state of perfect competition in the product and factor markets, an assumption which was never accurate but has become more distant from the truth with the passage of time. The theory also places no weight on equity considerations-the desirability of moving towards a more equal distribution of the social product. This type of thinking has persistently impeded the implementation of economic planning schemes, particularly in the United States but also in other English-speaking countries. It has, by contrast, been considerably less influential in continential Europe in the post-World War II period, as indicated by the following quotation from an article titled 'The Ideological Foundations of Western European Planning' by Sima Lieberman that appeared in a recent edition of the Journal of European Economic History: Economists in both political camps in western Europe have generally agreed that the development of the interdependent factors which determine the level of economic activity could not be left to the exclusive influence of the market mechanism. Realistically, they addressed themselves to the problems of the mixed economy and discarded the old 'capitalism' and 'socialism' labels. The disagreement between economists of different political views tended to centre on the extent and type of government intervention. The considerable success of the French in reconstructing their economy in the post-war period has been widely attributed to the application of indicative planning techniques under successive conservative governments. Their approach has certain points of similarity with what is being attempted with EPAC, though ultimately the French concept of indicative planning was far more interventionist than what is envisaged for EPAC, even in the long term. I quote again from the article I referred to above: The French planning system had two main characteristics. In the first place, it was purely informational in nature. A principal objective of the plan was to make more complete and more accurate information available to all the economic decision-making units in the country. The underlying idea was that better information would not only improve the quality of separate individual forecasts made by firms, and would therefore reduce the likelihood of erroneous investment decisions made by them, but that it would also result in a common view of future economic development which would promote consistency in the economic activities of firms and industries. The French planning approach also involved consultation on planning decisions with a number of what were termed modernisation units composed of government officials, selected representatives of business management, experts and, at least in theory, representatives of trade unions. The success of these measures was, to some extent, attested to by their emulation by a number of other European countries. The similarity between the above and what is being attempted with EPAC is fairly clear. The French in fact went beyond mere indicative planning, and utilised some direct measures, particularly in regard to controls on the flow of investment funds. They made use of the fact that some 20 per cent of the country 's fixed capital investment was financed by the Treasury in the 1960s to achieve desired structural changes. I reiterate that these measures, and similar measures by other European countries, were carried out by governments of the ideological Right. It renders laughable, comments by some commentators, including the Opposition members and Peter Samuel in the Bulletin, who suggest that Labor's planning proposals would put Australia on the path toward a Soviet- type economic structure. Opponents of planning sometimes point to what are held to be shining examples of the application of the free market approach, most often the West German and Japanese 'economic miracles', this involves a significant misrepresentation of the way in which those economies have been run. In the West German case, a perceived need to maintain favourable relations with the United States in the post-war reconstruction period may have led to a degree of eagerness to affirm that country's free market credentials, thus disguising a considerable amount of government activity that could reasonably be described as planning. In Japan, the significance of planning at the high level of aggregation has been mitigated by the consistent inaccuracy of economic forecasting, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, where there developed a consistent pattern of underestimating the rate of economic growth. Despite this, there has been a considerable amount of government influence of a rather direct kind of resource allocation at the industry sectoral level that has become epitomised by the reputation of that country's Minister of International Trade and Industry. Furthermore, given the complaints from other countries about the difficulty of access to Japan's domestic markets to outsiders, it can hardly be held up as an example of free trade liberalism. It is also interesting to note that Japanese industry has been marked by a high degree of separation of ownership and control of the major firms. The influence of shareholders over the operation of the giant corporations has, compared to other countries, been small. One consequence of this is that Japanese firms have tended to act so as to maximise growth and market share, rather than to maximise profits. Hence the motive of profit maximisation, believed by apologists for free market capitalism to be paramount, is of considerably less influence than in other, less successful, capitalist economies. To summarise these points I quote from another article, this one by Messrs Grahame Dunkley and P. Casey, delivered to the forty-eighth Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress in 1977, and titled 'To Plan Or Not To Plan-A Survey of Models and Some Proposals for Australian Planning': The extensive use of planning and/or intervention by government in West Germany and Japan to a large extent belies the accepted view that their economic ' miracles' have been the result of totally unfettered market forces and private enterprises. Thus it is hardly valid to invoke these countries as part of a case for the free market and against government interventionism and planning. It is important to see EPAC as one of the elements in the prices and incomes accord. This accord involves an agreement between the Government and trade union movement that goes well beyond prices and incomes, and invokes the need for a broad range of supportive policies involving, among other things, industrial relations policy, industry policy and the whole gamut of goods and services provided by government. This accord requires the establishment of a range of new institutional structures, of which this is the first to be implemented. The establishment of EPAC fulfils part of this agreement, and the information interchange and planning processes are a condition of the accord's success. If this process is carried to conclusion, ultimately we may see something like the processes undertaken under the Social Democrats in Norway, certainly in the late 1970s, and in recent times, where macro- economic planning and income negotiations take place annually and simultaneously under the auspices of bodies closely analogous to EPAC and its supporting secretariat. In conclusion, I would re-emphasise that EPAC is, by western European standards , a very modest first step in the direction of economic planning. A number of such countries of different ideological hues have found it appropriate to go beyond indicative planning and institute a major role for government in controlling investment decisions, and these are the countries which have had the greatest success in implementing their planning schemes. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.8) —The Government's proposed amendment to the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act to provide a small business representative on that Council is a direct result of an Opposition initiative in the debate on the Bill . It is a victory for constructive criticism by the Opposition. The Government's appointment of a small business representative is a direct result of the Opposition pointing out and pressing on the Government the need for small business representation. We moved an amendment in almost identical terms to this amendment when the Bill was first debated. The amendment before us today is a direct result of the Opposition's efforts in raising the matter in this place. One would have hoped that the Government would have been magnanimous enough to give the Opposition credit. What a shame it is that the Government did not accept our amendment when we moved it in the House, which would have made today' s debate unnecessary. The Opposition has forced the Government to accept that the voice of small business has to be heard by the Federal Government. Initially the Government ignored and overlooked the need for a small business representative, which is a consistent hallmark and theme of the Government's conduct since being elected. Therefore, a greater than usual responsibility rests with this Opposition to point out the needs of and the problems facing small business because of the Government's failure to understand the problems facing thousands of small businesses in Australia today. The Opposition is proud and pleased to have played a part in getting the Government to introduce the amendment before the House today. While agreeing with the amendment, the Opposition is still critical of the concept of the Economic Planning Advisory Council and is still disappointed that it has no individual small business representative as well as the representative of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia that the Government has appointed. The Opposition welcomes the COSBOA appointment to EPAC, but there is still no individual representative and the Opposition is generally critical of EPAC's functions. The Government has ended the process of holding formal pre- Budget consultations with major community, business and employee organisations, substituting EPAC in its place. Of course, EPAC did not operate before the last Budget, and the Budget shows clearly that the Government did not consult with anyone in the community other than the union movement. Accordingly, EPAC will act as a filter for community views reaching the Government, and in reality small business is further away than ever under this Government. The Government since its election has completely failed small and medium sized business in Australia. Mr Aldred —Very true. Mr SHIPTON —It is very true. I am sorry to say that the small business community is generally disillusioned, disaffected and depressed by the Labor Government's failure to recognise its special nature and needs. This Government has ignored small business. Labor promised small business a special action program. We have not seen it. The Budget, the mini-Budget and the Government's wages policy have put up costs for every small business in Australia. Whilst the Government has introduced this welcome amendment, it has not fulfilled any of its tax promises to small business. There has been no legislation as promised to allow small firms full retention of profits. There has been no legislation to give small businesses the option of paying provisional tax in quarterly instalments. There has been no amendment to the sales tax Act to allow longer time to remit tax due by those businesses that have to pay sales tax within 21 days, even though they do not get paid for another 60 or 90 days. Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has said publicly that in return for these tax concessions small business ought to face a capital gains tax. This shows quite clearly that the Government fails to understand the crisis facing many small businesses in Australia today. The Government fails to understand that there needs to be a focus of attention on the needs and problems facing small and medium sized businesses. The Government fails to recognise that special attention must be given to encourage the growth of a healthy, vital, entrepreneurial small business sector, a healthy small business sector in the total private sector. The growth of small business must provide the key to recovery in the economy. As I said, I am pleased that the Government has taken up the Opposition's initiative in relation to this amendment. I hope that the Government will adopt another suggestion of the Opposition, namely, that 1984 be designated the year of small business in Australia. Small business needs to be recognised in this way. This Government must focus its attention on the requirements and needs of small business in the Australian economy. We must create-it is imperative that we do so-a better environment which encourages the growth and prosperity of small business-entrepreneurs, the self-employed and the individual small and medium sized businesses-because small businesses are the key to economic recovery. Their health and growth provide the major opportunity for job generation in Australia. I am pessimistic about the capacity of the larger corporate sector to provide job opportunities. Small business, by its very nature, provides the opportunity for growth and job generation. But it can do so only in a climate where it is fostered. We have no such climate under the present Government. Therefore, we need to focus our attention on its special problems and needs. Let us hope that in future the Government will listen to the Opposition-and accept, as it has accepted the Opposition's proposal for small business represenation on EPAC, our proposal that 1984 be nominated the year of small business in Australia. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.13) —This afternoon the House is debating the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). This Bill amends in minor areas a large number of Acts that have been passed by this Parliament, the idea being to save time, printing costs and the expense of reporting and recording the amendments separately. The running of Parliament is an expensive exercise. It is an efficient exercise to amend a number of Acts of Parliament by bringing in an omnibus Bill. We all know that the parliamentary draftsmen and women are under pressure. They have to rush to meet deadlines. Often a Bill is interpreted by a court or the Crown Solicitor in such a way that some amendment is necessary. However, there are dangers in putting through a number of amendments in the one Bill because it is essential for democracy that all legislation be scrutinised. There must never be a hint of legislation going through the House in secrecy, because everyone is deemed to know the law and everyone is covered by the law. If we are to nurture the delicate flower of democracy we must have public debate and public awareness of all legislation. As I said, there must never be legislation by stealth or in secret. The amendments before the House today are only inconsequential matters. I do not believe there has been an attempt by any department to avoid a full second reading debate on any piece of legislation. If they were treated separately, I am sure the matters would be passed very promptly. I will deal briefly with one or two of the Acts that are being amended. An important provision in the legislation ensures that part time members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are not entitled to the judges' pension. Of course, the Judges' Pensions Act gives a non-contributory pension to members of our highest courts. It is essential that judges get a good pension. They must be attracted from a very lucrative profession to the bench. They may have to leave the city where their roots are and serve on a Federal court of some type in the Australian Capital Territory. I refer also to amendments to the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act. As a law student I worked in the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in Sydney. I organised the prosecutions under the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act. That was a long time ago, in the 1960s. The penalty was $10. As I remember correctly, the amount was not increased when decimal currency was introduced. For the first time this Bill will change the penalty for overparking at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to $ 25. Of course, this brings the penalty into line with the penalty for parking contrary to a notice in New South Wales, which was increased from $10 to $25 in February this year. Today I talked to Assistant Commissioner McDonald of the New South Wales Police. He explained to me that people were parking on a parking meter at Sydney Airport for the whole day and would only be liable to a fine of $10. They parked wherever they wanted to park. If they put their vehicle into a parking station at the airport the cost would be $8, $9 or $10. So under the existing system it was almost cheaper for them to leave their vehicle illegally parked all day. I am sure the House will have no trouble agreeing that the penalty for over-parking should come into line with that which applies in New South Wales. The third Act to which I refer is the Australia-Japan Foundation Act, which is being amended to ensure that the directors of the Foundation make a full disclosure of any interests which they have in a company which may deal with the Foundation. This is an important body which the Government is encouraging because Japan is a nation that has not sent many migrants here. Unless there is a real attempt to foster contact with the Japanese people and encourage person to person contact, the Australian people have no way of making contact with Japanese nationals or former nationals in our community. In my electorate there is a large community of Australians who are of Chinese or Vietnamese extraction. Their neighbours tell me how pleased they are to learn about their customs and traditions. No such opportunity has been afforded to Australians with regard to the Japanese people. It is important that the Government is strengthening the Australia-Japan Foundation Act to make sure that the 15 or so members of the Foundation who are appointed for five years make a full disclosure of any matter which, if not disclosed, may cause them embarrassment later on. I do not want to waste the time of the house. A number of other members have spoken about other amendments. There is a provision to amend the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 to appoint a representative from community legal aid bodies, which bodies are often serviced by voluntary lawyers. There are important provisions in the legislation with regard to the copyright Act and amendments to the Evidence Act. A significant portion of the Bill amends the Judiciary Act. The Law Officers Act 1964 is amended to ensure that the Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, is entitled to receive payment in lieu of taking long leave. It is important to attract the most eminent members of the Bar to the position of chief law officer of the Commonwealth-the Solicitor- General-and to attract a man or woman eminent in the law to come to the Australian Capital Territory to advise the government of the day. I commend the amendments to the House. These are the matters I wanted to touch on. There are amendments to the Patents Act, to the Royal Commissions Act and to a number of other pieces of important legislation. I am sure that the House will support this Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —in reply-(5.21)-I thank honourable members for their contributions. In a few moments I will refer to some of the matters that were raised. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) correctly drew our attention to the fact that there was an error in the explanatory memorandum. It was suggested that there would be a proposed new section 39B (3) of the Judiciary Act. That was a misprint in the memorandum. A late change meant that there was no need to insert proposed new section 39B (3). There was an amalgamation of ideas between the old section 39B (2) and proposed section 39B (3). The position is thus correctly stated in the Act. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) was thankful that a representative of small business was on the Economic Planning Advisory Council which, of course, the Government is very anxious to assist. The honourable member was somewhat critical of the fact that the Government did not seem to be doing anything to help small business. I remind him of the Government's very important philosophy of talking about venture capital. That will be one way in which small business will certainly be able to grow. Another matter which the honourable member for North Sydney raised was a facility for an appeal in respect of jurisdiction under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act going to the Federal Court of Australia rather than to the High Court of Australia. I think there is some merit in what the honourable gentleman proposes and I will undertake to have that matter examined by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans). I thank honourable members for their contributions and I ask that the question be now put. 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. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(5.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I have not had a chance to talk to my colleague opposite , the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), but the next matter we are dealing with relates to the public duty and private interests of members of parliament, which is notice No. 7 on the Daily Program. I now notice with some surprise that both the Government and the Opposition have a number of honourable members listed to speak. I think they number over 20; so it looks as though we will have a very late evening. I seek leave to move a motion which would allow the staff to have a dinner break between 6.30 and 8 p.m. Apparently that requires me to seek leave to move a motion to suspend Standing Order 48A, relating to the adjournment of the House, as amended by sessional order for this sitting. Leave granted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That Standing Order 48A, as amended by the sessional order of 24 August 1983, relating to the adjournment of the House, be suspended for this sitting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(5.24) —I move: That this House- (1) notes that Ministers have provided statements of their private interests, and those of their families of which they are aware, and that copies of those returns have been presented to the Parliament as a matter of public record; (2) is of the opinion that all Members should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (a) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest; and (ii) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (c) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (e) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (f) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (i) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (l) any sponsored travel or hospitality received; and (m) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise; (3) agrees that a public register of Members' statements of their private interests referred to in paragraph (2) should be established; (4) agrees that Members should provide such statements on an annual basis and that amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur ; (5) agrees that notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Members and their incorporation in a public register individual Members should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the House or vote in a division in the House; and (6) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon- (a) what changes to the standing orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in paragraphs (2) to (5) of this resolution; and (b) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Senators and Members contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct). I will not take a lot of time speaking to the motion because it is well known that the Government, particularly Ministers, have already provided statements of their private interests and those of their immediate families of which they are aware. They have been presented to the Parliament as a matter of record. I was hoping-I am not trying to shorten the debate-that we could have come to some agreement on the terms of the motion. Honourable members will see a proposal that the Standing Orders Committee consider and report upon what changes to the Standing Orders are necessary to give effect to the matters contained in the motion. The questions relating to the adoption of any other provisions are contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest. Constitutional matters are excluded but a code of conduct, in particular, is included. Briefly, the history of this matter goes back many years. There was some concern in the 1970s because of what was known as the Webster case which ultimately went to the High Court of Australia. It related to the interpretation of what should be the position of disclosure, particularly of pecuniary interests. We are all well aware of the sanctions which are imposed in the Constitution. A member, who participates in a debate in which he has a conflict of pecuniary interests, can well jeopardise his entitlement to remain in the House. The Riordan Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament was established in 1975. Whilst it was a Joint Committee of the Parliament it found a number of difficulties in its recommendations. However, it expressed the: . . . desire to suggest workable proposals designed to safeguard and enhance the integrity of public officials without making unjustified inroads into their existing rights of privacy. The Committee recommended that members of parliament should disclose their shareholders and real estate, that they should declare the names of companies of which they are directors and any sponsored travel. However, the Committee did not suggest other matters which might now be deemed appropriate and which Ministers have already disclosed, namely their liabilities. In 1979 the then Government commissioned the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest which is known as the Bowen report. That Committee concluded that, on balance: . . . the advantages of compulsory registration of the private interests of office holders are insufficient to outweight the disadvantages. However, it did recommend what pecuniary interests ought to be contained in what it called a public register. These include directorships, shareholdings, realty, trusts, assets-which are different from those that I have mentioned-and liabilities. The Committee stated: . . . that the exclusion of liabilities from some 'limited' registers is one of their greatest failings. A simple listing of assets, without any offsetting liabilities, could lead to grossly misleading comparisons being made . . . It also required the disclosure of gifts, travel and hospitality, and that all sources of income by way of salary, wages, fees or honoraria be registered. That brings us to the question of what ought to be disclosed. The Riordan Committee felt, although it would not agree, that there should be disclosure of interests of members and their immediate families. I note that the Opposition has some worries about that. I feel that 'family' ought to mean 'immediate family'. The Bowen Committee, in recommending that a code of conduct be adopted, believed that not only should an office-holder disclose an interest which might conflict with his public duty but when the interests of his immediate family are involved they should be disclosed too. Again we get back to the type of register that is required. The Riordan Committee stated: Members of Parliament should provide the information required in the form of a statutory declaration to a Parliamentary Registrar who shall be directly responsible to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is reasonable and proper to allow the public to have access to the information provided that it is a bona fide inquiry . . . The Bowen Committee recommended that: For elected office holders, the registers of interests should be publicly accessible; and that: Responsibility for ensuring that disclosure by registration requirements are complied with should rest with the Parliament itself, with each Chamber in respect of its own Members. Whether that responsibility should be discharged by what is called an ethics committee or, the suggested alternative, the existing committees of privileges or a joint committee is a matter which the Parliament should decide. The Committee recommended that: A breach of the rules, whether by failing to lodge a return or lodging an incomplete or inaccurate return, should be considered by Parliament as a breach of privilege with the attendant sanctions available. The information contained in the register should be published annually as a Parliamentary Paper. This would ensure that any member of the Australian public who wishes to consult it may do so with a minimum of inconvenience. Maintenance of the register be the responsibility of one or more Registrars, who would be officers of the Parliament. In respect of disclosures, the Bowen Committee recommended that: the Senate and the House of Representatives should be invited to consider adopting, whether by Standing Order or resolution, requirements along the lines of the resolution of the British House Commons- which provided for disclosures as far back as 1974. The Committee further suggested that: the Senate and the House of Representatives should . . . consider including in such Standing Order or resolution provisions: (a) that a declaration of interest should be made at the earliest opportunity-- and that: (b) . . . such declarations should be automatically recorded as part of the official record-- The Committee also stressed that: any requirement for registration . . . would . . . still require an ad hoc declaration of interest because of its relevance and immediacy. The question of a code of conduct was discussed by the Riordan Committee, which believed that a precise and meaningful code of conduct should exist. Accordingly the Committee recommended that a joint standing committee of the Parliament should be established not only to supervise the operation of the register but also to draft a code of conduct based on standing orders, conventions, practices and rulings of the Presiding Officers of the Australian and United Kingdom parliaments and such other guidelines as may be considered appropriate. The Bowen Committee also recommended the adoption of a code of conduct in preference to what it called a 'compulsory register of interests'. It drafted a code that it believed would be of general application to all office holders. We now come to the question: Is this unique? When one looks at the precedents, one finds that it is not. For example, in the United Kingdom, subsequent to a resolution of the House of Commons in May 1974, it was agreed that there should be a register which would provide information of pecuniary interests or other material benefit which a member may receive. It set out nine specific classifications which related to remuneration from directorships, employment or office, trades, professions or vocations, the names of clients, financial sponsorships, overseas visits, any payments or any material benefits or advantages received on behalf of foreign governments, land and property, the names of companies or other bodies in which the member-either himself, his spouse or infant children-had a beneficial interest. The register was additional to the requirement of all members to declare their interests when they speak in debate. The House of Commons in May 1974, transformed this convention into a rule. It is the responsibility of members of that Parliament to notify any change in their registrable interests within four weeks. The register is open for public inspection by prior appointment. In the United States, under the Ethics in Government Act 1978, each member of the Senate and the House of Representatives must file a report containing a full statement of all assets. I will not go into the details except to say that the assets also relate to the interests of the spouse and dependent children. There is also a duty to reveal any beneficial interest held by the member under a trust. These reports are available for public inspection. In Canada in 1978 the Government introduced into the Federal Parliament a Bill for what is called the 'Independence of Parliament Act' to establish rules and guidelines. Parliamentarians would be required to disclose publicly each year the various matters there set out. Again, provision was made for the appointment of a registrar for each House of Parliament to maintain a register and to provide for public access to it, and to advise members of their obligations under the legislation. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements could lead to a fine or possible disqualification from sitting in the Parliament. So much for other parliaments in the world. We come now to our own Australian States and Territories. In doing so, we find that there is ample precedent for the subject of this motion. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was the first assembly in Australia to adopt a system of registration of members' financial affairs. It did so on 2 August 1978 . It required the registration of members' financial interests. It required the disclosure of assets and liabilities. It also required disclosure of such interests by spouses and dependent children. The register is kept by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. It is available to any bona fide inquirer after informing the member concerned of the request and the name of the inquirer. In New South Wales, members are required to disclose similar interests, but the interests of their families are not required to be disclosed. The Clerk of the House maintains the register and it is available to the public. It is acknowledged that Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory do not have such registers. But South Australia certainly does . In similar terms to the others it also requires the disclosure of pecuniary interests by the family of the member, which means the spouse and any child under the age of 18. The Clerk of the Parliament maintains the register. It is available for public access and is to be updated annually. In Victoria there is an obligation on members to disclose their pecuniary interests. The obligation also applies to the family, which includes the spouse and any child under the age of 18. The Clerk of the Parliament maintains the register but does not make it available for public access. The return is updated yearly. What has now happened-as I think should have happened a long while ago-is that members of parliament, because of the interest in the fact that they are expected to uphold their office with the utmost integrity, are obliged to make these disclosures. It is a precedent established across the world. I hope this motion will be accepted because it states that there has to be disclosure by all members. Nevertheless, the method will still be left to the Standing Orders Committee. I understand that the Opposition objects to the fact that there has to be public register. I think that the type of public register is still a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. I note also that the Opposition-quite validly in my view-feels that the definition of family is too wide. I am prepared to say that it should include immediate family, which would not make it too wide. I think that matter could have received support. Now that there are to be at least 20 people debating this matter we look like having a fair expression of views. In conclusion I seek leave to table variations on the Ministers' statements of private interests presented to the Parliament. There were some omissions in those statements. They relate to the various portfolios of Finance, Transport, Primary Industry, Special Minister of State, Administrative Services, Health, Aboriginal Affairs, Territories and Local Government and Defence Support. As honourable members will appreciate, because it is a new matter and those Ministers are not skilful in such matters now that they recognise that the public has taken an interest in them- Mr Spender —Why did you not say you were standing by the original statement? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am being quite fair about this. We are going to table the variations. Any honourable member can look at them. They probably relate to matters that concern the spouse-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the honourable gentleman seeking leave to table the document? Mr Sinclair —He does not need leave to table the document. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will table it. Dr Klugman —Why do you not seek leave to incorporate the paper in Hansard? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We do not want it incorporated in Hansard at this stage; thank you very much. You are very helpful. I hope we can perhaps shorten the debate. If we cannot, we will be here for some considerable time. Mr Sinclair —I raise a procedural matter. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will move that in the light of his tabling a paper in respect to order of the day, No. 20, that is, the Prime Ministerial statement, it is appropriate to have a cognate debate on Notice No. 7 and order of the day No. 20. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In accordance with the request of the Opposition, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering Notice No. 7, dealing with my motion on the subject of public duty and private interests of members of parliament, and my amendment thereto and the resumption of the debate on Order of the Day No. 20 relating to the ministerial statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on pecuniary interests. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to follow the course proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.40) —Unfortunately we do not have the advantage of having yet sighted the latter day revelations of the members of the Ministry. However, I think it is sufficient unto itself and to the adequacy of the present procedures before the Parliament that, before this measure has been debated once , we already have a new category of details of the Ministers' income and status, apparently largely relating to their wives. I will say a little about that in a moment. What greater condemnation of the procedures before the House could there be than the fact that after seven months, or whatever it is, of deliberations by the Australian Labor Party, tonight the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) rather shamefacedly has to come in and move the first addendum. One can only await the second addendum and whatever others might follow in the next few months. The Opposition supports the desirability of a way to meaningful disclosure of areas of possible conflict of interests by members of this House. We would certainly want to remove any thought in the public mind of malpractice or corruption by Federal parliamentarians, a practice which I do not believe exists at the Federal level. Indeed, in recent years I do not believe that it is other than in other levels of government that any such allegations have been made. Where there have been such allegations, procedures such as the appointment of royal commissions have been facilitated that enable them to be corrected. The Opposition does not accept that parliament can legislate to make people honest. We cannot prescribe propriety. The consequences of public disclosure inevitably are that the dishonest will take steps to make sure that they are not caught out . The honest will reveal their hand and leave their families and themselves subject to the intrusion on their privacy of which the erratic and the politically eccentric, regrettably of our community, are capable. The Opposition welcomes the concept of this motion and the opportunity to debate it. But in our view it is totally inadequate for the purpose. It is regrettable in that it will constitute a meaningless public revelation of apparently only partly formed conclusions for the Ministry and certainly of details of members which we do not believe in any way reveal what may well be necessary if one wants to ensure in the public eye the fact that there is no conflict of interest. So, while we welcome the concept of this motion and the opportunity to debate it, we certainly question whether it is appropriate and meaningful in the terms of the general philosophy that the Leader of the House has just enunciated. The Prime Minister, in his statement to this House, said: It is the Government's intention that the precise method of implementation of the provisions to apply to senators and members should be examined by the Standing Orders Committees of the respective Houses, meeting as necessary as a joint committee to ensure that the provisions are as far as possible consistent between the two Houses. That is a very admirable admonition. But, regrettably, when one has a look at the motion that we are now debating and the general details that have been provided in two volumes now to this House, it seems that there is some difficulty as far as the Government is concerned in referring the whole matter to the Standing Orders Committee. I will shortly move an amendment. I had the thought in mind that, instead of coming into this House tonight and setting down with precision the form of consideration by the Standing Orders Committee, we should rather accept the principle and say, yes, it is appropriate that there be some way by which the income and the assets of individual members can be properly tabled and provided to somebody in authority so that any question of a conflict of interests in the mind of the public can be set aside. We do not believe it is appropriate, therefore, that we accept the text of the motion presented by the Leader of the House. We think it would be far better if that motion was sent to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. I also want to comment on details within the motion. I will do that shortly. Honourable members will recall that the Prime Minister further stated: One question is whether the registration system should be compulsory or voluntary. Yet again there is no reference to that matter within the motion now before this House. If taken literally, I believe this motion will impose on members a greater degree of revelation of their personal assets and their involvements to the community and elsewhere than that which is imposed on Ministers. I remind the House that the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest was quite specific in its recommendations against the adoption of a general scheme for the registration of private interests. The Committee indeed pointed out that a general register was directed to the contingency that an interest might affect an office holders actions. It concluded that the proper practice should be aimed at revealing an interest when a possible conflict arises. The Committee expressed grave doubts whether it would be possible to devise any register so as to eliminate lawful avoidance. It concluded that to introduce a register which could easily be avoided would fail to achieve any useful objective. It would be little more than political window dressing. Frankly, political window dressing is what we have before us tonight. The disclosures made by the Ministers on 22 September are more interesting for what they do not disclose than for their disclosures. We find, as has been acknowledged, that incomes of some ministerial wives needed to be corrected and the forms completed. Indeed, if one has a look at the document, I can find it nothing less than incredible that there are so many blanks and so many 'nils' in areas where I would have believed the Ministers, if they are not aware of the income, would have put a statement to that effect as the correct answer. We need to remember two products of the tabling of this document: First, once this document has been tabled, it is properly the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that questions on anything in this document can be answered by them in this place. They are responsible for these matters under our Standing Orders. If they have said 'nil' and the answer is not 'nil', I suggest that they have misled the House. I am quite interested to see that in a number of instances where there are obvious discrepancies they are now corrected by this latter day statement introduced by the Leader of the House. I think it is of grave concern that there are matters within this document that have no answer at all. As I have only just been handed this additional document since I started to speak, I find it a little bit hard to read it and check all the omissions. In some Minister's statements we find there are blanks. Does that mean that the question is not applicable or does it mean that they have refused to answer the question? If they have refused to answer the question, surely the appropriate course would have been to put some appropriate reference. We find that there is a dash in some instances, blanks in others and 'nil' elsewhere. I find that equally unacceptable. Some Ministers wives' activities have been given quite considerable publicity. One wife-this may well have been corrected by the statement tonight-had her income and appointment revealed in the National Times of 24 June 1983. I refer to the wife of the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and the fact that she has been appointed by the Victorian Cain Labor Government to the board of the Victorian Town Planning Appeals Tribunal with an annual salary of $53,000. Yet the original document says that she has no income. Mr Braithwaite —A good socialist. Mr SINCLAIR —True, a very good socialist. While I can understand the concern of the wife at the revelation of this detail-I want to say a little bit about privacy at the moment-I do not believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should come into this House and table, on behalf of a Minister, an inaccurate statement . If one reads this article in the National Times, it is interesting to see that Mrs Howe and Jan Murray see themselves as in a type of political partnership with their husbands. It is a great partnership when the husband does not know whether his wife is in employment. I am delighted to know that at least that is one of the areas in which a correction has been made. I have been able to pick up the entry. The Minister for Defence Support has stated his wife's income as a member of the Victorian Town Planning Appeals Tribunal. Other omissions concern me just as much. I think it is rather sad that it is only through the revelations by Mr David Combe before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies that we have learned at all of the income that the Prime Minister and, I have no doubt, other Ministers received, it now appears, when in opposition. The Prime Minister spoke at various venues around the nation, arranged, presumably for commission, by Mr David Combe. Of course there are other matters that need to be looked at as far as the details of the income of the Prime Minister are concerned if this motion is intended in any way to establish in the minds of the public that there is no reason for us to doubt the Prime Minister's integrity and every reason for us to accept that there is nothing in his affairs that could in any way lead to a conflict of interest. Honourable members will recall another article in the National Times which referred to $4,600 in cash that was apparently stolen from the Prime Minister in the Boulevard. We regret his loss. I admit that many people in this place and elsewhere are fascinated by the fact that the police report says that the property stolen comprised $3,600 in Commonwealth bank notes, $1,000 in American currency and a quantity of travellers cheques, bank and number unknown. While I admire the Prime Minister's business acumen I confess that nothing in the details he has revealed to this House suggest that he has very much else to show for that acumen. It is also quite true that one must query whether the payments for his speaking engagements were in cash. One must also query how he came to be carrying such large sums of cash in the course of a weekend between parliamentary sitting dates. If those sorts of things can happen and they are not revealed in the Prime Minister's statement, one must certainly query whether the revelations are accurate at all. I think the content of this motion and the so-called public register certainly need to be questioned as far as meeting any meaningful requirement of public disclosure is concerned. The motion requires members to disclose assets, including collections, but excluding household and personal effects, each valued at over $5,000. As with the proposed assets test for pensioners, both what is to be revealed and what is to be concealed are clouded in imprecision. Presumably a $40,000 car is excluded but a $5,000 painting is included only if it can be said to be part of a collection. The Opposition believes that if disclosures are to be made they should be meaningful and they should be private. We suggest that the appropriate course is for Mr Speaker to keep a register in this place and for Mr President to keep a register in the Senate. Indeed, we need only to suggest a scenario where members and their families can become subject to abuse or worse from the bigots, cranks and the unbalanced of our society, to realise the pitfalls in the Government's public register proposition. By public disclosure no member, nor the family from whom he is so frequently absent, can feel safe. Privacy is something which every Australian respects. Parliamentarians, once having met the responsibility of avoiding a conflict of interests too, should have the right of privacy. The public registration of private interests will deny them this right. Accordingly, the Opposition believes it more appropriate, as I have suggested, that private registers be kept by Mr Speaker and Mr President. The Leader of the House has referred to our concern about the definition of a family. This is included in the motion. Obviously that needs to be contained to the immediate family. There are other matters in the motion that also concern us . Let us look at the requirements in paragraph 5 which states: agreed that notwithstanding the lodgment of statements by Members and their incorporation in a public register individual Members should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the House or vote in a divsion in the House . . . That is a very commendable requirement, but how is it to be applied? To whom is it to apply and in what way? Does it mean that a doctor should be precluded from voting on a Medicare Bill while a patient, about to go to hospital and knowing that he will be going, should be included? Obviously it needs to relate to a particular interest-an interest that pertains to that individual as against everybody else in his class. I think there are difficulties in its application. For that reason we would like to see the Standing Orders Committee charged with examining each one of these recommendations of the Leader of the House. We accept the concept that there needs to be some form of register. We believe that it should be a private register. We query the contents as they are enunciated in the motion of the Leader of the House. We believe that, in most instances, they are meaningless anyway. After all, President Nixon and Vice- President Agnew seem to have been able to commit extraordinary sins against American society in spite of the very considerable measure of exposure that applies under American law. Accordingly, I shall move the amendment to the notice of motion which is circulated in my name. This amendment is designed to refer all paragraphs after paragraph 1 to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. This requires hospitality to be substantial hospitality. The amendment picks up the fact that obviously there are other matters in the motion that need to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. I suggest that, whatever the result, it will be necessary for the Standing Orders Committee to consider those matters. I am disappointed that the Leader of the House has not been able to get the acceptance of his Prime Minister and his Cabinet for what I believe to be an eminently sensible proposition. I move: Omit paragraphs (2) to (6), substitute the following paragraph: '(2) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon- (a) whether all Members should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their immediate families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (i) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (ii) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (A) in which a benficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest; and (B) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (iii) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (iv) directorships in private companies indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (v) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (vi) liabilities (excluding short term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (vii) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (viii) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (ix) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000; (x) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (xi) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (xii) any sponsored travel or substantial hospitality received; and (xiii) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise; (b) whether a public register of Members' statements of their private interests referred to in sub-paragraph (a) should be established or whether there should be a private register held by the Speaker; (c) whether the provision of material by a Member to the register should be on a compulsory or voluntary basis; (d) whether Members should provide such statements on an annual basis and what amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur; (e) whether, notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Members and their incorporation in a register, individual Members should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the House or vote in a division in the House and if so what might constitute a relevant interest and in what way it might be declared; (f) what changes to the standing orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in sub-paragraph (a) to (e) of this paragraph; and (g) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Senators and Members contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct).'. Mr Spender —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.56) —I certainly support the proposition that matters which appear in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee. I must admit that I thought the Standing Orders Committee would have been able to comment on the pros and cons of including any one of those matters. It is certainly depressing to me that one -third of all the Ministers had to correct the statements which they gave to the House less than two weeks ago. For example, it is depressing that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) who is sitting in front of me did not remember that his wife's income of $53,000 plus was considered to be a substantial source of income. Mr Howard —Despite the fact that it was in a National Times article. God! Talk about selective amnesia! Mr Howe —It was public knowledge. Dr KLUGMAN —It may be public knowledge, but I think Ministers should be quite careful about supporting propositions such as this and then not giving correct answers. Obviously that is up to the people concerned. I was going to refer to this matter of similar statements. We are asked to say that it is the opinion of this House that all honourable members should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their families, of which they are aware, covering certain matters. I certainly hope that there will be not be similar statements, otherwise we will be in a lot of trouble. It is very difficult to avoid conflicts of interest. The simplest conflict of interest, of course, for a member of parliament, especially in a marginal electorate, is what he considers to be in the interests of the country and what he considers best to get him re-elected. I see the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) sitting opposite. He does not any longer have a marginal electorate, but he is certainly a perfect example, in his questions and in his notices of motion, of what in another House, where the word 'hypocritical' is permitted, one would call utter hypocrisy. He continually moves motions and asks questions in which he does not believe and which he does not accept. He does so purely for the purpose of gaining a few extra votes. To my mind, that is a complete conflict of interest. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has frequently made a point with which I agree, although I do not share his religious beliefs, that whenever people speak of him and others they refer to the fact that they are Catholics. This may or may not be relevant. One's beliefs and the question of whether there is a conflict of interest are probably relevant. If one is a Catholic, a Jew, or an atheist like I am, certain conflicts of interest occur naturally. One has to support certain pieces of legislation which, because of one's beliefs, one cannot possibly support even if one believes them to be in the interests of the country. Sometimes we vote on allocations of money for church education, we debate matters relating to money for schools. There is a conflict of interest which I am sure applies to many of us in this House when, for example, we are talking about money for schools and for tertiary institutions. Many of us have children attending schools or tertiary institutions. Should we declare what schools our kids go to? Every time we vote on allocations of money for educational establishments, regardless of whether it is money for government schools or non- government schools, we take certain steps which are in our interests or not in our interests, but we certainly have an interest as to the outcome. For example, we may be voting on free education for tertiary institutions. Suppose the question arose in the House as to what to do about a particular company. I may own some shares but none of the shares I own would produce for me during one year income equivalent to what it is worth to me to have free education for my children attending universities. Let me be quite clear about that. Honourable members vote for or against, but usually for, an entitlement which would give them certain benefits. One may have parents on pensions. If the eligibility for entitlement to those pensions is changed one might become liable to contribute to the upkeep of one's parents. Should an honourable member abstain from voting on such a change? Should he mention the fact that his parents are receiving certain benefits or that they might be entitled to certain benefits if the assessment of the entitlement is changed? They are all extremely relevant questions. To my mind, in many ways they are much more relevant than the ownership of a particular house. Let us look at the debates we have nearly every week in this House. We debate how much money goes to local government. Obviously payments to local government affect the rates we are paying. If we are owners of properties we have a direct interest in how much we give to local government. We have debates on taxation matters. We debate Budgets. Whilst most of us are concerned about the Budget from the general point of view we also look at it from the point of view of how it will affect us personally. I continually advocate-I hope not just because I do not drink or smoke-higher indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco because I think that would be in the interests of this country. But one could easily say that I act in a self-interested way in that it would help me if we collected money from those who drink alcohol and smoke tobacco because I would have to pay less in taxation. There would be a direct interest as far as I was concerned. Where do we draw the line? To me the matter becomes quite ridiculous. A sort of hair-shirt attitude has developed amongst politicians in the United States of America since Watergate and all politicians are now trying to show that they are somehow better than the rest of the community. I do not suggest for one minute that they are better than the rest of the community. I do not think that politicians as a whole are any worse than the rest of the community but I do not think we are any better. One can go through the propositions which it is suggested we deal with and which are being put to the Standing Orders Committee. One proposition states: the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; As it happens, I do not hold any such investments so I can speak freely on that topic. But what does 'the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments' mean? We referred earlier to the fact that a statement prepared by us is supposed to be similar to a statement which has been tabled by the Ministers. They have not disclosed the nature of any investment, unless the name of a particular debenture means 'the nature'. Certainly, if one is not going to refer to the actual value of those investments, bonds or debentures, it becomes quite meaningless. What does 'the nature' mean? Another proposition states: the nature of any other assets . . . each valued at over $5,000; What does 'the nature' mean? I do not care whether people own cars, paintings or whatever. If property and wealth taxes come into the argument it may be relevant to know how much a member of parliament has in such assets if he is advocating or opposing the measure. But the nature of those assets is not relevant. The value is not disclosed. We are asked to provide a report similar to that which is prepared by Ministers, assuming that they give the correct report. I think certain things ought to be revealed to the public. I think it is a pity that in some ways the House does not take seriously enough the matter of sponsored travel and hospitality. I think this is an important issue. I think such an arrangement is wrong for parliamentarians of this country, who are adequately paid and who are given a significant amount of money to travel overseas. Each term of parliament we are entitled to one first class fare around the world. In addition certain trips are sponsored by our Government. I think it is completely wrong for members to accept sponsored travel and hospitality from other governments. This happens continually but I now think it is wrong. People go on all kinds of feasts or would-be feasts, from the World Peace Council to the Moral Rearmament conferences in Switzerland. People go to Israel, Libya, Syria and all kinds of other places. I think this is particularly wrong when the areas being visited are the subject of controversy in the Australian Parliament. I do not think people should accept those kinds of trips, but they do. I do not want to go into that matter in any more detail. I am trying to show that individual members have other interests. Paragraph (5) which we are supposed to adopt states: That this House- (5) agrees that notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Members and their incorporation in a public register individual Members should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the House or vote in a division in the House; I hope I have pointed out that there will be hardly any worthwhile debate on any issue without such declaration being made. There certainly could not be any debate on any Budget item or any Appropriation Bill in which members would not have to declare a relevant interest before debating the matter or voting on it. Even before on this matter today we would have to declare a relevant interest. I know from the way the Deputy Prime Minister spoke when he introduced this motion into the House that he has some reservations about some of the aspects of the proposition. He is probably hoping, as I am, that the Standing Orders committees of the two Houses will in fact have an intelligent look, rather than one of those hair-shirt looks, at the propositions put to them. I hope the Standing Orders committees will look at the propositions in a rational way, will decide what kinds of interests should be declared and will decide what kinds of interests are relevant to matters discussed in the Parliament. Members of the National Party and significant number of the members of the Liberal Party who sit opposite have an association with primary industry. They will be faced with questions such as: What will we do about the reserve price of wool? What will we do about wheat? What will we do about all kinds of primary products? Matters affecting primary producers are certainly of great interest to them not only because of their electors but also, in many cases, because of their concerns as individuals. What are we to do? If we decide that there should be an extra tax on petrol, should those of us who run cars state that we are concerned about that fact because we are running cars? If we do that, should the people who do not run cars also state that they do not run cars? In the same way, a particular kind of interest is involved if one is participating in a debate or a vote in the House. I just hope that the Standing Orders committees will take their time to consider seriously the propositions that are being put to them so that we do not finish up with a worthless register which means nothing and which, worse than that, may mislead the public. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.11) —On 22 September 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a statement in this House about the probity of his Ministers. He started off by saying: For the information of honourable members I present copies of the statements which Ministers have provided to me concerning their private interests. He said that this was a landmark, and most certainly it is. It is a landmark in non-disclosure of private interests. He went on to say: Never before in the history of this Parliament have Ministers disclosed publicly the private interests which they hold. There was no doubt about the sorts of interests that Ministers were to disclose. The nature of those interests was set out not only in the Prime Minister's statement but also it was very clearly in the forms which the Ministers filled in. The Prime Minister stated very clearly when he spoke to this House: In respect of Ministers there are two statements of private interests. The first is a statement in general terms of the interests held by a Minister and those of his or her immediate family-that is, spouse and dependent children . . . Nobody can think that the Ministers who filled out those forms were so cretinous that they did not understand what it was that they were doing, that when they filled out these forms they misled the House by oversight. Let us look at some of the things that were left out. Let us take the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-that upright man who is one of the great moralists in this House. What did he leave out? He left out his wife's income from investments. The Minister for Finance can hardly claim that he does not understand what finance is about. We may think so, but he certainly would not make that claim. Yet he did not understand that his wife's income from investments should be included. The wife of the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) has been referred to. What happened there? Just in case there is a lack of communication between the Minister for Defence Support and his wife, I remind him that his spouse was reported in the National Times, I think of 24 June 1983, as having an income of $53,000. How is it that he could have filled out a form without putting that in? How is it that others did precisely the same thing? What about the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren)? He forgot about a part disability pension. Dear me, poor fellow! How did he manage to do that? How has this oversight come about? How is it that each of these nine Ministers have now to confess to this House that they misled the House? That is what they did. Each of them knew that the Prime Minister was going to table the documents which have been tabled in this House and each of them must have realised that he was misleading the House by omission. What has happened? Within 24 hours we have some corrections. Within 24 hours of receiving this register of nothing which the Prime Minister so proudly tabled in the House we have nine Ministers saying: 'Look, I didn't include this relevant interest which should have been included'. We need to know: When were those declarations made, how were they made and how is it that each of those Ministers failed to inform the House of matters of which the Prime Minister had charged them to inform the House about? They were required to inform not only the House but also the Prime Minister himself. These were 'statements made to me '-to the Prime Minister-concerning Ministers' private interests. God help us if these statements reflect the limits of probity of this Government, a government which when in opposition was always willing to vilify anyone in or out of this House for the slightest of reasons. We have seen this document only in the last few minutes. We wonder how many other Ministers have forgotten about their wife's ownership of a house in Canberra, as did the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I suppose that one can forget about many things, but a house is a fairly solid object and one would think that it would be difficult for the Minister for Primary Industry to forget that his wife owned a house in Canberra. What did the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) forget? He forgot that he had an overdraft facility with the Commonwealth Bank. These are some of the matters which were overlooked, so the Ministers would say, which were not disclosed to the House. We are given no reasons for the failure to disclose these matters to the House. There is no doubt that on the basis of what the Prime Minister put to the House, the House was misled in respect of the affairs of those nine Ministers. That is a most serious matter for the House and for all honourable members of this House. We will see what happens in the next 24 hours. I should not be at all surprised if one or two Ministers tell the House: 'Oh yes, there is a house down the road I own. I am terribly sorry, I forgot about that. It just slipped my mind', or 'I am sorry, I forgot that my wife was working; she has been working for the last 10 or 15 years. It just slipped my mind; it is just one of those things-an excusable human error'. We may hear that kind of excuse given to us in the not too distant future. Let me touch very quickly upon some of the principles on which these proposals are based. There would be no disagreement as to the public expectation of probity from members of this House-an expectation which has been severly let down by the conduct of the Government in regard to the matters now before the House. There would be no doubt that in the discharge of duties there should not be a conflict between the private interests that an honourable member might have and his public duty in this House. There is no doubt that where a conflict arises there needs to be some form of disclosure. If there is a conflict between interests and duty, some form of disclosure would seem to be appropriate. There is no doubt that those kinds of principles should apply not only to debates but also to the other ways in which an honourable member discharges a duty to this House, for example, what he does on committees. The question is: How much further should one go? What is proposed by means of a public register is unquestionably a great intrusion into honourable members' privacy. The question we must ask ourselves is: What will this public register achieve and what are the assumptions behind it? As to what is to be achieved, the basic supposition, as was pointed out by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), appears to be that we can legislate for honesty. In the history of mankind that has been unsuccessful. Those who are minded to evade will evade, those who intend to be dishonest will be dishonest and those who wish to rearrange their affairs will rearrange their affairs. It was pointed out in the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interests that these kinds of matters had been before the Salmon Committee. I quote very briefly what was said by that Committee: In our view, registers of interests can do little more than present a general picture of a person's background against which his attitude to the issues of the day can be assessed. They can also, we accept, have a part to play in isolating specific interests from an individual's participation in official business and in keeping people with improper interests out of public life, but not too much should be built on this. The main sanction against specific conflicts of interest must be disclosure at the relevant time, and a register cannot perform this function. An individual who was determined to exploit public office for his own ends would probably be able to find ways round any registration requirements that were not of such complexity that they would be generally unacceptable and unenforceable. There can be no doubt about the correctness of that conclusion. The conclusion reached by the Bowen Committee was that such a register was not to be recommended. Next, where is the evidence of need? I believe that for years the standards on all sides in the Federal House have been very high. I do not know of any member against whom it has been alleged that he has acted corruptly- alleged with grounds, might I add. Where is the evidence of the need for such a register? What about a member's right of privacy? It may be said that if one has nothing to hide, why not disclose. But everyone knows that human beings, and members are human beings, prefer to keep their private affairs private, and why should they not? Why should they be compelled, unless the reasons are overwhelming, to list their affairs on a public register? Are we to get into some kind of moral acceleration or an attempt to find a new subject that needs to be considered? What of the effect on those who may wish to offer themselves for membership of this Parliament? After all, this Government has embraced the private sector. The Prime Minister is frequently to be seen with rich and powerful members of the business community. Good luck to him; he may indeed learn something from them. Why should those people have placed over them the threat that if they are to come here their private interests are to be displayed to the world at large. Will that not mean that people who would otherwise offer themselves will be dissuaded? Is that in the interests of this country? I would most certainly think not. How will the disclosure be used? The right honourable member for New England pointed out some of the problems. Can we not learn from European experience? Can we not learn from what has taken place in countries such as Italy where if a person marries and publicly discloses apparent wealth there are great dangers for the persons whose affairs are disclosed and for their children and for those who may be related to them? This is not far fetched; it is part of the brutal reality of contemporary life. What about the focus? The focus of what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) propose is very largely misdirected. For example, let us look briefly at paragraphs 2 (c), 2 (d) and 2 ( e) of the motion. The point has been made, I think, by the honourable member who last spoke. We should look at the kind of material that has to be disclosed. For example, directorships in private companies tell one nothing. Private companies have to reveal their assets and liabilities although a person who is a director may have no interest in the companies at all. What in God's name is the relevance of real estate to any conflict of interest in this House, the Federal House? Perhaps honourable members opposite can tell me what relevance the ownership of a block of flats in Sydney or a residence in Canberra has to do with the discharge of duties here. If honourable members opposite can come up with an intelligible answer I will be very glad to hear it. To a large extent the focus of what is proposed here is amiss. For example, I refer to savings or investment accounts. What in God's name do they matter? Does it mean that if one has an account with the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia one cannot exercise one's vote or speak on any matter concerning that bank, on rises or falls in interest rates or on changes to banking legislation? That proposition needs only to be examined to be discarded as absolutely absurd. Lastly, let me turn to something else. We are required by what is proposed to supply details of the affairs of our spouses-wives or husbands-so far as they are known to us. I see that I have been misreported in the Age as saying that I would not disclose my own affairs. Let me make it quite plain that I said I would not disclose the affairs of my wife because it is through marriage-through what I have learnt in marriage-that I know what I do about her affairs, and the same applies to any other member who is in the same position. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy that in those circumstances and for that reason people who live and earn separately and who may be successful separately should be treated as no more than appendages for the purposes of disclosure in this Parliament. If anything needs to be cut out of the ill-thought out, half baked and unconsidered proposals, that proposition most certainly should. It cannot be supported on any basis of principle. This Government should realise that all the recommendations that it puts before this House need to be considered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Standing Orders with the greatest of care. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.25) —Having listened to the Opposition speakers in this debate , I can appreciate how they harboured and protected the bottom of the harbour crooks and tax cheats on the basis of not revealing their privacy. I have never heard such a load of garbage about privacy. Opposition members have been prim and phony in this debate that has been going around the world for years. It was only the Watergate scandal in America that put any heart into these schemes to make members of parliament and senators declare their interests. I do not know what honourable members opposite have to complain about. They have shown hypocrisy about dissuading people from standing for parliament. It will be a protection for parliamentary candidates. The British reports recommended that parliamentary candidates should be considered so that their assets can be declared. We heard a certain amount of humbug from the Opposition in relation to this disclosure. Opposition members were in government from 1975 until earlier this year. They did nothing about the disclosure of the interests of members of parliament. They said that there should be a register. They had the opportunity. What did they do ? They did nothing at all. Now tonight they are dithering around and putting up all sorts of very weak excuses as to why there should be no register. What do they have to be ashamed of? Surely their assets are honestly earned and not corruptly derived. Surely they have nothing to complain about. I congratulate the Government on bringing this issue to a head and bringing forward this motion that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has put to the House. I believe that this resolution will be agreed to and that members of parliament will follow the Ministry in making a declaration. If Ministers have to correct the register, they will. It will happen to many of us. The resolution deals with the interests of the families of members, and this includes spouses and, I should imagine, dependent children. It is possible that an honourable member may not accurately know the interest of his dependent children or his spouse. The register which has been proposed in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is of an experimental nature. I say good luck to the Ministers who have the courage to amend the register and to press ahead and put down accurate details. It will be interesting to see whether our colleagues on the other side of the House are as courageous if they make any mistakes and fail to list accurately their interests on the register. Any member of parliament is sensitive about disclosing his assets or lack of assets. In my experience one of the things we can do is obtain an overdraft from a bank. If a bank manager knows we have no assets, and this is published in our provincial papers, this right might disappear. There is a need for a register. We are moving towards fairness to candidates. We are moving towards public funding of elections and public disclosure of donations to political parties and to candidates. These important innovative reforms go hand in hand with the disclosure of members' assets. It is part of a package, and no matter what members of the Opposition say they cannot have public disclosure of party funding and electoral funding without at the same time having a fair disclosure of their own assets and holdings in a register so that the public can see that, despite the problems with regard to privacy, members are not crooked, they are not dishonest and that they are not being unfairly influenced in their deliberations on any Bill or any matter before the House. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MAHER —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was dealing with the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. In supporting this motion I was explaining to the House that the need for a register of disclosure of members' pecuniary interests is part of a package. We cannot have public funding and public disclosure of party and political donations unless we also have disclosure of members' interests. In this day and age if the public is to have trust in this delicate flower of parliamentary democracy there must be disclosure of members' private interests. I was rebutting the remarks of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who really drew a long bow when referring to the lawlessness that he imagined occurred in Italy, with the threat of kidnapping and the like. Every Sunday throughout the various States of this nation the social pages of the newspapers are filled with people spending enormous sums of money, giving big parties and obviously showing off and flaunting great wealth. I think it is quite ridiculous to say that because a member says that his or her spouse has a parcel of shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or a similar company that member is placing his or her family at risk. This is absolute rubbish. People in this nation seem to compete at showing off their wealth in front of the media. From what I can see, they even engage consultants, Press secretaries and media personalities to promote their interests. However, the Canadian Parliament scheme has interested me. Under that scheme Ministers declare their interests and, if they are at all nervous about disclosing their interests, they can put their money into Canadian Government bonds which they then do not have to declare. If a member's wealth is placed in government bonds, thus helping the nation, that is called an exempt asset under the scheme that the Canadian Parliament has evolved. The Canadian Parliament requires public disclosure but not of the matrimonial home, of recreational property, of automobiles or of works of art, and Canadian provincial savings bonds do not count as assets. I commend this Canadian system to the Standing Orders Committee because I think there is great merit in it. I support this motion which I believe the Government has worded extremely carefully. It is doing a great service to the nation by highlighting the need for members, without too much hooha, to disclose their assets. After all, members are not frightened to take salaries from the public purse and, thinking back to last year's revelations, we know that they are not altogether backward in coming forward to take travelling allowances from the public purse. As the Deputy Prime Minsiter said, this issue has been canvassed extensively in many reports and inquiries, more recently in the Bowen Committee of Inquiry on Public Duty and Private Interest commissioned by the former Prime Minister. The Bowen report says that members of parliament who are not Ministers exercise influence, at least in theory, but it stresses that Minsiters exercise influence. Therefore , it made a number of recommendations involving members of parliament. It also dealt with the staff of members, which interests me. I really feel that honourable members may have difficulties ascertaining staff assets, but this was one of the recommendations of the Bowen Committee. Staff matters are not involved in the motion before the House, but a considerable range of assets is listed in it. Of course, that brings us to the question of the loss of privacy. My attention has been drawn to an article in the Parliamentarian of July 1983 by Dr Sandra Williams about the experience of the American Congress. Dr Williams made what I thought was an interesting point. I quote from her article: In accepting the broad public financial disclosure provisions of the new ethics codes, both Chambers-- This is in the American Parliament- reluctantly gave up their claim to privacy in their financial dealings in order to reassure the 'public' that they were serving them and not their private interests. I think that in a sense encapsulates this whole debate: We are not serving our private interests, we are serving the public; and the public must see this. In Australia, we have a great tradition of privacy with regard to people's personal affairs, their income tax and their social security arrangements. In my experience, government departments resist subpoenas served on them to produce evidence. The New South Wales Privacy Committee and many other privacy committees are very active and vocal in protecting the private rights of citizens. I think honourable members can quite naturally be concerned that their spouses will have to declare or somehow reveal what assets are held, particularly as spouses receive little consideration except for certain minimum travelling rights to Canberra and members receive very little consideration from the Commissioner of Taxation when they make claims for expenditure incurred on behalf of a spouse. I support this motion, but I believe there is a need to protect the member, particularly if a candidate in an election were to use unfairly the assets or lack of assets of a member. I think the British notion that parliamentary candidates should make some sort of disclosure is worthy of consideration, although the British select committee had some real problems in getting parliamentary candidates to make a declaration because there is such a short period between the close of nominations and an election. Nevertheless, it may be in the interest of members for the Standing Orders Committee to consider also whether parliamentary candidates in each election should declare their interests . I feel that there will be great novelty value in the declarations of members' interests, as there has been interest in the declarations of Ministers' interests. But this will soon be forgotten in much the same way as the novelty at the introduction of electoral funding in New South Wales was quickly forgotten. People will just accept that members of Parliament will declare their interests and that fair play and honesty will be seen to prevail in Parliament. I urge the House tonight to support this motion moved by the deputy Prime Minister. If the vocal members of the Opposition are prepared to take their salary and travelling allowances to the point of scandal and shame on their part , as we know they did, they should be prepared to reveal the minimum assets that they hold. If they are not prepared to do that, they should put their money into government bonds. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.10) —The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) made various comments. He referred to the novelty of the situation. Of course, he tried to refute the circumstances raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) regarding attacks on one's family. There was a great novelty once known as the Opera House lottery. I recall that many years ago one of the first winners of that lottery lost their son. The poor little devil was eventually found dead in the boot of a motor car. So while the novelty exists, let us confront the difficulties. Nevertheless, I have no objection to passing on details of my private affairs to the leader of my Party, with an authority that he pass them on to Mr Speaker should Mr Speaker make such a request. Further, I make the point that I have some pride in my personal achievements. I have little difficulty in telling this Parliament and the world at large of my achievements in the financial sector. I appreciate the position of my colleagues and I take the view that we should support their position. I raise some issues that might be of interest to honourable members when we talk about ourselves as representatives. I am happy to tell the House, as I have said previously, that I am involved in the ownership of four liquor licences. Yet, when I speak against excise increases in this Parliament, I ask myself: For whom am I speaking-me, the 100-plus licensees of my electorate or all of the consumers in my electorate who would, of course, be obliged to pay extra to the licensee when this Government increased excise? It is time that we asked ourselves what is an interest and when is a responsibility at this level of government one which concerns ourselves more than our constituents. I have grave reservations about this motion, and for good reason. This type of requirement has existed for many years under State law, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), who is trying to interject, well knows. Very few members would understand the definition that can apply with regard to private pecuniary interest. I suggest in future that a member who pays income tax at a discretionary rate might be constrained to declare an interest in the Budget. I have read a local government auditor's report claiming that participating in a vote for structured electricity charges levied by a local authority required a declaration of interest by a councillor. Simply because different rates applied to different people the charges were not common to all councillors. I add that we would create in this place a circumstance where people would find themselves ferreting out information. One of the greatest problems that I see in this motion is that it does not tell us what is the penalty for our commitment. For instance, do we get a lecture from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) if we are naughty and fail to do something, or do we get a lecture from you, Mr Speaker? Will there be a fine, or a disqualification as exists in some circumstances in local government? Suddenly we would find people from both sides of the political sphere trying to ferret out information on their opponents so they can be removed from the political sphere. I address some matters that refer to the motion. Section 2 (d) of the motion calls for declarations of directorships in private companies. This is a requirement that apparently most Ministers claim to have met. There may be a little doubt about that after today because they are still remembering. I looked at the declarations that were tabled in this Parliament by the Prime Minister. I picked a company at random and instructed my staff to look at that company through the proper channels. I got some surprising answers. In regard to this matter, which I want to discuss in this Parliament, I have no intention of directly referring in any way to the Minister or the company that I have investigated. I want that to be clearly understood. When I finish my speech those revelations will not be made. On the other hand, should the Prime Minister not be aware of my information, I am prepared to pass it on to him. It is his responsibility to fill in the gaps in information that is not available to me, but which his Minister might easily supply. The information I have obtained, which I will now summarise, concerns a company which is listed in the statements of private interests of Ministers. It was incorporated in 1964 with issued capital of $2,020. From my inquiries, no further capital injection is evidenced in the company returns. In 1973 when the Minister concerned became a director, its share capital and reserves stood at a nominal $10,000. From that date until 1978 the net worth of the company rose to $1,664,948. I repeat: Almost $1.665m. Mr Howard —This is a Minister? Mr TUCKEY —It is the company of a Minister referred to in the statement. Company returns lodged during this period and during the company's history show no provision for or payment of company tax. I add that such a situation is not necessarily one that indicates improper activity. I am not indicating improper activity. I will not pass judgment, as has been done on this side of the House on previous occasions. I will deliver the facts. Since 1977 it seems that distribution of $1,664,948 has been made to the Minister and members of his immediate family. The company seemed to deal mainly in land. In 1978 there was a registered agreement-this is the matter of greatest concern to me-of sale of one of its properties to a developer for $550,000. There was an understanding that a relatively high density sub-division could be achieved by that developer. Apparently, the original sub-division application did not succeed, and the eventual number of blocks approved was only 10 per cent of the original application. The value of the land presumably was then less than $550,000. Of course, this was evidenced by a sale by the same company of adjoining land of similar area to a family shareholder for $60,000. Quite clearly, $60,000 was too low a price for that block and probably took into account the fact, of course, that that shareholder would have to pay State government stamp duties and, at the time, State and Federal taxes that were still applicable. Whatever the real value, the sale proceeded 12 months later under rather special conditions. The records show that the sale proceeded at a price of $550, 000, but only $40,000 cash was paid by the developer. The balance was to be paid interest free over three years. Should the developer fail to pay the balance after three years, interest at 12 1/2 per cent would be charged. Had that interest rate been charged on the amount outstanding from the beginning, as would be normal practice, it would have equalled $73,750 per annum, or $221,250 of taxable income to the company over three years. However, repayments were made by the developer and probably as much as $200,000 in interest was capitalised into the sale. It is not my right to claim that the use of such a device is tax evasion. Apparently, the company convinced the Commissioner of Taxation that that was not so, or otherwise failed to advise him of the circumstances of the sale. The company seems to have paid no tax because of this capitalisation of interest payments, resulting in a loss of roughly $90,000 to that much vaunted Federal revenue. The company has continued to show trading losses in its registered balance sheets lodged with the appropriate authorities. Subsequently it seems that the company has now transferred over $1.6m to its shareholders, including a Minister, and in a fashion that apparently, according to the documents that I have, did not attract tax in the hands of the shareholders. So government revenue missed out again. The style of these activities and others with respect to possible State charges and taxes would normally-I repeat normally-be the work of someone committed to massive tax evasion. It is reasonable to say that anyone who went to all that trouble in the normal and proper returns which are lodged with State company authorities would be committed to massive tax evasion. However, there is no way that this can be assessed from the information published in the statement tabled by the Prime Minister the other day. There is no way, other than through the appropriate areas, that I could get the final information, which is confidential between that Minister and the Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Steele Hall —Which Minister is this? Mr TUCKEY —I have said clearly that I do not intend to say who the Minister is. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to do that. The company can be found in the records submitted, and all the documents that I have in my file are about that company. Mr Howard —Is his return incomplete? Mr TUCKEY —I do not know. I am not saying anything. I am not passing judgment on a man. I have seen members in opposition in this House, on the most fragile of evidence, crucify people. I am not doing that and I sincerely hope that none of my colleagues will do that. I will give honourable members the facts as they are . They demonstrate why this proposal before us is a farce. The proposal before us is a farce. The proposal is another example of this Government's philosophical commitment to charge in. It only produces things that are inadequate and deceptive. Consequently, it can create great difficulties for some and at the same time fail completely to achieve the stated objective. Of course, the end reduction of the withholding tax is another classic example of that situation, and we are seeing evidence of that today. I have documentation to support my allegations which I will hand to the Prime Minister should he come into this chamber and give an undertaking to conduct an appropriate inquiry to determine whether the Minister I have referred to should hold public office and guarantee this Parliament a report on the findings on this matter in due course. In the meantime, as I have said, I will stick to my resolution not to identify the individual or the company concerned. However, I suggest that my assertions, based on the public record, reflect the total inadequacy of these ministerial disclosures. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.23) —I think it is interesting to look at the situation that has been presented by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He talked about the sort of penalty that will be exacted if there is some failure to comply with requirements for the disclosure of interests by members of parliament. He should reflect upon the fact that the penalty has already been exacted to some extent; it was exacted on 5 March. One of the difficulties the previous Government faced was that towards the end of its days it became a bit murky around the edges. I think the former Treasurer indicated that in his clear endeavours to try to do something about both tax avoidance and tax evasion. One of the difficulties that the former Government faced was that clearly there were areas where one had to be sure about public interest. At this stage this Government has a clear commitment to the disclosure of interests and the reason for that is very precise. We believe that in office one has a public responsibility. We also believe that one should be publicly accountable. Whenever one is given certain privileges one also has some responsibilities, and those responsibilities include being accountable to the public for the sorts of involvements and interests that we have. One of the reasons why it is awkward for honourable members opposite is that in the past we would have had reason to doubt their veracity in certain circumstances. I think it is interesting that the honourable member for O'Connor has spoken about land holdings because a member of his Party was involved in land holdings in Stumpy Gully, Victoria. That is on the public record and the fact that it is on the public record did not help his Party at all. It is also important that we are able to say in advance that we have established a public record and that we have established some degree of public accountability. Obviously, it is a little awkward for honourable members opposite. If one does an analysis of wealth holdings, assets and financial positions the Australian community will quickly establish that there are some in this community who have operated from a very privileged position. Little wonder that sometimes they are a little insensitive to the demands of the electorate. They have enjoyed a degree of financial comfort that may not be enjoyed by others in the community. If one looks historically at the development of the parties that honourable members opposite represent, it is possible to establish that from time to time they have represented elites. Those elites are based on wealth holding and income, and to some extent the electorate is not altogether satisfied with that. If we examine that and if sociologists examine it, it may well come out that honourable members opposite would have reasons for saying that we should not disclose our financial position because it sets us off too far from the rest of the community. One of the things we have to face when there is a public record of members' interests and involvement is that the public will make judgments upon it. I do not think it is necessary to go beyond saying that the public will make judgments. One ought to give the public the capacity to make judgments and the only way is to have a fuller disclosure. Certainly, at the moment the capacity for a full disclosure does not exist. We on this side of the House are saying that we are not afraid of fuller disclosure. Of course, it will be awkward; of course, it will produce difficulties. But if we are to talk in terms of the sorts of involvement that we as public figures have and if we are to talk in terms of the demands that the community makes upon us, we must be prepared to say to the community: 'We are prepared to talk about our particular involvements and arrangements'. However, so that we keep the picture balanced, I think it is important to say that just because one does have financial involvements, just because one does have experience in companies, just because one has been involved in directorships of companies it does not rule one out from public office. It is also important to say that if there is a clearer picture of the arrangements it is possible for the public to make judgments about our role in the community. But we ought to avoid the sorts of murky arrangements which seem to have developed in the past and we ought to avoid giving rise to the kind of public voyeurism that people seem to take particular delight in and the imputations about honourable members in this House. I say to honourable members opposite that we have a collective responsibility to the electorate. It is not a case of partisan politics or saying: 'We on this side want to be all squeaky clean so we can make sure that honourable members opposite are tarnished'. We have a collective responsibility and if one looks historically at the development of parliamentary democracy one sees that one of the great handicaps to Parliament is the fact that the community tends to hold us in very low esteem. That is because in the past some members of Western parliaments have been in murky circumstances. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that people's esteem of Parliament is maintained. That is the nub of the matter. It is far more substantial than just saying: 'We are here to try to find pin pricks in the Opposition so that we can make some capital out of it'. That is not the agenda. The agenda is that we have a responsibility to the community so that it can say to us: 'Yes, we can learn to respect those members of parliament because they are willing to disclose their involvement'. The fact that they have an involvement, historically, should not disqualify them from public office. No one is saying that. However, matters should be on the record so that the public can make judgments. I wonder why honourable members opposite are worried about that. There is nothing in particular to be worried about. If one has had an involvement in business activities, if one has had a directorship, or if one has had shareholdings there is nothing in particular to be afraid of. However, when that involvement becomes hidden, when it becomes subject to questions in this place and consequently subject to media speculation , the damage is done. I say to honourable members opposite that the damage is not done specifically to the individual; the damage is done to the tradition of Parliament. There ought not to be trial by media, trial by royal commission or trial by innuendo, but the electorate should be able to make judgments on the basis of fuller knowledge of those who offer themselves for public office. That is all we are saying. There is nothing particularly sinister in that. I think it is interesting to look at this matter historically. One of the reasons why some of those in the churches have often argued for degrees of humility and penance and why those churches have been held in high esteem is because it is said that those people in those offices can act disinterestedly. The whole thrust of this motion is that we, in our offices, should be able to act disinterestedly. We cannot presume to do away with our worldly goods and possessions as those in clerical circumstances do. But if, in fact, we can disclose our worldly goods and possessions it can be argued that we can act in the same disinterested manner as those in the clergy act. The interesting thing, of course, is that those in the clergy are held in higher esteem than members of parliament. One does not have to look far to understand why. There are some who, in fact, lower the esteem of those in Parliament. Whilst ever we have a situation in which it is possible for people to make claims about the interests and involvements of people in Parliament and about their linkages with the likes of Christo Moll without full disclosure, Parliament as a whole suffers. I think that is the basic message here. If members of parliament are to act responsibily in the public arena there is nothing wrong with saying responsibly that we have a public commitment to list our interest, involvements and what they might mean in terms of the public. The honourable member for O'Connor has asked what the penalty is for that. I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that quite clearly the penalty is an electoral penalty. That ought to be the major penalty that we face. That is the penalty we face at the moment. If we do not act properly, if we do not act responsibly, the electorate takes it out on us. Similarly, if it is shown that we have private involvement which conflicts with our public duty, the electorate will take it out on us. That is all. That is the substance of it. So I suggest to those opposite that the reason why this motion is important and the reason why those sub-items in the motion are important is because we on this side of the House believe that we have some public accountability and responsibility. If we can make our position clearer it will not be possible to have trial by innuendo, to have trial by media and to have a substantial series of questions asked in this place. All they do-I say this with great seriousness-is to lower the esteem of Parliament. Those of us who are receptive to the public will know very well that Parliament is not held in the high esteem which many of us would like. The way we can get it on to a higher plane is for us to be willing to say: 'We are prepared to declare our interests and our involvement. We do not believe that that ought to disqualify us from public office. We do not believe that will cause any discredit for us'. That declaration says to the public that we are not afraid to declare our hand. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.34) —I say through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), whose sincerity has impressed me and, I think, many honourable members of this House since he came here, that I agree that many people on his side of the House genuinely believe that the status and the dignity of Parliament will be improved if we have some kind of public disclosure. I invite him in the same charitable sense to accept that many people on this side of the House believe that such an approach is fundamentally wrong, not because they have anything to cover up, not because they are parties to corruption and not because they are in any way associated with people who are trying to take advantage of their position, but because they believe very genuinely that one cannot legislate to make people honest. If people do not have an instinct for honest and for decency, all the disclosure provisions in the world will not make them honest and decent. I happen to believe that if anybody imagines that these disclosure provisions will usher in some kind of new, squeakey-clean era of politics in Australia, he is very sadly mistaken. I also believe that the mere fact of disclosure provisions being proposed and arguments being used in support of them does a very great disservice to the reputation of the Federal Parliament-I underline the word 'Federal'-in the eyes of the Australian public. I believe that the standards of integrity of members on both sides of Federal Parliament over the years have been of a very high order. It has not been my experience in the time that I have been in this Parliament to have encountered any significant evidence of corruption on the part of anybody on either side of the Parliament. I think we have a lot to be thankful for and we have a lot to be satisfied about so far as our parliamentary institution is concerned. I think that one of the sad things about these disclosure provisions is that they tend to ratify the cynical view that many in the community have. The arguments used in favour of having elaborate disclosure provisions, in my view, tend to underwrite the criticism that is made of the parliamentary institution. I remind the Parliament that all the disclosure provisions in the world did not prevent somebody reaching the highest office of Vice-President of the United States and then being hounded from office because he was taking bribes in the executive suite of the largest democracy in the world. Let not anybody in this Parliament imagine that when we pass all the terms of this motion-inevitably the steamroller of the Government's numbers will achieve this-we have ushered in some completely new dawn and that we are to have done forever with any claim or any suggestion of corruption. I have heard many arguments about what should and should not be disclosed. I have heard people argue that if one has everything on the table there are no grounds for any further concern or argument. The great problem with that is that one can never anticipate in advance what the conflict of interest of a person in an executive position will be. It is beyond the wit of any Parliament and of any legislator to divine in advance the conflicts of interest that may confront a person- particularly a senior Minister of the Crown-in our system of government. The proposition often advanced that I find the most ludicrous-it was advanced by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) during the debate-is that the only thing for people to do is to put their money into government bonds; that somehow or other having one's money in government bonds is safe. As Treasurer of this country for five years and as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the former Government, the one interest rate that I could control was the government bond rate. Yet according to the proponents of disclosure I should have put all of my money into government bonds. I had better declare the fact that I did not ever buy any Australian savings bonds while I was Treasurer and I was roundly criticised by many people such as Bruce Bond for not having bought any. The argument that somehow or other if one puts one's money into government bonds it is all ultimately safe and it is all absolutely squeaky-clean and absolutely above reproach is ludicrous. I also say to the honourable member for Stirling that in fairness to the former right honourable member for Flinders, who of course is the person he was referring to as a former member of the Fraser Government, that particular gentleman stood down while the allegations against him were ventilated and established to have no substance at all. That ought to be put on the record, as should the fact that honourable members on the other side of the House stood down when allegations were made against them and while those allegations were being dealt with. One thing emerges very clearly from tonight's debate and most particularly from some of the revelations that have been made while the debate has progressed. We have heard all the incantations from the other side that we need these disclosure provisions so that people can sleep easily at night and know that their legislators are honest and have no conflict of interests, that the whole thing is a deadly serious exercise so far as the Government is concerned. In true McCarthy tactics anybody who opposes the motion is ipso facto somebody who has something to cover up. There is no more McCarthy tactic than that-that if one is against something one automatically stands condemned of the object of that particular measure or legislation. One thing really emerges very clearly. For all its talk the Government does not take this whole exercise very seriously, because no less than nine of the 27 members of the Hawke Ministry have indicated during this debate that they got their declarations of interest wrong. In other words, one third of the Ministry of this country is so serious about this new proposal that is going to make politics cleaner than it has ever been before in Australia that they have got their declarations wrong. I can understand how somebody might have overlooked the fact that his wife is a member of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, but it is a bit hard to concede, as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said, that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) could overlook the fact that his wife was employed as a member of the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal of the State of Victoria at a salary of no less than $ 53,000. That is a pretty good piece of selective amnesia. I think even the Minister for Defence Support ought to blush with some embarrassment. The Government cannot have it both ways. Perhaps it does not really care about this whole procedure and therefore one third of the Ministers in the Hawke Government have been so indifferent about this procedure which they say is so important and so necessary to put integrity back into government that they have literally submitted their returns without any care as to their accuracy and with reckless indifference to that accuracy. One third of the 27 Ministers have their returns wrong and in many cases fundamentally and very importantly wrong. That of course is a charitable interpretation. I am prepared to be charitable and say that maybe honourable members opposite do not care about it, which of course is a condemnation. It is an illustration of the hyprocrisy of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular to come into this House and say: ' This is necessary in order to establish integrity in the Government of this country'. The less charitable interpretation is that these people have been guilty of deliberatly misleading the Parliament. Honourable members on this side of the House who recall what was said last year when members of the former Government were accused of misleading the Parliament will remember very well the attacks that were made. One of the prime architects of those attacks was that very humble apologetic member of the Opposition, now the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). He is a very apologetic, humble gentleman who is a symbol of humility. He of course was one of the leaders of the attack upon the former members of the Government. All I can say is that Jim Cairns must now be wishing that he had been a member of the Hawke Ministry and not a member of the Whitlam Ministry because the offence for which he was dismissed by the former Prime Minister Whitlam was somewhat less serious than some of the offences that, if one is uncharitable, are constituted by the admissions that have been tabled in this Parliament tonight. After all, he forgot he signed a letter. Some honourable members here have forgotten half their annual household income. I think the Australian public is entitled to have an explanation from the Minister for Defence Support. A person whose household income is over $120,000 a year is some model socialist, is he not? He is a symbol of the representative character of the Australian Labor Party at present. I do not mind the fact that he has a household income of $120,000 a year, but what I do mind is that he and his like on the other side of the House berate people on this side of the House because perhaps some of them have a household income of that order. The fact that he has been revealed as a person with selective amnesia, to be the most charitable, but at the worst somebody who is prepared to be careless and openly careless with the truth is, I believe, a very serious condemnation of that person. But of course the matter does not end there. We have other Ministers who have forgotten the fact that their wife owns a house in Canberra. I suppose if one is used to very large accumulations a house in Canberra is not all that much. The Minister for Finance has overlooked the fact that his wife has income from investments. All of this has been done not just by some rank and file members of the Labor Party; this has been done by nine of the 27 members of the Hawke Government. We all know that our Prime Minister is very sensitive about probity in public life. He really gets very irritated when anybody suggests that anything associated with him or anything associated with his Ministers is in any way shonky, in any way suspect or in any way lacking in anything but total probity. I would like to know what explanation the Prime Minister has demanded from his nine members-maybe it is more-of the Ministry who have been guilty on the most charitable interpretation of being totally indifferent to a procedure which their own leader says is absolutely necessary to the integrity of government in this country; but on a less charitable interpretation these people have been guilty of misleading this Parliament. There is no more serious ministerial delinquency than to mislead this Parliament. Honourable members opposite cannot convince me-I do not think they can convince any other member of the Australian community-that a Minister can possibly overlook the fact that his wife earns $53 ,000 a year. One only has to state it to realise how absolutely absurd it is. Yet here we have this person who parades around the country saying that, above everything else, his Government is going to be a model of probity. He was a member of an Opposition who was prepared to pursue, to malign, to berate and to criticise any transgressions of ministerial proprietory by members of the former Government. He was willing, at the drop of a hat, to demand resignations; he was willing to ask people to stand down at the drop of a hat. I think honourable members on this side of the House and people out in the Australian community will want to know what explanation this Prime Minister has demanded from those Ministers, none of whom are in the House tonight. One third of his Ministry has been badly caught out. One third of his Ministry has either been recklessly indifferent to a very important government policy or has been recklessly indifferent to the truth. I think this Parliament and the nation, as represented by this Parliament, are entitled at the very least to a full explanation from the Prime Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.47) —In replying to the amendment, I seek leave of the House to table a statement by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The most interesting thing about the debate is the amendment moved by the Opposition. We have had a debate this evening which I think has reached a pretty low level. Let me take honourable members through it. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was very anxious to say that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) forgot to disclose his war disability pension. For the benefit of the honourable member for North Sydney, his war disability pension comes from being a prisoner of war of the Japanese. He ought to pay some credit to the fact that that man offered his life for his country and perhaps people like him saved the likes of the honourable member. Honourable members ought to think about those matters. Let us make it very clear, honourable members have had the time of their lives-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the House to come to order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in comparative calm and quietness. I now ask that the Opposition extend the same courtesy to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Howard —I did not say anything offensive. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman opposite says that nothing offensive was said. What about the fact that the Minister offered his life for his country and was taken by the Japanese as a prisoner of war? Honourable members drag the matter into this House. Why cannot honourable members just listen and look at the facts? I am talking about what the honourable member for North Sydney said in this debate. He did not spare anybody in the Ministry. He took them all on. Ministers have made a statement of their assets and liabilities. What does the Opposition's cowardly amendment say? It says that none of the members opposite want to make a statement. Let us have a look at the Opposition's amendment. I and the Opposition Leader of the House, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), tried to come to some agreement on the basis that the Standing Orders Committee would determine the matters dealt with in this motion. For the benefit of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), I point out that this is a motion, not a piece of legislation. He can work out from this motion what penalty, if any, he wants to impose. I do not know what honourable members opposite are frightened of. I know that the honourable member for O'Connor is not frightened of anything. I admire the fact that he is prepared to disclose his assets. The Opposition's amendment is curious. It states that the Opposition is prepared to send all these matters to the Standing Orders Committee. But what are honourable members opposite prepared to send to the Standing Orders Committee? They are prepared to discuss shareholdings, family and business trusts, questions of partnerships, directorships, real estate, bonds, savings accounts and they are prepared to disclose all their assets and all their income to the Standing Orders Committee. What have they been arguing about for the last two hours? All Opposition members admitted that they are prepared to send all that-- Mr Spender —Are you saying it is not accurate? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know the catch in it. What honourable members opposite are prepared to do is contained in their amendment. So why are they arguing against this motion by saying that they are worried about disclosing their interests? They have said that they are prepared to detail these matters to the Standing Orders Committee. But here is the let-out. If we look at the Opposition's amendment we see that the question that arises is whether the members register ought to be public or private. Mr Tuckey —That is a point. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a point. Mr Spender —It is a legitimate question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a legitimate question. We then come to the next part of the Opposition's amendment which is whether there should be a compulsory or voluntary register. Imagine that! The first part of the amendment suggests that- - Mr Peacock —That is what your Prime Minister suggested, straight from his speech . Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I ask the honourable member to wait for just a moment. I state clearly that the Opposition's amendment proposes that honourable members do not know whether they want the register to be public or private. The next part of their amendment states that they do not know whether they want to disclose their interests. How inconsistent can honourable members opposite be? But it is understandable. They have had the time of their lives for two hours talking about everybody's assets and liabilities; yet they do not have enough courage to declare their own. This is the sort of standard of honourable members opposite. They want to know about precedents. I admit that there are all sorts of weaknesses and that we cannot legislate for honesty. But it is pretty clear tonight on listening to the debate that, from here on, we all have the time of our lives discussing everybody's assets and liabilities. Honourable members opposite think that this is terrific. Mr Howard —No, I do not think it is terrific at all. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —For the benefit of the honourable member for Bennelong, this point is very relevant. Perhaps the way democracy has to go, if we have reached this level, is that all honourable members want to know is whether somebody is dishonest. The interesting thing about this motion is that, from the point of view of democracies, it is not new matter anywhere in the world. I do not know why honourable members opposite are so worried about it. Such declaration has been compulsory in the United Kingdom since 1974, in the United States of America since 1978 and in Canada since 1978. In most of the States in Australia, including the Northern Territory, it is obligatory. But we in the national Parliament are too frightened to make a statement.That is all it is, a statment- Mr Fisher —But you did not tell the truth. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is just a statement. If honourable members do not tell the truth, that would become the subject of public ridicule as we have had in this chamber this evening. What is wrong with that? Why are honourable members opposite frightened of it? Why are they not prepared to put in their statements? Mr Spender —I will put mine in any time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should put in his statement. But he should not support an amendment that says that he does not have to put in his statement. That is all that we are arguing about. We are arguing about the form in which this material will be disclosed. The Opposition's amendment is the weakest amendment I have ever seen in my life. It suggests that perhaps some honourable members need not disclose this information. What party room discussion did honourable members have to reach the conclusion that some of them need not disclose what they have? Which honourable members opposite are prepared to stand up and say that that is what they wanted and that what they got in that resolution is that they did not have to disclose anything? Opposition members have been catcalling in this chamber for a couple of hours about Ministers who have disclosed this information. That is all the debate has been about this evening. But if the precedents are to be looked at, it is obvious that, in a world of democracies, people who enter public life are fair game for one another , for the Press and for the public. That is the penalty that we all have to pay. Mr Spender —Fair? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know that it is fair. But this issue is established in the Constitution. Section 44 states that members will disclose pecuniary interests if they have any direct or indirect interest in an agreement. So we start from that principle. There was always an obligation to disclose an interest if one were legislating for the benefit of oneself or one's family. I admit that I do not see members of parliament making much money, nor can they, from performing their duties in the precincts of this House. They can make a lot more money outside this House. But there is no doubt that public opinion has been conditioned to the fact that we are all prone to be dishonest, that we all cheat and that we all have a lot of money. Mr Steele Hall —Especially some. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Opposition members have set the climate again this evening but they should have a look at their own back bench. And they should have a look-- Mr Steele Hall —We are looking at yours. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know the honourable member can point-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Boothby will remain silent. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Boothby is very vocal this evening. But the point is that the Opposition's amendment is trying to give honourable members the means of escape when they do not want to give that right to other people. I make the point that we have seriously looked at this question. We have had the report of the Riordan Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Parliamentarians, the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, the Webster problem and the problem of judicial interests not being disclosed. We have had all these matters that certainly can affect public opinion of national institutions and even the courts. Surely all honourable members opposite, in their calmer moments, would agree that we need to be able to answer the question of what this matter is about. I suggest that it is about the acceptance by the public that people who enter public life must have integrity. Mr Sinclair —How can they trust anybody when you have ten amendments? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know. No doubt they have had a good look at the background of the right honourable member for New England. The right honourable member has been the victim of public disclosure. Mr Howard —He had to stand down for two years. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that. Mr Steele Hall —I suggest-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Boothby. He has already been cautioned. Honourable members should realise that the Deputy Prime Minister is addressing the chamber. There has been an incessant stream of interjections across the table. I ask honourable members to observe the Standing Orders. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am trying to get some sense of sweet reasonableness. All honourable members are in agreement that these matters are to go to the Standing Orders Committee. Nobody is objecting to that. I say again that we agree on all matters about which honourable members opposite have been worried-for example, bank accounts and bonds. All these matters go to the Standing Orders Committee. The only difference is that the Government says that all honourable members will now do the same as the Ministers; they will all make a statement. But honourable members opposite do not want to do that. That is what worries me. Why is it that honourable members opposite are so worried about making a statement? That is what the amendment means. If this amendment is carried honourable members will not have to make a statement. Perhaps it will be on a voluntary basis. Mr Sinclair —Rubbish! Read the amendment. That is one of the alternatives. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will read the amendment. That is an alternative that can be accepted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address the Chair and to ignore disorderly interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Speaker, I know that you want me to address the Chair. This matter concerns you and everybody else because we all have to disclose our interests. But when honourable members opposite interject asking what the amendment is I am at pains to say that, if the amendment is carried in the terms in which honourable members opposite want it carried, nobody will make a statement. How stupid that is! If proceedings were broadcast this evening, the multitude that would be listening to this debate would be horrified to think that all honourable members opposite were so cowardly that they stood up in this chamber and, for two hours, attacked honourable members on the Government side yet they are not prepared to make statements themselves. I emphasise again that these matters will go to the Standing Orders Committee. This matter is not related to an Act; it is in the form of a resolution. The Standing Orders Committee will determine the penalties; it will determine the method of registration. But this will be complusory in the sense that every honourable member should disclose his or her assets and liabilities and those of his or her immediate families. There is nothing wrong with that. Where is the danger in the proposal in terms of the argument of honourable members opposite? They do not want to do that. Mr Lusher —It depends what your point of view is. I think there is something wrong with that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member thinks that there is something wrong with it, I remind him that he has had the time of his life discussing everybody elses difficulties this evening. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and most of the States of Australia have already made this declaration compulsory. Honourable members opposite have to accept the fact that their own peers are having to comply with this sort of standard now introduced into public life. I know that honourable members can think of all the exceptions. The point I make is that the Opposition was in government for a long while, yet it was never prepared to do this. The Bowen report was given to the former Government in 1979 and it did not have enough courage to do what it proposed. Mr Lusher —Nor should we have to. It is an ideological solution. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume should cease interjecting. Mr Lusher —It is absolutely ridiculous. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Hume. Mr Humphreys —Put him out. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, put him out. Get rid of him. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to continue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will. I want to make this point: Not only are we talking this evening about the disclosure of interest of members of parliament but also we are talking about public servants. Honourable members will notice that the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) adverted to that fact. I think that is of interest to the public. We are also talking about the fact that the Australian Journalists Association might also be prepared to talk about a code of conduct. I think this debate has been of interest because it shows the calibre of debate we face at times in this House. I thought that the debate could have been on a much better level than this. I am amazed to think that all we have to debate is an amendment which states that honourable members opposite want certain matters to go the Standing Orders Committee. Perhaps they will get a result from that which will mean that they will not have to declare their assets. I am astounded to think that anybody would frame an amendment in those terms. I invite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who I think has some integrity about these matters, to say why he does not want to delete paragraph ( c). If it were included the Opposition would not have any trouble at all. I think it has been an unnecessary debate except that it has given honourable members opposite the chance to vent their spleen as to what they think of us. Mr Holding —Do you want an extension of time? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I do not want an extension. Mr Howard —You could have done without it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not need the extension of time. I could have done without all the interjections from honourable members opposite. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the paragraphs proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Maher, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Johnson, Les Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Fatin, W. F. White, P. N. D.Child, J. Coleman, W. P.Morrison, W. L. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Hayden, W. G. Goodluck, B. J.Keogh, L. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Jacobi, R. Hicks, N. J.Cohen, B. Katter, R. C.Bilney, G. N. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Papers and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 22 September, on the following papers presented by Mr Hawke : Pecuniary interests-Statements by Minister; and Public Duty and Private Interests-Ministerial Statement, 21 September 1983. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.13) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 9.14 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report, namely: Construction of accommodation for the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, New South Wales. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report, namely: Provisions of Navigational aids Hydrographers Passage-Great Barrier Reef. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 5 October 1983: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 196 Air Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 202 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 199 Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1983-No. 8 Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 203, 204 Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 195 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determination-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 201 Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 198 Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 193, 194, 205 Norfolk Island Act-Regulations-1983-No. 3 (Social Services) Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 206, 207 Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 200 Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 197 The following papers were presented: Mr Holding-Queensland general elections-Notice purportedly from Mr Pat Killoran announcing he had been nominated for the Queensland State Electorate of Cook. Mr Lionel Bowen-Pecuniary interests-Variations to statements of Ministers presented to the Parliament on 22 September 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen-Pecuniary interests-Letter to Mr Hawke (Prime Minister) from Mr Beazley (Minister for Aviation) in respect of his wife's income, dated 5 October 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 301 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will the Minister bring up to date the information provided in answer to my Question No. 2706 (Hansard, 18 November 1981, page 3097) about (a) financial aspects of the proposed National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, (b) discussions on the scheme with the State governments and the insurance industry and (c) increases in premiums for workers' compensation and compulsory third party insurance. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) On the basis of figures provided in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner's publication ''Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the year ended 30 June 1982'', the updated figures for 1981-82 are: Worker's compensation Compul- third party sory $m $m Direct premiums 1,262.5 917.3 Benefits (including legal, hospital and medical costs) 907.2 716.9 Administration expenses and commission 165.1 31.2 Separate figures for legal and hospital and medical costs are not published and must be estimated. If the ratios implicit in the reports of the Working Parties of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme are applied to the actual amounts paid in benefits in 1981-82, the figures for legal and hospital and medical costs would have been: Worker's compensation Compul- third party sory $m $m Legal (excluding solicitor/client costs) 82.6 119.7 Hospital and medical 165.1 104.7 (b) The Government is committed to the progressive establishment of a national no-fault accident compensation scheme in co-operation with State Governments, commencing with injuries and deaths arising from road traffic accidents. The road traffic accident scheme contained in the recent NSW Law Reform Commission's Working Paper ''A Transport Accidents Scheme for New South Wales'' is to provide a broad model for discussion purposes. Some preliminary discussions between the Attorney-General and some State Labor Attorney-General and Shadow Attorney- General have already taken place. (c) Using the same basis as in the answers to Questions No. 1748 (Hansard, 20 October 1977, pages 2301-2), 6053 (Hansard, 22 May 1980, pages 3170-1) and 2706 (Hansard, 18 November 1981, page 3097), the percentage increases in premiums between 1974-75 and 1981-82 were: Direct Earned premiums premiums % % Worker's compensation 119.4 120.5 Compulsory third party 199.4 271.6 Question No. 336 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Government Publishing Service has been unable to provide for sale to the public, maps of Australia and Australian posters. (2) If so, why has this situation occurred. (3) Will he advise whether public funds can be made available for this purpose. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The public was able to purchase from the Australian Government Publishing Service Bookshops a selection of Australian maps and prints until 1982, when stocks of these items ceased to be replenished. Some items have therefore not been available. (2) In 1981 the then Government decided to lease the AGPS Bookshops and preparations towards this end were commenced. In that situation, it was considered necessary to run down stocks of maps and prints not published by AGPS . (3) Following the reversal by the present Government of the decision to lease the AGPS Bookshops, stocks of maps and prints have now been replenished and all Bookshops have stocks available. Question No. 367 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the high level of public opinion in favour of the issue of identity cards. (2) Would the issue of identity cards prevent illegal payment of Social Security benefits and be of great benefit to the holder in other important ways. (3) Is it a fact that with the use of computers little difficulty should be experienced in their availability. (3) Can the Minister say whether the Government is prepared to consider this proposition. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I am aware of the differing views that exist within the community on the question of identity cards. (2) to (4) To be fully effective and incorruptible a national identity scheme would need to be based on physical characteristics which are unique to each individual, e.g. finger printing. Such a scheme would have benefits for individuals in a number of areas including Social Security. However, there would be enormous costs and administrative difficulties in establishing and maintaining such a system. While it would be possible to devise less costly systems these also would be less reliable and could assist those wanting to establish a false identity. Once an identity is obtained fraudulently an identity card assists in the deception. This has been the experience in some overseas countries where Social Security numbers were introduced to facilitate contributory benefits schemes but they were also used as a means of identification to an extent beyond their original purpose and were found to perpetuate frauds. Insofar as the Department of Social Security is concerned experience has shown that overpayments are much more likely to occur because people fail to disclose income rather than because they adopt a false identity. The adoption of a costly and administratively complex national identity scheme would not therefore be justified on Social Security grounds alone. The Minister for Health has announced that when Medicare is introduced in February 1984 there will be a Medicare card which will have a number, and the names of the persons covered by the card. The purpose of the card is to facilitate the payment of Medicare benefits and the detection of fraud and overservicing. While the Medicare card is not a true identity card it will assist a person in establishing his or her identity. Question No. 441 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For parts (a)-(e), (i) The schemes administered by my Department provide grants on a competitive basis for research and industrial research and development. They are normally paid to institutions or individuals rather than State Governments. However under the Australian Research Grants Scheme, Marine Science and Technologies Grants Scheme, and the Crown of Thorns Starfish Research Scheme grants have been paid to such agencies as the Queensland Museum, Queensland Institute of Medical Science, and Queensland Department of Primary Industries. These have been reported annually. (ii) No grant has ever been returned or refused by these agencies.