Tuesday, 8 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the Government's intention to give the Canberra Commercial Development Authority responsibility for construction and management of the proposed Erindale Shopping Centre; (2) is of the opinion that such a decision would seriously jeopardise prospects for future private investment in the Australian Capital Territory; and (3) calls for the encouragement of greater non-government participation in Canberra development projects through a clear demonstration that such investment is welcome and does not have to overcome inbuilt favoured treatment for semi- government authorities. That motion will be seconded by my colleague the honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman). Mr SPEAKER —Order! I indicate to honourable members that there is a growing practice of introducing argument into notices of motion. I will examine that notice of motion and rule on it. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes with approval the action of the Government in promoting, ratifying and applying International Maritime Conventions; (2) Notes particularly the depositing on 7 November 1983 with the International Maritime Organisation of instruments of acceptance to the following convention and protocols; (a) the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers; (b) the Search and Rescue Convention; (c) the Convention of Civic Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and its protocol, and (d) the Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties and its protocol concerning other substances; (3) Acknowledges the significance of this action for the protection of Australia's marine environment from the effects of ship-based pollution, and (4) Is of the opinion that this record of achievement contrasts with the lack of action on the part of the previous Government. Mr Hodgman proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr Hodgman-In what regard, sir? Mr SPEAKER —The notice of motion is out of order. I remind the honourable member that when a notice of motion is ruled out of order reasons are not given. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) will second: That this House- (1) deplores the situation of Queensland electors who voted for Liberal candidates on the understanding that they would form a Liberal Government and who have had their wishes thwarted; and (2) condemns the Bjelke-Petersen Government for abusing democratic principles by accepting two members of another party into the National Party after the vote was cast, in order to attain power. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I have redrafted my notice of motion. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) will second: That this House- (1) notes with the gravest concern, persistent and substantive reports of threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation and actual blackmail against certain members of the Federal Parliament; and (2) therefore formally records that 7 November 1983 was the beginning of the end of the Hawke socialist government. Mr Holding-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The allegations made by the honourable gentleman, if they were true, would involve serious breaches of the privilege of this Parliament. Therefore, I invite the honourable gentleman to raise the matter as a matter of privilege, being aware of the fact that to move a motion of privilege or to alleged breach of privilege frivolously is in itself a breach of privilege. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the point raised by the Minister. It is probably more appropriately a matter of privilege. Does the honourable member wish to address himself to that matter? Mr Hodgman —Yes, Mr Speaker. I accept the point raised by the Minister. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I ask you to look at the matter raised in my notice of motion as a matter of privilege. In particular, I draw your attention to the following statement made on national radio today by the President of the Australia Council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan: The Prime Minister 'put pressure on all sorts of people in relation to the Caucus vote yesterday'. Mr Speaker, I formally ask you to consider as a matter of privilege that members of this Parliament have been wrongfully intimidated in the course of their duties. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is required of a member who raises a matter of privilege that he present to you, as Speaker, and to the House all documentation at the time of raising the matter. The honourable member has failed to do this. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the matter raised and will consider it further. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the conferring on the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, MP, an honorary Doctorate of Laws by the Victoria University, New Zealand, in recognition of his role in developing the closer economic relations agreement between Australia and New Zealand; (2) congratulates the Leader of the National Party on his unceasing and visionary efforts to promote trade between Australia and New Zealand; and (3) reaffirms its commitment to closer economic relations as the best mechanism for promoting and maintaining fair and equitable trade with our New Zealand friends and allies. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the alarming spread of the weed Paterson's curse, now being experienced throughout large areas of the south-east of Australia; and (2) urges the Government to introduce urgent legislation which will enable the biological control of this weed to be resumed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the Government's intention to water down the proposed National Crimes Commission; (2) condemns the Government for being tempted to follow a soft options attitude to organised crime; and (3) is of the opinion that Government should live up to the expectation of the Australian community, and deal with the pervading and abominable blight of criminal corruption, using each and all of its powers. Notice of Motion Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy against Commonwealth employees and persons seeking to become Commonwealth employees, to prohibit discriminatory practices in Commonwealth employment, to prohibit sexual harassment of Commonwealth employees , and for related purposes. Notice of Motion Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy and other related matters in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think it would be appropriate for me to indicate to the House that in the gallery we have a distinguished visitor, Dr Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State of the United States of America. On behalf of the House I welcome him. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall that in answer to a question from me last week he quoted from a minute, put to him by his Department , containing a number of recommendations and from a cable of instructions on the Australian delegation's voting intentions on the United Nations General Assembly proposed resolution on Grenada. Does he agree, on rereading the cable he quoted, that the wording-namely, his instructions-was ambiguous? Why, on a matter of great importance such as this, did he rely on the views of other people to determine Australia's vote? As a consequence, was not that vote and the subsequent explanation both humiliating and damaging to Australia's reputation? In the future, on matters of such importance and sensitivity, will he give firm and unequivocal instructions? Mr HAYDEN —Certainly, in future I will give firm and unequivocal instructions in relation to votes. In short, I intend to change the procedure which was established when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Foreign Affairs, when the tendency was to follow substantial blocks of votes amongst the Western European nations and other groups of countries. My instruction was unequivocal, both in the submission sent to me by the Department, where I noted my instruction, and also in paragraph 3 of the cable, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. It states: For your reference, you should be aware that abstention reflects Mr Hayden's unwillingness to go beyond his statement of 31 October. The proposed resolution on Grenada goes beyond this significantly. Mr STEEDMAN —Is the Minister for Defence aware of recent newspaper reports that the Defence Secretary of the United Kingdom stated that women protesting at the stationing of nuclear missiles in England risk being shot? Noting that hundreds of Australian women are currently marching to the United States spy station at Pine Gap for a rally this Friday, can the Minister assure the House that the Government would never contemplate such an action? Can he tell the House the Government's position in regard to citizens exercising their democratic right to oppose foreign bases on our soil? Mr SCHOLES —Mr Speaker-- Mr Peacock —Do you regard Pine Gap as a United States spy station? Mr SCHOLES —Does the honourable member want to answer the question? Mr Peacock —I want you to confirm it. Why don't you tell us? Mr SCHOLES —Would the honourable member let me answer the question and keep quiet? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I call the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, I was not aware that there was to be a demonstration at a place which does not exist in Australia. I understand that a group of women are on the way to Pine Gap to protest. Pine Gap is a joint Australia-United States facility for which I am responsible to this Parliament. I should point out to the House that the application and administration of law in respect to the operations of the facility are in the hands of the Australian Federal Police. The surrounding area is the responsibility of the Northern Territory Police. The laws of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory apply in the respective areas of jurisdiction. Commonwealth law, I would think, does not cover the sorts of situations to which the honourable gentleman makes reference. Certainly there are not special conditions or provisions in respect of Pine Gap which are not also embodied in existing Commonwealth law. There are no military personnel, either Australian or American, at Pine Gap. The application and administration of the law at or near the facility will be undertaken by the Australian Federal Police or Northern Territory Police according to the jurisdiction in which the situation requires that the law be applied. The Government is aware of the concern of Australians and, indeed, people throughout the world, at the level and expansion rate of nuclear weapons capabilities. It has taken positive action to contribute to a reduction in the level of tension between the super-powers and in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. All Australians have the right to demonstrate, within the law, on matters about which they feel strongly. It is not the first time that statements like that of the British Defence Secretary have been made. I seem to recall that during the period of the Vietnam war, a Liberal Premier of New South Wales told his driver to 'run over the b...s' during a demonstration. I assure the honourable member that the application of Australian law at the facility-a joint Australia-United States facility for which I have administrative responsibility-will be in accordance with the manner in which the laws would be applied in any circumstances in Australia. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why was his Government unrepresented at last night's overflow education meeting in Sydney? Is it a fact that Senator Ryan declined to send a representative on her behalf? Is it also a fact that the Prime Minister was approached with a view to a representative of the Government attending, but without avail? Why is this Government so indifferent to the genuine concern of hundreds of thousands of Australian parents who want freedom of choice in education? Lastly, why did the Prime Minister leave it to Ron Mulock, the New South Wales Minister for Education, to carry the can last night for Senator Ryan's misguided policies? Mr HAWKE —I am informed by Senator Ryan that the circumstances of the calling of the meeting and the timing of her invitation were in terms where those organising the meeting knew it was impossible for her to be there. Secondly, I am not aware of any invitation to me personally. I am not saying that something may not have been in the system; I am not aware of any approach to me. Let me get to the substance of the question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is a fact that the meeting was organised by a coalition of two forces-a group of people, on the one hand, who have some quite misguided interpretation of the effect of the Government's education policy in regard to the Catholic education system and, on the other hand, a group of people representing the 41 most privileged and elite schools in this country. This Government makes no apology for the substance, thrust and direction of its education policy. This policy involved a substantial real increase in the allocation of funds in 1983-84. It involved a new direction in that our education policy and the allocation of funds under it will be according to need. In the event that has meant that within the Catholic education system, for instance, there will be a substantial improvement in the position of the poorest parish schools which deserve assistance and will get it. Our policy towards the 41 most privileged schools in this country is based on the belief-to which I firmly adhere, and which this Government is proud of-that where limited funds are available for education and for the other great calls upon the resources of this Government it is appropriate, fair, equitable and, in the long term, most efficient that those funds should be given preference in direction to the poorer schools in this country. This is not a system, a concept , or a program for which we apologise. We are proud of it. Most importantly, I assure the Opposition that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people, and the public and the private education systems, thoroughly approve of the Government's system, unlike the miserable criteria of the Opposition which seeks to get some electoral advantage. Mr LEO McLEAY —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment: Is it a fact that community arts have always been the poor relation in Australia Council funding? Is the Minister aware that the Australia Council allocated a paltry $2. 5m to community arts in its 1982-83 budget from a total budget of $34.5m and that the Council's present budget is $37.9m? Will the Minister explain the Government's policy objective of improving the position of community arts and inform the House what action he has taken to ensure that the Australia Council's allocation to community arts out of its 1983-84 budget is more in line with the Government's objectives and the community's aspirations? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for the question. As members are probably aware, there has been a bit of discussion of late about the Australia Council and its role. It is probably opportune in answer to this question to make it clear where the Government stands regarding the role of the Australia Council. When we became the Government I made it clear that I saw the role of the Australia Council as being to implement the guidelines of the Government's policy which were specifically to have greater access for the community and greater participation. It was suggested that the way to achieve this was to introduce a touring program so that people in the outback areas, in provincial towns and in outer urban parts of Australia could have a greater opportunity to see and hear some of Australia's top artistic performers. As well as that, we wanted an extension of the community crafts program. I am sure all honourable members are aware of the growth in community arts over recent years. I have asked the Australia Council to do just that. There has been some suggestion in recent days that the Government is telling the Australia Council what to do. Let me assure honourable members that that is not the case. The actual decision making process will be for the Australia Council. But I am sure honourable members will accept the fact that it is its responsibility to undertake to follow the guidelines set down by the Government and not to go its own way. Another matter has surfaced; that is the question of where the Australia Council should be located. There has been a view that Melbourne has been seriously disadvantaged by the Australia Council being located in Sydney and that Sydney is becoming the cultural centre of Australia as a result of many arts bodies being located there. This is a matter that is now being studied by the group set up by the Cultural Ministers' Conference. Just to correct the impression, Dr Pascoe has not resigned from the Australia Council, but from the study group. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Firstly, will the Government pay compensation to the companies developing uranium mines at Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Yeelirrie in Western Australia , Ben Lomond in Queensland and others following yesterday's Caucus decision to ban new uranium mines in Australia? Secondly, will the Government pay compensation to those States and the Northern Territory for the economic benefits which would have flowed to their citizens if these mines had gone ahead ? Will the Government pay compensation to the Aboriginal people for the royalties and other payments they will lose as a result of this policy? Mr KEATING —Firstly, to my knowledge no claim has been lodged with the Commonwealth Government in respect of compensation. Secondly, it is a matter for each government to determine, particularly in regard to a strategic material such as uranium, precisely what basis of development it should undertake. Honourable members will be familiar with the report of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry which stated that in the Northern Territory-to which the honourable gentleman referred, amongst other places-a sequential basis of development was appropriate. The question, of course, ignores the whole market implications of the sale of uranium in the world at the moment. It has been in gross over-supply for some time, with the decline of the nuclear industry, as the Western economies went into a recession some time ago. Indeed, they have not recovered from that. The contracts that were written for the Nabarlek and Ranger mines were the last bloom of the demand for uranium as a result of the growth in the reactor construction program which was occasioned by the movement in oil prices in the early 1970s. In the Government's terms there is a very strong case to be made for an orderly basis of development in this commodity as, indeed, in every other commodity. Therefore, the honourable gentleman's question presumed that cash flows were available which may never be available. The whole matter of compensation, as such, is not one which has arisen to date. Mr KLUGMAN —Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General ask the Attorney -General to take a strong stand against the attempt at political blackmail by Mr Costigan to ensure his continued employment at the rate of over $400,000 a year? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not aware of any attempt at blackmail by Mr Costigan. I would think the Attorney-General is well aware of the need to establish a crimes authority. I know that legislation will be introduced to bring that about. I have not met Mr Costigan. I would regard him highly. I must say, in fairness to Mr Costigan, who was appointed by the previous Government, that I value his reports. We owe the fact that we are now in government to many of the matters that were disclosed by Mr Costigan. Mr STEELE HALL —Is the Prime Minister aware of the newsletter entitled 'Hard Facts for Hard Times' published by Joan Coxsedge, MLC, suggesting that Mr Justice Hope may be appointed Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and that Mr McHugh, QC, may be appointed Solicitor-General? Has the Prime Minister decided to make these appointments after the retirement of the respective office holders? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the honourable member's question is no, and that is because, amongst the great demands upon my time and the many important things I have to read, I must assert that anything written by Mrs Coxsedge comes very low on the list. I know that will bring joy and comfort to one and all in the House! No, I am not aware of it, and I will not be taking steps after Question Time to read it. In regard to the substance of the question, if indeed one can discern any substance in it, of course the Government has made no decision in respect of the matters raised by the honourable member. Ms MAYER —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that in September of this year Miss Catherine Hunter, a student at Witwatersrand University in South Africa, was detained by the South African security police? I understand that Miss Hunter is still being held without trial. Does the Minister have any further information about Miss Hunter? Mr HAYDEN —I have to remove my spectacles for concentration. Mr Hodgman —The first dixer of the day. Mr HAYDEN —When I remove them the honourable member for Denison disappears into a blur like a blancmange exposed to the midday sun in summer. I am grateful to the honourable member for mentioning to me earlier in the day her very serious concern about this matter. Accordingly, I took the opportunity to obtain what substantial facts I could on it. As a result of that, I am able to tell the House that on 7 September 1983 Miss Catherine Hunter, a 23-year-old student at the University of Witwatersrand, was detained by South African security police in Johannesburg. I understand she is being held to appear as a witness at the trial this month of another student from the University of Witwatersrand, Mr Karl Niehaus, who has been charged with treason. Those of us familiar with the legal standards in these matters in South Africa realise that by our standards, civilised standards, an extraordinarily thin case is frequently sufficient to substantiate such charges. I understand that Miss Hunter is being held under the Internal Security Act, under the provisions of which she is not entitled to access to a lawyer or allowed to communicate with anyone other than the police or other state officials. She could be held indefinitely without being brought to trial. According to the South African Press, Miss Hunter is the fifteenth student from the University of Witwatersrand to be detained this year. Thirteen of those students have been released without charges being laid against them. Miss Hunter's detention in solitary confinement came to public attention on 31 October when her mother, Mrs Lucienne Hunter, questioned the South African Prime Minister, Mr Botha, at a recent referendum rally in Johannesburg. Mrs Hunter asked the Prime Minister to ensure justice for state witnesses under the new constitution. Mr Botha is reported to have replied that state witnesses were sometimes held in solitary confinement to protect them from intimidation. The Prime Minister provided no further information about Miss Hunter's detention. I conclude by pointing out that the Australian Government is most concerned that people can be held in detention without trial and without proper process of law in South Africa. The Australian Embassy in Pretoria is keeping me informed of developments in this case. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: In light of the strength of his expression of concern for the position of the poorer Catholic schools in our education system, will he give an unequivocal assurance that the cancelling of the former Government's funding formula for non-state schools will not in any circumstances in the future result in a lower level of funding for the poorer Catholic parochial schools than would have obtained from a continuation of that formula? In answering the question, can the Prime Minister explain why his colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has on several occasions declined to give such an assurance in response to similar questions in the Senate? Mr HAWKE —This Government's education policy in general, and the funding aspect of it in particular, will not be determined by a consideration of what may have been in the mind of the previous Government, because that Government's policy was an unmitigated disaster. We have a clear view of the appropriate education policy to be followed and of the funding requirements under that policy. It is not a policy which has been arrived at simply by internal discussion within the Australian Labor Party; it has been arrived at after widespread discussion throughout the community with the public and the private education systems, including the Catholic education system. Mr Howard —Answer the question. Why don't you answer the question? Mr HAWKE —That policy, which was put to the people of Australia at the election on 5 March, was one of the reasons why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is sitting on the other side of the House now. As we did in the consideration of our Budget this year, we will ensure as we go into the Budget considerations next year that the highest possible allocation of funds is available to this Government for the education system and that those funds will be allocated in a way which combines the requirements of efficiency and equity. It is because that policy, which, as I have said, was so widely accepted in March, will continue to be effective, that we will on the next occasion we are returned to office, continue for a much longer period to implement it. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister seen the article in today's Australian which outlines sweeping changes in nursing education in New South Wales? Is it a fact that in that State student nurses will be replaced by qualified nurses in public hospitals and that as from 1985 nurses will be educated in tertiary institutions and not in hospitals? In light of the federal inquiry into nursing education carried out by Dr Sidney Sax in 1978, is the Federal Government supportive of this innovative change? Mr DAWKINS —I have seen the article to which the honourable member for Canning referred, following her drawing it to my attention. The report indicates that the New South Wales Government intends to move towards concentrating nursing education in colleges of advanced education rather than in hospitals. This is a matter which the Government has under study. Indeed, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs is awaiting a report from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in relation to the matter because in respect of the next triennium starting in 1985 decisions will have to be made in respect of which places in which CAEs would be funded as a result of such a policy. There are, of course, other implications for the Commonwealth and, indeed, for students because tertiary education assistance scheme allowances are available for students in CAEs and universities only if those students requesting or applying for them are engaged in courses funded by the Commonwealth. So there are important issues involving both the State Government, in terms of the provision of trained staff for hospitals, and the Commonwealth. I know that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has this matter under study. I know that she is sympathetic to the notion and I am sure that she will be making announcements about it as soon as she has the report from CTEC. Mr MacKELLAR —I draw the Prime Minister's attention to today's newspaper reports on the decision of Association of South East Asian Nations foreign Ministers to refer to him the dispute that has arisen over Australia's policy towards Vietnam 's occupation of Kampuchea. Notwithstanding his previous assurances, does he now recognise that ASEAN's decision to suspend dialogue with Australia pending these talks is a serious development? What policies will be put in place to overcome these differences which have developed over a matter fundamental to the security interests of ASEAN and Australia? Mr HAWKE —I welcome the question from the honourable member for Warringah. Neither the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor I have sought to deny the fact that some degree of difficulty has arisen in the minds of our ASEAN friends and colleagues as a result of the decision of our Government not to co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea. It would be futile to attempt to deny that fact. But there has been an overblowing by some people of the situation. I suggest to the honourable member that the best interests of this country are not served by an attempt on the part of people in this country to overstate that situation. I will repeat what I said to the House before on this issue as a matter of substance and will then come to what we intend to do about it. I remind the House that what I said was that the Foreign Minister and I have made it quite clear that we agree with the substantial thrust of the resolution of the ASEAN countries, and, indeed, of course, we voted for it. In the General Assembly our representative subsequently made a very clear statement in respect of the question of the presence of the troops of Vietnam in Kampuchea; he unequivocally condemned that action and said that a necessary condition of the achievement of a proper resolution of the tragic situation in Kampuchea required the withdrawal of those troops. The point in respect of the resolution which caused us not to co-sponsor was a difference of emphasis in regard to the coalition in Kampuchea which, as honourable members know, contains the Khmer Rouge forces. This Government could not bring itself to agree with the emphasis there which appears, even inferentially, to endorse those forces. Having said that, the Foreign Minister and I have discussed this issue because we do not want to see any misunderstanding on the part of our ASEAN colleagues. I believe the Foreign Minister will today be speaking to the representatives of the ASEAN countries and I will be stopping in Thailand on my way to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. We will be there for some three days-at the invitation, naturally, of the Prime Minister of Thailand-and talks are scheduled with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. I am totally confident that after I have had those discussions and after my colleague the Foreign Minister has had his discussions with the representatives of the ASEAN countries, they will fully understand the considerations which were in our minds. I assure all honourable members of this House that the basic position of this Government in regard to the tragedy of Kampuchea is at one with that of our colleagues of ASEAN. The conditions that we see as necessary-a view which I believe will be shared by all members of this House-for the resolution of that matter are: Firstly, the withdrawal of the forces of Vietnam; secondly, that in any vacuum so created there be left no condition whereby the murderous forces of Pol Pot will be once again able to re-establish the sort of regime which terrorised and tyrannised that country tragically for so long; and, thirdly, that there will be the opportunity for the people of Kampuchea freely to express their will and to determine the form of government that they will have, and, within that situation, an opportunity for the return of the Kampuchean refugees. Mr YOUNG —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology and is related to the earlier questions asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition . I ask the Minister: Is he satisfied that all Australian young people are being given an equal opportunity of achieving the skills that will be required in Australia's future high technology industries? For instance, could he give an example of what chance a young person in his electorate would have against that of a young person in the electorate of Bennelong of achieving such skills? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Port Adelaide. If there is one major problem so far as the education base of this country is concerned, it is found in a number of traditional, safe Labor electorates with a traditional industrial base. Mr Speaker, your electorate is one of them, so is mine, so is the Prime Minister's and so is that of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Among the advantaged electorates are the electorates of Kooyong, Bennelong and many of those in North Sydney and in the-- Mr Goodluck —The electorate of Franklin? Mr BARRY JONES —No, the electorate of Franklin in Tasmania is uniquely disadvantaged for a number of reasons. Strangely, the electorate of Denison has above average representation in educational terms, although not perhaps necessarily in terms of its member. It is a tragic situation that in those traditional industrial areas the educational response is the most limited and the capacity of people to make an instant response to the new technology is extremely limited. As Raymond Williams always says, the worst thing about the British tradition of education is the oddity that the slowest learners have had the least time to learn and the fastest learners have had the longest time to learn. The situation is the exact reverse of what it should be. I am very conscious that in my electorate, in the electorate of Chifley and in the electorate of Burke there is a very limited skill base because so few young people have had the opportunity to complete secondary education, let alone go on to tertiary education. It is taken as axiomatic that working class children drop out of school at the first opportunity and the figures confirm it. Mr Goodluck —That is a lot of rot. Mr BARRY JONES —Let me talk about the situation in Tasmania for a minute because it illustrates the point particularly well. If honourable members look at the figures to be found in the 1981 Electorate Atlas put out by the Parliamentary Library they will find that of the five Tasmanian seats one is well above the national average in terms of the skill base and that is Denison. The electorate of Bass is right in the middle. The other three electorates in Tasmania are well below the national average. That means that the capacity to change, the capacity for people to adapt and to go towards the new kinds of employment that need higher levels of formal training, is not there. That is one of the reasons why I and this Government believe that there has to be a redistribution of resources downwards. That redistribution of resources must do something to improve the capacity of people who have come from an impoverished economic and educational background. Otherwise, the terrible tradition of inequality, the widening gap between the information rich and the information poor, will continue. That would be unconscionable and it will not happen under this Government. Mr LLOYD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. In relation to impending Government decisions on the ownership and use of the domestic satellites I ask the Minister whether he has considered or will now consider the disadvantages for television stations and viewers in the capital cities other than Sydney if networking by 30-watt transponders in national beam is approved rather than networking through the States by 12-watt transponders in State beam. Does he believe that networking by such a 12-watt State system would allow superior State capital city and regional programming for news, sport and localism generally? Would it overcome time zone and censorship problems and provide greater protection for State, regional and capital city stations against unauthorised direct broadcasting? Would it silence the criticism of State Premiers against direct national networking from Sydney? Finally, is the Minister aware of the criticism that the network 30-watt transponder campaign is really to prevent the successful introduction of pay television into Australia? Mr DUFFY —As I have indicated on more than one occasion in the past few weeks, all the matters raised by the honourable member for Murray relating to the use of the satellite are currently under consideration by the Cabinet. I do not intend to discuss those matters in this House until they have been fully considered and decisions have been made by the Cabinet. However, all the matters of significance that were raised-or those that I can certainly remember; there were quite a few of them-in relation to the broadcasting uses of the satellite are matters which the Government has under consideration. Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Defence Support aware of claims being made by certain staff unions at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory that the Government is planning to procure armaments overseas to the detriment of defence establishments such as the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government has no such plans and that employees of the factory have no grounds for such anxiety? Mr HOWE —I should like to thank the honourable member for Calare for his question . I think the honourable member's interest is very well known. He was very prompt to visit the factory after the recent floods there. I think he observed publicly what a magnificent job the workers and the management did in getting that factory back into shape after the damage that it suffered. In terms of the proposal for the new weapons, the short list for evaluation trials is currently under consideration by the Defence Source Definition Committee. A number of options are being considered, including a number of options in terms of design. Two Australian companies are being considered for the design of both the individual rifle and the light support weapon or machine gun that will be manufactured. The final evaluation of the short list for contending weapons is planned for completion at the end of 1984 and the final selection is to be endorsed by the Government in mid-1985. At the Small Arms Factory a great deal of work is being done preparing detailed capability, establishment and production cost estimates for consideration later by the Force Structure Committee. We are also carrying out a study of relevant capabilities of Australian industry. Work in relation to 5.56 millimetre ammunition will be carried out at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray. For this contract the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, has to compete at least in terms of international standards. Many Department of Defence Support establishments over many years have lacked the investment and support of governments. The Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, is currently going through a process of improvement of its facilities and its plant . I am very confident that it has a very bright future in manufacturing small arms for the Australian defence requirement. Mr GROOM —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. What has happened to his promise to increase zone allowances by 25 per cent? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, we have started to deliver that promise. As you will recall , in the Budget provisions were made for meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged-the pensioners-in zone A. You will appreciate that because of the way in which the taxation system operated they had been disadvantaged. We moved, therefore, to give assistance to those most in need. I do not think the Opposition really wants another serve as to the constraints that were imposed upon this Government when it came to office and discovered the $3.6 billion deception which had been practised. Honourable members opposite lied to the Australian people during the election campaign. They lied to the extent of $3.6 billion. When we came to Government we were, as a result of the Opposition's deception, $3.6 billion- Mr Groom —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister a straight question and I expect a straight answer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, because of the utter deception of those opposite we were confronted with that devastating situation and we had to re-order our priorities. Fortunately, I had indicated on the Wednesday before the election that if when we came to government we discovered that we had been lied to-of course, being the charitable soul I am, I hoped that it would not be the case-we would have to re-order our priorities. The test is quite clear. We did that. We have moved to give effect to the most important of our promises. We have indicated that during the life of this Government, and the two, three or four that will follow, we will give effect not only to the promises of February-March but also go far and away beyond that. The test is there. We have now been in government for some eight months and all the opinion polls show that we have improved our standing considerably since the election of March. That has been most recently confirmed by the miserable performance of the Liberal Party in the Moreton by-election when it was capable of getting a swing of less than 1 1/2 per cent against the average of 4 per cent. Mr CHYNOWETH —I direct the attention of the Minister for Transport to the threat posed to Australia's coastline by pollution from shipping, especially oil spills . In the light of the Government's announced policy to promote, ratify and apply international maritime conventions, what action has it taken since coming to office? Mr PETER MORRIS —I acknowledge the honourable member's concern about the protection of the environment, particularly having in mind that the Flinders electorate is bordered on one side by Western Port Bay, on the other by Port Phillip Bay and has on those shores the oil installation at Crib Point and other associated industrial installations. It is timely that the honourable member should raise this question because only yesterday the Secretary to the Department of Transport, Mr Taylor, lodged with the International Maritime Organisation in London six instruments of accession, four to international conventions and two to associated protocols. The deposit of those instruments follows extensive consultation between the Federal Government, each of the State governments and the Northern Territory Government. It indicates the very high priority accorded by this Government to the ratification of international transport conventions and bringing Australia up to date and into line with the most widely accepted world standards. I bring to the House's attention a cable that I received this morning from the Secretary to the Department relating to the presentation of these instruments in which he states that the Secretary- General of the International Maritime Organisation-IMO-Mr C. D. Srivastava, expressed genuine pleasure at the receipt- - Mr Lusher —Are you reading from something? Mr MORRIS —Would the honourable member like a copy of the document? I know that it would help him. If the honourable member will listen I will read it slowly so that he will understand it better. Mr Lusher —Why don't you make a statement? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting. The Minister will complete his answer. Mr Lusher —How long has this been going on? Mr SPEAKER —Order! When the honourable member for Hume is warned not to interject, will he please take some notice? Mr PETER MORRIS —The Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation, Mr C. D. Srivastava, expressed genuine pleasure at receipt of the instruments and our support for IMO's works. The cable continued: He also applauded the efforts Australia had made to become party to the conventions and said the receipt of four conventions in one day was a record. He said that he would propose to draw Australia's actions to the attention of the assembly of the IMO. I refer to the four conventions involved. The Intervention Convention will allow Australia to take appropriate action if faced with a grave and imminent threat of pollution or of a marine casualty, which will include salvaging, sinking, destroying or removing cargo from the offending vessels. The international convention relating to civil liability will ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffered damage caused by pollution, resulting from the escape or discharge of oil from ships. The search and rescue convention is the third one, and the fourth one is the convention on standards of training certification on watch-keeping for seafarers. It relates to the competency of seamen. Two other conventions will come into operation later this year. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to round off his answer. I believe those conventions were mentioned earlier. Mr PETER MORRIS —This shows the delay accorded these very important conventions by the previous Government. It is our determination to bring Australia into line to protect our marine environment and to protect the shores of Australia from pollution. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I understand that the honourable member for Grayndler intends to lodge a request for detailed information relating to the administration of the parliamentary departments. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Mr Speaker, I seek information in relation to the operation of the parliamentary departments. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to hand his request to the Clerk. If the request is in order, it will be printed in Hansard today. In due course, I will provide a written answer which will also be printed in Hansard. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to raise a point of order? Mr Hodgman-I want to speak to the matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER —I indicated, in relation to the question of privilege, that if the honourable member supplies the material I shall consider it and make a statement to the House. There will be no further debate on the matter. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker, do you want me to table it now? Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member supply it to the Clerk. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for September 1983. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of the Special Minister of State annual report for 1982-83. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Acting Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the 117th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, held in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, on 1 August 1983. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the medical research report for 1982. The 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. by Mr Andrew,Dr Blewett,Mr Carlton,Mr Connolly,Mr Cowan,Mr Drummond,Mrs Kelly,Ms McHugh,Mr McVeigh,Mr Mildren,Mr Millar,Mr Simmons and Mr Wilson. 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 Aldred,Mr Brumby,Mrs Child,Mr Dobie,Mr Free,Mr Howard,Ms McHugh and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school parent club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents' clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base, Richmond, would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. 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 Groom. 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 Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we women of Australia feel the threat of the nuclear arms race to our world, our children and our future. That the threat of nuclear war in Australia is greatly increased by the presence of foreign bases. That we affirm Pine Gap near Alice Springs is one such key foreign communication base. Is a crucial link in the arms race, used for locating targets and therefore a prime target in the event of nuclear war. That we support the national women's action to oppose the presence of Pine Gap and call for the removal of all foreign bases in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are acutely aware of the adverse economic impact on the grain growing industry of the 15 per cent tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. Your petitioners are aware that the Federal Government as the duly elected national government of the Australian people apparently wishes to assist the local grain harvester manufacturing industry. Your petitioners are aware that the cost of that protection is being involuntarily borne by the grain growing industry. We petition the Federal Government to relieve the grain growing industry of the unfair and discriminatory tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the unemployment benefit for minors aged sixteen and seventeen years has not increased in line with inflation and cost of living expenses and that it is impossible to obtain adequate food, transport, clothing and shelter on the current benefit of $40.00 per week. 2. That adequate food, clothing and shelter is the right of every human being and those people aged 16 and 17 years share the same costs for food, transport, clothing and shelter as those people aged 18 years and over. 3. That the unemployment benefit for minors is, at May 1983, $80.00 per week below the poverty line. 4. That the unemployment benefit for minors has risen by only $4.00 in eight years (since November 1975)-an increase of 11 per cent-compared with an increase in the adult rate of $29.90, or 77 per cent, over the same period of time. 5. That the Government is discriminating against those people aged 16 and 17 years by failing to maintain their unemployment benefit in line with those people aged 18 years and over. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 1. Immediately increase the unemployment benefit for minors to establish equal parity to those rates existing in 1975. 2. Increase the unemployment benefit for minors to that of the unemployment benefit for adults in the next Budget. 3. Bring the adult unemployment benefit rate in line with the poverty-line level and maintain it at this rate thereafter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Punch. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill will reaffirm the commitment of the Australian Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all people through equal rights for women and men. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond stereotyped concepts of the roles of the sexes in society. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role, including traditional parental roles. Instead, it recognises the democratic right of all Australians to fully participate in the life of the community. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing anti-discrimination legislation. In this way, it recognises that many Australian women are disadvantaged by discriminatory practices, and particularly recognises the problem of sexual harassment. We, the undersigned, believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and will thus contribute towards making ours a more truly democratic society. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable members of the House of Representatives will support the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of this immediate area respectfully showeth: That they recognise the necessity for an increase in the Caloundra Community Youth Support Scheme's funding. It is imperative they receive this increase to pay for extra staff and facilities to cope with ever increasing problems of the unemployed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government see the necessity and grant the extra funds. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully shows last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent 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 McVeigh. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Parliament Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 1983 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1983 Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1983 Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983 Archives Bill 1983 Copyright Amendment Bill 1983 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious national implications of the Government's uranium decision. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.07) —Mr Speaker-- Mr Steedman —Take the smile off your face. Mr PEACOCK —I raise as a matter of public importance: The serious national implications of the Government's uranium decision. I am being supported by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) but I am sure that the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) who has just interjected would like to join me in support. Mr Steedman —I have not heard the argument yet. Mr PEACOCK —Is the honourable member for Casey not coming in today? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Casey will cease interjecting and will not respond to the invitations of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —We have the possibility of a poor shadow seconder in the honourable member for Casey. I doubt whether this Parliament has seen a more unprincipled, more illogical and more discriminatory decision than that made by Caucus yesterday. The honourable member for Casey would agree with that, would he not? As the honourable member for Casey is saying nothing I will get on with my argument. The fact is that yesterday's decision is riddled with contradictions and dishonesty. But through all this let there be absolutely no doubt that the thrust of the decision-this the honourable member for Casey will not agree with- is anti-uranium. As Mr Bannon, the Premier of South Australia, said after yesterday's Caucus outcome: The Labor Party remains an anti-uranium Party. Hypocrisy, illogicality, discriminatory; you name it. I repeat what the Premier said after yesterday's Caucus outcome: The Labor Party remains an anti-uranium Party. The reality, of course, is that there are no new mines except Roxby, no new contracts except those recently negotiated by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, and it means the possible revision of even existing contracts in line with the results of the proposed inquiry. To put that in perspective, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Caucus yesterday voted for the loss of $1,100m of investment. The Prime Minister and Caucus yesterday voted for the destruction of thousands of jobs. The Prime Minister and Caucus yesterday voted to damage Australia's reputation as a reliable, long term supplier. Caucus did vote for Roxby to proceed. We welcome this one significant pro- uranium part of the decision. Roxby has the potential to become one of the great mines of the world and underpin the recovery of a very depressed South Australian economy. But even the Prime Minister, with his instinctive impulse to be all things to all men, cannot hide the shameful discrimination in the decision against the people of the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. He cannot hide the discrimination against the employees and shareholders in the projects which have been arbitrarily rejected. The fact is that the Prime Minister and his Government have set South Australia against other States and Australian against Australian in a betrayal of national unity and equity all for the sake of party political survival. For what reason could the Cabinet and Caucus possibly say yes to Roxby but no to the Jabiluka, Honeymoon, Beverley and Koongarra projects and no to all the projects in Queensland and Western Australia? Is the uranium from Roxby clean? Is the uranium from Jabiluka dirty? The Chairman of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, Tony Grey, said yesterday: Does this mean that the Government has decided on a new kind of mineral? Good uranium when it's mined with copper, and bad uranium when it's mined by itself? This nation is now saddled with a government which is trying to go in two directions at once on uranium. What could be the biggest uranium mine in the world could go ahead but the uranium industry as a whole is to be phased out. How ridiculous can we get? How can any government put this forward as a serious attempt to respond to a serious issue? The Government has adopted this policy because the Prime Minister has no firm policy direction and needs to salvage his credibility after his gaff to the Business Council of Australia when he announced an alleged Government decision to proceed with Roxby Downs. This policy aims unquestionably at propping up the sagging Bannon Government in South Australia. The Prime Minister, to cover his own inadequacies, to satisfy his own vanity and to save the neck of his immoral accomplice, Mr Bannon, has resorted to total and extreme hypocrisy. In Caucus Paper No. 1 the Cabinet outlines, and correctly so, all the good reasons why uranium should go ahead. But then it supports a recommendation which , on moral grounds, allows some mines and not others. How can the Government reconcile a policy which calls for the phasing out of uranium and then say it will proceed with it at Roxby Downs? How can we go along with what was put in the Prime Minister's Caucus Paper No. 1 by the Cabinet, outlining all the reasons for uranium going ahead, but support a recommendation on moral grounds that allows one mine to proceed but not others? The Prime Minister has not only resorted to this low level, but he also went even deeper into the mire yesterday in obviously promoting leaks that the policy of the Australian Labor Party will be changed at the next national conference to allow any mine to be developed. When will this Prime Minister have the courage to come clean with the Australian people on what he actually plans for the future of the uranium industry? Instead , he seeks to have the best of both worlds while sacrificing the future of a potential major industry. It was with the accession to the leadership of the Labor Party by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) that the industry in fact saw some hope that there might be a more moderate and more sensible uranium policy. That hope has been lost in the turmoil and confusion surrounding Labor Party decisions on this issue. Let us listen to a few. What do Mr Dolan and Mr Wriedt say? They say Australian Labor Party policy means the phasing out of the industry and the abandonment of Roxby. When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) were asked for their views on this matter, they said they did not know what ALP policy means. The Prime Minister and the majority of the Cabinet say that ALP policy allows the development of Roxby and the uncertainty, confusion and the turmoil continues. Let us not run away from reality. Two distinct and major threats are coming down the line. The first threat will be by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Cliff Dolan has clearly indicated that the ACTU will be fighting with every means at its disposal to reverse the Caucus decision. This must ultimately mean industrial action. The Prime Minister can hardly complain if the ACTU and its President use union muscle to pursue their own ideologies. The Prime Minister was guilty of using it to pursue his own personal views and yet in spite of the ACTU policy and in spite of Mr Dolan's confrontation comments, the Prime Minister continues to live in some sort of cloud cuckoo land and say: 'I don't anticipate any problems with the ACTU at all'. See the smiles on the faces of certain members opposite. The second major threat is the very strong possibility that the next Federal Labor Conference scheduled for July 1984 will overturn the Caucus decision. In a desperate bid to pre-empt the problem, the Prime Minister declared yesterday that Caucus members who are delegates to the conference will have to vote for the Caucus decision. He later admitted that this was not the rule. Some leader, some Prime Minister, who does not even know the rules pertaining to his own Party. That is the charitable view. Mr Steedman —Your Party does not have any rules. Mr PEACOCK —That may well be so, but that is the charitable view that we take. The reality is that to seek to pre-empt the problem, he thought he could use yet another device to keep members in harness behind him. In fact, the Prime Minister only continues to deepen the division and to deepen the indecision. With regard to the next conference, he stated: I believe that by the time we get to the National Conference, it is very likely that we will have sorted out an accommodating position. What does 'an accommodating position' mean? Does it mean that the details of the Caucus decision are still open to negotiation? Does it mean that the Government would disregard any rejection by the conference of the Caucus decision, or does it mean that the Prime Minister will continuously do deals with the various factions to buy their support? I will lay any money that honourable members like that that is what will be done. Time and again deals will be done with the Left to get programs through to ensure 'an accommodation' at the next conference. I will not embarrass the honourable member who shook his head then, indicating that there will be no deals with the Left. Mr Hand —There won't be. Mr PEACOCK —There will not be any more deals by the Prime Minister with the Left ? Are all bets off? There will be no deals with the Left, but there will be every endeavour to make such deals. I hope that the Left holds firm. I hope it holds firm for the better government of this country, because this man is primarily a manipulator of men and policies. To get his own way he will manipulate devices. He will do so simply to get his viewpoint through. The tragedy for Australia will be if, to try to get this so-called accommodation at the next Federal conference, he will seek to do deals with members all over the place. Perhaps the first deal, for all we know, was the watered down version of the National Crimes Commission Bill. It is nothing like the Crimes Commission Bill which we planned to introduce. We know the tactics of the Labor Party: Get rid of Costigan, get rid of Stewart, put forward a watered down version of the Bill to protect Wran and his rotten Government in New South Wales. They are the sorts of deals that the Government has been doing. They are the sorts of deals that will flow from the nonsense of the decision yesterday and the endeavour to reach an accommodation at the next Federal conference. He cannot any longer achieve true consensus, so now he must buy it. He buys it by misusing the programs that ought to be used for the betterment of the Government of this country. The factions in the Labor Party cannot seem to get clear the facts about this so-called policy. Let me point out what this policy does not achieve. It is not a policy designed to achieve the sensible development of an important export industry. It is simply a policy designed to rescue the credibility of both the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia. It is not a policy which provides a framework for reasoned discussion of Australia's role in the world nuclear debate. It is a policy aimed at papering over growing splits in the Labor Party in this House and outside it. For all the moral outrage claimed by Labor on uranium, this decision will do nothing to advance these moral issues with which the Government claims to be concerned. Lastly, it is not a policy which aims at generating real development and real jobs. The sad reality is that this Government has now shown that on the really hard issues it can come up only with unprincipled compromises; compromises which continue the uncertainty; compromises which hold up Australia to ridicule. Yesterday was no doubt a sad day for many honourable members opposite; indeed, a sad day for the Labor Party. Honourable members on this side of the House can see that from the expressions of honourable members in the chamber at present. No doubt it was a sad day for the Labor Party, but it was an even sadder day for Australia. The tragedy of it all is the destruction of an industry and the proclamation of moral motivations that people are opposed to uranium and the ALP wants to phase it out, but will let it develop in one state for but one reason- to prop up a diminishing government, namely, the Bannon Government in South Australia. Some morality! Some principle! Some Government which, on an issue as fundamental as this, providing as many jobs as it does, providing an industry which will grow, and providing the opportunity for greater purchase and leverage in non-proliferation issues around the world, ends up with a no to uranium around Australia with one exception simply to prop up the Government of South Australia. It is a sad day for Labor, a sadder day for Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.22) —Again the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has ventured into this area of uranium. He has written a couple of letters proposing matters of public importance on this subject, but usually, it is worthy of comment, these matters are left to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) to raise. On the last occasion a debate on this subject took place the Leader of the National Party led for the Opposition. We have had a number of discussions of matters of public importance on this subject in recent weeks. The most significant thing about all those discussions of matters of public importance was the Opposition's decrying what is wrong with Australian Labor Party policy. Today, apart from some aberration by referring to a crimes commission and all sorts of other matters which do not seem to be very relevant to this issue, the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be suggesting that there is a problem for this nation in the export of uranium. Let me make the position very clear. As far back as 16 September the honourable gentleman suggested, amongst other matters, that Roxby Downs and a capital gains tax were married. He was attempting to show that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had misled the nation. It is sour grapes to suggest in the House today, following the decision of the Government yesterday in its Caucus, that something has happened which in any way will affect the uranium industry to its detriment. Let us look at what the Labor Party has done. I will quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, which I know usually does not advocate Labor policy. It states that Labor's policy and decisions yesterday permit the continued operation of the uranium projects at Ranger and Nabarlek, which they do. It continues: Roxby Downs . . . can be developed along with its massive copper reserves and its subsidiary gold reserves. That is the key to Roxby Downs. It continues: A number of other uranium projects, most of which are of questionable economic viability . . . Is that not the issue? We have heard today a diatribe of abuse against the Labor Party because it has a democratic process whereby anybody can assemble and express his views. The issue has come out very clearly in the democratic process : There are two existing mines in operation and they should be allowed to continue, subject to other matters which I will mention shortly. I come to the nub of the question which has always bedevilled Australia. It is the tragedy of Liberal-National Party philosophy. In fairness to the Liberal Party, I suppose that it can be said that it has always abdicated the field of resource development and left it to the good old National Party. In the recent election in Queensland the Liberals were thrashed almost to extinction and are no longer a viable political force in that State. The resource mentality of the Premier of Queensland is to sell our resources to any other country rather than keep them in Australia for Australia's economic benefit and gain. But we do not hear any complaint about that from the Liberal Party. In fact, it is so weak and inept that one wonders whether it will survive. We hope that the Leader of the Opposition survives. We want to see him at the next election. It will guarantee our return to government. That position is very evident at present. A fair amount of time was taken up in referring to the Australian Labor Party and its problems. We do not have any problems, but we think the Liberal Party has immense problems when it comes to issues such as those raised today, because it has never had a policy relating to uranium. In fact, it has been mentioned by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) that the Liberal Party has no policy on uranium and it is left to the National Party to talk about it. Mr Connolly —You have said it twice. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have said it twice and I will say it a third time in this way : Let us look at the policy to which the Liberals have acquiesced by silence. It was a policy espoused by the Leader of the National Party in this Parliament as Minister responsible for resource development. That policy was to open mines which held certainly another 300,000 tonnes of uranium reserves. Those mines did not include Roxby Downs. As a matter of interest for the Leader of the Opposition, who forgot to mention it today, the Leader of the National Party never gave approval for Roxby Downs to go into the market place, because the mine had not reached that stage. It has not yet sought approval to go into the market place. The two existing mines which are the subject of keen debate in the Labor Party- Ranger and Nabarlek-have 100,000 tonnes of unsold uranium. Is it not intelligent for a Government of this country to look at the sequential development of resources such as this? There are many questions still to be answered in respect of reprocessing for plutonium and high level waste disposal but, as the Prime Minister said, it is important that Australia continue to be a participant in the peaceful use of uranium for the generation of electricity. Again, our obligations are to ensure that if the world needs energy of this type-I emphasise the word 'need'-we at least play our role and guarantee that the cost of energy to developing countries is not excessive and that those countries have an opportunity to get energy at the same resource charge as any other country. Also, as the Prime Minister has said, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we must have a definite regard to disarmament issues but it is important that all states to the treaty have the right to the benefits not only of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy but also of the peaceful use of nuclear medicine. These matters, of course, have to be weighed in the context of the massive diversion of nuclear fuel into weapons. There has been a legitimate and strong debate in this country as to how we can effectively guarantee that there will be no proliferation of weapons and no pollution of the world by high level wastes-for example, the Pacific Ocean being used as a dumping ground. At the same time, we need to look at the legitimate needs particularly of the Northern Hemisphere because of its climatic considerations and its shortage of coal to ensure that it at least has access to fuel. The Nabarlek and Ranger mines still have 100,000 tonnes of uranium unsold, and the peaceful use of Australian uranium in this decade is predicted to be of about that quantity. The maximum we could expect to sell in the next 10 years would be 100,000 tonnes. To try to find contracts for an additional 10,000 tonnes a year-that is what we would have to do-would be quite a sizable task, because there are a number of other suppliers of uranium in the world. We do not have the market to ourselves but at least we are expected to play our role in terms of committing part of Australia's uranium to peaceful uses of nuclear fuel . The argument has been put today that we are preventing economic development. The development that was allowed by the National Party with Liberal Party acquiescence was the commitment of at least another 300,000 tonnes to the fuel cycle. Where the markets were nobody can tell us. At present the spot market price for uranium is $23 or $24. The economic development in Australian terms would require a price of about $36. What was the strategy? Roxby Downs would add another 1.2 million tonnes of uranium. Where were the uranium developers in Australia going to find markets? Mr Connolly —Let them go and look for a market. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Bradfield says: 'Let them go and find a market'. Let us look at that policy of 'let them go and find a market'. Let us also bear in mind that a number of these other mines were foreign owned. The market would have been there for them, but what would have happened to the Australian producers in that situation? They would not have survived, and everyone knows that. We now have an intelligent understanding of the present position in Australia. The two existing mines have been allowed to remain in the market and to continue . They have obtained contracts at fair prices. Such contracts are very difficult to get. But with 100,000 tonnes still in reserve and still unsold, of course their obligation is to find markets because they have enormous commitments. For example, one corporation owes over $300m, having had to borrow that to get the mine started. It needs contracts at the prices I mentioned, not only to give some reasonable return but also to repay its indebtedness. How in the name of fortune was there to be an effective development of Australian resources in the energy area with a plethora of uranium mines being allowed to open with no consideration of what the markets would be? My friend opposite says: 'Let market forces work that out'. When market forces work that out there is blood on the floor. People perish. Mr Howard —That is a terrific statement, isn't it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a terrific statement. As a former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) would know that because he approved a number of them. At present the situation in the coal mines is that as a result of the oversupply of coal, our coal mines will now be able to supply 40 per cent less coal to Japan than last year. I invite the honourable member for Bennelong to go to those mines the development of which he approved and suggest where they will sell their coal. They will not sell it. They will close. Coal is a finite resource; it cannot be replaced. Seven new mines were opened but there is no market for them. There is massive unemployment in Australia. We have enormous problems resulting from his stupidly saying: 'What does it matter if the mines close'? They will close. There are no markets-- Mr Connolly —You have no foresight. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No foresight? The Opposition looked at this with blinkered vision. It had its eyes closed. It fell into the trap. Because the Japanese said that they might need more coal, the Opposition when in government decided to open more mines. We should look at that sort of decision in relation to uranium. If the forecast is for 100,000 tonnes in the next 10 years, why in the name of fortune would one open up resources for 1.5 million tonnes above present supply? That is the argument. Mr Howard —But that was not the basis of your decision yesterday. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is the basis of our decision, and it was the basis of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that sequential development is also important. Mr Howard —You are not adopting Fox; you are wandering away from Fox. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member can have his time later. The development of Roxby Downs is to proceed on the basis that it is making a commercial decision, in relation to copper and gold deposits. Following yesterday's decision, the Government will look at the whole question of uranium, particularly future contracts. It will do it on the basis of an inquiry to be conducted by the Australian Science and Technology Council, under the personal direction of its Chairman, Professor Ralph Slatyer. It will produce a report not later than May next year. It will examine in particular our safeguard arrangements and our bilateral and multilateral agreements. It will examine the opportunities for Australia through the conditions of its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle to advance further the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, the adequacy of existing technology for the handling and disposal of waste products and the ways in which Australia can contribute to the development of safe disposal methods. It has been recommended that a permanent commission be established to address on an ongoing basis the full range of issues relating to the nuclear fuel cycle, to monitor Australia's position in that cycle and to report regularly to the Government and the Parliament. They are positive measures. We will have some intelligent appraisal on a scientific basis of what Australia's role can be in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. For the Opposition to raise this issue, for about the fourth time this session, with a diatribe of abuse and no knowledge at all of the problems facing this industry, is ridiculous. It is counterproductive for someone of the stature of the Leader of the Opposition. There is no uncertainty about our policy. The sad part is that the Opposition is upset because we have allowed Roxby Downs to go into the marketplace and we have allowed two mines to continue. Apparently it is disappointed because we did not allow another 300,000 tonnes of uranium to come on to the marketplace when there is no market for that fuel. I emphasise the point that at all times we have been consistent. For once the Sydney Morning Herald is quite right; it suggested that we have a viable policy. The Northern Territory clearly knows where it is going. South Australia clearly knows the position. The other people who have been venturing and speculating ought to understand now that there is no market for their uranium. They probably will not have a market for the next 20 years. That is the position. Our guarantee is-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.36) —The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has done his best to bat on what can best be described as a very sticky wicket indeed. He has come into this House and alleged that there is no longer any uncertainty about the so-called policy of the Australian Labor Party put together at a meeting yesterday which demonstrated to the Australian people, and certainly to all members of the Opposition, the fundamental divisions which rend that Party from top to bottom on these issues of considerable importance not only to Australia's long term development, not only to the question of the development of the mining of uranium in this country and not only to the future use of uranium in Australia and overseas: It is much wider than that. It relates to whether this Government which believes it has compassion and concern for Australia and for the world is prepared, in a case like this, to demonstrate clearly that there is a rational approach which must be adopted to the use of uranium for peaceful purposes. Labor has made a decision but it is by no means a reliable one. If five members -a mere handful-of the Caucus had changed their minds, we would have heard the Minister today no doubt doing his best on an even more sticky wicket to argue a case in favour. We have yet to hear the position of the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in 1984. A member of the Caucus said to me last night : 'Boy, keep your head down, you have not seen anything yet.' I ask the Minister at the table to recall those words. He has his head down now and I reckon he will have it a lot lower over the next few months. Worse than that, almost one- half of the Caucus, one-fifth of the Ministry, and of course the Australian Council of Trade Unions hanging on behind, have remained adamantly opposed to all mining and export of uranium. To put it mildly, the decision is at best selective. We are told that Roxby can go ahead but that there must be no new mines. One may ask: 'Why can one State government, only three companies and their employees, representing groups of interests, have the benefits while others in this country who wish to develop their resources cannot?' It is a political compromise which has not been based on even the vaguest understanding of the many positive aspects involved in the export of Australian uranium for peaceful purposes. It is a decision without any rationale, simply made for reasons of political expediency to try to keep a Labor Government in power in South Australia while the Federal Government is prepared to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency the interests of the Northern Territory. Let us be clear about one thing in this argument: No member of this Opposition advocates a nuclear war or the use of atomic energy for other than peaceful ends . That has been the thrust of our nuclear policy ever since 1975, but over that period the present Government and the Labor Party have gone backwards in contrast with us. The Whitlam Government supported the mining and sale of uranium for peaceful purposes. It established the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. In government we accepted that inquiry's recommendations and established the most rigorous controls on the export and use of Australian uranium. Yet we have seen today a public and positive denial of the very recommendations contained in the report of the Fox inquiry. Labor has simply allowed itself to become the willing victim of those who, for emotive or perhaps , dare I say, other reasons, want to take Australia out of the international nuclear fuel cycle. Thus it will be the only socialist party in the world which has attempted to argue a case against the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This philosophy of 'Stop the world, I want to get off' demonstrates yet again to the Australian people the inability of this Labor Party to govern Australia in the interests of all, especially the most economically and socially underprivileged people who, in our society and elsewhere, can have their conditions improved only if we are able to generate the national income necessary for the social policies the world needs to improve its general standard of living and quality of life. That cannot be achieved without the capacity to generate income and unless the world demonstrates its ability to use major sources of energy, in addition to oil or fossil fuels such as coal, and discontinues having to cut down the limited forests which are so essential to the third and fourth worlds today as a source of energy. Nuclear weapons are not necessarily related to nuclear power. The essence of the argument presented by Labor is that our withdrawal from the world uranium markets would somehow or other return the world to sanity, peace and justice. Yet the fundamental reality is that the non-availability of Australian uranium will not affect the existing and future operation of the international nuclear energy industry. It is in fact naive to assume, as Labor has done, that nuclear power inevitably means the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most countries with a reasonable technological base can today produce nuclear weapons if they choose to do so, irrespective of whether they have nuclear power. Shutting down all conventional nuclear power stations would have no effect on the production of nuclear armaments. Except for India, all present nuclear weapon states produced weapons years before they had nuclear power stations as a basis for energy production. Nuclear weapons are a perversion of the use of nuclear power, just as conventional weapons are a misuse of the steel and chemical industries which are so basic to the economy of the world. If we are really worried about nuclear armaments and the need to control their proliferation we need to take positive and constructive action, not on the basis of emotive rhetoric or fictitious views which have been bandied around this House for too long, but on the basis of an understanding of the real world as it is and in which we, as a nation, must exist. Instead of the negative attitude we have heard, of opposing uranium exports-an irrelevant gesture which harms Australia and the rest of the world which wishes to use our uranium for peaceful purposes- we as a country need to make a number of positive contributions in various ways. We must continue to be an active member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We must make significant investments-I challenge the Government to do this-in the development of synroc technology to ensure that nuclear wastes are rendered both immobile and relatively safe. We must offer our research resources to the world. One thing is certain-if the economic initiative for further uranium development in Australia is reduced so will be the pressure on government to apply sufficient resources to make our research capability worth while. Far from opposing the export of uranium I suggest, and the Opposition submits, that we should be encouraging it. If we fail to be a reliable exporter we will positively contribute to the development of the fast breeder reactor, a level of technology which will ensure that those who have it not only will be independent of countries such as our own for supplies of raw uranium but also, more importantly, will have at their disposal the capacity to generate plutonium, the very basis of the atomic weapons which members of the Labor Party and the Opposition rightfully fear so much. If we are really interested in a positive response to the real world we need to look at the reality of world energy use. In recent years the world has gone through two massive economic shocks caused by the lack of availability, at a cost people can afford, of oil. This has not only created massive disruption and unemployment but also demonstrated so clearly that the world cannot move forward in the so-called march of progress unless we can generate alternative sources of energy which are both relatively safe and secure and which can be afforded. Most governments and energy forecasters accept that world-wide total energy consumption will continue to rise and with that will be the continuing need to utilise uranium. Australia cannot get off the world. We cannot take the view that what happens in the other 99.9 per cent of the human race is somehow or other different from what happens in Australia. We must encourage alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, sea currents and hydrogen. But relevant, effective technology in these fields does not exist and until it does we have no alternative but to live with the realities of power consumption, generation and supply as they are today. These are realities which Australia cannot run from any more than we can run away from the fears of worldwide pollution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(3.46) —This is the fifth occasion in the past seven weeks when the Opposition has raised the uranium industry in a matter of public importance in the Parliament. The Opposition must get some points for consistency but none for novelty. When this matter was first raised on 20 September I pointed to the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia did not have a policy on the nuclear industry. Seven weeks have gone by and that has given that Party plenty of time to give the matter some thought. This is the fifth debate on this issue and it still does not have a policy on the nuclear industry . Liberal Party members come into this place and attack the Australian Labor Party's policy. With no policy of their own for us to have a look at, they come into this House and have a go at our policy. What sort of a national political party is it that does not have a policy on this very important national issue? As I have said, this is the third time I have spoken on this issue. On each occasion I have spoken I have pointed to the two-line policy the National Party of Australia has on the nuclear industry. The National Party has had the foresight, as a national political party, at least to mention the words 'nuclear ' or 'uranium' in its policy booklet. It has said that it will develop Australia 's uranium reserves to meet world demand. That clearly implies sequential development. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has gone through the various reasons why Australia's uranium resources should be developed on a sequential basis. Those arguments are quite clear and logical. Indeed, the report of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that the Northern Territory's uranium resources should be developed on a sequential basis . It seems that the National Party believes that. We do not know what the Liberal Party believes because it does not have a policy. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), with no policy at all, came into this House today and glibly told us that we should let every uranium mine in Australia start up tomorrow. That is basically what he said-that every uranium mine in Australia should start up tomorrow. Of course, as with most of the Liberal Party pronouncements in the past eight months in which it has been in opposition, the Liberal Party clearly has not researched the matter. It obviously does not realise that that would result in a total production of 15, 200 tonnes of uranium a year once all those mines came on stream. That is about three to four times the world demand for uranium at present. It is about three times the projected world demand for uranium in 1990. The Leader of the Opposition told us we should open every uranium mine in Australia tomorrow. Dr Tony Owen, who has written a little about this subject, and particularly about the world's uranium market, wrote an article in a recent edition of the Business Review Weekly. I shall quote at length from his article. He stated: In a report issued in 1979, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development envisaged a bright future for Australian uranium producers. Australian production was predicted to reach 14,000 tonnes of uranium oxide ( yellowcake) by 1985, and 24,000 tonnes by 1990. He went on: Just two years later, however, things had changed. OECD predictions for Australian uranium production had suffered a drastic revision, to 4,500 tonnes and 5,500 tonnes in 1985 and 1990 respectively. That is a drop of some 300 per cent. It dropped to about one-third of what the OECD predicted two years before. The article went on: Spiralling interest rates, the recession, and safety and environmental concerns (especially in the wake of the accident at Three Mile Island in March 1979) had made nuclear power a particularly unattractive proposition in the United States and, to a lesser extent, many Western European nations. He said further: However in 1982 only 60 percent of total production-- that is, world production- was used, with the surplus going into largely unintended inventories. Currently, uranium stocks in non-communist countries equal about five years' forward consumption . . . this excessive stock is certain to dampen the price of uranium for several years. He said further: Nevertheless, operational nuclear capacity in Western nations is projected to double by 1990 as plants ordered during the first half of the 70s-and delayed for various reasons-come on-stream. But the momentum will then disappear, as few countries have follow-on construction programs for the 1990s. No new domestic orders have been placed in West Germany since 1975 or in the US since 1979, while expansion plans in Italy, Spain, Sweden and Britain have been severely restricted by drawn-out environmental and safety arguments . . . The article went on: The high cost of construction and insurance for nuclear power plants combined with the recession and public opposition to nuclear power make it inconceivable that any new orders will be placed for nuclear power plants in the US in the foreseeable future. While US nuclear capacity in operation will have increased substantially . . . by 1990, thereafter additions to capacity will be few . . . Dr Owen drew this conclusion in that article: Australia's producers, therefore, have a considerable amount of surplus capacity. Later in the article he concluded: However, after 1990, additions to nuclear capacity will be relatively few. Beyond 1990, therefore, the prospects for new uranium producers in a market with established supply patterns and slow growth appear poor. That is the assessment by a person who studied the world's projected uranium market into the 1990s and indeed to the year 2000. Clearly, there is no demand in the world market for uranium. The two existing Northern Territory mines and Roxby Downs together will have sufficient production to meet the predicted demand on the world uranium market until at least 1992 and probably 1995. That is the sort of sequential development recommended by the Fox report. I suggest that before Liberal Party members talk in here again about the uranium issue they should have the intestinal fortitude to write out their uranium policy and put it before the people of Australia so that the people can see where the Liberal Party is heading on this question. We still have not heard what the Liberal Party's position is. I should now like to turn to the matter of jobs. The Leader of the Opposition said here this afternoon that thousands of jobs will be lost in the Northern Territory if Jabiluka and Koongarra do not proceed. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory kept up his litany of lies on this issue when in a letter which he circulated to members of the Caucus he said: Quite apart from the direct loss of around 1,000 permanent jobs at the Jabiluka and Koongarra mines a decision for no further development would have tremendous impact on the Territory by eliminating the associated infra-structure benefits ( including approximately 2,000 jobs during construction stage and a further 2,000 in associated services industries during the life of the mines) . . . That totals 5,000 jobs. The company, Pancontinental Mining Ltd, which plans to develop Jabiluka, predicts that there will be 1,285 jobs during construction and 487 jobs during the operational stage of the mine. Denison Mines which is connected with Koongarra, estimates that 500 jobs will be created during construction and another 110 during the operational stage. That is a total, if they both went ahead, of 1,785 jobs during construction and 597 jobs during the operational stage. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory suggested that there will be 1,000 permanent jobs during the operational stage. His calculations are out by about 400 or 500 jobs. He suggested there will be another 4,000 jobs created during the constructional stage. I suggest that his calculations are inaccurate by 2,500 to 3,000 jobs. Of course he knows what the real figures are. He keeps misleading the people of the Northern Territory and Australia about the real nature of this so-called bonanza that he predicts for the Northern Territory. For $620m worth of investment-that is what we are talking about for these two mines-we are talking about 597 miners getting permanent jobs. Let us put that into context. The Northern Territory work force is 60,000 people at present. Those jobs would account for less than one per cent of the existing work force. That is hardly a bonanza. If, on the other hand, we spend that $620m on the tourist infrastructure I suggest we would see thousands of jobs, and that is a matter to which the Leader of the Opposition and the Northern Territory Chief Minister should direct their attention. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —I present the 209th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, relating to reports of the Auditor-General 1980-81, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms MAYER —The 209th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is an examination of reports of the Auditor-General for 1980-81. Each year the Committee examines all reports of the Auditor-General. In respect of the reports of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1981 the Committee sought written submissions from nine departments about 11 of the items raised. After discussions with the Auditor-General and departmental officers, the Committee selected four of those items for public inquiry. Public hearings on 20 May 1982 occurred in respect of the Department of Finance, in relation to expenditure in excess of warrants of the Governor-General and closing of accounts at year end including moneys unbanked, and the Department of Social Security in relation to the national benefits system and assistance for homeless persons. EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S WARRANT The Auditor-General noted that payments in 1980-81 from the Commonwealth Public Account, charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund under a special appropriation provided by the States Grants (Tertiary Assistance) Act 1978 had exceeded by $5, 100,372 the amount specified in the warrants of the Governor-General. Although expenditure in excess of appropriation was not involved, a further warrant should have been obtained from the Governor-General before moneys were withdrawn from the Commonwealth Public Account for the purposes of the appropriation. CLOSING OF ACCOUNTS AT YEAR END A major objective of the Department of Finance accounting system is the production of accurate financial statements pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of the Audit Act 1901. In this context the closing of accounts at year end is an important process. An important audit objective of the closing of accounts procedures is to provide as assurance that the receipts and payments of the financial year are reflected in the annual financial statements. In this regard the Auditor-General considered that the incidence and variety of deficiencies disclosed in 1980-81 suggest that adherence to the closing of accounts directions is inadequate in some departments. NATIONAL BENEFITS SYSTEM The Auditor-General's 1980-81 report referred to an in-depth audit of the National benefits system undertaken during the period from October 1980 to January 1981. As a result of the investigations, the Auditor-General reported that he considered that the development of the National Benefits System was not adequately controlled and, to some extent, did not proceed in accordance with generally accepted practice. The Committee considers that the NBS project was inadequately controlled and recommends that the Department should in future ensure that adequate records are kept to ensure proper assessment of the cost effectiveness of such projects. The Committee also recommends that the management and implementation of large automatic data processing projects such as the national benefits system be under the overall control of one individual senior officer, to be designated as the project manager, with sufficient delegated authority to ensure the project's success; in addition, that for all future pilot projects the Department develop an integrated pre-implementation testing procedure covering ADP system logic, support machinery and staff training. The Committee will continue to monitor the overall operational effectiveness of the national benefits system. ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELESS PERSONS In his report of 30 March 1981 the Auditor-General referred to an in-depth audit of capital assistance grants, under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974, to two organisations for the construction of homeless persons centres. The assertion was made that one of these projects appeared to represent significantly less value for money as a homeless persons centre than the other. Identified as the most significant contributing factor to this situation was the failure of the Department of Social Security to promulgate standards and guidelines for use by organisations in establishing and constructing such projects with capital assistance provided under the Act. Subsequent matters raised by the Auditor-General were mainly related to the future administration of the homeless persons assistance program. The Committee considered that a direct comparison of average costs per bed is not an entirely valid guide to 'value for money' as a homeless persons centre. The Committee concludes that emphasis on a cost per head basis ignores the other important functions that are provided by homeless persons projects and suggests that for cost comparison purposes, where multipurpose complexes are involved, a formula be developed on the basis of weighted averages between overnight accommodation and other facilities, and services provided. The Committee approves of detailed departmental standards and guidelines which organisations and their architects are required to observe when planning, designing and constructing homeless persons facilities as a guide to the nature and extent of Commonwealth financial assistance. The Committee recommends that detailed departmental standards and guidelines be incorporated along with physical building standards and guidelines into a comprehensive program manual. The Committee does not suggest that there should be complete standardisation in the facilities or design of homeless persons centres but rather that the Department draw on experience with both homeless persons and nursing home programs to develop a program manual. The Committee considers that a program manual would be of immeasurable assistance and guidance both to organisations embarking on homeless persons projects and to the departmental staff evaluating and administering the program, without sacrificing the necessary degree of flexibility required for the successful development and administration of community welfare projects. The Committee also recommends that the Department of Housing and Construction provide a design service to organisations embarking on a homeless persons project. The design services would include evaluation of the architectural design plan in terms of compliance with the program manual. I commend the report to honourable members. [COGNATE BILLS: INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983 INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1983 INCOME TAX (COMPANIES, CORPORATE UNIT TRUSTS AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1983 INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 5 Government Business 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 five measures. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.05) —Last Thursday in this place I raised as a matter of public importance the growing community concern at the arrogant and provocative actions of this Government in introducing taxation measures for which it had no mandate. In speaking on this subject I mentioned the decision to impose new indirect taxes and index them so that in future they will increase automatically every six months; the withdrawal of the home mortgage interest rebate, increasing the tax burden on all home owners; the withdrawal of the medical insurance rebate before the introduction of Medicare, increasing the tax burden on almost every Australian family; the imposition of a new tax on lump sum superannuation payments, disrupting the retirement planning of hundreds of thousands of Australians and their dependants. All these measures have one thing in common: Not one of them was foreshadowed before the 5 March election. Indeed, whenever Australian Labor Party spokesmen mentioned these issues before the election they made clear and specific commitments that the measures would not-I repeat not-be taken. That is the background to the measures we have before us this afternoon, a background of hypocrisy and downright deception of the Australian electorate, a background of a government that has an absolute obsession with finding new and ever harsher ways of confiscating the income and savings of typical Australians. Under this Government by early in the new year ordinary Australians on average weekly earnings will be paying 46c tax on every extra dollar they earn. Where is the reward for initiative under that sort of punitive taxation? Where is the incentive for men and women to attempt to get ahead and provide a better future for their families? Bluntly put, there is none because this Government is not concerned with those sorts of ideals and aspirations. Those are not the goals and the objectives of the Australian Labor Party, a party which is not interested in growth and not interested in development, in getting ahead. The Labor Party is interested only in confiscating people's income and savings, in redistributing the assets of those who have saved for their future, those ordinary Australians who have accum- ulated a few modest assets in their pursuit of security and financial independence. When we look at the specific measures before us today we find that they follow the same pattern, a pattern of broken promises and shattered commitments, a pattern of callous disregard of the needs of ordinary Australians, a pattern of ill-considered ad hoc measures that show this Government for what it is-a government with no policy other than an obsession with ever more taxes, taxes, taxes to fund its ideological commitments. Two of the measures being discussed today-changes to the income equalisation deposits scheme and the abolition of 10 -year write-off of capital expenditure for land clearing and swamp drainage-will hit the rural sector. The cost to farmers of these measures is large enough; it amounts to around $23m in a full year. These measures need to be seen in their proper context as part of a deliberate and wholesale attack by Labor on the farming community, an attack which has been mounted at a time when the rural sector is still reeling from the effects of the drought and is desperately trying to recover the ground it has lost. Consider for a moment what this Government has done to help our hard-pressed farmers. It has increased by almost 70 per cent the period over which primary producers can depreciate certain plant and equipment for tax purposes. It has increased the non-subsidised part of the cost of certain petroleum products. It has dumped the bicentennial water resources program. Mr Andrew —That is shameful! Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely, because it was done, was it not, at a time when the drought should have highlighted its very importance? The Government has not fulfilled its election promises to help the sugar industry. It has increased the excise on motor spirit, on distillate, on aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasolene. It has indexed all these fuel excises and it has failed to increase the excise rebate on diesel fuel used off-road by farmers. It has reintroduced the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine. What an indictment of this Government that short list is! Was any of it promised, foreshadowed or even hinted at before the 5 March election? Opposition members-No! Mr PEACOCK —No, it was not; that is quite right. Not one element was raised, foreshadowed, promised or indicated before the election. What did Labor say about tax averaging? Its agricultural policy document stated that Labor recog- nised: . . . the need for Government to provide individual producers with the ways and means of minimising any disadvantage flowing from [unstable incomes]. The document then states quite categorically and without qualification: Labor will maintain tax averaging. Nothing more was said; that was it-'Labor will maintain tax averaging'. There is not one word or hint that Labor was considering emasculating the scheme and introducing what the National Farmers Federation has described as a whole range of new inequities. What are the changes in tax deductibility for land clearing and swamp draining? Were they foreshadowed? No, they were not. Mr Uren —What about the environment-- Mr PEACOCK —One cannot but be amazed at both the hypocrisy and the gall of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who came into this place and said, as the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) who is at the table seems to be saying, words to the effect that the decision reflected the Government's concern for soil conservation. If the Government were genuinely concerned about soil conservation, would it not have implemented its election promise to provide-what was it?-at least $4m in its first year in government. Mr Lloyd —One million. Mr PEACOCK —It promised to provide at least $4m in the first year towards the national soil conservation program, and as my colleague has reminded me, instead of that amount $1 million was allocated in the Budget. The fact is that soil conservation is just an excuse for the Government, and an allegedly handy one, to slug the farmer and to find a new way to increase the tax burden on our rural community. Let us look at another measure. I refer to the Government's decision to abolish the rebate, at the standard rate of tax, on up to $1,000 of dividends. This provision, which applied only to taxable income received by resident individual shareholders from resident companies, was introduced by the previous Government in the 1982-83 Budget. The former Government recognised that the current tax system was making it unattractive, particularly for those on lower incomes, to put money into shares relative to other investments. The previous government was concerned for a number of reasons: It was clear that the tax system was discouraging the growth of wealth creating enterprises and it was discouraging Australians from making a financial stake in the future of the country. Most importantly, it was discouraging the development of the real consensus which can emerge when people realise that their financial future is dependent on that of the private firms which generate the wealth in this country. Labor simply ignored these arguments. It swept away the $1,000 tax rebate and did not replace it with an alternative measure to counter the unfair tax treatment of the small investor. Unquestionably, the result will be a decline in the role of the small investor. People will become increasingly less aware of the fact that their prosperity is dependent on the private enterprise firms which are the backbone of our economic system. But it is not surprising, of course, that Labor has taken this approach. Many of those in the Labor Party are ideologically opposed to the values which private ownership of equities encourages-values which to us are the foundation stone of our private enterprise system. When one examines these measures, the real question now is: What will come next? Frankly, it is not hard to see the answer. Let me just refresh the memory of the House of an exchange I had with the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) last Thursday. Honourable members should remember that he is not the only one who has this approach. I refer to Ministers who supported him, from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) down. At page 2298 of Hansard, I posed a question to this new, seemingly innocent, naive creature, the honourable member for Casey. I said: Does the honourable member want a capital gains tax? Mr Steedman's answer was: Yes. I said: Does the honourable member want a resources tax? Mr Steedman's answer was: Yes. I then asked: Does the honourable member want a gift tax? Mr Steedman said: Yes. He did go on to say that he did not want a Liberal Government. I asked him: Does the honourable member want duties? Mr Steedman said: Yes. The fact is, as I said last week, that that young honourable member is not alone . The whole Government is associated with the measures before us. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young )-the former Special Minister of State-and the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who is Chairman of the Caucus Federal Parliamentary Industry Committee, have all made comments broadly reflecting the ideas of the honourable member for Casey. So the direction of this Labor Government is clear. The abolition of the dividend tax rebate is just the first step in a deliberate and vicious attack on the small investor, and the list goes on. Honourable members should consider the changes we have before us to the prescribed payments system. If ever there were an ill-considered arbitrary attack on small business, this Government's withholding tax must surely take first prize. Rather than adopt the approach of the previous Government- honourable members will recall that that approach was one based on readily available exemptions-this Government sought to maximise its tax collections, irrespective of the burden placed on small business, both directly through prior taxation of withheld income and indirectly through increased administrative costs. The House should not be misled by the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the measures before us will correct the situation. While the amendments do undoubtedly represent an improvement-an improvement forced upon a reluctant government by the Liberal-National Party coalition and the Australian Democrats- they by no means put right all the defects in the Government's original measure. They certainly do not, as the Treasurer has claimed, evidence the Government's ' willingness to meet valid concerns about the operation of the scheme on an ongoing basis'. The facts are that exemption certificates are still not readily available to taxpayers with good tax records, particularly those in small business. Indeed, we have the absurd situation wherein only about one in every 14 participants in the scheme is regarded by the Commissioner of Taxation as having a good enough tax record to warrant an exemption certificate. The requirements for such certificates involve the provision of far more information, the preparation of which is more expensive, than is needed by the Commissioner in other tax matters . Why do these anomalies and deficiencies remain? It is because this Government, notwithstanding all its rhetoric, is not genuinely interested in addressing the tax avoidance problems of the cash economy. Its real interest is in maximising the tax take from small business and this measure is just another element in Labor's overall tax obsession. Mr Shipton —Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for Higgins, who supports me, knows that only too well. No one has fought harder than he has this year in this House for small business. He underlines that by his support for the remarks which I have just put to the House. Nowhere, Mr Deputy Speaker, is Labor's mad grab for an extra tax dollar clearer than in its decision to tax the payments made to part time members of the reserve defence forces. Night after night we see advertisements on television encouraging people to join the Army Reserve. I do not know how much that advertising costs, but the greatest incentive to those who were giving up time for their country was the fact that they would get a little remuneration which would not be taxed-and why not? This was done because we wanted to encourage people. We advertised for them to join the Army Reserve. It is well worth recalling why we maintained a reserve Defence Force. It is to maintain adequate level of skills and to provide a source of trained personnel in the event of an emergency. About the only incentive to recruitment and retention in the Reserve has in fact been the tax free payments. The Government' s measure removes that incentive without warning, and again nothing is offered in its place. This measure will shatter Reserve morale since it will be construed, and quite rightly I would imagine, that the Government just does not consider it to be of any real value to the nation. The Government ought to be condemned for that. If the Government recognised the true value of the Reserve and viewed it as making a vital contribution to Australia's defence preparedness , it would offer some tangible incentive for young men and women to join up. The inevitable result of this measure is that those with the skills we most need in our Reserve-middle rank officers, experienced non- commissioned officers and, indeed, warrant officers-will inevitably drift away from the Reserve. But I assume that this Government does not care about that. It is not worried about our defence preparedness. The television appeal of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for people to join the Reserve can be seen as nothing but a sham and a publicity gimmick. Labor's only principle is, yet again, that of the tax gatherer. Everything else, including our defence capability, must be sacrificed for that obsession. I wish I could say that those were all the tax grabs in the measures before us. But unfortunately that is not the case. We also have before us a tightening of what has come to be known as the piggy-bank tax. This Government will even stoop to that measure. Under an anti-avoidance measure introduced by the former Government unmarried minors currently pay tax rates of 46 per cent or higher on unearned income above $1,040 per annum. It will be recalled that the measure was designed to discourage income-splitting by diversion of income to children. It has generally achieved that objective. But that measure was introduced in 1980. The Government should have been looking to increase the $1,040 figure in line with inflation increases since that time. Instead, the Government has reduced the figure to $416. Mr Hawker —It is a newsboy tax. Mr PEACOCK —It is. The Government has not offered one plausible explanation of why it has moved in the opposite direction from that which common sense would suggest. In May, and again in introducing the measure, the Treasurer blithely claimed that the existing provision 'has come to be exploited in many tax minimisation schemes.' But not one jot of evidence has been offered to support this claim. The fact is that any child who has over $4,000 in a savings account in a building society, et cetera, will now have to fill in a tax return. If grandparents wish to put aside some money for a grandchild's education the interest on it will be subject to tax at the 46 per cent rate. If a deceased parent leaves some money to support a child the interest on it will also be subject to tax at the 46 per cent rate. In some cases, accumulated family allowance payments put aside for education expenses will force parents to put in a tax return for their children. Mr Howard —That is criminal. Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely so. It is seemingly an overstatement-an appalling situation. Are these the tax cheats the Government is intent upon catching? Accounts for education expenses are copping a 46 per cent rate of tax. Is this what this Government is all about? It is clearly just another of Labor's excuses for higher taxation. I move: That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words- 'Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) condemns the Government for consistently breaking its election undertakings in relation to tax; and (2) is of the opinion that the withdrawal of- (a) the tax rebate on the first $1000 of dividend income, and (b) the tax concession available to part-time members of the reserve defence forces, is not in the nation's interests'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Howard —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(4.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, like yourself, I was taken somewhat by surprise as a result of the failure of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), in this display of offended virtue, to utilise the full time which was available to him. In fact, I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition had taken the opportunity to lead for the Opposition on this occasion. It is quite obvious that he has decided that he needs to adopt a higher public profile . He has been very seriously overshadowed, of course, by his Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who is the shadow Treasurer and Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters. The honourable member for Bennelong is recognised by those people who sit behind him as being the most effectively informed on Treasury and taxation matters of any honourable member of the Opposition. What we had today was the Leader of the Opposition who quite clearly decided that, because of that significant overshadowing of his own performance by his Deputy, it was necessary for him to come into this chamber and polish up his performance. It simply did not work. I have never heard a more pathetic presentation of the Opposition's case than I have just heard by the Leader of the Opposition. And the-- Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I suggest that we have a problem in this House in that many speakers tend to get way off the mark in addressing themselves to a particular Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will state his point of order. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the honourable member is not relevant. It is about time he was. Mr ROBERT BROWN —He is just trying to waste my time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is quite obvious that members of the Opposition are frightened by the prospect of my exposing the deplorable taxation record which they displayed while they were in government. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), one of the members from Tasmania, quite clearly was simply trying to waste my time. Let me get back to the subject of the debate. The genuineness of the Opposition in connection with these measures is indicated quite clearly by the amendment which was just moved by the Leader of the Opposition. That amendment stated that the Opposition does not oppose the passage of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4). In fact, by stating that they do not oppose the passage of the Bill, it is quite clear that they support the passage of the Bill. The alternative for them would have been to oppose this Bill in total. Mr Ruddock —It is a Budget Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN —An explanation is offered that they are not opposing it because it is a Budget Bill. Their record in connection with any conventions of this Parliament will not stand up to any respectable measure. For them to suggest now that the reason they are supporting the passage of the Bill is that it is a Budget provision is just a statement of complete and utter cynicism. Let me again refer to one of the statements that was made by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with what he suggested was some degree of cynicism on the part of the Government in relation to these measures. If, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, there has been any element of broken promises by this Government, the fundamental reason-which does not need restating-for any adjustment in the implementation of those undertakings is clearly and fully understood by the Australian electorate. I do not intend to rehash the exposure of the potential $9.6 billion deficit which would have occurred this year had the former Government been re-elected. We inherited a very serious situation. That situation is more than adequately understood by the Australian electorate. The fact that our electorate support at this stage is now 2 per cent higher than it was on 5 March indicates that the electorate not only understands but also endorses the actions which this Government has taken. Fancy members of the Opposition referring to broken promises, particularly broken promises in relation to the taxation area! The Australian community well remembers, for example, the series of broken promises that were made by the former Fraser Government in connection, for example, with tax indexation. The former Government was going to remove 'tax by stealth'. It was going to remove ' the hidden tax of inflation'. The undertaking to apply tax indexation was never honoured. During the seven disastrous years of the former Government full indexation was never applied. Just prior to the time when the former Government was first elected it said it would reduce Labor's tax burden. Let us have a look at the record. Let us have a look at the extent to which that very firm, clear undertaking was honoured by the former disastrous Government. At the end of its term in office Australia had the highest level of taxation which had ever been experienced in the history of the Commonwealth. The highest proportion of gross domestic product was being absorbed by taxation. The highest proportion of tax was being paid by pay as you earn taxpayers-the wage and salary earners-and a declining proportion of tax was being paid by the large corporations in the Australian economy. Everyone knows that tax evasion and tax avoidance absolutely exploded under the former Government. In the last year of the former Labor Government about 641 people and companies were identified as being involved in tax avoidance. By the time the Fraser Government left office the number exceeded 22,000. What an explosion! Of course, despite the former Government's claims to the contrary, very little was done about tax evasion and tax avoidance in Australia. On an annual basis some $7,000m of government revenue was being lost to the Treasury as a result of the former Government's tardiness, a tardiness which was encouraged by its continuing desire and determination to show patronage for its powerful financial backers, supporters, members and the chairmen of its State finance committees. There was quite a deliberate attempt on the fomer Government's part to show patronage to those people. The loss in taxation revenue represented additional tax of $25 a week on average to the ordinary families, the ordinary households of Australia because of the tardiness of the former Government's approach to tax evasion and tax avoidance. The Leader of the Opposition's speech was choked with cynical misrepresentations, not only of this Government's position, but also of the position which the former Government had adopted on taxation. The cognate debate at present is concerned with five taxation Bills. Probably the major Bill of those five is the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1983. It is an omnibus Bill which contains a number of amendments dealing with various aspects of the income tax system. In particular, one of the main provisions is the modifications which are being built into the prescribed payments system or the system which has become better known as the tax at source . The Leader of the Opposition called this an attack on small businesses. Essentially it represents-this is again being increasingly recognised by the community-an application of the pay as you earn system to contractors and operators within the building industry, the transport industry and the industries which provide personal services. How can it possibly represent an attack on small business when it represents no additional tax for those people who are participating in those areas of industry ? It is an attempt on the part of this Government to make sure that the cash economy is not used as a shield behind which tax evaders and tax avoiders can protect themselves. It represents an attempt on the part of the present Government to ensure that the taxation system is applied equitably, to make sure that all people within the Australian community pay their fair share of the total tax burden. As I indicated before, the total loss to revenue through the taxation evasion and avoidance industry amounts to something like $7,000m. Half of that amount is lost through tax evasion. Most of the loss has resulted from the failure to pay tax in the cash economy. The modifications which are now being built into the legislation are designed to remove some of the irritations by reducing the paper work burden and by making the compliance of people under that scheme much easier. I am aware, as all honourable members are aware, of some of the criticisms which have been made against the introduction of the prescribed payments system. Some of those criticisms have been justified; many of them have been exaggerated . The Government proposes to monitor the operation of the system. If genuine and valid concerns are expressed by people who are affected by the introduction of that new scheme, the Government is, quite clearly, prepared to respond to them. This legislation indicates that we are prepared to respond to them. The changes which are being introduced as a result of this legislation resulted from the inquiry which was undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Government has accepted the legitimacy of some of the findings of that Committee. There is no question about the success of this legislation. I feel sorry for operators within those industries who have, quite clearly, experienced some problems of liquidity as a result of the introduction of this scheme. I have no doubt that many of them have suffered some degree of difficulty on that matter. As I said before, the purpose of introducing the legislation was to ensure that the cash economy would not be used as a shield for people to hide behind in order to avoid their reasonable tax responsibilities. This has worked. There is no question about that. A number of people have suddenly arrived in Australia from New Zealand. They had not been putting in tax returns before, but now they are required to put them in. What is the explanation for their not having made a tax return for the last number of years? One of the main explanations is that they had suddenly arrived from New Zealand. Another explanation is that people say they have been unemployed for a number of years. So they have had no income on which to submit tax returns. All of these people-I make no apologies for this statement-are now being brought out of the woodwork. They are all being made to meet their tax responsibilities. All the genuine, legitimate, honest people, the vast majority of people within those industries, understand that that is the position. I hope they all understand that as a result of the introduction of this measure the individual tax burdens on themselves, the legitimate, honest and genuine taxpayers in Australia, must be reduced as those people who have been avoiding their responsibilities are brought out of the woodwork and made to face up to their responsibilities and make their own appropriate contributions. A number of provisions are being made in this legislation, to overcome some of the burden of the paper work. In particular, the changes which will be introduced will include, first of all, the removal from the prescribed payments system of those payments to payees who hold exemption certificates because of their previous good tax compliance record. It will also allow payees to lodge a deduction form at any time during the month preceding the month of payment. It will relieve the payee from lodging a fresh deduction form for a payment that is deferred and it will ensure that a payee will not have to prepare and furnish more than an annual deduction form to a payer if the payer completes the forms on the payee's behalf. There is no question that those changes will overcome a large number of the particular irritations which have been associated with this legislation. All of those provisions are important to simplify and modify the way in which the system operates. Some of the other provisions of this legislation will represent savings to revenue. Some of them will result in additional expenditure by the Government and some of them will result in additional revenue to the Government. Of course, the Bills represent in total an attempt on the part of this Government to honour its continuing commitment to the Australian electorate; to ensure that the taxation system is just; to ensure that it is equitable and to ensure that all people who earn incomes in Australia make their appropriate contribution; to ensure that the concessions which are provided through the taxation system are not simply designed as a means of handing out patronage; to ensure that the taxation system is not merely used as part of a total package of political tactics in the way in which it was used by the former Government. One of the other important provisions which are designed to establish uniformity within the taxation system exempts from tax the payment of assistance to the children of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries. That, of course, will bring those payments into line with the provisions that exist at present for pensioners. There is also provision to exempt from tax the assistance given to sickness beneficiaries for rent, board and lodging, so that they are treated in the same way as pensioners are being treated. The Government is making an obvious attempt to ensure that the taxation system operates uniformly and treats people equitably. People who experience similar circumstances will be treated essentially in the same way. Another provision of this legislation is to phase out the present tax exemption for the pay and allowances of part time members of the reserve defence forces and the emergency reserve defence forces. This has caused some concern among members of those voluntary defence forces, but a number of volunteers in my electorate have told me that that is not a matter of great concern to them. They are concerned to ensure that the actual rate of pay that they receive is adequate. They are not looking for payment for the service that they provide; they are volunteers who are trying to make available their services towards the development of Australia's defence preparedness. All that they are concerned about is receiving an adequate rate of pay to compensate them for the costs and the inconvenience which they experience as a result of making their time available. To suggest, as the Opposition has suggested, that these high spirited Australians who volunteer for the reserve defence forces volunteer only because of the amount of money they will get out of it, is extremely offensive to the people in the reserve forces. They are not there for that reason. In fact, many of them make their own financial contributions towards the provision of special facilities and special equipment which improve not only their comfort but also their effectiveness at a regimental level. I pay my personal respect to those people in the reserve forces for the great voluntary contribution which they make. One of the other provisions relates to the abolition of the tax rebate on the first $1,000 of dividend income. This was referred to with great cynicism by the Leader of the Opposition as an attack on small business. It is all very well for people who make investments to receive an exemption on the first $1,000 of dividend income. What about the people in my electorate who put their savings into interest bearing accounts? No provision was made by the previous Government -the present Opposition-to exempt from tax the first $1,000 interest that they received. No fear. It was not concerned about them. Those people in my electorate who put their savings into interest bearing accounts find that, firstly, the value of the principal is reduced by inflation and, secondly, the interest they earn is often less than the rate of inflation, and then the interest thay they earn is taxed any way. The Opposition has the hide and the gall to suggest to us that there is some discriminatory treatment on our part as a result of the removal of that special concession. We make no apologies for it. We do not resile from it. We will make sure that increasingly in the future the taxation system is applied with equity, justice and fairness to all Australians, so that when people pay their tax they know that the fellow down the street, the fellow in another electorate who received the patronage of the former Government, that all people in Australia are making an equitable contribution. They will also know that when that money is spent by the Commonwealth, everyone will receive his fair share. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.46) —I second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I am delighted to follow in this debate my old friend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). One thing that one can say about the honourable member for Hunter is that many of his views on this subject are fairly predictable, but they are delivered with great gusto and enthusiasm. I do not want-I do not mean this disrespectfully to my honourable friend-to spend a great deal of time this afternoon on what he said. I will deal with one aspect of his speech concerning the figure of $7,000m that kept popping up. The honourable gentleman was saying, if I understood him, that because we were so negligent, tax avoidance was costing the Australian economy $7,000m a year and that if we had been more efficient that amount would not have been costed to the Australian economy. We went out of office eight months ago. One would have concluded, therefore, that given the opportunity, given the alleged mandate to do something about this haemorrhage of revenue to the tune of $7,000m, the Australian Labor Party would have swept in and said: 'We will do this and this to recoup that $7,000m'. I have before me a Press statement dated 10 August 1982. It was put out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who was then Leader of the Opposition, and the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who was then Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters. They listed 15 things that they would do. They said that if all of those things were done, the Government would save about $6, 000m a year. I ask one simple question: If we were losing all of that money because of our alleged negligence, and the Government has been in power for eight months, why has it not done something to collect that $6,000m or $7,000m? The fact is that an amount of that order was never lost. The honourable member for Hunter knows that as well as I do. That was a bogus figure, and every time he used it, he blushed a little more brightly. If he goes on using it, next time he will blush even more brightly. The fact is that the combined effect of Part IVA of the tax Act and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act of December 1980 stopped tax avoidance in its tracks in this country. The one remaining major evasion problem in this country relates to, as the honourable gentleman said, the cash economy, I agree with him on that point. The withholding tax measure-I leave aside for a moment the teething troubles involved in its introduction-is only a stop gap response to the problems in relation to the cash economy. I believe, as the honourable gentleman knows, that the only real answer to the cash economy problems in this country is to have a broadly based consumption tax, because broadly based indirect taxation is harder to dodge. Mr Robert Brown —It is regressive. Mr HOWARD —It is not regressive. It is regressive only in its present form. What makes indirect tax regressive in Australia at the moment is that it is narrowly based on a few items. A person on an income of $15,000 a year drinks as much beer as somebody on $100,000 a year and pays a darned sight more excise, proportionately, for the privilege of doing so. It is only by expanding the indirect tax base, by picking up services as well as goods, and having it broadly based, perhaps excluding food, that in my view we will reduce the incidence of problems associated with the cash economy. Who dodges the petrol levy? Nobody. Indirect taxation is infinitely harder to dodge. I say to the honourable gentleman that there still remains a problem with the cash economy. We will never totally eliminate it. Even in those countries which have broadly based consumption taxes it has not been totally eliminated, but we would stand a far better chance of reducing its incidence if we had a broadly based consumption tax. I would like to say three things very quickly about three aspects of this legislation. I endorse everything that the Leader of the Opposition said about the Government's decision to phase out the taxation concession for the Army Reserve. This really is a bottler of a decision! It is an inspired decision! Only a short while ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in concert with my colleague the former Minister for Defence, Sir James Killen, was running those very good joint advertisements encouraging people to join the Reserve. They enlisted the aid of a broad spectrum of the Australian community, trade unionists, business people-everybody. It was a totally consensual approach. We were appealing to a sense of purpose and commitment in young Australians and saying to employers: 'Let these people off. Give them a bit of help. Do not hold the time they spend in the reserve against them as far as promotion is concerned '. In other words, we were saying: 'You do your bit'. There was in that appeal an implied covenant that the Government would continue to do its bit. Its bit was to continue this concession. Oh, no, that was too much. I regard this as one of those silly and mean things which I am afraid all governments do on occasions . This is one of this Government's decisions which will come back to haunt it. Government members know that this is a very silly decision. It cannot be justified and it is regarded as a very uncharitable and mean decision. The second aspect of the legislation I refer to is the decision to reduce the minor's tax threshold from $1,400 to $416. This decision means that from now people who have about $4,200 in a savings bank or building society account for one of their children will have to prepare and file a tax return- Mr Ruddock —A separate one. Mr HOWARD —A separate one, and pay some tax on it. Mr Robert Brown —It was being rorted, and you know it. Mr HOWARD —It was not. All jokes aside, we can all use rhetoric, but it is surely not rorting and avoiding tax for elderly grandparents to put some money in a building society or savings account to earn a little income for their grandchildren. As many supporters of the Government would do that as would supporters of the Opposition. For anybody to suggest that that is some kind of dodging or avoidance really defies common sense and logic. It is properly described as a piggy bank tax. It is one of those mean, silly little things that this Government has done which will haunt it. Finally, I would like to observe that this measure increases that concessional rebate block of $1,590 to $2,000. If one has concessional expenditure of more than $2,000 one can claim the excess over $2,000 at the standard rate of taxation. I put it to the House that, in view of some other decisions that this Government has taken, there is a very strong case for this Government to increase the component of that concessional rebate block appropriated to education expenses, because this Government's education policies are striking at the heart of the freedom of choice in education which previously existed in Australia. It is no accident that last night 5,000 people attended an overflow meeting in the Sydney Town Hall at which strips were torn off the education policies of this Government. It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to say truculently, as he did at Question Time today, that the people organising that meeting were misguided. He will find out how misguided many of those people really were, because the fallacy that the Prime Minister advances that all the independent schools represented at that gathering last night are the preserve of the wealthy and the rich in our community- Mr Robert Brown —He did not say that. Mr HOWARD —I know that you are not guilty of that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will direct his remarks through the Chair. Mr HOWARD —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the honourable member for Hunter was not himself guilty of that slur on the people who attended last night , but the Prime Minister was saying: 'Do not take any notice of them. They are just the representatives of the lucky people in our community'. Of course, many people in our community who are well off send their children to independent schools. Nobody denies that. But many well-off people send their children to government schools. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the honourable member for Hunter do not say that we ought to charge fees to those people, the wealthy people who send their children to government schools; somehow or other need does not come into it. I am not advocating that we should, but the Government has the burden because it has destroyed the basic concept that every school attended by an Australian child is entitled to receive a basic amount. The honourable member should not shake his head because it was in his colleague's announcement that every single child, under the Government's policy, was entitled to a basic element of support. Although it is correct that in the first year there have been some increases in the allocations to category 3 schools in the independent sector, the real danger that lies behind what has been done in this area and why I believe that the Government should consider some increase in that concessional deduction component-the $250 we are talking about-is that, instead of these being an automatic increase in the basic component of support from the government sector to the independent sector, that increase will now be made at the whim of the Education Minister each year. That is where the real threat is posed. That is why so many parents-not all wealthy people-make enormous sacrifices to send their children to independent schools. Many of them do it not because they have a family tradition of going to independent schools but because they are concerned about the trends developing in some of our State schools. Many of them do not believe that standards of discipline and attitudes in some of our State schools are what they were in those State schools a generation ago. It will do nobody any good to deny it. When some of the teacher unions of this country take their members out on strike, caring not for the educational interests of their children but for their own industrial motives, it is not surprising that so many parents around Australia are joining their ranks. How else does one explain why, in a time of economic recession, enrolments for non-government schools are burgeoning? That did not happen in the early 1970s, when enrolments fell and many independent schools found it very difficult to fill all their available places. That is no longer the case. There is now an excess of children wanting to go to independent schools. It is not because the resources of those independent schools are, on the whole, necessarily better than those of government schools. Some of them are of course, but the resources of some independent schools are deplorably poor and they need additional assistance. The report of the Karmel Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission indicated that the resource use targets set by the Schools Commission had been exceeded by 90 per cent of government schools but were substantially still not met by the independent school sector. There is a great demand in the Australian community at the moment for greater freedom of choice. The Government is going in the wrong direction in the policies it is adopting in this area. That is why 5,000 people were prepared to go to Sydney Town Hall last night. That is why I say to members of the Government that this issue strikes very deeply into the hearts of many ordinary middle ground voters in Australia. We are dealing with a whole new generation of parents who are worried about the quality of the state education system. They went through the system themselves. They were proud of it, but they are worried about the quality of some of the things that have been done in the state education system. They are worried that the teachers unions in Australia contributed $750,000-- Mr Braithwaite —How much? Mr HOWARD —They contributed $750,000 to the Australian Labor Party's campaign funds. Yet the Labor Party has the hide to talk about multinationals contributing to the funds of the Liberal Party or the National Party. I say to honourable members opposite that on this issue they are very badly wrong. The destruction of that percentage link is something that politically they will live to regret, and regret very deeply. But that is not the end of the matter and that is not the only reason why I say what I say about the expenditure rebate. The other element is contained in what Senator Ryan has said-that from now on a new independent school will not automatically attract Commonwealth capital funding if it is likely to take children away from a government school in the same area. Let us just analyse that statement. She is really saying that if in any given area people would rather send their children to an independent school than to a government school, the Commonwealth Government will not help them. That is what she is really saying. One has only to analyse that statement to realise that what is involved is a deliberate clamp on the expansion of the independent school sector. Why would people want to build an independent school unless they were dissatisfied with the government system? They would want to do it only because they wanted to exercise their freedom of choice as Australian parents. Let me say to honourable members opposite that that decision will not affect the so-called wealthy schools of the Australian community. It will not affect the well known GPS schools around Australia that are so often the butt of criticism and cynicism from those who sit opposite, although they have been known on occasions to patronise those establishments themselves. That is their free choice as Australians and I do not criticise them for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would keep his remarks a little more relevant to the debate. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am mindful of relevance as always. However, the nexus is that I am arguing that one of the measures before us deals with the increase from $1,590 to $2,000 as the point at which one can claim a concessional rebate under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Part of that $1,590 is the $250 rebate per pupil for education expenses. I am saying that because of the changes made by the Government in education funding, it should really consider increasing that $250. I think there is a very substantial nexus. Mr Carlton —They saw that. Mr HOWARD —They saw it. I am very indebted- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am prepared to allow a certain degree of latitude but I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to go too far. Mr HOWARD —I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, if we were to increase that $250 some of the more perverse effects of these changes that I have been talking about would be alleviated. The fact that if one is dissatisfied with a government school in a given area one can no longer expect Commonwealth government support to establish an independent school is a restriction on freedom of choice, and parents denied that freedom of choice will naturally, in growing number, call for an increase in that $250. That is why it is very relevant to the legislation that is now before the Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude my remarks on this group of Bills by saying something general about the volume of taxation in our community. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) said that when the former Government left office, taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product was higher than it was as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1975. That is a correct statement. It is there for all to see and I cannot dispute it. I can say, as is proper in any of these comparisons, that one of the reasons for that increase was that in 1975 the then Government had been providing child endowment and concessional rebates for children, and we introduced a family allowance system that had the effect of artificially swelling taxation receipts as a proportion of GDP. I accept what the honourable gentleman has said. I just say to him that when he leaves office in a couple of years taxation as a proportion of GDP will be very much higher than it was when he came to office. I also state as a fact that since the end of the Second World War there has been a steady rise in taxation collections as a proportion of gross domestic product in Australia and, indeed, in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and most countries of Western Europe. It has varied in momentum, and success can never be measured in absolute terms. The fact is that the Government does darned well on the expenditure side, as did the former Government, to hold outlays down to a very small percentage increase, and that applies equally on the taxation side. I say to honourable members opposite that the real reform that, in my view, remains to be done to our taxation system is to shift the burden away from excessive reliance on personal taxation. I have believed for many years, including when I was Treasurer, as those opposite and those on this side will know, that that is the single great reform that ought to be undertaken. I believe that we would have a more efficient and a more respected taxation system , one that was likely to produce more incentive and one that was less susceptible to dodging and avoidance- Mr Carlton —And less regressive. Mr HOWARD —And less regressive, if it applied to services. It would not be a perfect taxation system, it would not be a simple one. There is no such thing as a totally simple taxation system anywhere in the world but I believe that such a taxation system would be infinitely superior to and infinitely more respected than our present one. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(5.07) —Before I remark on this group of income tax Bills I wish to comment on a couple of things the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in regard to our education policy. I think he is unaware that we obtained a mandate from the people of this country to provide aid in case of need. I do not think even the Opposition would argue about this. We went to the people in 1972, 1975, 1977, 1980 and 1983. In each case we had an education policy of aid in cases of need-the greatest help to the schools in the greatest need. I am sure not even members of the Opposition would argue that the 41 asset -rich schools from which we have taken some money will be hurt, but during the seven years in which the Liberal-National Party coalition was in government those middle schools and certainly those parochial schools took one hell of a hiding. In supporting the Bills before the House I particularly congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on that portion of the legislation relating to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries, and the exemption from income tax. I point out to the House in doing this that neither the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) nor the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took the slightest interest in the fact that the burden of tax was to be lifted from a very heavily disadvantaged group in our community. I also congratulate the Treasurer on accepting the details from the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to modify the prescribed payments system. Along with many of my colleagues I took quite a battering in my office when the prescribed payments system was first mooted by the Government. A similar type of system was also mooted by the previous Government. I had many calls from my own constituents and I also had many calls from people in neighbouring Liberal electorates-there are four left in Melbourne-who had phoned their own Liberal member and had been kindly advised to ring me. I thank those honourable members for their courtesy because it gave me the opportunity to allay some of the anxiety felt by their constituents. Mostly, their unease sprang from too little knowledge of what was planned, and perhaps from the speed with which it had been planned. I offer my appreciation to the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and his staff for the patience they showed to the many individual inquiries on behalf of constituents. Because of this service I was able to satisfy most of the queries on prescribed payments except the very valid one that my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) had pointed out about the enormous amount of paper work the new system would involve the businesses in. The modifications in this legislation will be welcome. They will not produce evasion of the tax system, nor will they reduce the revenue. These things are highly important to a government that has been beleaguered by the enormous deficit it was bequeathed by the previous Government. Those payees with good tax records are catered for. Payees may now lodge a deduction form at any time during the month preceding the month of payment. Provided the payer assumes the responsibility of completing the form on the payee's behalf, the payee will not need to prepare and furnish more than an annual deduction form to a payee. I am confident these amendments will be welcomed by those involved in the prescribed payments system. In fact I have had quite a number of phone calls on that issue. As both the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer have stated, honest taxpayers have nothing to fear and the public is entitled to a government that will ensure that those who have been evading tax will honour their obligations. The prescribed payments system has been introduced primarily as a measure against tax evasion. The industries initially covered-others will be covered later-are those where substantial non-reporting of income is known to occur. It should be remembered that the prescribed payments system is not a new tax but rather a new way of paying tax. Perhaps it should be looked upon as a way of bringing those taxpayers in line with pay-as-you-earn taxpayers. I am pleased that the legislation eliminates the concession of a tax deduction for the thermal insulation of a first home. I always thought that was a foolish thing to be introduced-it was probably introduced at some election time-and that it was quite inequitable. The savings are quite small but very welcome, amounting to about $7m in a full year. The legislation also provides that the bonus of $500 paid to handicapped people as an incentive for more of them to move to full time paid employment or self-employment for a continuous period of 12 months will be tax free. I am sure this move will be endorsed by all members of the House. Much as I endorse the moves I have already mentioned, there is one matter dealt with in the legislation in which I have great personal interest. It relates to the move to exempt from taxation pensions paid to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with children. When paid to age or widow pensioners with children, these pensions are already exempt. It is matter of simple justice and equity that uniformity of tax treatment to pensioners be observed. I believe it to have been an oversight that this amendment has not been introduced by previous governments. I refer also to the subsidy for rent, lodging or board which will also be exempt from tax for unemployment, special or sickness beneficiaries. Again, this is in line with other pensioners, although once again it was not mentioned by previous Opposition speakers, and is a tremendous leap forward for pensioners. It was a strange anomaly that married couples on sickness benefit did not pay tax because they did not cross the tax threshold but, where couples received pensions paid on behalf of their children, they crossed the tax threshold and were required to pay tax on the entire pension. I am sure I am not the only member of this House who has been faced with a person on sickness benefit bringing in a tax assessment of several hundred dollars and being almost ill with the worry of how to pay up. It happens time and again and is especially difficult if the constituents happen to be migrants whose English is not too good, who do not understand the taxation system and who do not really understand why, if the income they are receiving is below the poverty level, they should be called upon to pay tax upon it simply because they have children. I have found the Australian Taxation Office in these cases to be very understanding. Single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with dependent children have not been forgotten. From 1 May 1984 they will be able to receive the mother's or guardian's allowance-again tax free-which is already paid to single pensioners. I am also delighted with the introduction of the spouse carer's pension. When a woman cares for an invalid husband she receives a pension because she is the wife of an age or invalid pensioner. Now the role can be reversed if necessary and a husband can receive a service or invalid pension while he provides care and attention for an invalid wife. This again eliminates an anomaly in our compassion to those in need. The carer's pension will not be subject to tax unless the man or woman is of pensionable age. Altogether, the legislation contains amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act in 15 areas and in most of these areas stresses the Government's desire to assist those in the community who are among the most disadvantaged. The legislation springs from the first Keating Budget, a Budget of both compassion and common sense, and the contents of it will be warmly welcomed by the entire community. The first Keating Budget demonstrates clearly that a Labor Government will not take risks with Australia's economic future. I touch on this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you were not in the chair when the Leader of the Opposition spoke about Australia's economic future and private enterprise. I am not really straying too far from the legislation. The Budget is a responsible attempt to provide the basis for strong economic growth while ensuring social justice for the disadvantaged. It is a Budget of both compassion and common sense. The tragic economic legacy bequeathed to this Government by seven years of Liberal mismanagement made this Budget an extraordinarily difficult one to frame. It was necessary to provide a substantial stimulus to economic growth without running the risk of stimulating inflation and interest rates at the same time. It was necessary to boost the public sector as a means of taking up the slack in the economy without simultaneously crowding out the private sector. The Government recognises that a sustained economic recovery is heavily dependent on the health of the private sector which provides employment for almost three-quarters of the work force. Accordingly, we will pursue economic policies which are designed to create the necessary precondition for a strong growth in private sector profitability. However, we will not allow ourselves to be seduced by the siren calls of the right wing economic quacks who have exerted so much influence on the more gullible members opposite. We now have a Government with the necessary fortitude to face up squarely to the problems it faces. The principle of legitimate tax collection is fundamental to the role of responsible government. This Government intends to collect that tax which is covered by this legislation. We intended to collect it from those who have been evading it. I feel sure that, after the first initial shock of the fact that they are now called upon to pay their legitimate tax has worn off, we will not find quite so many objections from those who have joined the prescribed payments tax system. After all, PAYE taxpayers pay weekly. These people will pay the same but whereas in the past they paid tax a year later and also paid provisional tax , they will find it a great help not to be called on to pay provisional tax at the end of the year. The Government has shown a responsible attitude in most of these amendments and I am sorry that members on the opposite side did not care to comment on any of those portions of the legislation which deal with help for the disadvantaged and those who are suffering economically within the community. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.17) —This package of legislation embraces a wide range of measures, most of which start to implement that increase in personal liability which is inevitable following the election of a Labor Government. We all know that prior to the election a number of undertakings were given which suggested that there would be an immediate change, that things would be all for the better, that taxes would be reduced and individuals would be better off. Of course, the product of the first Labor Budget was an increase on average of $15 in tax liability for those on average weekly earnings and a number of fundamental tax changes. These have come in a series of packages and the legislation before us tonight embraces a number of those that affect the more sensitive areas; they affect every member of our community. One aspect that concerns me most and to which I would first like to draw the attention of the House is the change in arrangements as they affect members of the reserve forces. Most members of this place, and certainly many in the community, will be aware that for a significant time the reserves have been promoted not simply because they are a way by which at a time of defence threat we can augment the numbers of Australia's Defence Force but because in a nation like Australia, spread around a very large territory with relatively sparse population centres and with extraordinary difficulty in communication, it is essential that we have a reserve backup to supplement the permanent members of the Australian Defence Force. Indeed, in those conflicts in which Australia has been involved, reserves have been an absolutely essential part of ensuring the capability of the Australian Defence Force. Many reserve officers have risen to a position of significant seniority, indeed even to be in command, in the Australian Defence Force. In this package of legislation we have the implementation of a phased reduction of the tax exemption on reserve personnel pay. It is necessary that people in the community realise the nature of the reserves before they consider the implications of this change. First, the reserves are not in anyway intended to complement in full detail each of the categories of the Australian permanent forces. Rather, they are intended to provide, in a broad range, a group of select individuals who, through training and service obligation, are able to provide the elements of training should there be a need for a defence build-up. For that reason it is absolutely essential that in the reserves we have people with competence and a wide range of skills in the civilian community. It is important that we find people, for example, with technical trades. It is essential that there are people who, in their day to day lives, exercise responsibility right across the field of human endeavour and commercial employment. If we are to retain those people and encourage them to join the reserves the first essential is to give them a meaningful incentive. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a light-hearted vein has suggested that people join the reserves all because of patriotism. Indeed, let no one be mistaken-the level of patriotism of members of the reserves is very high indeed. All of us realise that there are many competitive attractions in our society. There are many leisure activities that individuals can pursue in their spare time. Indeed, the product of reduced working hours has been that many people find it possible to pursue in their leisure time activities that perhaps were denied their forebears and elder brothers. In recent years we have sought to encourage recruitment into the reserves. The coalition Government saw the reserves as a very vital element of the whole of the Australian Defence Force. The Army reserves were given particular emphasis. Indeed, we set upon a recruitment program designed to augment their numbers, to provide additional training hours and to try to ensure that the level of training and equipment was such that the members of the reserves would not only get that fulfilment of the commitment which led them to recruit in the first place but would also fit very adequately within the Reserve forces. Indeed, most people will remember that one of the more beneficial changes in the structure of the Australian Defence Force which came out of the Vietnam commitment was the integration of the reserves into the Australian Defence Force . No longer did we have one group of people who were involved in the full time Services and another in the militia. Everybody belonged to the same service. Part of the product of the changes we introduced was the encouragement of people to recruit. We gave members of the reserves with greater community skills, these people, through the elimination of the taxation liability on their pay, a genuine financial incentive to maintain that service obligation as well as whatever other things they may have done in their spare time. We made the service in the reserves such that whenever the reserves were called on they performed a very excellent job. I mention, for example, that when I visited Kangaroo 83 I was fascinated to find that the Royal Australian Air Force officer who took us around the airfield at Roebourne was a Trans Australia Airlines pilot who was serving his training obligation in that rather hot, isolated and not particularly attractive part of Australia as a member of the Reserve Air Force. Another of the assessors working with the Air Force was a Qantas Airways Ltd first officer who had been a former F111 pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force and who had resigned, joined Qantas and was fulfilling his reserve obligation as one of the assessors with the RAAF team. The point of those two instances is that those people are on high salaries . The same applies to an electrician, a carpenter, a plumber, a motor mechanic or a diesel mechanic. Any of those people in the work force are the sorts of people we want to be members of the Australian reserves. Yet the legislation before the House will phase out that tax concession. Of course, it follows a reduction in the number of training hours not, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has said, from 38.5 days to 36 days to about 27 days per year which seems to be the average at the moment. So we are reducing the training time. In the changes that came out of the Budget we are certainly reducing the services available from permanent cadres to the reserves. The elimination of the school cadet corp has seen a greater obligation being placed on the reserves. Apparently, henceforth, some type of additional responsibility is to be placed on the Army Reserve to develop another type of cadet corp system which, apart from being yet another obligation on schools, will place an additional responsibility on the reserves. This is all happening at a time when the tax concession is being removed and there is no immediate certainty that anything will be put in its place. Certainly, the Minister has said that he will refer the matter to Mr Justice Coldham. In part of a general statement the Minister said: I think that I can indicate that the Government's policy on any of these matters is that they do not have retrospective effect. He is withdrawing the tax concession. He is saying that there will not be any retrospective effect. Those who are members of the reserves are virtually being put on notice that whatever the result of the reference of their pay to Mr Justice Coldham of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay they will not be compensated for that period covered by the phasing out which is part of this legislation. There is little doubt that these changes, as they affect the reserves, will be yet another impost on their service obligation. The changes will make it more difficult to attract people of the kind needed to maintain the quality of the reserves. I believe it is a very retrograde step indeed. I draw the House's attention to some remarks made by the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, made in early September 1983. An article reporting those remarks stated: . . . the members of the reserve forces also were considerably concerned about the proposal to tax their incomes. 'I am not too sure, again, what is driving this perceived need to tax them in this regard . . . I can only assume that it is the feeling that where people have a normal employment or appointment which calls in perhaps a significant salary in itself, then they have an unfair advantage over other members of the community if they also have a part-time employment which adds to their income without taxation on it.' Let me intercede to say that we all know that the character of our taxation system places on people with this second job-if that is what one calls service in the reserves-a greater taxation liability than they would have if they had only one job. They will pay a penal tax obligation for serving the nation; they will pay a penal, tax obligation because they are a member of the reserves; and they will pay a penal tax obligation because the Prime Minister says they are loyal. Indeed, there could be no greater condemnation of the changes this Government is introducing in this area than the fact that these people are to be disadvantaged, instead of advantaged, for serving their country. Sir Neville is reported in the article as also saying: If that is the thrust of it, then I would represent the point that I have a considerable admiration for those people who volunteer for the reserves. To fulfil their obligations in that respect they put in a considerable amount of what would otherwise be their free time or time that they would devote to their families or other pursuits. They give up quite a bit, and that applies right through from a soldier up to a colonel or lieutenant-colonel, and I think they deserve some recognition for that fact. Let me intercede again that that recognition has not come from Labor. The article continued: But, aside from that, again I have a fear that there would be an adverse effect in terms of reducing the numbers who would be prepared to give of that time. The strength of the reserve was important to the Army for times of emergency. The article also said: Servicemen were not looking for big pots of money, but they were looking for those things which gave recognition to the special nature of their volunteer service. Sir Neville is reported as saying: Take an example . . . When the postal concessions were cut out- another of Labor's measures-- it wasn't big money, but it was very sorely felt because servicemen saw it as a lessening of that recognition of their special service. The potential impact resulting from either firm decisions like the firm decision to conduct a DFRDB review-- of course, we have the tax obligation in that area which is another burden of Labor's-- or other proposals which have not yet firmed up, like taxation on commutation, increased payment for steward services, increased rentals, and all those things, concerns me . . . I feel that not enough advice had been taken on board before the proposals were mooted, and it has the appearance of not recognising the special nature of service by personnel within the Defence Force. There is little doubt that the Services feel let down, and properly so, by Labor . The legislation which this House is discussing tonight implements those changes for the reserves. It is a sad case of Labor, having gone to the people before 5 March presenting that glorified picture of a government that would deliver and, in practice, presenting legislation such as this which will demonstrably affect the capacity of the reserves to attract the sorts of people they need. It follows reductions in numbers in the reserves. It follows the reduction in training hours for the reserves. It follows the added responsibility given to the reserves by their being called on to maintain a new type of cadet corp. It generally represents a reduction in defence capability at a time when Australia cannot afford it. There is a whole range of measures within this package before us tonight. I am sorry I will not have time to deal with them in full detail. I wish to pick up briefly, however, a couple of other aspects as they affect very significant areas of our community. I endorse completely the very wise and well considered amendment moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) which picks up the principal deficiencies of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4). We need to realise that this package of legislation tries to change the structure of our society. This Bill, for example, is to abolish the rebate on up to $1,000 dividend income of individual taxpayers. That measure was introduced by our Government to encourage people to invest in Australia. Of course Labor is not interested in investing in Australia; it is not interested in trying to develop self-ownership. Labor members make great play of overseas owners coming in and buying Australia. What is the Government doing about measures to encourage individuals to invest in Australia? It is removing the rebate. I now turn to the modification of the averaging system applicable to the primary producers. There is a very interesting story to be told. I regret again that I will have inadequate time to follow it through. The Australian Labor Party's policy for agriculture prior to the election commented: Fluctuating prices and unpredictable seasonal conditions mean that farmers and fishermen have particularly unstable incomes. Need I say how true. Labor's policy continued: Labor recognises the need for government to provide individual producers with the ways and means of minimising any disadvantage flowing from such instability. Brave words in Labor's policy before the election. The agricultural policy continued: Labor will maintain tax averaging; Labor will maintain the income equalisation deposit scheme . . . Yet by this measure we find that Labor is to remove that scheme. I draw the attention of the House to a letter written by Mr David Trebeck on behalf of the National Farmers Federation that identifies the very real and adverse consequences that this Bill will have as far as tax averaging is concerned. Instead of maintaining the offset as it affects primary producers, including fishermen, to try to compensate for the fluctuating incomes that the policy addresses, the purpose of this Bill is to remove significantly the advantages of tax averaging as it affects primary producers. It will impose an added obligation in a way that again will impede recovery from the drought; yet it is the recovery of the rural sector that so significantly will contribute towards the recovery of Australia's economy and the regeneration of employment opportunities in this country. There was another aspect in that brave Australian Labor Party policy which sold the Australian people a pup. Labor said: The Australian Labor Party believes in consultation. We all know what a farce the National Economic Summit Conference was, but we need to recognise that in that same correspondence from the National Farmers Federation, which even Labor accepts is the body which predominantly represents the rural producer, the Federation comments that there has been virtually no consultation either in respect of the changes to tax averaging or income equalisation deposits. These two schemes were introduced at the request of the rural community to try to ensure some way of reducing the impact of those fluctuating incomes which, through drought and market changes and the added burden that Labor policies are imposing on them, mean that there is a need to try to contain the way in which a farmer can face the future. Tax averaging is designed to reduce the effect of highly variable incomes and the tax payable on them. Income equalisation deposits are designed to reduce the impact on the taxpayer of having to provide large sums to help the farmer in times of drought. Yet these two measures are being changed significantly without consultation with the farming community or those who represent it. I should like to look at another change in the Bill; that is, expenditure on land clearing and swamp drainage. This measure is to be deleted because the Labor Party says it is concerned with land conservation. What a farce! There is no doubt that, in the development of this nation, unless we properly impose various constraints on land development we will find it extraordinarily difficult to maintain productivity. True it is that most of those involved in agriculture are far greater conservationists than many of those who profess to be supporters of the conservation cause. Of course it is necessary to maintain environmentally sound practices, but the deletion of the concession is not the way by which we will achieve that objective. This concession was introduced to try to help farmers to maintain productivity, to try to help combat some of the effects of drought and to try to ensure an ability to develop and utilise Australia's soil resource in the most equitable and most effective way. This measure does not help to achieve that end. We heard the excellent speech by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He addressed himself to the proposed increase in the expenditure threshold for the tax rebate on concessional expenditure. Such an increase would affect adversely many of those who are already very heavily penalised by the ridiculous Labor education policies. We heard the Prime Minister applaud these policies today. They will prevent many of those attending Catholic and other independent schools around Australia from paying the fees they will be required to pay. Labor's policies are forcing schools to increase fees and will add to the general burden of providing a choice in education for Australians. That measure, like each measure in this Bill, is part of Labor's socialisation program. Each of the Bills within the package deserves to be rejected by the Australian people. They will not assist Australians; they will add to the penalty on individuals who are prepared to help themselves, whether they are members of the Reserve, primary producers or parents of school children. Each of those sections of the community is being penalised by the package of legislation before the House. I thoroughly commend the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which addresses those groups. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.37) —I wish to speak in favour of the five Bills before the House and, of course, to oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. In doing so I wish to remark on many of the aspects of the Bills and particularly answer some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and more recently by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). The Leader of the Opposition referred to this package of Bills as a further attack by our Government on primary producers. I take enormous exception to that remark because of all the parties in this House those opposite have the least right to talk in that way about policies affecting primary producers. Their policies did nothing at all for the very valuable and important-indeed essential-role played by primary producers in our country. Members of the Opposition have very short memories. Certainly, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has a very short memory. He, more than anybody else, was responsible for the economic mismanagement of this country over many years, and its effect on farmers was through excessive and high interest rates. The honourable member for Bennelong would know well that under his Government interest rates rose to such a level that their effect on our primary producers was dramatic and catastrophic. Indeed, by last year, as the consequence of the Liberal-National Party's seven or eight years of government, the ratio of debt to income of our primary producers was the highest ever in Australia's history. It did not happen under our Government; it happened under a Liberal government. Mr McGauran —What about the drought? Mr BRUMBY —The drought did not affect interest rates. What rubbish! The honourable member for Gippsland said that the drought affected interest rates. They were affected by the policies of the previous Government. The ratio of debt to income was the highest ever. In fact it was an unfortunate thing; the honourable member's colleagues on that side of the House agree. I shall quote from a statement made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in this House on 25 May. Referring to a farmer in his electorate, the honourable member said: One gentleman who . . . had farmed a property for 30 years, has seen his debt gearing grow from practically nil to 70 per cent of the deemed value of his property over the last four years. That was your own member admitting the complete and absolute failure of your policy. That statement referred only to interest rates. Your memories are short in relation to petrol, too. When you came to government in 1975 petrol was 14c a litre. By 1982, when you left government, it was 42c a litre. You do not have to be a mathematician to work out that the increase in petrol prices is 300 per cent. Do members of the Opposition deny that the price of petrol rose from 14c to 42c a litre under their Government in seven years, an increase of 300 per cent? You know that petrol accounts for between 8 per cent and 15 per cent of the total input cost for farms. You know that it is such a substantial part of farm costs, yet under your Government you increased it by 300 per cent. You have no right to attack our policies as being anti-- Mr Braithwaite —He should get his facts right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will direct his remarks through the Chair. The honourable member for Bendigo is quite capable of giving his speech without a cheer squad from the Opposition. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members of the Opposition say they want facts. I have given them the sad facts about their record in interest rates and how that devastated our primary producers. I have given them the sad facts about petrol prices and how they increased by 300 per cent in the period of the previous Government. One would think that that was enough but what about the inflationary policies of the previous Government? How did they affect our rural producers and our exports? Of course they seriously eroded our international competitiveness. Members of the Opposition would know that the last consumer price index movement for the September quarter has already seen inflation under our Government fall to 1.6 per cent, the lowest September quarter increase for more than five years. That is well in accord with our election commitments to reduce inflation. It is well on line with our Budget predictions and statements that our Government has made in this House that inflation will be down to 7 per cent by next year. Of all the policies that our Government could be responsible for in the rural sector none would be more important than bringing down inflation and interest rates. We have already succeeded, in part, in doing that and by next year we will be well on schedule. We will see inflation at 7 per cent. We have already seen two falls in interest rates since coming to government. The Leader of the Opposition also alluded to our scrapping of the $640m national water resources program, the gift to the electorate that was announced two months before the election in March of this year. I ask members of the Opposition: Where would the money have come from to pay for that program? No one on this side of the House does not recognise the need for additional water resources and more efficient use of water resources throughout this great country, particularly in our rural areas. It is amazing that two months before the March 1983 election a prime ministerial Press release was put out in all the marginal seasts around Australia, seats which the then Government was desperately trying to hang on to, announcing this massive bicentennial water resources program. The simple fact is that under the existing $200m five-year water resources program, the previous Government did not even spend all the $ 200m. Two months before the election the former Government said that it would spend another $640m. What rot! Of course that did not work in winning it votes because it was badly beaten on 5 March and it will be badly beaten again. When we have the resources, which we will gain from sound economic management under this Government, to put back into water resources we will. However, one cannot spend money that is not there. It is a little hypocritical of the Opposition to complain about every tax increase that we have been forced to make because of its mismanagement and to complain when we cut programs yet all the time calling for a smaller Budget deficit. Honourable members opposite ought to know after seven years-perhaps they have not learnt the lesson-that we cannot do both. A few other points were made about these Bills by Opposition speakers. The Deputy Leader of the National Party in particular referred to the proposal in this legislation to eliminate the deduction over 10 years of capital expenditure on land clearing and, in particular, swamp drainage. He made the point that it was very important that we maximise rural productivity. It is the Deputy Leader of the National Party who is on record in this House as saying that the Commonwealth ought to have no role-I emphasise, no role-at all in soil conservation. If I had the choice between soil conservation and tax concessions related to drainage and swamp clearance and denudation of forests in allocating government funding, I would certainly put money into soil conservation, and that is precisely what our Government has done. Mr Braithwaite —You do not know much about farming. Mr BRUMBY —Honourable members opposite say how little I know about farming. I happen to know a fair bit about farming and I am sure I could do a better job on a farm than they could. I am sure that our Government will do a far better job for our primary sector than the previous Government did in the last seven years. It almost destroyed it. On the question of land management, land use and the expenditure on swamp drainage and land clearing, I bring to honourable members' attention the comments of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate of 1974 which were reiterated in the Australian Heritage Commission report of 1982. The Committee of Inquiry made the following observation: Whilst the agricultural and pastoral potential of Australia may not yet have reached a stage of full exploitation, it has reached the stage where the extension of it to new places may not be of any lasting value to the community. In some cases, it may cause considerable irreversible harm. Without proper land use surveys and planning it cannot be said that there is no land which should not be cleared or re-cleared for the purpose of primary industry. However, it is one thing for the community to allow a farmer to fell trees and to drain swamps, quite another for the community to encourage him to do so by giving him special tax concessions. I think that is a fairly accurate appraisal of the decision that we have taken in relation to this matter. The measure that we have introduced does not disturb in any way at all the basis of deduction of capital expenditure on soil or water conservation. That is an important point to make. The Deputy Leader of the National Party also said that we had in some way breached an election commitment on averaging incomes for primary producers. The income averaging provisions were never designed to give primary producers a tax advantage over others in the community. Because of their unstable incomes they were designed to enable them to pay a more average rate of tax and to put them more on a par with normal wage and salary earners, who have a more stable income. However, under the policies of the previous Government-- Mr Hodgman —You have destroyed that. Mr BRUMBY —That is not true. Through the averaging provisions in the amendments which were brought in after 1978 primary producers were getting a tax advantage well in excess of that applicable to other members of the community. That is simply the fact. The system was being abused for a tax advantage not enjoyed by other members of the community. The principle of averaging is maintained: There is nothing in this legislation which removes it. Every primary producer is still able to average his income for tax purposes so that he is not disadvantaged by instability of income. Mr Hodgman —You think farmers are millionaires, as Senator Walsh said. Mr BRUMBY —No, I certainly do not think farmers are millionaires. I think their tax benefits ought to be equal to those of the rest of the community and that is precisely what our amending legislation provides for. A number of other matters, particularly the concessional rebate, were raised by members of the Opposition. We heard some very emotive, but certainly not factual, comments from the honourable member for Bennelong alleging that that will have a savage effect on taxpayers throughout the community. The change that we have made is to increase the concessional rebate threshold from $1,590 to $2,000. I point out for the information of honourable members that in 1981-82 only 8 per cent of taxpayers exceeded the $1,590 threshold. I do not think on that basis that it is really appropriate or, indeed, factual for members of the Opposition, particularly, as I say, the honourable member for Bennelong, to claim that increasing the tax threshold to $2,000 will have savage effect on the majority of people in the community. Patently, that is nonsense. As I said, in the case of only 8 per cent of taxpayers was that maximum of $1,590 exceeded. The effect of the change we have made in difficult economic circumstances when, as members of the Government know, we have been trying to reduce the size of the Budget deficit, is to impose a slightly higher effective tax liability on those with the highest incomes and the highest levels of expenditure. In the circumstances, I think that is an appropriate action for this Government to take . The honourable member for Bennelong also made certain comments about the proposals in these Bills concerning the dividend income rebate. I think the most persuasive and perceptive comments on this aspect of the Bill were made by my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). He quite rightly asked: Why should someone who invests in shares get a tax advantage over someone who puts savings into a building society or a bank? Why should such a person get that tax rebate? The Deputy Leader of the National Party made the point that this was a policy introduced by the previous Government to encourage people to invest in Australia and to put their money back into Australian business. That policy did not succeed in doing that. It originally arose as a result of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System which showed that, in fact, equity holdings had declined in Australia when compared to the rest of the world. Of course, that is a matter of concern to this Government, but the solution is not to be found in providing that tax rebate which is inequitable, as I pointed out, and as my colleague the honourable member for Hunter has so admirably pointed out. The simple reason is that people put their savings into other areas because there has been such a growth of opportunity in those areas. Over the last few years we have seen credit unions, building societies and banks offer more attractive savings. That is why people have diverted their savings from shares. It is not right, as the honourable member for Hunter has said, that someone who puts money into shares should have a tax advantage over someone who puts money into a local credit union or building society. Of course, there should be no advantage. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move to another section of this Bill. I refer to the section dealing with the part time members of the Reserve defence forces. The changes we have made have been of some concern to members in this House. Certainly, I have received representations on that matter and I have informed the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) of my concern. The Minister has taken the appropriate action. Indeed, it was taken shortly after the Budget when he referred the question of Reserve Defence Force pay to the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. I raised that matter with the Minister and for the benefit of honourable members I will quote in part the Minister's comments to me concerning the Government's decision to abolish the tax basis of the Army Reserve. He said: You doubtless appreciate that taxation policy comes within the portfolio of the Treasurer. Nevertheless, I can say on behalf of the Government that in coming to its decision to abolish the taxation exemption on Reserve earnings, the Government was conscious that the exemption was long-standing, and that its removal would create some understandable concern. Nonetheless, the Government, committed as it is to ensuring that the incidence of taxation falls fairly on all citizens, considered that the present exemption is unfairly regressive, with the greater benefit accruing to those in the higher income brackets. Those on lower incomes, or unemployed, gain the least or even no benefit from the exemption. There is much to be said for the principle that income from all sources should be subject to taxation. It is generally preferable that rates of remuneration be established on their own merits and that taxation provisions be of equal application to all. You are probably aware that immediately after the announcement of the planned withdrawal of the taxation exemption, I asked the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay to review the pay and allowances for the Reserve Forces in the light of that announcement. If the rates of pay and allowances presently include any discounting by reason of the tax free status of earnings, or for any reason are less than appropriate, I am sure the Committee of Reference will recognise these features and will recommend adjustments. I appreciate the commendable motivation of contributing to our defence preparedness that leads citizens to join the Reserve Forces. I believe that provided the rates of pay and allowances are equitable, a tax exemption is not an essential ingredient for attracting sufficient numbers into the Reserve Forces. That is the reply from the Minister for Defence. I have indicated that there is some concern. It has been expressed to me by some of my electors. The honourable member for Hunter alluded to the proposed changes. I think that importantly we do not take the view, as several members of the Opposition have done, that the only reason members join the reserve forces is the pay, because that is an insult to the members who join the reserve forces. Mr Robert Brown —It is extremely offensive. Mr BRUMBY —It is offensive, as the honourable member for Hunter has again said. He said it in his earlier remarks and I join with him in saying that it is offensive to state that the only reason our citizens make such a valuable and long-standing contribution to the reserve forces is that they are interested in the money. It is absolutely disgraceful to say that. I would have liked to make some further comments concerning the system of prescribed payments and the very important amendments which we have made in that area following the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I will make just one brief point. I refer honourable members opposite to the report of the Senate Committee which shows that since 19 September when the prescribed payments system was introduced, the Australian Taxation Office has received some 16,355 applications for income tax file numbers from people within the industry. I repeat: 16,355 applications were received. In the order of 25 per cent of those people had never before lodged a tax return. The scurrilous campaign which is being conducted by certain members of the Opposition against this tax ought to be highlighted for the benefit of the community. It has been successful in gaining tax for the community, tax which should rightfully be paid. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.57) —The House is debating today the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. They contain some of the Government 's tax policies which have now been implemented in legislation. This is the second group of tax Bills which the House has debated. They appear to be getting worse and worse as we go on. The main provisions of this group of Bills include a decision to tax gradually the contribution that reservists of the Australian defence forces receive for giving their time and voluntary assistance, for which they are paid but which they subsidise heavily through the additional time they are required to serve and through their commitment and dedication to the defence of Australia. I think it is a great shame that the Government has seen fit to move against these committed people. It intends to tax their pay. Many of them have come to reject absolutely the Government's attitude and its so-called commitment to the defence forces. I have only to point out to the House the personal commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Army Reserve scheme. Prior to his election to this Parliament, as president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he appeared on television with the then Minister for Defence and supported the concept of the reserve forces, their contribution to Australia and the skills acquired by the complementary nature of their work. After the election, the Prime Minister went so far as to write to the reserve forces of Australia complimenting them on their role and supporting their contribution to Australia' s defence. Mr Braithwaite —Rather hypocritical. Mr CADMAN —Hypocritical, indeed. Within a few months the Prime Minister was instrumental in effectively taxing the pay received by reservists when on duty. They are a group of serious- minded and committed Australians. It is a terrible thing that this Government has seen fit to tax people committed to Australia's future, as reservists are. These Bills have not introduced any difference in the zone rebates. This is a commitment which has been broken by the Government. But particularly obnoxious, I believe, is the decision to charge the tax for minors- young individuals, who are not yet working. Instead of being able to earn $1,040 tax-free the kids of Australia will be taxed as soon as they earn $416. This decision is discriminatory against young people who want to work. I do not know whether honourable members opposite are really familiar with their electorates, whether they consider that children and young people earning up to $20 a week are capitalists, or whether they really look at what sort of kid gets out after school and at weekends and works in the retail stores carrying parcels for housewives, mothers and families. I do not know whether they look at what sort of kid gets out and works in the butcher shops making deliveries after school during the week or what sort of kid delivers the local newspapers which honourable members opposite so carefully court in trying to get their names across to the community. Those newspapers are delivered by young people working after school, endeavouring to improve their lot and their opportunity. We have heard discussions about students who work after school hours for the McDonalds family restaurants. The union movement wants to unionise that group of young people. These are the very sorts of young people on whom Australia will rely in future. Yet this Government has seen fit to say that it will not provide them with a lousy $20 a week that they can earn without tax. It has said: 'We will cut that $20 down to $8. You will not earn more than $8 a week or we will be taxing you'. Let me tell honourable members opposite that the 10-year olds, the 14-year-olds and the 17-year-old students of Australia reject that concept of treatment. They absolutely reject all thought that they should not be self- sufficient, that they should not bring home to their families some contribution to the weekly budget. I think all honourable members will remember that, some years ago, there was a thought that a newspaper boys' tax should be undertaken by the previous Government. The Press screamed and the Opposition screamed. The Government said: 'Certainly there is a real consideration here. We will not move to introduce a newspaper boys' tax'. The first action of the Hawke Government was to introduce a newspaper boys' tax-an incredible decision. I do not know whether honourable members opposite have moved around their electorates sufficiently to understand the economic pressures on families, to understand how every dollar and every cent in today's economic climate is important to families. I do not think they understand that children are encouraged to find what work is available for them, to go out and actively seek work, whether it be after school or at weekends, to do the sorts of jobs that young people like doing. In farming areas surely it is a matter of young persons having their own patch of ground to grow vegetables or to raise a few lambs. They work it themselves and sell the produce themselves. This money goes into their own bank accounts or savings accounts. These are not big tycoons. These are the kids of Australia seeking to help themselves, seeking to help the family budget, seeking to support their families and seeking a little bit of self-reliance and an understanding of the management of money. What more laudible objectives could families or the kids of Australia have? Mr Robert Brown —That is not correct. You do not understand it. Mr CADMAN —I am sure that I understand it. The application of this measure will work against the young people of Australia. What about those students who go out in the Christmas period and seek to supplement their income to carry them through the academic year by building up some amount of money over this period? The way in which this Government treats the young people of Australia is unbelievable. This Government promises that it will increase the tertiary education assistance scheme by a substantial amount. It breaks that promise at the first opportunity and then taxes those who are earning some funds to support themselves. Another matter that these Bills take up is the indexation of excise. Petrol prices will increase on a regular basis as the cost of living increases and the tax figure will be retained. The Government, by this measure, is seeking to take from fuel users, by a new tax, a tax by stealth. It will be raising this year a total of $1,054m. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr CADMAN —It will be raising $1,054m; a huge slug on the productive sector of Australia. This measure was not introduced by this Government as some sort of conservation measure on fuel. It was not introduced for anything other than revenue gathering purpose. This Government is gathering that revenue very successfully. I have dealt with some of the measures contained in the legislation that the House is considering. I have dealt with the willingness of this Government to tax those people who are prepared to give their time in contributing to Australia's defence. In that regard the Government is on a hook. Despite its comments on its own policy it has only a few options left open to it. It has the option of increasing reservists' pay sufficiently to compensate for the tax penalty. Honourable members opposite might consider it compenstion. This cannot be done without paying reservists more than the corresponding Defence Force personnel of equivalent rank. That seems to be an option that should not be considered. The Government can back down partially and tax reservists' pay at the basic rate in the dollar. This would eliminate discrimination against reservists but it will impose a heavy penalty upon them just the same because they will be taxed. Members of the Government may not be aware that in 1974 the Whitlam Government examined these matters. The recommendation that came through, that was accepted by that Government, was that, in all equity, reservists' pay should not be taxed . This matter has been considered. It was considered 10 years ago in detail by a previous Labor government. Its decision was not to tax reservists. Yet this Government has gone ahead and taxed reservists. I have dealt with the newspaper boys' tax, the discouragement of young people to go out and earn after school, the increase in petrol prices by the implementation of indexed excise charges and the disabling effect that this will have on the productive sector of Australia. This is fine. But I believe that there is more to come. I believe that the Government has measures that it proposes to introduce and will be introducing. Lump sum tax on superannuation is just one of those measures; the assets test is another one. These are the areas we are yet to see. These are the very things that the Government said it would not do, which it is now committed to do and for which it will be introducing legislation in the weeks to come. We are through the second phase of legislation with the passage of these Bills. The third phase is to come. There is even more down the road when we come to think of the prospect of capital gains tax and other measures, to which many members of the Government are committed, which I believe will be introduced. I think we need to look at the political principle of making promises at an election and then immediately breaking them. A moral principle is one thing but let us look at the political principle. Let us look at the principle that the Government has introduced by making policy announcements and then breaking those policy announcements when it comes to office. I think all Australians were critical of the New York Yacht Club, the very organisation comprised of lawyers that sought to establish a set of rules for a yacht race. Subsequently, whenever there was a strong challenge it wished to change the rules as the challenge came about. We have experienced that as a nation. I do not think a single Australian has any sympathy for the approaches used by the New York Yacht Club in order to keep the Australian challenger out of the event. The process was one of changing the rules after the race had started. It is despicable and deplorable. I believe that the Australian people will completely reject this Government's approach to making promises at an election and then changing the rules after it has come to office. We need to look at what this Government has done and what it proposes to do. We need to look at the commitments it has made to lump sum tax on superannuation as recently as the National Economic Summit Conference held in this Parliament. Commitments were made by the Prime Minister to the union movement that no taxes would be applied to lump sum payments of superannuation. Commitments were made by Ministers and even the Prime Minister, if one reads his words correctly, that there would be a capital gains tax and they promised that there would be tax cuts after the election. The Government, in its promise of tax cuts went so far as to attach an appendage of tax scales to its policy statement on the cuts that would be made by it when it achieved office. What is the record of this Government, a government that claimed it would cut taxes and which then proceeded in the opposite direction? It will raise an additional $3,833m from Australians this year. That is the increase, that is the commitment-a massive $3.8m additional tax will be raised by the Government this year. It is a big government, it is a greedy government. It is a government that demands funds from Australians, from people such as reservists, from the kids and students of Australia. It demands funds from those who are retiring and those who are about to retire and it will be demanding funds from those who own property or capital. It will even be demanding additional funds from the workers of Australia due to the recent wage increase awarded by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In fact, about 200,000 middle income earners will shift to a higher tax bracket following the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision to grant an increase to wages of 4.3 per cent during the national wage case. The higher rate of 46c in the dollar applies only to incomes above $19,500. Earnings below that will still be taxed at the lower rate of 30.6c in the dollar. For people earning just below $19,500 a year the decision to increase wages by 4.3 per cent will mean perhaps an extra $2 a week lost in tax. An estimated 200,000 people will go into a tax bracket where they will be paying 46c in the dollar. These people are very close to earning the average wage. The Government, by denying its promise to the community of not decreasing taxes and not looking at tax indexation or tax cuts of any sort, is gradually grabbing more and more from the Australian people. The 200,000 additional taxpayers who will pay 46c in the dollar will now be deciding whether they will work extra hours, whether the wage increase was really to their advantage and whether they ought to pull back the productivity of Australia by declining to take extra responsibility or work extra hours. The impact of the wage decision, with no corresponding reaction from the Government, will be extremely damaging to the Australian output, Australian productivity and eventually Australian families. But what about the capital gains tax area? I have found it extremely illuminating to read the Bulletin of 27 July 1982. The current Prime Minister was interviewed and his attitude to capital gains tax was sought. Mr Hawke said to the Bulletin that his position is pretty clear in regard to capital gains tax . He said: I think there has to be an effective capital gains tax and, of course, our party policy is now to try and achieve that by strengthening of section 26A and Triple A. That was said by Mr Hawke in July 1982, nine months before he became Prime Minister. Senator Button, more recently on 22 October, when asked about his attitude to capital gains tax said: Of course I will put it to the Government. I've been putting it to the Government and the Opposition for several years now. The two most senior members of the Government, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Prime Minister, both support a capital gains tax. This country does not know what is ahead of it. The Government is seeking to tax those who are young and about to be productive and it is increasing taxes on those who are productive. The Government is taxing those who are about to retire and will be retiring. It is taxing people right across the board who are contributing the most to Australia's future-Australia's golden future if we could only realise it. The Government has reaffirmed itself as a big spending government, a government that likes to gather big taxes as a high tax government. Not only has it taxed all of the groups that I have outlined, but also legislation is in preparation to tax an even wider range of people such as the young, the elderly and the productive. These people all face the penalties of having an Australian Labor Party Government in office. We have started down a track to increased taxes. Taxes will increase. There has not been any indication that they will be modified in the Government's sortie to gain additional funds for its goals, and socialist objectives, which it wishes to put in operation. The people of Australia are starting to suffer and they will suffer more by this process. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(6.16) —Until one hears individual members of the Opposition speaking on economic matters, one can be forgiven for wondering how on earth the Fraser Government or any government could have allowed a once affluent nation such as Australia to end up in such an economic mess. But after hearing such Opposition members as the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) speak, one is no longer at a loss. There is no longer any excuse for wondering how this happened. This honourable gentleman has been breaking his heart over a situation which does not exist. He has entirely misinterpreted certain provisions of the income tax legislation. I refer particularly to those provisions which he feels will lead to the taxation of children who are doing little bits of work, helping little old ladies across the street in order to make pocket money or to make money in a small business of their own. I point out to the honourable member the words spoken by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week when he introduced the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill. The Treasurer pointed out that this legislation contains a number of important exclusions. One of these is particular classes of children who are not subject to the measures at all; for example, children who are handicapped, disabled, orphaned or in full time employment. To clarify further the matter for the honourable member, the other exclusion covers specific classes of income, such as salary and wages and other remuneration for services rendered, income from a business genuinely carried on by a minor, income from damages, awards, compensation, divorce settlements, deceased estates and the like where no avoidance arrangements are involved. It is, therefore, quite clear that the provisions do not apply to children's earnings attributable to their own part time or full time work. To refer to it in such a term as the newsboys' tax is absolute nonsense and a grave misrepresentation of its true nature. This misinterpretation of the legislation being put forward is not one off. Regrettably, it covers a number of aspects of the legislation which we are now considering. Some six months ago this Government presented to the House a Bill designed to give effect to its election promise to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes. In an unmatched display of political expediency designed to harm the people of Australia, in a bid to stop this Government from recouping avoided tax to the tune of $6 billion, which the former Government allowed to slip through its fingers, the Opposition forces joined hands in the Senate to block this essential legislation. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) has already capably outlined the appalling loss of taxation revenue allowed by the present Opposition when it was in government. We, as a government dedicated to lifting Australia from the depression into which it had plunged after seven years of Fraserism, will not be hindered from achieving our aim on behalf of the people who elected us. The most recent Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill will be debated at a later time this day. The legislation I am supporting now is another aspect of measures taken to achieve a more equitable distribution of income in Australia. In some areas it is stronger than we would have wished, were the economic climate more favourable. It must not be forgotten that this Government did not inherit a comfortable economic situation We were elected precisely because the economic outlook was so dark. The electors of Australia sorely needed a firm, just and responsible government which would take those steps necessary to ensure that the growing number of poor and jobless Australians were not left to their own ineffective devices as the victims of a world-wide slump which had attracted new policies in other countries, but which the previous Australian Government did not have the intestinal fortitude to introduce. This legislation implements some of the Government's Budget decisions. I am proud to note that it exempts from tax the open employment incentive bonus payable after 1 October 1983 and the remote area allowance payable from May 1984 . It also exempts from March 1984 the additional benefit paid to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries caring for children, and the supplementary allowance paid to sickness beneficiaries to assist with rent costs. The legislation provides for the remote area allowance received by a taxpayer to be deducted from any income tax zone rebate otherwise allowable to the taxpayer, and for the spouse carer's pension which is to be introduced from 1 December 1983 to be taxed on a similar basis to a wife's pension. This Government is not interested in bringing forward taxation legislation which protects the wealthy and the corrupt, but in protecting those at the bottom end of the scale, those whom the previous Government sorely neglected. Also included is the phased withdrawal of the tax exemption for pay of part time members of the reserve defence forces. In this context I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and other Opposition members have done a grave injustice to members of the reserve forces. I join with my colleagues the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Hunter in declaring that members of the Reserve-those whom I know-are generally dedicated, patriotic Australians. They are not in the forces for the money alone , but to help to train young people in the defence of Australia, and they are absorbed with this training. I do not say that they should not be fairly paid for this service, but in the past they have not been treated in the same manner as the regular forces, which they deserve to be, given the high quality of their work. In fact, the entire area of staffing and facilities in the defence forces has been permitted to run down. This measure is one of many undertaken by this Government to ensure that defence money is spent in the most effective manner to upgrade our forces. I would be most disturbed if members of our reserve forces were to be disadvantaged in comparison with their fellow members in the regular forces. I do not believe that that will be so. The tax exemption was introduced in 1964 by the Government to stimulate recruitment. However, the Millar report-the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizens Military Forces-in 1974 recommended the continuation of this exemption from income tax. A subsequent committee of reference for defence force pay proposed that if the taxation exemption were abolished, the earnings should be increased. Following the adoption of these income tax amendments, the Committee is to: . . . inquire into, and to recommend appropriate rates of pay and allowances for members of the reserve forces in the light of the Government's decision to provide an exemption from income tax of 50 per cent of the pay and allowances of the part time members of the reserve forces, with this exemption to terminate after a period of twelve months. The Committee will report by 30 June 1984. What could be fairer? This Government is proud of the part played by members of the reserve defence forces. I will now briefly comment on changes to the prescribed payments system. This is another area in which the Opposition has been extremely irresponsible. It is logical to expect that people, be they self-employed or pay as you earn taxpayers, should pay taxation at the same rates. As I have pointed out before, we in government tried to bring in legislation which would recoup some of that taxation which was avoided and lost to the previous Government. That was blocked in the Senate. We are now trying, through this legislation-and, I point out, on the figures provided by the honourable member for Bendigo we are succeeding in getting the tax avoided-to have a prescribed payments system which will ensure that people who are self-employed put in a return and pay the just amount of tax owing. It is obvious that those builders, contractors and other self-employed persons who have honestly paid taxes on their earnings in the past will in no way be affected by the legislation. Those who have been cheating will have to pay. It is as simple as that. The Opposition has been grossly irresponsible in its response to this legislation, particularly in its efforts to arouse opposition by misrepresenting the motivation for and effects of the legislation. As the honourable member for Hunter noted, although the Government believes that the prescribed payments system is fundamentally sound, refinements have been made to some administrative aspects in an attempt to reduce the paper burden on some taxpayers. Payees with a large number of different payers will be provided on application with an exemption certificate to be used on invoices and statements. The Australian Taxation Office will accept this as an alternative to the declaration. This should result in a significant reduction in paperwork, both for the exempt payees and the payers with whom they deal. Provisions under which a payee may submit the monthly deduction form have been modified. This shows the manner in which this Government is sensitive to the needs of the electorate. It has always seemed fairly stupid to me that in a parliament a government should bring forward legislation which it says is right and which it will not change for any reason; that oppositions should always oppose; and that the people who are affected by the legislation can go hop. This Government does not see the situation this way. We bring forward legislation such as the prescribed payments system in an effort to attain equity in payments of taxation. When we found that the additional paperwork was causing inconvenience for many self- employed people, we quickly moved, as seen in this legislation, to modify our first requirements so that now those who have been disadvantaged in some small way, those who have been honestly paying that amount due by them, will no longer be disadvantaged in this manner. 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 payees who operate computer based business systems. These amendments clearly evidence the Government's willingness to refine the system to meet valid concerns about its operation. The proposed amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act are designed to change the previous system which we all know was fraught with decades of amendments and abuses; to restructure the taxation system and provide a more equitable distribution of the more obvious benefits of being an Australian. The Fraser Government left this country in an unprecedented economic mess. As a result of the economic mismanagement, we have had to prune the deficit by amendments, many of which we realise are unpopular with some segments of the community. These changes will result in an Australia with a more mature social conscience, and a country whose population again has greater access to home ownership; where the elderly, disadvantaged and disabled can live in comfort and dignity, and where the unemployed can feel a sense of belonging. As announced, on 1 July 1983 the Government terminated the home deposit assistance scheme, which was available to all home owners paying in excess of 10 per cent per annum in housing loans on their sole or principal residence. From 1 October 1983 access to the March 1982 home loan interest tax rebate scheme was also terminated. This has been replaced by a new housing package which includes the first home owners assistance scheme, providing help where it is needed most, for first home buyers, and which stimulate the public housing industry which was in a very depressed state. Social welfare benefits will be increased under these amendments. Additional benefits for children were increased from $10 to $12 a week for each child from last week and these benefits will be made tax free from March 1984. Allowances to mothers and guardians are to be paid at the rate of $8 a week and will also be tax free, as are the supplementary rental allowance payments to sickness beneficiaries. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mrs DARLING —I have already outlined the manner in which the Bills before the House seek to rectify the inequities in taxes paid by taxpayers in past years, noting particularly that, apart from exempting from tax additional benefits paid to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries caring for children and the supplementary allowance paid to sickness beneficiaries to assist toward rent costs, the legislation provides for the remote area allowance to be deducted from any income tax zone rebate otherwise allowable to the taxpayer. As well as this, a special rental area allowance to be introduced on 1 May 1984 for permanent residents of income tax zone A will also be tax free. All these social welfare measures will benefit the needy in the community, as will the open employment incentive bonus which was introduced for those people in receipt of a sheltered employment allowance of six months standing or more who move to full time paid open employment and remain there for at least 12 months. This $500 bonus is also tax free. The legislation is designed to achieve equity for all Australians. It brings our nation one step closer to the land of equity and justice which we know it can be. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.02) —It is always interesting to hear Government members talk about a land of equity and justice, especially after they have just introduced a package of legislation which had its genesis in the statement of May this year and the subsequent Budget, the first Budget of the Hawke Government. It is not inappropriate to make a judgment of the veracity and effectiveness of Government legislation on the basis of the commitment which it made to the Australian people. What better document could I draw on than the policy speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition on 16 February 1983 in the excellent venue of the Sydney Opera House theatre? On pages 12 and 13 of this statement he made a number of comments which are worth reading into Hansard . He said: Our government's total income tax package . . . key elements . . . include immediate reductions in income tax for almost 6 million Australian taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes who have suffered most under Mr Fraser's policies. A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. It is a sad reflection on the reality of the Government's activities that the Australian Council of Trade Unions calculated that this financial year alone some 200,000 people will be placed in higher tax brackets as a result of policies announced by the Governmnent in May and in the last Budget. The commitment which the then Leader of the Opposition made to the Australian people meant that anyone whose income was $60,000 or less could expect to receive ' immediately'-that was his word-a reduction in direct taxation. We wait and we wait even longer for those reductions to occur. The fact is that the first Budget brought down by the Hawke Government was totally bereft of any reductions in taxation whatsoever. On the contrary, taxation-indirect taxation in particular-actually increased. The major points mentioned on that date when the policy speech was made contained other interesting elements. It was said that the Labor Party would introduce: a new six step tax scale to restore the progressive nature of the tax system. All we can say is: 'Not yet'. There was to be: a lift in the tax threshold to $5,000 which will free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax. Again all we can say is: 'Not yet'. The then Leader of the Opposition said that there would be a lift in the tax threshold for pensioners from $4,650 to $5,893. Again, not yet. He said that there would be: increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate, resulting in additional tax cuts of $2 a week to families and increases in zone allowances by 25 per cent for taxpayers in remote areas. We know what happened. There was no increase of 25 per cent for any taxpayers in the remote areas of Australia. That is yet again a promise flagrantly broken by the Hawke Government. He went on to suggest that the Government would introduce a major new concession for the small business community, which is necessary in these very difficult and harsh economic times. But again the Budget and the May statement said nothing about it. He also said: We shall legislate to allow up to 100 per cent retention of profits by small business where these funds are to be used for genuine business operations. Again we wait in hope. Finally, he said: There will be no new capital gains tax. All we can say of that is we have to wait and see. There is talk of a wealth inquiry. Action has already been taken to redefine certain sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act. But one thing is clear: In all the provisions of taxation reform introduced tonight in these Bills there is not one suggestion that the Labor Party has learned that, until we encourage Australian people to make money and to spend it, they will fail if they believe that by constantly increasing taxation, whatever the purposes of expenditure, we will be able to build a better society built on the expectation that at least some governments live by their commitments and their promises. I will refer specifically to a number of items in this package of Bills. I start with the abolition from 1 July 1983 of the rebate of up to $1,000 of dividend income for individual taxpayers. That proposal was announced in the May economic statement. No commitment was made in the Labor Party's manifesto or in the policy speech. Along with a whole range of other tax provisions in these Bills, the abolition of the rebate was introduced without the support of the Australian people and certainly without any clear mandate from them. The key question about the proposal to abolish the rebate of $1,000 of dividend income is that less than 6 per cent of the Australian population own equity in the companies and corporations which are the very substance, the very basis, of the economic strength of this community. I would have thought it was time for a government which states that it believes in the need to let everybody have a ' fair go' at least to realise that, unless the capital base of the Australian community is utilised and fortified by encouraging individuals to take a share of the responsibilities for productive growth instead of simply talking continually, as the Labor Party does, about the rights of people without ever talking about their responsibilities to the community, the type of society which the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) spoke of is not likely to be seen in our time. It is absurd that only 6 per cent of Australians own equity in Australia. That is an utterly unacceptable position when one compares that figure with the United States, the United Kingdom or any other similar economic system. It simply demonstrates that the division between capital and labour is not just something we have inherited from Great Britain. Up to the time that deduction was introduced by my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) when he was the Treasurer, not enough had been done in this country to encourage individuals to feel that they had something to give to the corporate growth of Australia while at the same time having the right to expect a just and fair return from that investment. Prior to that we have built into the system the division between capital and labour. I deeply regret that the Government has decided to remove this tax rebate. The amount of money involved was not vast, but it demonstrated a clear decision by the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government of the day that individual Australians must be encouraged to have equity in the development of this nation. We have heard so often in the past from members of the present Government about the horrors of foreign investment. The simple fact is this: If the Australian people are not prepared to make investments in the development of this nation, we have nowhere to go other than to seek foreign equity or foreign loan investment. But again, the Government had its chance and threw it away. The Government had the opportunity to demonstrate that it wanted to build a society in which all Australians had the responsibilities of making a contribution and was prepared to assist them to do so. But no, it decided to go in exactly the opposite direction. Some remarks have also been made this evening about the decision to remove from the reserve forces the tax free income which they had previously received. I have spoken at some length on this subject on a previous occasion. I emphasise to this House, to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and to other members of the Government that it is not good enough to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, as the Government is still doing, in programs to encourage young men and women of this country to give of their time in the service of Australia as members of the Reserve and at the same time expect them to do it virtually for nothing. It is not just a question of dollars and cents. These people make a physical commitment at great loss to their families because they are not home on weekends as they are out serving this nation. This is not something that we can simply relate to mere dollars and cents. As I said to the honourable member for Lilley when she was speaking, what value do we place on the life of an individual? It is beyond comprehension. There is no true value in monetary terms. The Government has encouraged individuals to serve this nation in the Reserves, to give something of themselves because they believe in the future of Australia, and by the small, miserable decision as it has introduced in this legislation, the Government is taking from them yet again. Most of the provisions which we are debating tonight demonstrate yet again the small, niggardly attitude of a government which was elected on the belief of so many Australians that it had a grand design. All we have seen is this small, pusillanimous attitude that it has adopted, that people who give of their time and give of their resources are to be taxed, taxed, taxed. 'Tax' is a simple three letter word which the Government knows best of all. This attitude is not peculiar to this Government. Socialist governments in this country from time immemorial have found it much easier to apply new taxes than to look for ways of running a more efficient ship of state and of generating income. It is the wealth of this country which we have to look to. The very social problems that the honourable member for Lilley and others have talked about so eloquently cannot be overcome unless we can create in this community a better financial base, a better capacity to create growth than we have had over recent years. I wish finally to comment on certain other matters. I agree with the Government 's proposal in relation to the introduction of the spouse carers pension. I think that is an excellent proposal and it certainly has my support. For too long we have seen a situation in Australia in which husbands and wives, often in old age, have been broken apart and sent off to homes or hospitals because the other member of the marriage was unable to support them. I believe that this is not only a sensible proposal in economic terms but also a humanitarian one. Certainly, the Opposition supports that approach. I refer now to the question of expenditure thresholds. This is a matter upon which my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) spoke most eloquently this evening. The proposal to make no changes in the education concessional rebate, which still remains at $250 per child, is unacceptable to the Opposition. To that I add others. The concessional rebate for land rates, for example, still remains at $ 300. I ask any member of the Government to give me the name of one local government in Australia which allows ratepayers to pay land rates of only some $ 300. The average land rates in this country are at least twice that and in many parts of Australia the rates are in excess of $1,000 a year. I refer also to the allowance of a miserable $250 for self-education expenses. No change has been made to that. Again, no changes have been made in regard to other questions such as premiums for superannuation funds and so forth, the premium remains at $1,200. Surely the essence of the case I was presenting earlier cannot more eloquently be demonstrated than by the niggardly approach that the Government has taken on these matters. Again, the Government wants to take from people but is not prepared to give them the incentive to improve themselves. It is not prepared through its taxation system, which is the best mechanism which any Federal government has had at its disposal, to enable the sinews of development in this nation to move, to create jobs for people at a time of massive unemployment. I emphasise that come February of next year when this nation will be looking at an unemployment rate in excess of 840,000 people, when virtually half a young generation will be in danger of being lost because they will feel society has given them so little, if anything at all, the Government will not be able just to blame the Fraser Government. The realities will be on the record. The Government will have had its chance. It will have had a Budget and a May statement in which it could have introduced effective programs, and it failed. I only hope that when the next Budget is introduced at least there will be some progress in what has been to my mind a most unsatisfactory set of tax provisions introduced this evening. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Street, A. A.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Mountford, J. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Kerin, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Edwards, Ronald Newman, K. E.Kelly, R. J. Cameron, IanCharlesworth, R. I. Millar, P. C.Jones, Barry MacKellar, M. J. R.Keating, P. J. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [No. 3] Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.30) —This legislation, the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1983, must surely qualify for the description of the Blue Hills legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament. This represents the third occasion during the lifetime of this Government and the fourth occasion, if one includes the lifetime of the previous Government, that the Australian Labor Party has endeavoured to persuade this Parliament to accept the notion that legislation described as applying to so-called bottom of the harbour tax evasion arrangements, but which does not in fact apply to such arrangements, should be accepted by this Parliament in the name of recouping company tax evaded under those arrangements. I believe that this debate has gone on for so long and has become so confused in the minds of many people that it is worth while taking just a moment to restate the principles that are involved, to remind the Parliament of what was done by the former Government and to remind the Parliament why, again, the coalition parties, as we did in government and twice previously in opposition, will oppose certain of the measures put forward by the Government at present. Mr Hurford —Shame! You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Mr HOWARD —I remind the House and, in particular, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) that the purpose of the 1982 legislation was very limited indeed. It was designed to do one thing and one thing alone and that was to recoup unpaid company tax without penalty and without descrimination from those people who had derived a financial benefit from its non-payment. That legislation was designed to go no further than that. It was designed to recover an unpaid taxation liability. It did so by attaching that liability to the person or persons who had derived a financial benefit from the non-payment of that taxation. It was, therefore, from the very outset quite fundamental to the legislation passed by this Parliament at the behest of the Fraser Government last year that if one did not derive a benefit from the tax evasion one ought not to receive an assessment. That notion is very relevant to some things I shall say in a moment about certain provisions of the Bill which is now before the Parliament. It is my understanding that in terms of collections and recovery the legislation passed by this Parliament last year is operating satisfactorily. I understand that, for example, about $180m of a projected recoupment of about $590m has already been collected. It is also my understanding that despite the presence in the legislation now before the Parliament of a provision to delete sub-section 3 (12) of the principal Act, the alleged let-out in that sub-section, which was the subject of some comment during the recent election campaign, has not proved to be an avenue of escape to companies which would otherwise be caught by this legislation. In other words, a case has not been very strongly made by the Government, in terms of the experience it has had with the administration of this legislation, for the deletion of that clause. This measure does a number of things. According to the explanatory memorandum it repeats some provisions in earlier legislation which ensure that liability for recoupment tax will not be escaped by reason of an ultimately unsuccessful post-sale or pre-sale tax avoidance scheme. Secondly, it authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to name in his annual report persons who fail to pay an assessed recoupment tax liability in respect of unpaid company tax. Thirdly, it purports to remove the test which requires that an arrangement which rendered a company unable to pay its tax must be identified before a recoupment tax liability can be established. Fourthly, it provides relief from liabilty to vendors recoupment tax in certain anomalous public company cases. Fifthly, it varies the evidentiary provision to ensure the constitutional validity of the legislation. Finally, it corrects minor tehnical defects. I inform the House on behalf of the coalition parties that we will vote against the provisions I have enumerated under points one, two, three, five and six. The provision providing relief from liability to vendors recoupment tax in certain anomalous public company cases is a proposal we will support. We will be proposing an amendment in the Committee stage to the effect that that provision be extended to private companies as well as to public companies on the simple basis that the existing discretionary provision in section 6 (18) is available to both private and public company shareholders. We on this side of the House see no reason why the like proviso put forward by the Government should not also apply to private company shareholders. In those circumstances, it will not be the intention of the Opposition to vote against the motion for the second reading of this Bill. The Bill shall go into the Committee stage and in the event that our amendments in the Committee stage are not accepted by the House the Opposition will vote against the motion for the third reading of this measure in this Parliament. Let me go back now to the first of the measures proposed by this legislation. That measure simply proposes that liability for recoupment tax will not be escaped by reason of an ultimately unsuccessful post-sale of pre-sale tax avoidance scheme. That measure is designed to delete from the principal Act sub- section 3 (12). Sub-clause 3 (12) was inserted by the former Government last year. We resisted then Opposition amendments to have it taken out which were moved by the Labor Party Opposition in the Senate on the basis of one very simple proposition-that unless we leave sub-section 3 (12) in the legislation we will have situations where companies which, to use the colloquialism, have not been sent to the bottom of the harbour, are, in fact, caught by the legislation. Far from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) being justified in saying that it defies logic for sub-section 3 (12) to be in the Act, if this Bill is about bottom of the harbour tax evasion it defies logic to take sub-section 3 (12) out. That sub -section was put in the Act to ensure that a company rendered unable to meet its tax liabilities other than through a bottoming exercise in fact is not caught by the legislation. I remind the Government and, in particular, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer that the purpose of the provisons to recoup unpaid company tax evaded by arrangements which were the subject of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act passed by this Parliament in December 1980. I put it to the House and to the Minister that if the Government takes out sub-section 3(12) it will catch arrangements which are beyond the reach of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. That is why the then Government opposed its deletion last year; that is why we opposed it in May; that is why we opposed it a few weeks ago; and that is why we are opposing it again tonight. Let me take the opportunity of emphasising at this stage that that in no way illustrates any kind of inconsistency, hypocrisy or change of mind. How on earth can we be inconsistent if we have voted the same way in government and in opposition on no less than four occasions, if one counts tonight? I dismiss immediately the charge that may be made by the Government to the effect that we are in some way behaving in a hypocritical fashion on this issue. Mr Hurford —It just means you have been wrong three times. Mr HOWARD —No, it means that the Government has been wrong on four occasions. The Government cannot describe something by a definition which this legislation goes far beyond and accuse us of defying logic. It is the Government which is defying logic and the meaning of the English language by describing these practices as being within the purview of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. Secondly, the design of this Bill is to authorise the Commissioner of Taxation to name in his annual report persons who fail to pay an assessed recoupment tax liability in respect of unpaid company tax. We believe that it is an unnecessary provision. We believe that people, having been obligated to pay up under the 1982 legislation, certainly are obliged to pay a taxation liability that has always been there but which has shifted to them through the operation of retrospective legislation. Frankly that is enough. It smacks of the discriminatory and penal provisions for people to want those persons to be named by the Commissioner of Taxation in his annual report. In those terms, as on earlier occasions, we will not have a bar of it. Thirdly, the design of this legislation is to remove the test which requires that an arrangement which rendered a company unable to pay its tax must be identified before a recoupment tax liability can be established. In other words, the purpose of this amendment is to apply a less strict test on companies, the possible target of this legislation, than is implied under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. That has only to be stated to show the inconsistency which is being argued by the Government. If in fact the purpose of the 1982 legislation were to recoup tax evaded by arrangements, the target of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act, how can we justify a measure which waters down the test contained in the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act? That is precisely what this provision does. In those circumstances the Opposition proposes again to vote against that legislation. The fourth provision which provides relief from liability to vendors' recoupment tax in certain anomalous public company cases is a measure which the Opposition will support. We will support it because it underpins the original intention of the 1982 legislation. There is some argument as to whether the amendment is strictly necessary, but if it is the Government's advice that it is necessary to give effect to the intention of the 1982 legislation regarding benefit, the Opposition has no quarrel with that proposition and will certainly support it. The Government is proposing that the Commissioner of Taxation be given the capacity to vary in part or in whole the liability of certain public company shareholders who may be within the reach of the recoupment legislation. We will not only support that measure but also propose an amendment to provide that the benefit of the same provision be extended to private company shareholders as well. Under the existing Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act-that is, the Act passed by the Fraser Government last year-there is a wide discretion in the Commissioner of Taxation under section 6 (18) to excuse from recoupment tax liability any person if in the Commissioner's view it is unreasonable that that person should meet that recoupment tax liability. Mr Hurford —Yes, but it has been redrafted. Mr HOWARD —I accept the good faith of what is proposed by the Government. I frankly have no quarrel with it. I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the significance of section 6 (18). We all know, of course, that the celebrated beneficiary of section 6 (18) was the family company of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) knows, I have at no stage said that the Minister for Finance should not have had the benefit of that section. That clause was inserted by the former Government to ensure that if a person in effect received no benefit or a purely nominal benefit, in accordance with what I said at the commencement of my remarks there ought not to be a recoupment tax liability. I say quite openly that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Perth correctly applied the 1982 legislation by giving the dispensation. That was what it was, because there was a prima facie liability by Coomel Pty Ltd under the legislation. It follows from that dispensation that there must be literally hundreds of other public company shareholders in a similar position to that of Coomel Pty Ltd. I should imagine that many of those people have already paid their taxation assessments. I should further imagine that during the next few weeks the Commissioner of Taxation will start to make refunds to quite a number of people who have already made their payments. I hope that during this debate the Minister for Housing and Construction will take the opportunity to give an assurance to the Parliament that that course of action will be followed. I know that it would be the intention of the Commissioner of Taxation to ensure that all taxpayers in a similar position receive similar treatment. I think it is also fair to assert that there may not have been many public company shareholders-if any at all-who had received the Dawkins treatment prior to the time at which the dispensation was given by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. I make no further comment except to say that one of the beneficial results of the Opposition having questioned the Minister for Finance about his nominal connection and not his beneficial connection with these taxation arrangements is that the availability of this provision under the legislation has been flushed out. I say again to the Minister for Housing and Construction that what happened in relation to Mr Dawkins's company was absolutely correct. It was in accordance with the 1982 legislation. It follows that there must be hundreds of people connected with the small number of public companies involved who are in a similar position and are entitled to get their refunds. I hope that during this debate the Minister can give us an assurance that they will get their refunds. I should like to make it absolutely clear that if those people get refunds in the course of the next few weeks they will be refunds under the Fraser Government legislation and not as a consequence of the amendments which the Government now proposes and which we are prepared to support. The Dawkins let-out was provided under the 1982 legislation, not under the amendments that are now being proposed . Equally, the refunds that I expect people will start to receive in the next few weeks must also be provided under the 1982 legislation. The Opposition believes that there is no good reason why the amendment the Government is now proposing in respect of what it calls anomalous cases in relation to public company shareholders ought not to be applied to shareholders in private companies on the same terms. I understand that that may involve some administrative hassles and that from an administrative point of view it may well be easier for the measure proposed by the Government to be left as it is, but I hope the Minister Assisting the Treasurer might agree that if it is fair enough for the general discretion under section 6 (18) to be available to both private and public company shareholders it is also fair enough that the new let-out which enables the Commissioner to refund in part as well as in whole and to refund overpayments also be available to private company shareholders as well as well to public company shareholders. If the Minister dissents I would be very interested to know the basis in principle, bearing in mind that in no case are we talking about circumstances other than those in which a benefit is derived. I say again that I support the attitude taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Perth. This 1982 legislation was predicated entirely upon the receipt of a benefit. By going down that path the Government is giving effect to the intention. That was what it did in relation to the Dawkins let-out, and of course that is what must occur in relation to the refunds. I hope that the Government will see its way clear to support that provision. The fifth element of this Bill varies the evidentiary provision to ensure the constitutional validity of the legislation. I understand that this derives from a concern on the part of the Government that the conclusive evidentiary nature of the certificate of the Commissioner of Taxation which is conferred by the 1982 Act may, in the eyes of some, cause some constitutional problems. The matter has been litigated before the High Court of Australia. I think the normal practice of the Parliament is not to anticipate court decisions. Obviously, all parties would need to give consideration to the situation in the event of the High Court deciding against the validity of the existing legislation. In those circumstances we do not think it is appropriate at this stage for the Parliament to be considering this proposition. A couple of weeks ago we voted against this clause and we shall again vote against it. Likewise, we shall vote against the remaining provisions of the legislation. In the time that remains to me I will say a couple of things about the campaign which is being waged by the Government in the wake of the Opposition's defeat of this legislation in the Senate and which no doubt will be waged by the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is sitting at the table, and others in the light of the Opposition having said again that it will oppose this legislation. The Government has adopted the McCarthyist tactic of saying that anybody who is in any way opposed to anything which it chooses to label as being an anti-tax avoidance measure is automatically and by definition a friend of the tax avoidance industry. Mr Hurford —Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —The Minister says 'Hear, hear!' and again endorses it. Let him not be heard to complain if, because he may have any kind of nominal association with anybody who has any connection at all with any kind of extreme left wing politics in Australia, people call him a friend of that left wing organisation. Government members react pretty badly to that sort of description. People who pride themselves on being in the centre of the road of Australian Labor Party politics get pretty worked up if people say that they are a friend of the communists, the left wing or some other organisation. Honourable members can equally understand that there may be some people on this side of the House who are just as worked up about tax avoidance as Government members are but who happen to think that the way the Government is going about it is wrong. I say to all Government members that they can scream until their hearts are content about friends of the tax avoidance industry. We demonstrated our position very clearly in the legislation that was passed last year. As I said in the debate this afternoon, in August last year the then Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Gellibrand, who was the Treasury spokesman for the Labor Party, said: 'As soon as we get into government we are going to do 15 things that are necessary to smash the tax avoidance industry'. The Government has attempted to do one of them which is absurd and unjustified. The Government has done nothing else. Of course, what that demonstrates is that the tax avoidance industry was well and truly dead by the time honourable members opposite came into government. It was put into that state by the legislation passed by the former Government-and not the 1982 legislation. It is part of the great myth about the tax avoidance debate that the really effective legislation of the former Government was the 1982 recoupment legislation. That was not the case at all. The two pieces of legislation of the former Government that had a dramatic effect on the tax avoidance industry were the new Part IVA, with the general anti-avoidance provision, put into the Income Tax Assessment Act in May 1982 and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act passed in 1980. The 1982 legislation was limited to the recoupment of about $600m of evaded company tax left unpaid as a result of arrangements which were the target of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. The second lamentation of the Government has been that as a result of the wicked Senate knocking back this legislation we will have to put up everybody's tax. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came into this House and said: 'We are going to put up your tax because you have knocked this legislation back'. The Treasurer said: 'Oh, no we are not. We are only thinking about it'. The Prime Minister went to Moreton, suddenly remembered he was facing a by-election and said: 'Maybe we will put up your tax'. For a couple of days we had glorious confusion between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The Government has no warrant at all for arguing that taxation must rise as a result of this legislation and its predecessor being defeated by the Senate. More revenue is being lost by the Government's own decisions within a week of this year's Budget than will be lost this year through the Senate's rejection of the legislation a couple of weeks ago. By your own decisions you threw away $80m of revenue within a week of the Budget having been brought down. Yet you have the audacity to say that this legislation which costs -- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask that the honourable member address his remarks through the Chair. Mr HOWARD —The Government has the audacity to say that rejection of this legislation, which could cost about $60m, is in some way a shock horror and will force this Government to raise taxation. That is an absurd proposition. It only has to be stated for any objective person to understand how completely absurd that notion is. Let us put aside for all time the argument that because people are concerned about the justice of the Government's proposals and because people believe that the purpose of legislation is to recoup company tax evaded as a result of the stripping of companies having current year profits and that it goes beyond that it cannot correctly parade under that description, they ought to be regarded automatically as friends and supporters of the tax avoidance industry. I think that fair-minded Australian people will understand that. Of equal importance is the absolutely sham claim of the Government that because of the blocking of this legislation it has been forced to resort to less popular measures; it has been forced to throw the burden on to other honest taxpaying Australian citizens. That was not the song of the Labor Party in 1981 when it was busily blocking the sales tax legislation. I have looked through Hansard and I have read the speeches that were made by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans; the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh. They said: 'What is $135m? It is nothing. Forget about it. It does not mean a thing in the overall collection of revenues in a Budget of $40,000m to $45,000m'. However, dramatically two years later $60m is a matter of life and death. It warrants the Prime Minister coming in here in all this trumped up indignity saying: 'It is absolutely dreadful; it is outrageous and we will have to do something to stop it occurring. We will have to impose some kind of savage income tax'. However, do not worry about 1981. I will bring honourable members more up to date, to a few weeks after the Budget, when Senator Walsh, the Treasurer's representative in the Senate, was asked a very simple question. He was asked: 'Firstly, was it true that post-Budget decisions of the Government had cost revenue $80m to $90m and, secondly, did that have a harmful effect on the Government's economic strategy?' Senator Walsh said: 'What is $80m or $90m? Forget about it. It is nothing in the overall totality of things. It has absolutely no impact at all on the Government's economic strategy'. No doubt the Minister Assisting the Treasurer will say in his Uriah Heep fashion: 'It is absolutely terrible that these people have been denied $60m and we are going to have to put a savage income tax impost on the Australian people. It is all the previous Government's fault'. I think he protesteth too much. The Prime Minister's excuses on this matter are wearing a little thin. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that its $ 80m or $135m is nothing but that our $60m means that it must increase income tax . It is an absurd proposition. It will not be sustained. We reject it and I believe that the Australian people will reject it. The Opposition, for the fourth time-once in government and on the third occasion in opposition-will vote against, in a thoroughly consistent manner, the bad proposals that are contained in this Bill. Everybody in this Parliament knows that the legislation passed last year by the former Government had elements of controversy about it. It involved a considerable degree of agonising on the part of the then Government parties. I make no apology for it. Our Party went through a proper debate on that issue. It was a difficult debate and many people had proper reservations about that legislation. In those circumstances for the then Opposition-the present Government-to seek to extend that legislation in the manner proposed is quite unfair. It goes beyond the concept of recoupment. This measure cannot properly, by any use of the English language and the understanding of the taxation arrangements involved, be described as either recoupment legislation or bottom of the harbour legislation. It is for that reason that we will vote against the bad provisions that I have outlined. We will not divide on the second reading of the Bill. We will attempt to amend the Bill in the Committee stage. If that attempt is unsuccessful we shall vote against the third reading of the legislation. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(9.00) —I support the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill and the cognate Bills. I say, not so much to the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), but to the Opposition members generally that you failed in two decisive areas. You had seven years in government and there is no excuse for your lack of action on those two decisive areas. One was that you failed to update the laws. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) — Order! The honourable member will direct his comments through the Chair. Mr JACOBI —I am addressing the Opposition, not the former Treasurer. You failed in two decisive areas-to update company law and to enforce existing law. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I insist that the honourable member direct his comments through the Chair. Mr JACOBI —I am doing that. I am directing my comment to the Opposition. Let me be more specific. I want to re-canvass some pertinent observations that I made. I have debated this issue four times and the remarks I made on the initial occasion are just as pertinent today as they were then. They were directed at the bankrupt track record of the previous Government, which has led to the problems that we face today. Opposition policies in areas of tax and corporate law, which we have inherited, can best be summed up in a very simple dictum: Incentives for the rich to get richer are good, especially if they are embedded in the tax system; welfare for the poor to get less poor is bad. It is worse if they actually do. That destroys character. We have witnessed an extraordinary saga of ineptitude and inequity over the last 10 years. The culprits are those who can afford the advice which allows them to evade or avoid perhaps all of their tax. One has witnessed, certainly over the last 10 years, the very sad spectacle of two professional groups, lawyers and accountants, that have been dragged into tax schemes which everybody knows are blatant, artificial and contrived. The Opposition did nothing in its seven years in government until the ultimate two years. At whose expense in fact do the better off sectors of our society score because of the exploitation of appalling gaps in the law? Only now are Australians getting some glimmer of the real depth of the corruption and amorality of some of the wealthier members of society. Wage and salary earners, small businessmen and many women pay their income tax to provide for social benefits which the revenue pays for. For years their income tax load has escalated. They may have had to raise families, build homes, run businesses, run farms, but they still have paid their allotted share of tax. Now they have discovered that in many cases may companies and wealthy members of society do not contribute any tax at all and to these people paying tax has become optional . In 1979 I said: Who in the community is carrying the greatest share of the income tax burden? It is certainly not the rich or the well-off . . . The well-off are not carrying the greatest share of the income tax burden, according to the figures provided in the 1983-84 Budget statement on Estimates of receipts to be found in Budget Paper No. 1. If one takes the actual tax collections for 1982-83 from various categories as a percentage as total taxation revenue, one finds that the net group tax instalments by wage and salary earners and company directors totalled 67 per cent. Companies paid 17 per cent. Trusts, professionals, partners, small business and property owners paid around 15 per cent, and withholding tax represented one per cent. In 1979, I said: It is obvious that wage and salary earners have practically no avenue to evade paying their share of the tax burden, but the same cannot be said of people who are well off. It is astonishing that in 1976 the level for group tax instalments by wage and salary earners and company directors totalled 60 per cent. It has increased by 7 per cent in the short period from 1976 to 1983-84. Let us get back to the persistent carping which has been heard from members of the now Opposition over the four years of debate on this issue. Some sections of our professional people argue that they should not make moral judgments about what they or their clients do and that they should be able to turn a blind eye. How many groups in history have used the same sort of reasoning to try to escape moral blame? Let me quote what I said last year on the same matter. It is as pertinent this year. I said: Some honourable members opposite try to excuse the actions of avoiders and their advisers. They claim that, because when vendors sell companies the companies owe no tax at that time, the vendors are blameless. They cannot plead ignorance of corporate accounting practice. Is it that they cannot differentiate between the wet and dry Slutzkins? Let us take the dry Slutzkin. It occurs where companies are stripped of accumulated profit after primary company tax has been paid. In receiving the proceeds of sale in the form of capital what was avoided was the secondary tax that would have been payable by the shareholders if the accumulated profits had been distributed by way of dividends. The disposal of a company in this manner was held to be effective by the High Court of Australia, and such cases are not covered by the legislation. Yet anyone knows that the vendors either knew or ought to have known that the tax was being avoided and that they were profiting by such avoidance. In contrast, cases popularly known as wet Slutzkins involve the stripping of profits before the primary tax liability has been met. After the profits have been stripped the company records are disposed of. In these cases there is a clear and undisputed liability for payment of tax on untaxed profits of the company at the time of the strip. The liability still exists but cannot be collected as the companies have been stripped of their assets and dumped. The vendors ought to have been aware that the tax would not be paid by the company. I went on to say: They ought to have known that most people sold their companies just before the end of the financial year deliberately to avoid paying company or other taxes. Certainly many of the companies did not actually owe taxes at the time of the sale, but everyone knew, especially the vendor shareholders, that liability for the current year was soon to be assessed and that, morally or in equity, the company did owe taxes when it was sold. Of course the vendors knew that they were avoiding taxes. Did they think they got high prices for their shares simply because they had struck a good bargain or because the purchasers were stupid? Were the vendors so ignorant of tax and commercial matters that they did not know these things? Of course not. It is utter nonsense to claim otherwise. No professional man in this chamber can do other than agree with that statement. I continued: The wet Slutzkins are morally worse than the dry Slutzkins but they are both avoidance tactics. Both are shonky and contrived. No one is fooled by the blustering and humbug of interested pressure groups. Not least of all do I get annoyed by professional people who put across the same story. Let us turn to another culprit in all this. Nobody has touched on this aspect. As I said before, Australian company law as it is structured provides very little protection to small shareholders or trading creditors. Similarly the administrative and judicial machinery for enforcing such laws is complex, cumbersome and unsuitable to the effective combating of corporate malpractice and crime. Regrettably, the existing so-called national company laws provide a breeding ground for the spiv, the charlatan and the corporate crooks. I say to the former Treasurer in all sincerity that if one were to study, as I did, the O'Reilly report, one would find that it is an appalling indictment of executive administration. That is where the defect has been since 1965. The previous Labor Government stood indicted, I might suggest, between 1972 and 1975 . One cannot blame the Australian Taxation Office, because the defect was that many of the laws were in place but they were not enforced. The previous Government turned to the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill, which was quite unnecessary. It has taken 10 years to get Brian Maher at least before the courts . That could have been done under the Crimes Act at least seven years ago. It is no good talking about this and that, about what the Government ought to do and what it ought not to do. Let us at least have a look at what this Government said it would do. During the debate in Parliament in October 1982 and again during the 1983 election campaign we said that Labor would move to recoup personal income tax avoided by the schemes. We quoted John Howard's own estimate of $500m in lost revenue. We committed ourselves to abolish exemption for companies put through a tax avoidance scheme before being stripped of profits. That is set out in sub- section 3 (12). We also said that we would abolish the 12 months-to-pay provision. Following discussions with Senator Jack Evans and Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats the Government agreed to retain the 12 months to pay provision. In response to criticism of the Bill and in an attempt to secure its passage in the Senate, the Government indicated its preparedness to accept an amendment removing the capital profits component from recoupment of avoided personal tax. As it happened this proposed amendment did not shift the necessary one vote that we required that would have secured a majority for the Government' s Bill. The Government shifted from its mandated legislation which would have raised $350m in 1983-84 and $570m in total to a position where the two amendments-the 12 months to pay and the capital profits amendments-reduced the revenue yield to $185m in 1983-84 and $430m in total. On Budget night the Government introduced a new Bill which made significant concessions in relation to the personal tax to be recovered. The new Bill was to recover personal tax avoided in respect of the liberated after tax profits of those years where evasion of primary company tax was involved; that is, the personal tax measures were to apply to current year profits. Personal tax was also not to be recouped in respect of any capital profits of the stripped company. Further, there was to be no liability for personal tax where the only company tax evaded for that year was undistributed profits tax. These concessions significantly reduced the revenue yield as originally envisaged. The new Bill was to raise $60m in 1983-84 and $270m in total, compared with the original Bill which was to raise $350m in 1983-84 and $570m in total. The same coalition of senators defeated that legislation. The Government decided not to proceed with a further attempt to recoup personal tax. The Bill introduced on 3 November deals only with measures to strengthen and improve the company tax recoupment measures as originally proposed. Principally, this Bill removes the so-called innocence clause, that is, the exemption from liability where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. The Bill also expands the anomalies relief provisions of the previous Government's legislation. Under that legislation the Commissioner of Taxation has the power to give complete relief, firstly, where the amount otherwise payable is less than $100 and, secondly, where persons have not in any way benefited from the evasion of company tax giving rise to the recoupment liability. I am pleased to note that the former Treasurer made reference to the company Coomel Pty Ltd. I will not go over the same ground. He is correct in that. I do not disagree with that. The new provisions in this Bill will assist people in cases where a public company shareholder is well removed from the actions giving rise to the recoupment tax liability. These will mean that a public company shareholder, unconnected with the scheme, who received only a relatively small benefit from the evaded company tax could have his or her recoupment tax liability reduced so as to reflect appropriately the benefit received. If the Commissioner does not consider that a person is entitled to such relief the person concerned can have his or her case reviewed independently by a taxation board of review sitting as a recoupment tax anomalies tribunal. The strengthening of the company tax recoupment measures will yield at least $40m while the anomalies relief could cost $5m. In 1983-84 the Government expects to collect $20m representing a loss of $40m on that budgeted for in August and a negligible amount next to the $350m to be raised for this year by the original amending legislation. In the few minutes I have left to me I come back to where I commenced my speech . I think it is an appalling scandal that the law makers of this country have persistently perpetuated ineffective law. I do not think that there is any doubt that the so-called wet Slutzkin schemes were helped largely by the easy creation , manipulation and destruction of straw companies. We have done nothing about that. In the 14 years that I have been a member of parliament I have persistently tried to get that provision updated in the Companies Act in line with New Zealand, the European Economic Community and, in particular, all western European countries. If one compares our legislation with that applicable in New Zealand one finds that it is a joke. If one compares our legislation with the laws in Europe one finds that it is laughable. Until such time as we, as legislators, close up that appalling gap and as long as we enforce taxation laws to a certain level, the same capacity and propensity for tax avoidance and evasion will continue. I got a reply from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) the other day with which I must confess I am not particularly impressed. As long as the co-operative system remains in place efficient and effective laws certainly will not meet the market place. If ever there was an area to which we would have to apply our minds it would be to give the Taxation Commissioner the support that he needs to make the laws enforceable and effective. We will not be able to do so unless we update the other three corresponding sectors of the law; that is, the area of company law, securities law and, to some extent, bankruptcy and liquidation. We have to correspondingly go along with that. We have to, in some way or other, retool the judiciary. I just want to make one further observation. I think the legislators, to some extent, have to face up to the fact that my Government in 1972 and 1973 faced a hostile High Court of Australia. We may even face a hostile High Court in the future. So there is even more obligation on us to put laws in place. I remember the former Treasurer and I getting into holts when I said that we ought to put in a provision to alter the canons and constructions of law in relation to the High Court. The former Treasurer will remember that he said we could not do it. We ultimately did do it. I think that is one weapon at least with which we can strengthen the armoury against tax avoidance. Finally, I think the biggest problem, as I said earlier, is the deficiencies in the law. They are the cornerstone for people, whether they be corporate crooks, spivs or charlatans. If the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union have done nothing else, they have certainly highlighted the long litany of corruption, collusion and malpractices in a whole range of areas. I say to governments: To some extent we have to clean up the laws. We have to retool the judiciary. There needs to be a constant surveillance of tax laws if we are not to go through the sorts of problems we have over the last three to four years. I think the Government has done an excellent job. I think the Opposition stands indicted for the fact that it has not been consistent at all. The Opposition ought to have supported this legislation if only on grounds of justice and equity. This tax avoidance and evasion situation has escalated to such an extent that tax collections have increased from 60 per cent to 67 per cent and that burden is being carried by people who cannot avoid or evade their tax. The number of people who can avoid their tax is escalating. There is something wrong with the system. Why ought we not recoup that avoided tax? We have an obligation to do so. The former Government failed on those two counts. It is with pleasure that I support the legislation. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.20) —Listening to the last speaker, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), for whose concern for company law I have a sincere respect, and for whose views on tax avoidance I have also a sincere respect-I do not agree with him on all matters, but I respect him in that he holds those views and expresses them very honestly and directly-one would have thought he would have acknowledged the record of the previous Government in wiping out tax avoidance. It is very easy for Government members to say what they would have done if they were in power when in fact they were not in power. It is simple to reinvent the world when we know we will never have the task of reinventing it. The honourable member and speakers from the Government benches could have pointed out that about 28 specific schemes were legislated against by the previous Government. The speakers on the Government side could also point out that the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act was introduced in 1980 by the previous Government under the previous Treasurer. It was under the previous Treasurer that the great majority of the specific legislative reprisals against tax avoidance schemes were brought into being. Speakers on the other side could also acknowledge that Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act which came into effect in about May 1981 coupled with the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act has effectively stopped tax avoidance. If anyone disputes the accuracy of that proposition the simple test is to ask this question: What additional weapons has this Government given to the Commissioner of Taxation? The answer is none. This Government has now been in power for seven or eight months. It came into power making the most stringent and vituperative criticisms of the actions of the previous Government in the field of tax avoidance. It came into power exercising its prerogative in electoral terms to parade the big lie. What is the big lie? It was identified by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). It is simply this: Anyone who speaks against legislation which is to hit people who are described as tax avoiders, rip-off merchants or bottom of the harbour merchants, anybody who believes that there should be some kind of balance in terms of justice in the operation of the law is probably a crook and, at the very least, the friend of crooks. We all know how one of the present Ministers of the Government used to attack people on this side of the table. He did so on the basis that I have described, that those who opposed anything which was proposed by the then Opposition did so for the most base of reasons. As I say, I would have thought that in honesty members of the Government would concede that a great deal of work was done under the previous Government and no further work needs to be done in terms of general remedial, anti-avoidance legislation. If it does we have not heard a word from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) as to what loopholes may still be there. The truth is everybody in this chamber accepts that tax avoidance has been effectively killed although it will never be completely killed. If it has not been killed off, the Government has been in dereliction of its duty since day one when it came into power and it remains in dereliction of its duty and it is either dishonest in what it says or incompetent in the way in which it administers government. That being said, let me just take up one or two of the other things that the honourable member for Hawker said. He referred to the possibility that one might face a hostile High Court of Australia. I have heard this kind of criticism made again and again. I point one thing out to him-the Court is there to form a view about legislation. One may disagree with the conclusions that courts reach. I frequently have disagreed, particularly when my own arguments were not accepted by the courts. But disagree as one must if one is dissatisfied as part of a legislature, one legislates to overcome what one thinks is wrong in the court's thinking. However, the honourable member for Hawker very honestly identified the kinds of transactions that this legislation was originally concerned with. I refer to the Act which was brought in under the previous Treasurer with which these amendments should be concerned. In one of the phrases in his speech he said that after the stripping, company records are disposed of. He referred to companies stripped of assets and dumped. On a number of occasions he used the expression ' the stripped company'. I think that identifies the kinds of transactions with which the legislation was originally concerned; that is transactions which involved deliberate evasion at the end of the day and from which persons benefited whether knowing of evasion or not knowing of it. I accept that as the basis on which legislation was put to the House and it is the basis on which this debate should proceed. If one looks to what the Government now proposes, one sees, first of all, a proposal which we support, to relieve from liability to vendors recoupment tax persons who held shares in public companies but received effectively no benefit. I will return to that in a minute. Secondly, the Government proposes and we do not support, in particular, proposals to remove essential elements of the Act; that is, the element which focuses on the stripping of the company so that it was deliberately denuded of any capacity to pay tax without any concern being given to its liability and without any concern lawfully to minimise its liability. The other of the two essential elements is to seek to remove attempts at lawful avoidance. The other element of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill that concerns me is the proposal to name persons in the reports of the Commissioner who have become liable to a tax liability under the 1982 Act. I will return to that as well in a few minutes. But first of all I will deal briefly with the amendments which concern persons who have not effectively received a benefit and who are shareholders in a public company. The honourable member for Bennelong has proposed that the provision which is before the House now should be extended to include private companies. We support that measure because we think it is fundamentally just that if a person has not received a benefit he should not pay tax. The tests which are laid out in the section concentrate attention upon improvement, if any, of financial position, liability to tax, payments of tax, and the nature and degree of any connection between the person who may be liable to tax and other persons such as vendor shareholders, directors of companies which were involved, and the like. There would appear to be no good reason why the same criteria cannot be applied to private companies. In saying that, I acknowledge that the shareholders in some private companies would have a very much harder task of getting themselves within that exemption, and so be it. Mr Hurford —Have you any evidence that there are any? Mr SPENDER —The Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer asks me whether I have any evidence that there are any. He should be saying 'I have no evidence that there are any', because he is the person who has access to the information; we do not. I would be perfectly astonished if such cases did not exist. He will recall-or he should recall-that there is a distinction for the purposes of tax law between private and public companies which does not mirror the distinction between proprietary and public companies in the companies law. Mr Hurford —Why do you waste the time of the House when you have no examples? Mr SPENDER —The Minister asks me why I waste the time of the House, because I have no examples. If he is not concerned with justice and equity, we on this side of the House are concerned. Let this Uriah Heep, as he has been so accurately described, justify to the House the reasons why he will not accede to the Opposition's amendment. Let it be said that in this instance the Minister for Finance has unwittingly done a service to the House because, quite properly, he has been given certain treatment by the Commissioner of Taxation and that has illuminated the problem that people can face under this legislation. Therefore, there is no possible reason why, so long as the same criteria are employed, shareholders in private companies should not be in the same position as shareholders in public companies. Let me come now to the removal of the essential elements to which I referred. They include the fact that a company has been stripped and the elimination of post-sale or pre-sale transactions where there has been an attempt before the sale or after the sale lawfully to avoid tax. We are concerned in this House to distinguish between evasion and avoidance. Avoidance amounts to the legal rearrangement of a taxpayer's affairs to avoid attracting a tax liability or to reduce the amount of that liability. Whether one likes it or not, the law allows people to do that, and so long as the law allows people to do that, it is a matter that must be judged by the law. We should not be seeking retrospectively to alter the position. Evasion involves intentional wrongdoing and that, of course, brings into play quite different considerations. Those considerations are quite fundamental. If we do-as is now sought to do-take out of the Act the provisions which focus upon stripping, effectively we are taking away the rationale of the previous Act . If, coupled with that, we take away the need or the requirement that in certain circumstances where there has been a fair attempt to avoid tax before the sale, or a fair attempt to avoid tax after the sale, we are saying: 'We are not concerned with your intentions; we are not concerned whether beforehand you sought to arrange matters so that there was a lawful avoidance of tax; we are not concerned whether afterwards you sought to arrange matters so that there was a lawful avoidance of tax; nor are we concerned with whether the company has been stripped. We do not care whether it is unable to pay tax because of commercial misadventure, because a sale price in a purely commercial situation may have been miscalculated in terms of the amount that was left over to meet a tax liability, if any'-honourable members will recall that most companies sold in commercial situations are sold during the tax year; very few people wait until 30 June for the purposes of entering into commercial transactions-'We do not care about those matters. The fact that you have acted honestly, the fact that the persons who received the company have acted honestly is to be entirely beside the point. Nevertheless, we will for presentational purposes, continue to categorise what you have done and the benefit you may have received as something which has been received from evasion or from bottom of the harbour activities'. This is, as was put by the honourable member for Bennelong, the classic McCarthyist tactic. The Government is saying that anyone who seeks to advance reasons why certain persons should not be caught-anybody who opposes this legislation-is, as I said earlier, a friend of the tax avoidance industry and probably a crook as well. A campaign of disinformation has been put before the Australian people. If the Government wishes to change the law so that those who acted honestly are to be caught, let it do so and state its intensions openly. If the Government proposes that, regardless of innocence, regardless of a person's attempts to ensure that a company met its tax liabilities, that person is to be caught, let it state its position very clearly so that we understand what the Government is about. Let us not have these explanations which are put on the basis that what we are here concerned about is evasion, when the Government is removing from the previous legislation tests which were critical to it, tests which focused attention upon the element of evasion. Returning again to what the honourable member for Hawker said, if a company has been stripped and deliberately denuded of its assets, that is one thing. If it has not, it seems to me that that is an entirely different proposition. If persons involved acted in accordance with what they conceived the law to be, that seems to me to be one thing, regardless of what one's social or political judgments may be upon it. If they have not so acted, that is another thing. They should not be subjugated to liabilities when they acted within the law as they conceived it, and as it was then conceived to be, so long as they acted honestly and so long as at the end of the day they did not benefit from evasion. Nor should they be placed in the position where the Commissioner of Taxation can name persons in a report, persons who may be entirely divorced from any element of fraud. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(9.40) —I take this opportunity to review some of the background to the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill [No. 3 ]. Before I do that, I will respond to a couple of matters raised by members of the Opposition. First of all, I respond to a quite facetious comment made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer, in his opening remarks. That facetious comment was to the effect that we are considering Blue Hills legislation. I am as aware as the honourable member for Bennelong of the protracted nature of this legislation, but facetious comments of that kind do not sit very well with the Opposition, nor with their colleagues and collaborators in the Senate. The sorry saga of attempts on the part of this Government to introduce and to have passed effective legislation to pick up tax revenue which was lost to the Treasury in the past but which should not have been lost to the Treasury has not been of our making. How the Opposition can now reconcile its attitude to this legislation with the attitude it adopted to legislation considered here earlier today, I do not know. It claimed that it did not oppose the second reading of that earlier legislation because it was a Budget provision. We have maintained, with some substance, the claim that this legislation also is a Budget provision. It was announced at the time of the May economic statement and the revenue to be obtained by this legislation has already been included in the Budget. So, the suggestion from the Opposition, that it will not oppose Budget measures, simply does not stand up to scrutiny or examination. I make reference also to a comment made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) with respect to what he alleged to be adequate definitions of tax avoidance and evasion. I was interested to hear him refer to tax avoidance as a legal arrangement. Tax avoidance is nothing of the kind. Tax avoidance certainly takes place within the law and under legal provisions, but to call it a legal arrangement when it represents a legal manipulation, an attempt to find a way through the law and to enter into non-commercial practices by utilising the wording of the law and offending against the intention of the law, is to offend against the language and the meaning of tax avoidance. Tax evasion certainly is illegal, and I endorse the honourable member's definition of that. When he is talking of legal arrangements and suggesting that the law has been designed to enable that sort of arrangement to be undertaken-- Mr Spender —I did not suggest that for one moment. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member referred to a legal arrangement. There is nothing wrong in people engaging in tax minimisation. That is their responsibility and to minimise the tax that they pay within the legal provisions that exist they can then make legal arrangements. But I would suggest that an attempt at legal manipulation by finding smart-Alick ways through the law and by enter into non-commercial arrangements simply to obtain some tax benefit and then excusing that by defining it as a legal arrangement offends against all the concerns expressed about tax avoidance and evasion. I said that I wanted to review the background of this legislation. The former Government's original legislation dealing with the wet Slutzkin scheme was introduced by the former Treasurer on 23 September 1982 and was reintroduced in a modified form on 21 October 1982. The Australian Labor Party Opposition at that time supported that legislation but, in the process of supporting it, we took advantage of the opportunity to make it perfectly clear that, were we at any time in the future given the opportunity to legislate to pick up the rest of that tax that had not been paid, we would do so. On that occasion the Australian Labor Party, as the Opposition, served notice on the Australian electorate that it would act as soon as it was able, to pick up the tax that had been avoided. We made that perfectly clear before the last election as well. Everyone knew or should have known that that would be the intention of the Labor Party if it became the Government and, with that in its election policy, of course, the Labor Party was elected to government. There is no question that this Government has a clear, unqualified mandate from the Australian electorate to introduce this legislation and to pick up that tax. I will say more about how that amount of possible tax recoupment has been diminished as a result of the actions of the Opposition in this House and, with its collaborators, in the Senate. Our original legislation-that is, the honouring of that undertaking to pick up that tax-was introduced on 18 May this year by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). First of all, it honoured the election undertaking but, secondly, it provided for the former owners of stripped companies to be made liable for the personal tax on the total after-tax accumulated profits which were in effect received by them as part of the price they received from the sale of their shares. As far as the Labor Party was concerned, that was the major deficiency in the legislation introduced and passed by the former Government. Of course, the original Bill was passed in the House of Representatives because we had the numbers. If my memory serves me correctly, the Opposition divided on the question in order to make its opposition more apparent. Despite the fact that it was passed in this House, it was then defeated at the second reading stage in the Senate on a tied vote. The first major issue considered in the Senate on that original legislation was what became known as the Senator Macklin amendment. He wanted to refer the Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. But the Senate was satisfied that, because of the taxation secrecy provisions, the Committee would not be able to establish the facts of any case. That amendment was lost on a tied vote. The second major amendment became known as the Senator Mason amendment. It was designed to remove any of the purely paper capital gains from the provisions and to provide for an organisation to consider any possible anomalies involved in the application of the legislation. That amendment was defeated in the Senate overwhelmingly. Senator Harradine, the Independent senator from Tasmania, indicated that he would not support the Bills unless, in addition to removing the capital profits provision, they also excluded the dividends or after-tax profits that were reinvested by way of loans or share capital in a new corporate entity carrying on the same business. As a result of those amendments and the attitude then adopted by all members of the Opposition in the Senate, together with three Australian Democrats and Tasmania's Independent Senator Harradine, unfortunately that legislation was defeated. As a result of that legislation being defeated the Government then amended its approach and introduced further legislation incorporating the amendments that were based on the obvious concern and opposition within the Parliament. That second legislation, the amended version, was introduced on 23 August. In that legislation we no longer sought to recover the personal tax on the total accumulated profits of the cashed-up and stripped company. The recoupment was to be confined to the tax avoided only in relation to after tax revenue profits in the year in which the evasion of the primary company tax occurred. In other words, it was to apply only to current year profits. An implication of that limitation was that a liability for avoided personal tax would not arise where the only tax evaded in that year was undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. One of the other amendments or modifications introduced into that legislation was that personal tax was not to be recouped in respect of any capital profits of the stripped company. Even those concessions were not acceptable to the Opposition. They would have reduced the total amount of the tax which could have been recouped to $270m. Who was responsible for that reduction in the amount of tax to be recouped? As I have indicated, it was the three Australian Democrats and the Tasmanian Independent, Senator Harradine, working in collusion with all of the members of the Opposition in the Senate. I want now to emphasise the taxation or the revenue significance of the position which has been adopted by the Opposition. In the first place, had the present Government persisted with its claim that what should have been collected was the real value of that tax which has been avoided since 1972 as a result of those schemes that were operating, and if as a result of that the present Government had arranged to index that lost revenue, the amount picked up as a result of the legislation introduced by the present Government would have been $ 840m. That figure represents the real value of the unpaid tax which stayed with the owners of those companies. That is an important figure to keep in mind because the rest of the developments which indicate the way in which that $840m has been reduced to an negligible amount, reflect very unfavourably on the position which has been adopted by the Opposition. The Government abandoned the intention to index that sum in the legislation that was introduced on 18 May. The effect of that conscious decision by the Government was to reduce the real value of that recoupment from $840m to $570m. So if the legislation introduced on 18 May had been passed the public revenue would have benefited to the extent of $570m. But it was not passed and it then became necessary for the Government to modify that legislation. The modified legislation was introduced on 23 August. I indicated that the Government abandoned first of all the recoupment of personal income tax which would have been payable on the accumulated revenue profits prior to the year in which the evasion of primary company tax occurred, and it also abandoned the recoupment of any capital profits of the stripped company. Those modifications had the effect of further reducing the possible revenue to be gained under this legislation to $270m. Up to that point we had gone from a potential recoupment of tax of $840m, to a potential recoupment of $570m, down to a potential recoupment of only $270m . As I said earlier, the Senate was not satisfied even with those concessions. The legislation was defeated again. The Government has now abandoned in this legislation the attempt to recover the personal income tax from the former shareholders of companies involved in bottom of the harbour schemes. All this legislation is designed to do is to strengthen the existing legislation, that is , the legislation which was introduced and passed by the former Government in order to recoup the evaded company tax. In order to recoup that evaded company tax this legislation contains two provisions to tighten up the existing legislation. First of all, in connection with the post-sale avoidance schemes, the existing recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. That means that if the owners of the company had entered into an arrangement to avoid tax and that arrangement had proved to be unsuccessful, the former shareholders of the company are not required under the existing legislation to pay that back tax. That defies all logic. The Government simply does not understand why that provision was introduced, and I believe that we do not understand it because it defies logic. This legislation is designed to tighten up that provision. It is also intended to tighten up the provision concerning the pre-sale avoidance schemes to ensure that in any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective, its tax avoidance purposes will also be disregarded. Those tightening up provisions will have the effect of picking up only $40m. We are also building into the existing legislation some relief for circumstances which may be considered to be anomalies. Those provisions will assist people in cases where their recoupment tax liability was traced through an interest in a public company; that is, where they themselves were well removed from the actions that gave rise to the recoupment tax liability in question. The cost to revenue as a result of building in relief for those types of anomalies will be about $5m. So we pick up $40m, we lost $5m and the net gain to revenue is $35m. I wish to go over those figures again just to summarise and emphasise the position that this Government has been forced into despite the fact that it had a clear mandate from the electorate to pick up that money. First of all, the amount was to be $840m. As a result of our own initiative in deciding not to index it, it was reduced to $570m. As a result of the frustration within this place and particularly on the part of the Opposition in the Senate, it was reduced further to $270m. As a result of the further frustration in the Senate it has now been reduced to $35m. The figure has dropped from $840m to $35m-a difference of about $800m. Who picks up the tab? It is the ordinary wage and salary earners, the people who, because they are locked into the taxation system, are not able to enter all of these smart, clever arrangements to which the honourable member for North Sydney likes to refer as tax avoidance, the use of legal arrangements. So the $ 800m lost to revenue will be picked up by the pay as you earn taxpayers, the wage and salary earners of Australia, who for too long were carrying an unfair share of the burden. The people who have had access to that $840m in real terms will now be required to pay only $35m. Public revenue will be deficient to that extent. Public expenditure commitments still have to be met. Someone has to pay that amount and of course, as I have said, the people who will pay it are those who are unable to avoid their tax commitments. This legislation, which was referred to by the honourable member for Bennelong as the Blue Hills legislation, probably better than any other experience I have had in this Parliament indicates the attitude that members of the Opposition- members of the Liberal Party of Australia and members of the National Party of Australia-have to those smart operators in the community who avoid their taxation commitments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.00) —I want to thank those members who have taken part in the second reading debate. I probably will not speak for as long in closing the debate as I would otherwise because we will have a Committee debate. It will be interesting to listen to the Opposition representatives again at the Committee stage trying to defend the indefensible if they have the gall to move the particular amendments which the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) suggested that they would move. If ever I heard some hollow arguments it was in the speeches from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and from the honourable member for North Sydney. I suggest that they were flailing around like a couple of threshing machines, looking for justification of the position they have taken on this bottom of the harbour legislation. Certainly, as the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) has reminded us, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was a Blue Hills debate. It is only a Blue Hills debate because the Opposition has had the gall to knock back perfectly good tax legislation which would have got from people who should be paying taxation the just deserts that they should be paying into revenue. It is because the Government does not have the numbers in the Senate that we have been obliged to be reasonable and to bring back something less than we should on each occasion. Certainly, this mild legislation being presented to the House now should be supported by everyone. The truth is that the Opposition's attitude to this legislation results from the fact that it has so few friends left that it needs to get even closer to the tax evaders of this nation than it has in the past. It has so few friends that it is trying to defend the indefensible and, my goodness, it will pay for it. I suggest that the empty rhetoric of members of the Opposition gives them away. If ever there was an illustration of what they are about it comes from one of the amendments that they are threatening to move. I refer to the amendment to remove a provision authorising the Commissioner of Taxation to report to the Parliament the names of those who fail to meet their taxation liability under our legislation. Opposition members have given no excuse for this. The Commissioner is already required, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in his second reading speech, to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of taxation law. It is consistent with our duty that he be authorised, and he would be so authorised under this legislation if it is not altered by the Opposition, where he considers it appropriate to report failure to pay recoupment tax. I refer to people who have failed to pay the tax that they owe to the community. In such cases what could be the excuse for their being exempt from being named when in every other case such people are named? There is no excuse. I will say a little more now about the amendments generally. I may even return to that one. But the first amendment mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the repeal of sub-section 3 (12) of the principal Act. He asserted that the removal of that sub-section would mean that the former Government's recoupment tax legislation would apply where companies were not sent to the bottom of the harbour. These companies were sent to the bottom of the harbour, just as many hundreds of companies were sent to the bottom of the harbour. The only difference relates to where the tax avoidance promoter to whom the companies were sold went through the pretence of putting the companies through a post-sale tax avoidance scheme. There is no justification for removing that sub-section. It would be merely luck of the draw. Some promoters used the technique of post-sale avoidance schemes while others did not. Why should we discriminate? There is no justification for discriminating. I have to make the charge that friends of those opposite whom they are trying to save from paying tax must be involved. I repeat that some people used that technique and some did not. Why do Opposition members want to discriminate between one and the other? The vendors of such companies benefited just as much as the vendors of the companies that were not put through those post-sale tax avoidance schemes. Neither the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nor the honourable member for North Sydney tried during his speech to justify this discrimination. It has consistently been the policy of the Party to which I belong, both in opposition and in government, to get rid of that sub-section 3 (12), which is what this Bill does. It gets rid of sub- section 3 (12). it was part of our election commitment on tax avoidance that we should do so. We have been unsuccessful now in two attempts to do so and we are trying on a third occasion. Yet again those people in Opposition are seeking to frustrate us. They must have some friends whom they are seeking to defend. Sub-section 3 (12) is said by some people to be an innocence clause. It was clearly stated last year by the former Treasurer that liability under the former Government's legislation did not turn on guilt or innocence but on the fact that benefits were derived from the evasion of company tax. I repeat that the cases presently let out by sub-section 3 (12) involve conferring a benefit on vendor- shareholders. I repeat that there should be no discrimination. I repeat that cases presently let out by that sub-section 3 (12) involve conferring a benefit on the vendor-shareholders. That is why the provision is in this Bill and that is why it defies logic for the Opposition to want to remove it. The honourable member for Bennelong-in fact, the Opposition, but he is leading this debate and he deserves most of the opprobrium in this case-selects a particular small group of bottom of the harbour schemes and exempts them from the legislation, discriminating in their favour with no justification for it. We can only think that he has friends he wants to protect. I will come back to the naming of the persons. I mentioned it earlier but I have a few more comments to make. This particular provision was contained in the original legislation produced by the Fraser Government. It was omitted from the revised Bill which finally became the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act. The rationale for that provision was that it followed upon the existing reporting provisions contained in the income tax law which requires the Commissioner of Taxation to report to the Parliament breaches and evasions of the income tax law. A person who fails to pay a recoupment tax liability is simply compounding that particular evasion of company tax and that is all the more reason why he should be subjected to this provision of being named. He should be subjected to a report by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Parliament. Once again, no justification was given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his opposition to this. It is only when a person fails to pay that he is named. What is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about? It is only when a person fails to pay that this provision applies. I will not say that in this case there is some miserable motive for what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done. It is probably merely ignorance that has motivated him on this occasion. A failure to pay recoupment tax is not merely a failure to pay by the due date but requires a total failure to pay the assessed recoupment tax liability. A person who has a genuine dispute about his or her liability for recoupment tax will not, as is presumably the case, be liable to be reported to Parliament until that dispute has been finalised. So I repeat that only ignorance of what is involved in this measure could possibly motivate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to want to move that amendment. I hope the fact that I have now cleared up this point will mean that he will not waste the time of the Committee by seeking to amend that clause. Let me go on to talk about the decision of the High Court of Australia. The Bill proposes to amend the evidentiary provisions of the recoupment tax law to remove possible doubts expressed in a recent case heard in the High Court that the existing provisions render the recoupment tax an uncontestable tax and, therefore, outside the power of this Parliament to enact. There is ample precedent for legislation of this kind. I made it my business to get some evidence of previous cases where this had happened. The most recent was an amendment made by the former Liberal-National Party coalition Government in 1978 . In that year the former Government of which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, was a senior member, amended section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to overcome a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, notwithstanding that a Federal Court challenge to that decision was pending. In the event, the Federal Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. But the legislation was brought in. It is no good the Deputy Leader of the Opposition looking over his shoulder or anywhere else. I knew that there were previous cases. My memory was not good enough to be able to quote them to the honourable member but I was glad to be able to get the advice about them. I understand that similar remedial legislation was put forward while the boilermakers' case was pending before the High Court in the mid-1950s. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Sydney may be receding on top a little but I do not necessarily say that they are old enough to be responsible for what happened in 1950. But, indeed, both being lawyers they ought to remember that example. Whilst it is unusual for a government to seek legislation to overcome possible legislature defects while a case is pending before the courts, it is not unknown where the revenue or other implications of an adverse decision are substantial. In this case a substantial amount of revenue is at stake. I suggest to the Opposition that it should not waste the time of the Committee in moving that amendment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also asked me for an assurance that persons who had paid amounts of recoupment tax in advance but are relieved of liability from recoupment tax under sub-section 6 (18) will receive refunds of the amounts . I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that he has received a number of applications from persons who expect to be liable for recoupment tax as a result of their holding shares in public companies. In addition, the Commissioner has recently issued, under the Freedom of Information Act, a taxation ruling dealing with this matter. He expects to be in a position to start processing these applications for relief from recoupment tax liability next week and refunds will be made to those persons relieved of liability who have paid that tax. So there is that assurance. I move on to talk about stripping arrangements because there were some claims from the Opposition in relation to the proposal to remove the test which requires that the arrangement which rendered a company liable to pay its tax must be identified before a recoupment tax liability can be established. Those making these claims said that the removal of the test would mean that people who made no attempt to escape tax may be caught by the legislation. I say in response that those claims are false. They are totally wrong. The stripping arrangements test is entirely unnecessary because the other tests in the legislation ensure that only bottom of the harbour schemes are within the scope of the legislation. Mr Spender —I will demonstrate in the Committee that you do not understand what you say. Mr HURFORD —In this regard the three tests are particularly important. It is the honourable member who does not understand and it would become him well to listen to those who understand these matters rather than to go in for his empty rhetoric. I will now refer to the three tests. Firstly, there must be an amount of unpaid company tax. This test would not be satisfied in cases where tax has been legally avoided or the company has retained assets with which to pay any tax due. Have honourable members opposite got that point? Secondly, the excess consideration test means that the vendor-shareholders must have received a price for their shares which made no allowance for the company tax payable on pre-sale profits. In other words, it was always intended that the company tax should not be paid. The present Treasurer in his second reading speech said that there must have been an expectation that tax would not be paid. Let me now come to the third test. Finally, the 'same business' test means that the legislation does not apply where a company carries on the same business after the sale as it did before the sale. That test by itself is enough to ensure that the legislation could not possibly apply to any normal commercial takeover of a company which is subsequently unable to pay its tax debts because of commercial misadventure. I will repeat something I have said already-those remarks were made in response to the speeches of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Sydney in the second reading debate when they indicated that the Opposition will move an amendment at the Committee stage. I hope that now they have received those facts they will think again about moving the amendment and that they will not waste the time of the Committee. I have pleasure in supporting the motion for the second reading of this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.19) —In the few moments of the debate remaining tonight I would like to say something about clauses 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) spent an enormous amount of time saying how absurd it was for the Opposition to be claiming that sub-section 3 (12) should remain in the legislation. I shall take the Government back to basics. The 1982 legislation was meant by the former Government to be totally related to the recoupment of tax which was evaded by actions which subsequently became the target of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. I shall repeat that for the benefit of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer: That 1982 measure was not designed to go beyond recouping taxation that remained unpaid as a result of arrangements which would have been caught by the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act if it had been in operation at the time those arrangements took place. That was why section 3 (12) was inserted in the 1982 legislation. If we take sub-section 3 (12) out of the 1982 Act it is conceivable that some arrangements which would not have been caught by the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act if it had been in operation at the time those arrangements were entered into , would in fact have been caught by the Act in its amended form. That was why sub-section 3 (12) was inserted in the first place, and that is why we have maintained consistently, both in government and in opposition, that it goes beyond the original intention of the legislation to take out sub-section 3 (12). I am not arguing with the honourable member for Adelaide, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), that there will be some circumstances in which tax remains unpaid, and this Bill does not reach and recoup that tax because of the operation of sub-section 3 (12). The reason for that is that that tax has not been left unpaid as a consequence of conduct which was the target of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. In other words, we tied the 1982 measure to the conduct which was proscribed by the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act of 1980 and we adopted that as our persistent test. The Government may criticise that as being wrong and may say that we should have extended the reach of the 1982 Act beyond conduct covered by the Crimes ( Taxation Offences) Act, but it cannot say that we are being inconsistent. We took the view in 1982 that the unusual nature of that legislation was justified to recoup the benefit of something which had been proscribed by the Crimes ( Taxation Offences) Act as a fraud and a criminal offence, not by the people who got the benefit but by people involved at some stage in the transaction. We thought it was justified, because of the particular character of those transactions, to shift the liability from the company to the beneficiaries of the fraud but to go not one step further with that legislation. That is why we have maintained persistently throughout that section 3 (12) ought to remain. The Government may criticise our attitude on general grounds, but it cannot say that it is inconsistent. There is an explanation. It does not defy logic to have sub- section 3 (12) if the criterion of the imposition of the liability under this legislation is conduct which would have been caught by the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act if it had been in operation at the time that conduct took place. That really deals with the argument on clause 3, and the same comment can be made about clause 5. As far as the stripping arrangements are concerned, once again the matter turns on the criterion of hypothetical liability under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. I shall read from the explanatory memorandum which sets out very clearly the argument behind the existing provision in the Act. It states: One of the tests which must be satisfied before a liability for recoupment tax can arise requires the identification of the particular arrangement . . . which rendered the target company unable to pay all its comapany tax. This test accompanies other tests in the legislation that effectively limit the scope of the legislation to those cases where the company has been stripped of its pre- tax profits. That is what the legislation is all about. That is a description of the existing legislation. I repeat: This test accompanies other tests in the legislation that effectively limit the scope of the legislation to those cases where the company has been stripped of its pre-tax profits. This whole debate has been about recouping tax left unpaid because the company liable for the payment of the tax has been stripped and denuded, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) put it, of its capability to pay tax. That wretched expression, bottom of the harbour, confuses the whole argument. That expression derives from the fact that some promoters in Sydney threw the books of a company into Sydney Harbour and they lodged in a reef between Manly and Dee Why. That expression has confused the whole nomenclature in the debate, and we are really talking about that. The legislation was designed to be limited purely and simply to pre-tax profit strips. That was the purpose of the 1982 legislation. Frankly, if we alter it so that it is not limited, in the words of the explanatory memorandum, to those cases in which a company has been stripped of its pre-tax profits, we can quite fairly describe it, if I may go back to the colloquialism, as purely bottom of the harbour legislation; it becomes something else. We cannot argue that it is purely and simply limited to the recoupment of tax that has been illegally evaded because unless there has been a stripping of the assets of a company with the intent to evade the payment of tax there is no illegal evasion. Unless those elements are present we do not have an evasion. That was why the honourable member for North Sydney drew a distinction-and quite properly so-between a legal tax avoidance arrangement and an act of illegal evasion. That was why the former Government singled out this tax avoidance arrangement, because there had been an act of illegal evasion, for the use of legislation that had in certain respects a retrospective operation. Once we depart from that principle we water down the basis of the former Government's justification for using what most people would concede fairly was controversial legislation. It is easy after the event to say that we should have gone further and done that, but the Government knows as well as I do that it was controversial legislation. We believe that it was justified in all those circumstances. Tonight the Government is trying to depart from that pure principle. Far from defying logic, I think it has an enormous amount of logic in it. Therefore I move: Clause 10, page 6, lines 34-44, omit paragraph (d) of proposed sub-section 19A (1). I understand from those who advise on these matters that this will have the effect of extending the benefit of the Government's proposed anomalies amendment to private company shareholders as well as to public company shareholders. Let me explain why the Opposition thinks this is a fair amendment. We are not trying to get a fast ball through on the subject. I understand that while there may be some administrative implications the revenue implications are fairly nominal. So there is no fast ball involved in it. We simply say that the existing discretionary provision in the Act-that is, sub-section 6 (18), the one that enabled Coomel Pty Ltd, the family company of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to be excused from recoupment liability-applies with equal effect to private and public companies. Honourable members will remember the debate about that company. There is no distinction made. Coomel Pty Ltd was a private company and the Minister for Finance was a shareholder in it. Fair enough; it applies to private companies. If we are to introduce another discretionary provision we should not limit it to shareholders of public companies. I know that anomalous cases have arisen in relation to Metro Industries Ltd and Westwools Ltd in which some hundreds of small shareholders have received notices from solicitors acting for the representative class. The concerns people have expressed have really arisen in relation to public companies, but in principle there is no reason why the provision should not be extended. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sports Funding-Grenada: United States Involvement-Education- Industrial Relations: Port Kembla-World Energy Use-Uranium-Grenada: New Jewel Movement- Tasmania Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.30) —For the last few months, and especially since the Budget, we have heard nothing but praise for this great sporting Government and this great sporting Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the man hailed as the darling of the Newport jet set, the Cazaly of the football world and the Brock of Bathurst. We have heard how this Government has been able to live up to its election promises made to sportsmen and women of this country, but we are now finding out that all is not as it seems. I quote the promise from the Australian Labor Party sport and recreation policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister: We propose in our first Budget to double the direct support provided to the sporting organisations. If that was not sufficiently succinct, the Government promised in its sports policy: An increased level of funding in the general sports grants area to enable the national sporting associations to adequately administer their sport . . . sufficient funds are made available to enable more highly talented Australian athletes to gain international experience. Despite this Government's pathetic record in the keeping of most election promises, a great number of sports administrators fervently believed that this Government would honour its pledge to them and that they would get increases of between 50 and 75 per cent as promised to them for an Olympic year. With great gusto, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) announced on 16 October the sports development program for 1983-84. In doing so he claimed -he is technically correct-that the program had received a record 75 per cent lift to meet the Government's promises to increase sports funding. One would therefore assume that sports listed under that program would receive increases in the vicinity of 75 per cent. How wrong can one be? I do not have time to go through the full list of disadvantaged sports. Indeed, I have not yet compiled a full list; but I would like to give just one example of how phoney and how hollow this Government is in its promises even to some of our sports people. Swimming has been regarded as one of Australia's leading sports. It has always been a big medal winner for this country in Commonwealth and Olympic Games. Over the years we have produced some of the world's best swimmers. Yet how is swimming treated by this Government? I believe it has pulled the plug on swimming. This year the sports grant for swimming has been increased not by 75 per cent, not by 7 per cent, but by a lousy 4 1/2 per cent. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr FISHER —By 4 1/2 per cent for an Olympic year. An extra $5,000 is supposed to cover the extra costs of getting swimming teams to training facilities and competitions overseas, and the extra associated costs of administration and coaching. The extra funds allocated for swimming do not even keep up with inflation. How are our swimming administrators to handle all the extra load of training a national team for Olympic competition with $5,000 extra? The treatment of swimming points up some of the empty promises that this Government peddles. We have a Prime Minister who jumps on any winning sports dais he can, claiming his Government is the friend of sportsmen, while treating one of Australia's traditional sports in this manner. Already many sections of the sporting community are realising how false this Government's promises are. It will not take long before Australia realises just what this Government's promises are worth. It has treated our pensioners with scorn and rural school children with callous disregard and has seriously disadvantaged important sections of our sporting community. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has come into the chamber tonight. I hope that he will take action to ensure that this shortage of adequate funding will not mean the pruning back of our Olympic swimming team or cancelling some of our planned overseas training tours prior to the Olympic Games. I hope that the Minister will ensure that this crisis situation in Australia's swimming is fixed, and fixed very quickly. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.35) —It is important for all Australians to remember that once again we are nearing the anniversary of that fateful day for Australian democracy when a legitimately elected government was dismissed by the Queen's representative, the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr. Mr Robert Brown —Shame! Mr MILTON —As the honourable member says, it was a shameful day. For the privileged and the wealthy the two great crimes of the Whitlam Labor Government were, firstly, its social reform measures, which were bringing a redistribution of the wealth of Australia; and secondly, the determination of the Australian Labor Party Government that Australia would have an independent voice in foreign affairs. The destabilisation of the Whitlam Government, which was fuelled by a hostile media campaign, reached a crescendo of hatred when Rex Connor proclaimed that the Government would set about buying back the farm. With foreign investors controlling the major heights of our economy at present, Australians can look back with nostalgia on a man who, with foresight and courage, battled against the baying jackals who represented capitalistic interest both inside and outside this House and who caused his early death from a terrible weariness of the fight . However, I want to look beyond our boundaries to the far distant countries of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Grenada. In Nicaragua the Sandinista Government is fighting against the heavily armed contrainsurgents whose weaponry is supplied, unashamedly, by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States Government. For the United States of America the efforts of the Nicaraguan Government in bringing literacy to a previous illiterate population, in providing land to the landless peasants and in providing medical facilities where none previously existed represent an immediate threat to the neighbouring military dictatorships of El Salvador and Honduras. If the impoverished and discontented peoples of those two countries seize power in the mould of the Sandinistas, what will happen to the land-owning, wealthy, military class who are such strong allies of the United States? In consequence, the United States supplies millions of dollars worth of military armaments to the governments of El Salvador and Honduras, thus ensuring that the strong rebel movement in El Salvador is kept at bay by the hated armed forces of the military government. However, it is Grenada which is at present in the newspaper headlines. With warships patrolling the coasts of Central American countries it did not take the USA long to take advantage of the political crisis in Grenada, occasioned by the murder of the Prime Minister, Maurice Bishop. Condemned by virtually every European country, the United Kingdom and Australia, invading USA marines seized control of the tiny country. Ignoring the fact that the majority of members of Maurice Bishop's Cabinet were available to form a new government, the USA turned to the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, to support the invasion. Support the invasion he did despite the admonishment of the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth, of which Grenada is a member. The pretext of the USA for invading the island was a statement by President Reagan that the USA had to protect American citizens who were temporarily in Grenada. That kind of statement was precisely the kind of excuse used by the German dictator Adolf Hitler when he invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia prior to the 1939-45 war. It is interesting to note that the Times newspaper in Washington has reported that two years ago American forces had practised landing on an island in the Caribbean which had many physical similarities to Grenada. It is an even more interesting and disturbing fact that President Reagan is now using tough words against Cuba and Guyana. Guyana is a country on the South American mainland which the Americans claim is becoming too friendly with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Guyana is led by President Linden Forbes Burnham and is closely aligned with Cuba. I come back to Grenada. Newspaper reports indicate that Sir Paul Scoon is expected to head a provisional government until elections can be held. It is not surprising that in such circumstances a former Attorney-General of Grenada has suggested that elections should not be held for at least two years and that the Americans should build a military base on the island. In the case of Australia it was not necessary for Sir John Kerr to head a provisional government because the destabilisation of the Whitlam Government had taken place in the 18 months preceeding his take-over. The Australian people have been fed disinformation about the so-called incompetency of the ALP Government and Malcolm Fraser and the forces of conservatism were in the wings to take over. Sir Paul Scoon needs at least two years to enable the conservative forces to gain a stranglehold on the social and political structure of the country. At the end of that time elections can be held and a military-type led party can win government with all the economic support of the USA Government behind it. There we have a different kind of coup but a coup nonetheless led by another Governor-General in another part of the world leading to the kind of model democracy found in El Salvador and Honduras and so strongly supported by President Reagan. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.40) —I very seldom speak in the adjournment debate, but I felt I must do so tonight. Although I did not intend to speak about the matter that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) spoke about, it is always amusing to come into the chamber at night and to hear him and some of his left wing friends run down America and other parts of the Western world. I have never heard the honourable member and his colleagues speak about the Russians walking into Afghanistan and such matters. Not a word has been heard about those kinds of things. Without much thinking, one can only draw the conclusion that their doctrine is communistic-nothing else. That is how they would have to be branded, and they will always stick by it. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), particularly after the uranium debate which involved the crowd sitting opposite and the boys sitting on the front bench. He must feel very uneasy, Mr Speaker, to be even a part of that team. Only this morning at the airport a stranger said to me that it is a wonder that he does not do the Lyons trick and go over to the other side. Quite a few people around said that they were wondering the same thing. I had to say that he has the same brand on him as other honourable members opposite, and that is the truth. But we respect honourable members opposite. They are elected to come here to represent their electorates. If they want to speak in such terms, if they want to condemn profit, condemn the rights of the individual and condemn the Americans for going into Grenada to save those free people, they are quite free to do that. I was alarmed at Question Time today to hear the answer of the Prime Minister to a question asked by the honourable member for Bennelong and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It was quite a sensible and straightforward question . He asked for some guarantee from the Prime Minister that the Government's financial support for the independent school system would be maintained on a similar basis to the policies which had been espoused by the Liberal Party and the National Party. The proceedings were being broadcast and the important thing is that the Prime Minister gave no guarantee that the level of funding provided by the previous Government would be upheld. In other words, what has been said today and before today in this chamber in regard to education is that this Government does not intend to continue financial support for the upgrading and financing of the independent school system. This concerns me because in my electorate there are a number of independent schools, mainly religious schools. I refer, for example, to the Roman Catholic schools. On Sunday I opened a Seventh Day Adventist school. How proud I was to be able to say: 'This religion is prepared to establish a school to accommodate 33 children'. It is being established on mental, physical and spiritual grounds, not only for now but for ever. Why should children not have this type of education? I do not believe what the Prime Minister said today. I am quite sure that the great bulk of the Australian people wants a healthy dual system of education in this country. To follow on the remarks of my learned friend, the honourable member for La Trobe, there is no doubt in my mind that this Government has been influenced by the Australian Teachers Federation which gave, as somebody said today, $750,000 to finance this Government in its efforts to come into power. The Federation did this for one reason only-to destroy the independent school system of which we are so proud in this country. Why does the Government want to destroy it? This is the question that should be answered. Why does this Government want to destroy the independent school system under which people have the freedom to send their children to get the type of education and religious training that they like them to have? I believe that there is a reason for this. I want to appeal to the Government to show common sense and to realise what happened in the Town Hall in Sydney last night when 5, 000 people-quite clearly many of them were Government supporters-assembled and told the Government what they thought of its Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and of its policies in regard to the financing of the independent school system. I deplore the attitude of the Government on that matter, because it is so important in this country. Religious groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists have educated 400,000 children around the world and over 6,000 within Australia. The Roman Catholic school system- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.45) —In a recent adjournment debate, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) made a claim that Australia has one of the worst industrial records of any country. This nonsense is peddled by people with little regard for the truth, who continually look for divisive propaganda to blame working people and trade unions for Australia's economic problems. The waterside unions, of course, have a militant and courageous history and have struggled to ensure that waterside workers receive secure employment and dignified living conditions. Wharfies have been prominent in making Australia a more democratic and prosperous country and have given international solidarity support to workers in other countries. How can we ever forget the commitment to peace and democracy of the wharfies of Port Kembla in 1938-39 when they stood up to the then pro-Japanese Lyons-Menzies Government and refused to load pig iron for the Japanese war machine? History has shown who was right. During the 1970s, Australia's regional ports were mismanaged and severely neglected as governments slotted into the strategies of international shipping companies and concentrated investment facilities on centralised locations, without consideration of congestion problems, long term development of regional ports and land use planning. In New South Wales, Newcastle and Port Kembla were turned into bulk commodity ports. For both these ports, the focus on development of Port Botany has been disastrous. In relation to Port Kembla, general freights have been increasingly transported to Wollongong by road, older facilities have been disintegrating and the lack of a multi-purpose port has virtually ruled out future export based industrial development of Port Kembla. With fewer ships coming in as a result of this strategy, wharfies have spent much of their working lives on idle time. It is a disgrace that these human skills have been wasted as a result of thoughtless policies. There has not been a significant strike in Port Kembla for a decade, yet all we hear from conservatives is about industrial relations strife on the waterfront. The public was notified about the run down of Port Kembla, not by governments or stevedoring companies, but by the waterfront unions. In the past three years, I have been proudly associated with the Port Kembla task force, an organisation comprising trade unions, employers, local government and community representatives. This was established following the publication of a report commissioned by the Port Kembla branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, which detailed the run down of the port. The task force is a model of how different groups can co-operate and develop expertise over time. The task force recognised that port redevelopment is a key to the future economic prospects of the Illawarra. At that time a group of consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, published a report which examined a number of options for the location of a major export grain handling terminal. Port Kembla was not even considered. The task force recognised that as Port Kembla had the deepest harbour on the eastern seaboard, grain growers could save money if the terminal were situated at Port Kembla. No transport facilities were adequate, they made submissions to the New South Wales Government and successfully requested that the Port Kembla option be considered on the same cost benefit criteria as other options. This investigation demonstrated that Port Kembla was by far the most cost effective option for the location of a new grain terminal in the eastern coast. Not content to be shown to be correct, the task force organised delegations to travel through the rural areas of New South Wales in order to talk to wheat growers and develop a new sense of understanding of each other's problems. The unionists on the delegations were able to present the facts on industrial relations and were able to dispel some of the destructive and divisive myths put about by our opponents and uncritically accepted by bureaucrats in the relevant department. Port Kembla has the potential to be a major agricultural export port for south-eastern Australia. The spirit of consensus shown between waterside workers and farmers augers well for the future, providing differences are honestly discussed and these political forces that depend for their existence on divisiveness remain isolated. Another example of the industrial relations environment at Port Kembla was the agreement between the New South Wales Government and the trade unions in regard to the construction of the Port Kembla coal loader. As a consequence of this agreement, completion of the project occurred ahead of schedule and saved the Government $20m. Since the loader began operating a year ago, there has been one minor stoppage by the workers, lasting 24 hours. Were the unions trying to bring the country to its knees? No; in fact, the strike was to bring attention to the fact that a commitment by the management at the loader to improve efficiency was being continually deferred. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.50) —The Australian Labor Party's so-called uranium decision yesterday does not face up to the realities of the pattern of world energy use over the next 20 years. Most governments and energy forecasters accept that worldwide total energy consumption will continue to rise and that the extent of our present reliance on coal, oil and gas cannot continue for more than 20 to 30 years and will cause massive environmental problems. We must quickly deploy whatever new energy sources are acceptable, safe and economic in that regard. Scientists are becoming justifiably concerned about the impact on the biosphere of injecting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide wastes into the atmosphere. The Scandinavians are watching the death of their lakes; the Germans are seeing the death of the Black Forest. All of this is a direct result of modern industry having to use massive quantities of carbon-based fuel. Is there any member of the Government who can with any integrity stand up and claim that the damage being done to our environment, to our atmosphere, and to the entire ecosystem will be worse from proceeding with the peaceful use of atomic energy compared with this Armageddon advancing slowly and surely towards us and which will be hastened if we force the industralised nations in particular to have to depend on coal and oil as their major sources of energy or, alternatively, to develop fast breeder reactors. The greenhouse effect which has been the subject of much comment in recent years may trigger changes within 10 years that could have dramatic results on life in the next century, confirming what many scientists have said for years. The burning of coal and oil and the reduction of the earth's plant life as human population grows are causing the planet to get hotter. The greenhouse effect occurs when gases accumulate in the air. These gases, like the glass in a greenhouse, let the sun's warming rays reach the earth while reducing the heat that escapes. Two recent papers from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America made these points: By the year 2050, the buildup of greenhouse gases will be twice what it was in 1900; global temperatures will climb an average of three and a half degrees fahrenheit by the year 2040 and as much as 9 degrees by 2100-never in recorded history has the earth experienced such a rapid warming; farmland in the United States south west may eventually dry up and become useless, and some areas to the north, however, may have longer growing seasons; and coastal waters may rise two feet over the next century, forcing people to migrate or erect dams along the shorelines. The EPA report, the more pessimistic of the two reports, warned of catastrophic results unless plans are made with a sense of urgency to do such things as reaforest vast tracts of land and reduce the use of fossil fuels. We have been told that the Government is establishing a six-month inquiry, the terms of reference of which can best be called negative or neutral. That is not good enough. The Australian Government has the responsibility, given to it by the Australian people, to examine also whether there are prospects for the establishment in Australia of a uranium enrichment industry, whether we should be seeking the upgrading of our uranium exports, thus increasing their value, and whether we should be considering a reprocessing plant to reduce the spent nuclear fuel initially supplied by Australia. These are important issues. A nuclear industry has been developed overseas. It is one which we cannot ignore. It is one that we have to live with. Can we afford to put our heads in the sands and ignore this development, which can be used to the benefit of humanity provided countries like Australia are willing to work towards encouraging peaceful technological advancement? This is the real moral question which should be facing all members of the Government. I hope that , in the coming months, they will realise that fact. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.54) —On Wednesday, 19 October, the Prime Minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, three of his Ministers, two trade union leaders and an unknown number of citizens were killed in St George's, the country's capital. The political character and allegiances of those responsible for the killings have since been the subject of much speculation in the Press and, in my view, has yet to be established with any certainty. But what is beyond doubt is that those who murdered the leadership of the New Jewel Movement, Grenada's ruling party until 19 October, dealt a savage blow to the cause of social justice not only in the Caribbean but also throughout the world. In 1981 I had the privilege of meeting members of the New Jewel Movement when Prime Minister Bishop, Foreign Minister Unison Whiteman and Education Minister Jacqueline Creft attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Melbourne. I regret to say that all three are now dead. Like other Australian Labor Party members, trade unionists and community leaders I was impressed by their humanity, energy and vision. Maurice Bishop, in particular, was an immensely popular man, not only in his own country but throughout the Caribbean. But I do not wish to dwell on the personal qualities of these fellow socialists. It is not for these that they will be chiefly remembered, but for their achievements during the brief four and a half years of their government. Maurice Bishop and his supporters came to power in March 1979 when they led a popular insurrection against the dictator, Eric Gairy-black magic devotee and would-be world expert on UFOs. One of the first acts of the new Government was the abolition of labour laws which had deprived 11 categories of workers of the right to strike. The right to form and join trade unions and to strike was recognised by law. Before 1979, unemployment among women was running at around 70 per cent. The New Jewel Movement introduced legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work; encouraged the employment of women in non- traditional areas; and, in 1980 , proclaimed the maternity leave law, which gave women the right to paid leave during pregnancy, and to job security. When Maurice Bishop visited the United States of America in June this year and was shunned, incidentally, by those leaders who now lament his death, he was able to report to the United States that unemployment had been reduced to 12 per cent. Grenada now has-or it had until the last week or so-a free health service and a free educational system. Grenada's economic and social development under the leadership of the New Jewel Movement brought it the commendation of the World Bank, which reported last year on the impressive growth of the island's economy. The report gave the Bank's blessing to the Government's international airport project-the very same airport which, with sad irony, has been cited by the United States as evidence of Grenada's militaristic and terroristic inclinations . More recently, during his June visit to the United States, Maurice Bishop described Grenada as being the object of the Central Intelligence Agency pyramid plan: At the base, propaganda destabilisation; at the top, military destabilisation and terrorism. He claimed that an invasion of Grenada was increasingly likely, but went on to add: . . . they will discover that our people will fight back, and even in Grenada, they will be shocked to see the cost in manpower required to overthrow the revolution. Today, these predictions have become realities. The armed forces of the richest and most powerful nation in the world are now occupying the territory of the smallest nation ever to embark on a course of socialist development. International law has been swept aside and a precedent set which poses a grave threat to progressive movements in the region and throughout the world. I consider it the responsibility of our Government to draw to the notice of the Australian people and of the world the achievements of the New Jewel Movement, and to do whatever we can to ensure that the gains of the last four and a half years of Grenada's history are protected and extended by any future government in that country. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the memory of those fellow members of the Commonwealth and of the Socialist International. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.58) —I suppose that it has been an interesting evening . We have heard all about the left wing tonight. I must say that it is a little more tenacious than it has been in the past. At least it has the fortitude to say what it thinks. One cannot be nasty about that. I have nothing against the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), but today I thought he started something that needed answering. He started to make comparisons about Liberal and Labor electorates. I interrupted him. I think Dorian Gray mentioned something about giving me a bit of a serve at the time. It started me thinking about the five seats in Tasmania. I thought that the Liberal Party does not use its members in Tasmania as wisely as it should. Everybody thinks that, just because we talk about apples and things such as that we are parochial and we are not deep thinkers. But we are deep thinkers. I interrupted the Minister today and I said: 'What about Franklin?' The point that I was making-I think my good colleagues the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would agree-is that Franklin is a blue ribbon Labor seat. There are many underprivileged people in my electorate as there are in Braddon and Denison. Tasmania is no different from any other part of Australia. But we have been able to win it because we never think of people as rich and poor, or as coming from poor Catholic schools or from state schools. We never think like that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr John Brown —I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.0) — Tonight we heard a speech from the shadow Minister for sport, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher). In his normal courteous fashion he informed me that he was going to say something about the allocation made to swimming under the sports development grants. I thank him for that courtesy. I think it is fair to talk about the Australian Labor Party's philosophy for sport before I delve into the detail which the honourable member has recounted. It is important to know that this Government views sport not as any form of extension of a political ideal as it might be viewed in other parts of the world, not as any great example of the superiority of the white race of Australians, but as part of the general standard of living in Australia. I think it is fair to say that Australians have a fetish about sport. It is also fair to say that for seven years under the previous Government sport was the poor relation as far as funding was concerned. I will except from that criticism of the Hon. Robert Ellicott. After the disastrous attempt to ban the Australian Olympic Games team to Moscow Mr Ellicott was able to use his undoubted influence in the Cabinet to set up the Australian Institute of Sport. It remains as a tribute to Mr Ellicott's vision and capacity. I give him full credit for that. But prior to the AIS in 1980 the previous Government's budget for sport was a lousy $3m when the health bill-it should be termed the sickness bill-was $10,000m-3,000 odd times as much. The previous government regarded sport as a nothing. Now the sports budget approaches $30m. In this Government's first Budget the increase was was 54 per cent on the previous Government's funding. That is the truth. The previous Government's record for sport was absolutely appalling. In one year we have made a 54 per cent improvement in funding for sport. I think all members of this Government are proud of that achievement. The sports development grants to which the honourable member for Mallee referred increased by 75 per cent this year; funds for the handicapped sports persons of Australia have been increased by 100 per cent in one year and funds available for recreational pursuits in Australia this year have gone from nought-which was the previous government's record-to $ 800,000 in one Budget because we happen to believe that Australians, no matter what their capacities, are entitled to have some encouragement from the Government to get off their butts and do something constructive. Because I do not want to take up too much time I will refer specifically to the complaints about the Amateur Swimming Union of Australia. Last year under the previous Government swimming received a grant of $90,000; this year it received $110,000. Now unless my mathematics are badly wrong that is a 22.222 per cent increase which is a big difference from the figure that the honourable member has cited of 4.5 per cent, which is an absolute mistake. The honourable member ought to check his mathematics. I have the figures in front of me. There is an amount of $90,000 for 1982-83 and $110,000 for 1983-84. The criterion that I employed in deciding which sport would get funding was largely tied up with the number of participants. We want to encourage all sorts of Australians, no matter what their sporting capacity, to do something. The number of participants registered by the Swimming Union is 78,055 and they received $110,000. That includes no junior program whatever. Let us look at some of the other sports. Cricket, which has 500,000 participants, got $50,000 from the previous Government. It got $130,000 from this Government. That is about a 130 or 140 per cent increase to a sport which is encouraging kids to get out and play. Let us look at another sport. Australian football got $50,000 last year and $100,000 this year. That sport has 491,000 registered participants. Let us look at another one. Golf-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no Minister rises in his place, the Minister may continue. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services)(11.05) —Let us have a look at soccer which has 440,000 registered participants. Last year soccer got $52,000; this year it got $100,000. Let us look at squash which is a sport that appeals to everyone- mums, dads, kids, women, men; the whole lot. Last year this sport, which has 96, 000 registered participants, got $58,000. This year, under this Government, it got $120,000. If the swimming people were honest in their criticism they would admit that the Amateur Swimming Union of Australia has fallen apart. Water polo and diving have hived off because they could not put up with the hierarchy that runs swimming in Australia. This year we have given water polo, which happens to be ranked fourth in the world, $73,000 which is a huge increase on the $30,000 it got last year. Diving, which is ranked fifth in the world, has $31,000. Swimming has $110,000. Add together the amounts for the three groups that constitute water sport in Australia and we find that water sports got $214,000. Add to that the increase from $600,000 to $800,000 that the Surf Life Saving Association got this year from this Government and honourable members will appreciate the way in which the Government feels about the capacity of Australian kids to swim. Swimming has been extremely generously treated by this Government. If one bothers to go out to the Australian Institute of Sport one will find that this year I opened a new swimming pool. Admittedly it was started by the previous Government and I give Bob Ellicott full credit for that. However, this year we completed the pool. I opened that extremely expensive swimming facility which is just for the use of the elite swimmers who make up the group that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) sought to defend. Our record in sport is incredibly good. Mr Ruddock —Is it like the one you have at home? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is not quite as good as the one I have at home. The Swimming Union of Australia needs to show its capacity to generate proper control of its sport and eliminate the sorts of dramas we have seen in swimming from Dawn Fraser on. When I remind honourable members of the drama of Michelle Ford who wanted to withdraw from the last Olympic Games team because of the way she was being stood over by the fogies who run swimming and of Neil Brooks, who has also withdrawn from Australian swimming, honourable members will realise that I have grave misgivings about the way the Swimming Union is organised. I have referred the administration of swimming in Australia to the new Sports Commission because I think it is a sport that it should look at. That it cannot hold itself together, that water polo and diving have sought to hive themselves off from the hierachy of swimming, says a lot about the way that swimming is administered. Swimming has been treated extremely generously by this Government with $110,000 in view of the number of participants that that sport has. I will admit that the standard of swimming in Australia is improving very rapidly. The kids out at the AIS will perform extremely well in Los Angeles. They will perform extremely well basically because of the money we have made available. The $110,000 is made up in this way: There is $30,000-- Mr Groom —That is rubbish! Mr JOHN BROWN —Oh, what would the honourable member know about rubbish? The honourable member has played too many games; he should have worn headgear. An amount of $30,000 has been allocated for a full time executive director; $10,000 for support staff; $20,000 to the appointment and ongoing costs of a full time coaching director; $10,000 for coaching projects; and $30,000 for international competition overseas between now and the Olympic Games. Add to that the fact that swimming is one sport that attracts very big sponsorship, particularly from Speedo-- Mr McGauran —And tobacco companies. Mr JOHN BROWN —Yes, and tobacco companies; swimming attracts support from all of those. As I have said, swimming has been treated extremely generously by this Government. I in every way deny the criticism that has been put in the most sincere fashion by the honourable member for Mallee tonight. This Government's record in sport is unsurpassed in the history of Commonwealth governments in Australia and it will continue to be so because we happen to believe that if we can get more kids out swimming, diving, running, jumping, bush walking or whatever we will reduce bad health and make Australians healthy again. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10.30 a .m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, to repeal the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Telecommunications Act 1975, and for other purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 November 1983: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 , No. 249 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 248 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 258, 259, 260, 261 Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 253, 254, 255, 256 Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 257 Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1) National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 247 Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 246 Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 250 Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 252 Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 251 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- National Memorials Ordinance-Determination naming Divisions of the Australian Capital Territory, dated 27 September 1983 Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 2 November 1983 Mr Leo McLeay to ask Mr Speaker: (1) How many (a) males and (b) females employed in each of the Parliamentary Departments are (i) appointed to or (ii) acting in positions designated as Clerk (Class 10) or above. (2) Will he advise the names of the holders of the positions referred to in part (1) and indicate whether in each case they are (a) permanent appointments, (b) acting in the position, or (c) seconded from another Department. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 46 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the film The War Game produced by Peter Watkins and banned for 17 years by the BBC from all television world wide. (2) If so, can he say whether the British Film Institute has been earning money from the film in cinemas since 1966 but refuses Mr Watkins a grant to produce the expanded version The Nuclear War Film until he gets another sponsor. (3) Will he ask appropriate Ministers to co-operate with him to investigate the value of (a) sponsoring or (b) promoting and distributing the original or the projected film as part of Australia's commitment in a United Nations resolution to assist that body in the World Disarmament Campaign. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the BBC took a decision not to show the film The War Game because of the effect the BBC considered that the film might have on sections of a television audience. (2) I am also advised that the British Film Institute, the distributor of the film, has been hiring out the film to cinemas and private groups. My Department has not been able to ascertain whether the film's producer, Mr Peter Watkins, has sought to obtain a further grant from the Institute. (3) Our High Commission in London has reported on the basis of questions put to several authorities that The War Game, which is in black and white, is now considered to be dated, and that the BBC has made a subsequent film, A Guide to Armageddon. Enquiries by my Department have indicated that the latter film may be obtained through the BBC office in Sydney at a cost of $420 for video casette , or $720 for 16 mm reel-to-reel. I have been informed that the BBC only makes copies to order and that the item would be available within three to four weeks of ordering. No budgetary provision has been made by the Government to purchase the film. Question No. 168 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an editorial-page article by Dr Julie Dahlitz in the Canberra Times, 9 May 1983, referring the the United States of America bases in Australia as early warning, verification, navigation, targeting and military command systems not susceptible to genuinely joint control. (2) Can he say if Dr Dahlitz (a) is the most highly qualified Australian in disarmament negotiations and (b) Will she be offered a United Nations posting in conjunction with the new section of his Department concerned with disarmament. (3) Will he pursue with US authorities (a) the phasing out of secret nuclear offensive functions and (b) open international control surveillance and peaceful navigational functions of these bases, in co-ordination with the international rescue satellite project and the UN preace surveillance satellite project first proposed by France in 1978. (4) Will he inform the United States that Australia supports the majority vote of the US House of Representatives, and the 1982 US referendum, in favour of a mutual and verifiable nuclear freeze and rejects the Reagan-Weinberger policy of escalation of the arms race and militarisation of outer space in pursuit of winnable nuclear war capability; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) No. (b) There is not a new section of my Department but I have arranged for the previously inadequate resources of the disarmament and arms control area of the Department to be increased. United Nations postings cannot be offered but are the subject of applications by individuals. (3) (a) I will make no comment as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the term 'secret nuclear offensive functions' applied to the joint Australian/United States defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Discussions are still in train with the United States Government about a possible statement on the general purpose and functions of those facilities. It follows from recent statements which the Prime Minister and I have made in support of those facilities and their contribution to deterrence and global security that the Government has no intention of seeking to have any of their functions phased out. (b) The Government supports the international satellite rescue project and has voted in favour of relevant resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly for the French proposal for an international satellite monitoring agency. It does not, however, believe it would be either appropriate or practicable to seek changes to the arrangements governing the operations of joint defence facilities in Australia along the lines proposed in the question. (4) In principle, the Government is attracted to the concept of a nuclear freeze as a means of achieving reductions of nuclear forces. In considering the case for a nuclear freeze, however, it is important that the result be mutually agreed and verifiable. A freeze at excessively large levels of armamens which did not look forward to reductions in those levels would be likely to perpetuate anxiety and uncertainty about risks of nuclear war. A freeze which gave advantage to one side would not contribute to a stable peace. The Government's approach on arms control and disarmament questions has been made known at the highest levels of the United States Government during the respective visits by the Prime Minister and myself to Washington in June and July of this year. Question No. 228 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Department and the statutory authorities within my portfolio, is as follows: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE Organisation 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ AUSSAT nil nil nil nil nil Australian Broadcasting Tribunal nil nil nil nil nil Australian Postal Commission 40,000 290,000 2,585,000 920,000 44, 000 Australian Telecommunications Commission 7,441,000 8,689,000 12,471,000 14, 064,000 16,896,000 Department of Communications nil nil nil nil 202,650 Overseas Telecommunications Commission 129,000 11,000 12,000 92,000 15,000 Special Broadcasting Service nil nil nil nil nil Total 7,610,000 8,990,000 15,068,000 15,076,000 17,157,650 With regard to capital expenditure undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the following estimate for the total period (1978/79-1982/83) has been provided: $ Radio Engineering 290,000 Television Engineering 570,000 OTHER EXPENDITURE Department of Communications Item 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Salaries 35,700 39,700 37,800 53,700 58,951 Overtime 1,000 2,200 2, 660 1,520 5,573 Travel 10,953 16,759 17,469 11,840 27,455 Motor vehicles 1,600 2,200 2,200 2,200 4,696 Other (estimates) 12,865 9,591 10,887 13,527 14,497 Total 62,118 70,450 71,016 82,787 111,172 Australian Postal Commission Item 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Direct labour 2,122,000 2,392,000 2,999,000 3,581,000 4,616,000 Direct non-labour 112,000 136,000 218,000 148,000 157,000 Indirect and overhead costs 1,484,000 1,583,000 1,838,000 2,654,000 2,696,000 Total 3,718,000 4,111,000 5,055,000 6,383,000 7,469,000 NOTE: Direct Labour includes salaries, overtime and allowances. Direct Non- labour includes travel allowance, fares, accommodation, etc. Indirect and Overhead costs include depreciation, superannuation, long service leave and interest. Australian Telecommunications Commission Item 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Services and maintenance (Total) 9,717,000 13,040,000 15,936,000 17, 917,000 21,576,000 Overseas Telecommunications Commission Item 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Salaries 156,000 170,000 169,000 195,000 228,000 Associated staff costs 68,000 88,000 111,000 140,000 153,000 Building and site maintenance 25, 000 8,000 8,000 59,000 10,000 Other 63,000 64,000 58,000 109,000 137,000 Total 312,000 330,000 346,000 503,000 528,000 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal The Tribunal has advised that the only Northern Territory related expenditure incurred by the Tribunal is in the form of travel and accommodation expenses associated with infrequent public inquiries conducted by the Tribunal into the grant and renewal of commercial radio and television licences and share transactions affecting licences. Aussat Pty Ltd Aussat has advised nil expenditure during the years 1978-79; 1979-80; 1980-81; and 1981-82 and an estimated expenditure of $13,917 for 1982-83. Special Broadcasting Service Expenditure by the Special Broadcasting Service in the Northern Territory has to date been limited to the provision of subsidies to ethnic and Aboriginal public broadcasters at 8TOP-FM Darwin and 8CCC-FM Alice Springs, totalling: $25, 965 in 1981-82 and $43,779 in 1982-83. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Item 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Salaries 563,957 625,673 824,479 1,l34,358 1,191,274 Expenses 337,365 364,201 414,988 509,810 613,914 Total 901,322 989,874 1,239,467 1,644,168 1,805,188 Question No. 321 Mr Maher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983 : (1) Is a naturalised Australian required to supply a birth certificate when application is made for a passport; if so, why. (2) What assistance will a citizen receive where an overseas birth certificate can only be obtained with great delay, expense or inconvenience. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All Australian citizens are now requested to submit a full birth certificate with passport applications. The requirement stems from consideration of the recomendations of the Stewart Royal Commission report on passports. In some States it is possible for Australian citizens to change their names legally as many times as they wish. When this has been done, a new extract of birth may be issued showing the new name. This might provide the opportunity, for anyone wishing to do so, to obtain a new passport on each change of name while still in possession of another valid passport. The full birth certificate establishes the name at birth, and in the present redevelopment of the passport computer system the name at birth of all applicants will be recorded as a base name against which can be cross referenced any name the applicant may subsequently choose to use. (2) Where an applicant has an urgent need to travel and/or has insufficient time to obtain a birth certificate from overseas, the applicant may be issued with a restricted validity passport on production of a certificate of citizenship. This passport would be extended to full validity once the birth certificate has been submitted to a passports office. Special arrangements can also be made for applicants who, for legitimate reasons, are able to demonstrate that they cannot obtain an overseas birth certificate. Question No. 333 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) What main items of military and military supportive aid, including road work and surveillance aircraft, have been given by Australia to (a) Indonesia, ( b) Malaysia, (c) the Philippines, (d) United States of America, (e) Vietnam and (f) other nations (i) for the years 1973 to 1975 and (ii) for each year since 1975. (2) What requests have been made and what aid given by Australia to each recipient country to (a) modify military activities including military support missions, pursuit of dissidents and restriction of foreign journalists in (i) West Irian, (ii) East Timor, (iii) Latin America or (iv) Kampuchea and (b) implement internationally supervised or approved self-determination programs for minorities under military rule. (3) Will he seek the support of Government colleagues for constructive co- operative projects including cultural exchanges and relief of disadvantaged communities by international aid agencies before military aid. (4) Has he information which would suggest that Indonesian incursions into Papua New Guinea are likely to lessen if Australia increases military aid to Indonesia or reverses its original principled request for self determination for Malaysia, Borneo, West Irian and East Timor; if so, what are the details. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Many of the main items of military, and military support assistance listed below provided under the defence co-operation program, include one or more of spares support, training and advisory assistance. (a) (i) 16 ex-Royal Australian Air Force Sabre aircraft; 2 ex-Royal Australian Navy Attack class patrol boats; 4 Nomad aircraft; 2 Dakota aircraft fitted out as air navigation classrooms; 8 static electronic target ranges; Equipment for Indonesian United Nations contingent in Middle East; 760 field radio tranceivers ; Research and development equipment (various); Survey and mapping of Sumatra; 431 Indonesian personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. (ii) 3 ex-Royal Australian Navy Attack class patrol boats; 6 sixteen-metre patrol boats; 14 Nomad aircraft; Survey and mapping of Irian Jaya, Maluku, Kalimantan and Islands East and West of Sumatra; 250 Landrover vehicles; 10 mobile automotive repair workshops; Further research and development assistance; C-130 engine overhaul; English language assistance; 12 ex-Army Sioux helicopters and assistance in conversion of four to turbine power; Dockyard equipment ( various); Establishment of Nomad maintenance facilities; One Titan riverine patrol craft; Field communications test and repair equipment (various); Aircraft engineering and supply advisory assistance; 634 Indonesian personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia (b) (i) Heavy workshop equipment (various); Establishment of police technical trade training school; Parachute and diving training equipment (various); Ammunition (various); 803 Malaysian personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. (ii) Further assistance to police technical training school; Further parachute and diving training and workshop equipment; 6 fourteen-metre patrol boats; Medical equipment and stores (various); 11 static electronic target ranges; Cataloguing advisory assistance; Armoured advisory assistance; Advisory assistance in the establishment of an Armoured/Artillery/EME centre; Defence research advisory assistance; Survey/mapping of Peninsular Malaysia; 3,131 Malaysian personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. (c) (i) 40 Philippines personnel trained in Australia. (ii) 150 portable electronic target units; Nomad maintenance; 50 medical panniers; 479 Philippines personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (f) (i) Singapore-Supply and installation of microwave radio system; Anti- aircraft system advisory assistance; Flying training assistance; 30 Singapore personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Thailand-37 Thai personnel trained in Australia. Papua New Guinea-$74m in fixed assets were provided to PNG following independence; 229 PNG personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Fiji-40 Fijian personnel trained in Australia. (ii) Singapore-Cataloguing assistance; Further flying training advisory assistance; C-130 flying simulator; 4 static electronic target ranges; 385 Singapore personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Thailand-Workshop and technical training equipment; English language assistance ; Work study advisory assistance; 400 Thai personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia; Nomad and helicopter engine maintenance assistance; Military research advisory assistance. Papua New Guinea-Assistance with field survey and provincial public works programs; Specialist technical loan personnel serving with PNG Defence Force; 5 Nomad aircraft; 7 DC 3 aircraft; Assistance with construction of defence housing ; 75 Field radio tranceivers; Air freight assistance to the PNG Government for special heavy lift tasks; Trade training unit equipment; 10 fire fighting vehicles; 8 maritime radar units; 20 light trucks, earthmoving plant and recovery vehicles; 20 riverine assault craft; 1,223 PNG personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Fiji-Earthmoving equipment and advisory assitance for the RFMF Rural Development Unit; Advisory assistance to the RFMR Naval Squadron; Arms and ammunition for the Fiji UN contingent in Lebanon; Survey assistance to determine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) base lines; Field Engineering Construction assistance; Telecommunications equipment (various); Satellite navigation aids for RFMF naval vessels; Aerial photography for mapping; 252 Fijian personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Vanuatu-Rifles, uniforms, vehicles, equipment and initial training to establish the Vanuatu Police Mobile Force; Aerial photography for mapping; Advisory assistance in armoury, catering and rural water supply engineering; Police communications equipment. Solomon Islands-One 16 metre patrol boat; Channel clearance operations; Survey assistance to determine EEZ base lines; Hydrographic survey and chart production assistance; Anti-malaria research and operations; Police communications equipment; Field engineering construction assistance; 43 Solomon Islands personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Kiribati-Channel clearance training; Clearance of military debris from Christmas Island. Western Samoa-Survey assistance to determine EEZ base lines. Tonga-Advisory assistance in carpentry, electrical and marine engineering trade training; Provision of medium landing craft; Survey assistance to determine EEZ base lines; Provision of vehicles, plant and equipment for the Tonga Defence Service; 65 Tongan personnel undertook training or study visits in Australia. Other countries-112 personnel from the following countries undertook training or study visits in Australia: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma, Brunei, Kuwait and Zimbabwe. (2) It has not been the practice of successive Australian governments to use either the development assistance or defence co-operation programs as a means of seeking to influence the policies of other governments. Australia's interests in matters of the sort mentioned are pursued through normal diplomatic channels. (3) As pointed out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his response to Question No. 332, the Government seeks to follow a balanced foreign assistance program of which the defence co-operation program is a complementary element. Australia also already participates in an active program of cultural exchanges with a considerable number of countries. (4) The maintenance of security along the PNG/Indonesia border is primarily the responsibility of the two governments directly concerned. Both are, of course, aware of Australia's interest in the maintenance of peace and stability in the area. Question No. 350 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. of No. No. No. Sex of out- dis- claim- Type of Year claims settled standing allowed ant of work A. Department of Aviation 1978 1 1 . . Male Prolonged use of screwdriver 1979 3 3 . . 1 x Male Prolonged use of pick and shovel 2 x Female Typing duties 1980 7 7 . . 3 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Data processing Operator Duties 1 x Female Fast arm movements due to excessive writing 1 x Female Excessive use of calculator and writing 1 x Male Printing Duties and crouching over bench from stool 1981 6 4 1 x Female Typing/keyboard duties 1 x Female ledger machine operations 1 x Female Filing documents in metal trays 1 x Female Collating duties 1 1 x Male Repetitive writing on carbon copy paper 1 1 x Female Teleprinter duties 1982 3 3 . . . . 1 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Using press for microfiche mountings 1 x Male Prolonged hammering of steel 1983 5 1 1 x Female Data processing duties 4 2 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Bending and kneeling while filing 1 x Male Excessive use of arm in picking up telephone. B. Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA) 1978 5 5 . . . . 3 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Constant kneeling 1979 5 5 . . . . 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Using Scissors 1 x Female Lifting 1 x Female Accounting Machine Operation 1980 6 6 . . . . 3 x Female Pushing 2 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Constant kneeling 1981 10 10 . . . . 6 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Stapling 1 x Male Keyboard Operations 1 x Female Keyboard Operations 1982 8 8 . . . . 3 x Male Lifting 4 x Female Lifting 1 x Female Comptometer Operations 1983 3 3 . . . . 1 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Using handtool (crowbar) 1 x Female Keyboard Operations C. Qantas Airways Ltd 1978 Nil 1979 Nil 1980 1 1 . . . . Female Punch Operator 1981 Nil 1982 1 1 . . . . Female VDU Operator 1983 8 8 . . . . 6 x Female Clerical duties 1 x Male Clerical duties 1 x Male Engineering duties Question No. 403 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) How many Aborigines are registered as unemployed in each State. (2) What is the Aboriginal unemployment rate within each identifiable Aboriginal community in each State. (3) How many Aborigines have been employed in each State under the Community Employment Program. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at the end of June 1983 the following number of Aborigines were registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service. New South Wales 5,120 Victoria 752 Queensland 5,556 South Australia 1,301 Western Australia 3,521 Tasmania 185 Northern Territory 4,488 Australian Capital Territory 76 Total 20,999 (2) The CES does not maintain records on the Aboriginal unemployment rate within each Aboriginal community in each State. The CES does maintain records of Aborigines who register with CES offices as unemployed. This broad information is provided in answer to question 1. It is not possible for the CES to provide a breakdown by individual communities as not all unemployed Aborigines may wish to register with a CES office. However , the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations can provide data on the number of Aborigines registered as unemployed for each CES office area. The most reliable information available on Aboriginal unemployment rates by individual communities is contained in the 1981 Census. A schedule of that information is attached. (3) The community employment program is administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Applications for grants to employ disadvantaged groups including Aborigines are considered by a consultative committee in each State and Territory. The committees comprise Commonwealth and State/Territory Government officials and representatives of local government, non-government organisations and interest groups. An NAC representative is a member of each committee. The first approvals of projects submitted under the community employment program were given in the second week of October and referral action by the CES to place unemployed registrants commenced immediately. It is not possible to provide detailed information on the number of Aboriginals placed at this stage. The community employment program is a new initiative which subsumes in part, the wages pause program introduced in December 1982. Under that program, the number of Aborigines employed in the various States were as follows.: New South Wales 153 Victoria 8 Queensland 170 South Australia 1 Western Australia 14 Tasmania 3 Northern Territory 81 Australian Capital Territory 2 Total 432 Question No. 407 Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) How many infringements of the environmental requirements at the (a) Nabarlek and (b) Ranger uranium mining operations were reported to the Supervising Scientist by (i) Queensland Mines Limited and (ii) Ranger Uranium Mines Proprietary Limited between April 1982 and June 1983. (2) What are the (a) descriptions and (b) details of the infringements, and what were the dates of these reports. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under clause 5 of both the Ranger and Nabarlek environmental requirements the companies are required to ensure that all staff and persons for whom they are responsible observe the provisions of the environmental requirements. The mining companies have agreed to report all infringements and other unusual events to the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy and to give a copy of such reports to the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region and the Northern Territory Land Council. The Supervising Scientist has advised me that most incidents reported are of a minor nature and do not constitute infringements. Other incidents while considered to be minor or potential infringements have no significant impact on the environment. Between April 1982 and June 1983: (a) (i) Queensland Mines Limited reported two incidents which were considered to be minor or potential infringements but to have no significant impact; and (b) (ii) Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd reported nine incidents of which eight were minor or potential infringements having no significant impact and one was significant and is subject to further investigation. (2) The description and details of the incidents which occurred between April 1982 and June 1983 and were considered to be infringements, and the dates they were reported by the companies or came to the notice of the Supervising Scientist, are listed below. All except the one marked with an asterisk are considered to be minor or potential infringements but not to have had significant impact. The one marked with an asterisk is significant and is subject to further investigation. Date of report to Date of incident Description and details Supervising Scientist NABARLEK (QUEENSLAND MINES LIMITED) 22 and 26 July 1982 The pipeline returning water from the stockpile Runoff Pond to the Mill ruptured along a welded seal during operation. Less than 30m3 of water escaped from the restricted release zone. Except for nitrogen, sulphate , radium and manganese contents that were within limits of some local natural waters, the water quality was within National Health and Medical Research Council drinking water standards. Following investigation, the supervising authorities concluded that no damage had occurred or was likely to occur to the environment. 28 July 1982 4 March 1983 A minor leak from a tailings line in the plant area was detected during routine surveillance and reported by the company. Less than 1m3 of tailings sprayed over the top of the retaining bund a distance of approximately 3m outside the restricted release zone. The leak appears to have been caused by a gradual internal abrasion of a pipe at a defect point. Clean-up of the spilled tailings and the contaminated earth was effected and soil samples were taken after the clean-up. No significant environmental or public health damage occurred. 4 March 1983 RANGER (RANGER URANIUM MINES PROPRIETARY LIMITED) 24 May 1982 The emission rate measured from the yellowcake packing area scrubber was exceeding the allowable limit of 1.5 kg per day of uranium. Revised calculations showed that the limit had also been exceeded on 12 March 1982. The scrubber was immediately shut down and overhauled. Blockage of some water spray nozzles by scale was found to be the cause. After the overhaul the emission rate was found to be within the allowable limit. A filter has been installed to reduce the likelihood of such blockages in the future and a further control measure is being investigated. Analyses are now reported to management immediately, rather than in a monthly report. 24 June 1982 *5 July 1982 Two workers in the Ranger yellowcake packaging room were knocked over by a large spillage of uranium oxide product (approximately one tonne of yellowcake) when attempting to clear a blocked bin packaging chute. Both are reported to have been wearing respirators when they commenced the task but these were dislodged by the falling product and then removed during the attempt to avoid and stem the flow. The spillage was successfully stopped and the area cleaned of contamination under the control of the radiation safety officer. Whole body counting and assessment at both the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission revealed one worker's radiation dose as a result of this intake was virtually at the annual limit. The matter is still under investigation by the Northern Territory Department of Health. Questions about the adequacy of the company's radiation safety practices were taken up with the company and the relevant Northern Territory supervising authorities by the Supervising Scientist. As a result, supervision and operating practice in the Ranger packaging area was subsequently tightened to avoid further incidents of this sort. I have directed the Supervising Scientist to report on this incident under sub-section 36 (3) of the Environment Protection ( Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. As required by this Act the report will be tabled in Parliament. 6 July 1982 On a number of days through June to early July 1982 Sulphur dioxide emission from the Ranger sulphuric acid plant exceeded slightly the limits set by the General Authorisation. Investigations suggest difficulties of temperature control and progressive deterioration of catalyst beds as the cause of a cyclical variation in plant efficiency. Averaged over the long term, the emission would not give cause for concern nor has environmental detriment been detected at ground level. 25 June, 6 and 8 July 1982 1 February 1983 Less than 1 tonne of low grade ore (0.002 to 0.05 per cent U308) was washed to outside the Restricted Release Zone together with some 150 m3 of storm water. This minor infringement resulted from the blockage of a drain which occurred during heavy rainfall. Clean-up commenced immediately with the ore being returned to within the restricted release zone. As a remedial measure the company raised the bund wall in the affected area in order to reduce the likelihood of any future spillage. The Northern Territory Director of Mines has concluded from investigations that any contaminants were greatly diluted by the clean storm water run-off and that no environmental detriment is expected from the incident. The Supervising Scientist concurs with this assessment. 1 March 1983 9 February 1983 About 200 litres of diesel fuel was spilled at a borefield 800m south of the mine pit. No significant impact occurred outside the immediate area of the spill. 8 March 1983 23 February 1983 Some modification work to the yellow-cake scrubber exhausts resulted in seven company and contractor personnel being exposed to airborne radioactive contamination above the derived levels contained in the Code of Practice on radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive ores ( 1980). The exposures occurred over a short period and were estimated to have been less than 5 per cent of the annual limit for designated workers. 25 February 1983 9 March 1983 A labourer was exposed to a radioactive dust concentration above the derived levels set down in the abovementioned code. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Radiation Laboratory were requested to carry out measurements on the exposed person (using a 'whole body counter') to try to determine how much radioactive material may have been retained in the body. Measurements demonstrated only that any uranium in the body was less than the detection limit of the equipment. 15 March 1983 March 1983 A minor infringement occurred when a small volume of sewage escaped from the reticulation system in Jabiru East. This was due to the entry of stormwater into the system together with numerous foreign bodies which blocked the pumps and caused the burn out of the pump motors. No significant environmental damage occurred. 13 April 1983 22 April 1983 A minor infringement occurred in that a small quantity (less than 50 litres) of diesel oil is reported as having escaped into Gulungul Creek System at a borehole installation known as 74/1. No environmental detriment is expected from this incident. 4 May 1983 Question No. 412 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Further to the answer to my Question No. 271 (Hansard, 23 August 1983, page 123) and the Australian Commission's testing of mail path performance (a) what refining of the testing system has been undertaken since 1977, (b) how often was performance testing done in (i) 1977-78 and (ii) 1982-83 and (c) by whom was the performance testing performed. (2) Has the posting time, upon which the delivery percentage is based, been brought forward to an earlier hour since 1977 so that it is now easier to achieve a higher percentage of standard letter deliveries. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) More categories of mail are now checked regularly for service performance-namely, non-standard enveloped articles, surface paid parcels, Priority paid mail and overseas airmail leters. Procedures for sampling and performance assessment have been simplified and streamlined. (b) (i) and (ii) Each delivery day. (c) Performance testing has several components. The random selection of mail for the daily test sample and the recording of data is performed by staff at selected mail delivery offices in line with prescribed procedures. Capital City delivery centres and the Launceston Post Office are invariably included in performance testing; other offices are selected on a rotational basis by Australia Post divisional office staff using national guidelines which ensure representation of the overall mail network. The evaluation of test results is performed by specialist staff at a central point in each State and at Australia Post headquarters. (2) Adjustments to latest posting times to meet service standards are made from time to time in individual areas to accommodate changes in operational arrangements designed to improve service performance, or to meet changes in contracted transport schedules. Since 1977, earlier posting times have been introduced at some locations and later times at others. Question No. 428 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No grants, subsidies, special purpose grants, dollar for dollar contributions or other contributions have been provided to the Queensland Government by my Department during the period covered by the question. Question No. 431 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Defence, 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 Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Funds have been provided from Defence appropriations for the following special purposes: (a) housing for servicemen; and (b) assistance to State Emergency Services. Information on expenditures on housing for servicemen through advances to the State of Queensland under the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States will be included in the response provided by the Minister for Housing and Construction to the same question. Payments to the Queensland Government in relation to that State's Emergency Service are limited to reimbursement of salaries to State Emergency Service Regional Offices and to the provision of assistance for the clearing of firebreaks and providing depots for emergency service units at the local level. These payments were $3.158m and $0.461m respectively in the period 1974-75 to August 1983. Further assistance has been provided to the Queensland State Emergency Service during this period by way of: (a) training of Emergency Service personnel at the Australian Counter Disaster College, Mount Macedon to the value of $1.058m; (b) public information awareness material for distribution through the Queensland State Emergency Service to the value of $0.155m; and (c) provision of equipment to the State Emergency Service to the value of $2. 121m. Additional information on the nature of these payments is included in successive Budget documents 'Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities'-for example, see 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 7, pages 36-38. To assist the integration into the community of west Townsville of servicemen stationed with their families in this area, advances totalling $0.301 were provided to the Queensland Government in 1972-73 and 1973-74 towards the cost of developing community facilities. Question No. 435 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No payments were made or offered to the Queensland Government in respect of the aviation portfolio during the period December 1972 to August 1983. Question No. 455 Mr Campbell asked the Minister repesenting the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Is the Attorney-General able to say whether United States citizens have access to both general and personal files held by the United States Central Intelligence Agency under that country's Freedom of Information Act. (2) Is it a fact that Australian citizens are not permitted to have access to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation files under any circumstances under the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act. (3) Will the Attorney-General (a) move to amend the Freedom of Information Act to permit access by Australian citizens to (i) general files of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and (ii) files relating to an individual's personal affairs and (b) table the documents containing the reasons advanced by ASIO to his predecessor for excluding ASIO from access under the Freedom of Information Act. (4) Are the documents referred to in part (3) (b) accessible under the current Freedom of Information legislation, if so, have any requests been made for them to date. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I am not in a position to provide authoritative information on United States legislation, but I understand the position to be that the United States Freedom of Information Act applies to documents of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Whether a United States citizen would have access to any particular file held by the Central Intelligence Agency would, as I understand the position, depend on whether that file was exempt under one or more of the exemption provisions of the United States Freedom of Information Act. (2) Yes. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is an exempt agency by virtue of section 7 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. (3) (a) The Government's policy on this matter is reflected in the Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1983 which recently received the Royal Assent. That Act does not remove the exempt agency status of ASIO and the other intelligence agencies under section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act also provides an express exemption for documents in the possession of other agencies which have originated with or been received from ASIO or the other intelligence agencies. Under the Australian Security Intellience Organization Act 1979 a person who is the subject of an adverse or qualified security assessment by ASIO is entitled, unless the Attorney-General certifies that disclosure of the existence of the assessment or of its contents would be prejudicial to the interests of security, to receive a copy of that assessment. The question whether any greater access should be provided to information in the possession of ASIO is a matter which will no doubt be considered in the context of any review undertaken by the Government of the general accountability of the Organization. (3) (b) The then Attorney-General in his statement to the Senate at page 809 of Senate Hansard of 11 September 1980, explained the reasons for exempting the intelligence organisations from the Freedom of Information Act 1982. It would not be consistent with accepted practice to table papers relating to Cabinet decisions of a previous Government. (4) So far as I am aware, no requests for any such documents have been made. A number of documents referred to in question 3 (b) are exempt under section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act. Whether all such documents are exempt has not been considered in the absence of a specific request. Question No. 467 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) What are the safety standards adopted by the Commonwealth Public Service for the protection of visual display unit operators. (2) Have these standards been reached in consultation with Public Service unions. (3) Is he able to say whether Public Service unions are pressing for changes in safety standards; if so, what are the changes. (4) What are (a) the maximum number of hours worked by visual display unit operators on any shift and (b) the shift spacings. (5) How many Commonwealth public servants are involved in using visual display units. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC) guides on ' Visual Display Units' and on 'Repetition Strain Injuries' (which advise on the causes and prevention of injuries in repetitive work, including the operation of VDUs) have been gazetted by the Director-General of Health for application in all Commonwealth employment as relevant standards in this area. (2) The Australian Council of Trade Unions is represented on Committees of the NH and MRC and the Standards Association of Australia. The ACTU also consults on these issues through its participation in the National Labour Consultative Council and the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee. (3) The ACTU has recently published 'Health and Safety Policy-Screen-Based Equipment'. Some unions with members in Commonwealth employment have also expressed views; the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association have published health and safety policy statements related to working on screen-based equipment. These cover a range of matters, including proposed arrangements for eyesight testing and medical examinations of staff, an increase in the level of staff association participation in job design, and more rigid technical standards for equipment. Some of these matters are dealt with by the general standards referred to above, while others are not the subject of any standard determination but relate to working conditions and arrangements on such reached between employers and staff associations. (4) VDU operators in the Australian Public Service (APS) generally work clerical staff hours, 7 hours 21 minutes per day. The amount of time actually spent on VDU work varies widely among departments and with the type of work performed but is thought to range from four to seven hours a day. (5)VDUs are now used in a wide range of job classifications and in many types of work and in is therefore difficult to identify all staff who work at some time on VDUs. However, in this APS it is estimated that around 700 word processing typists use VDUs as do a major proportion of the estimated 600 computer operators, 2,200 data processing operators and 2,100 computer systems officers. These figures relate to full time staff at December 1982. Question No. 481 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the East Timor report of 5 September 1983, by the East Timor sub-committee of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. (2) Is he able to say why the Hansip defections and Indonesian massacre of villages went unmentioned in the Australian media while the killing of 15 Indonesian military has been widely publicised. (3) Can he say whether (a) the current offensive to clean-up Fretilin was threatened in May 1983, if an amnesty offer went unheeded, irrespective of the Viqueque deaths, and (b) there are some 10,000 Indonesian troops in East Timor. (4) Is he able to say whether foreign groups, other than the recent Australian parliamentary delegation, are excluded from East Timor, including the Catholic Institute for International Relations and Australian aid agencies. (5) Has the 600 family reunion program been suddenly halted. (6) Can he confirm the reports of (a) arrests and deportations to Atauro and resistance details based on captured Indonesian documents in the Canberra Times of 20 July 1983, and (b) the Amnesty International report ASA 21 September. (7) What steps will the Australian Government take to demand redress for use of torture, threats, loss of freedom of movement and assembly, forced removal or exile from means of subsistence and relatives, forced false broadcasting, arbitrary killings and refusal to account adequately for disappearance of East Timorese. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I have received a copy of the report. (2) I am not responsible for what does, or does not appear in the Australian media. (3) (a) From the information available to the Australian Government, it appears that Indonesian military operations in East Timor have been renewed in response to the killing of 15 Indonesian soldiers on 8 August 1983. It is understood that the Indonesian Government's offer of amnesty still stands . (b) The precise number of Indonesian troops in East Timor is not known. Following the recent arrival of reinforcements, the total may now exceed 10 000. (4) Entry to East Timor for foreign groups and aid agencies has always been subject to the approval of the Indonesian Government. (5) When the Government came into office there were 72 family reunion list cases still to come to Australia. This figure has now been reduced to 13 persons from the list still to travel. The last departures for Australia were on 2 October. (6) The Australian Government does not have the sort of precise and detailed information that would allow it to prove or disprove the allegations contained in the reports mentioned in (6) (a) and (6) (b). In connection with Atauro, there has never been any doubt that it has been used to isolate Fretilin sympathisers. The Australian Government's knowledge of conditions on the island has been largely drawn from visits by officials from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. A report of such a visit was made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Also, the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia visited Atauro on 31 July 1983. (7) The position of the Australian Government regarding violations of internationally accepted standards of human rights is well known to the Indonesian Government. Question No. 483 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Which countries are currently recipients of Australian Government aid. (2) Is he able to indicate which of these countries do not provide their citizens with all of the following democratic institutions: free elections, trial by jury and freedom of speech. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Listed below are the recipients of Australian aid in 1982-83 as well as the value of the aid received. BILATERAL AID BY COUNTRY Year ended 30 June 1983 Recipient Area/Country $'000 EUROPE Cyprus 36 Greece 2 Malta 81 Turkey 1 Unallocated 5 Total Europe 125 AFRICA North of Sahara Algeria 59 Egypt 7,228 Tunisia 41 Total 7,328 South of Sahara Botswana 585 Comoros 1,095 Ethiopia 4,331 Gambia 60 Ghana 2,029 Kenya 6,811 Lesotho 486 Madagascar 1,158 Malawi 205 Mauritius 2,760 Mozambique 2,114 Nigeria 456 Rwanda 45 Senegal 53 Seychelles 387 Sierra Leone 71 Somalia 2,306 Sudan 3,496 Swaziland 117 Tanzania 9,045 Uganda 4,738 Zambia 2,738 Zimbabwe 2,115 East African Community 2 Unallocated 31 Total 47,238 Unallocated Africa 1,676 Total Africa 56,242 AMERICA North or Central Bahamas 59 Dominican Republic 2 Jamaica 308 Mexico 64 West Indies- Antigua 35 Dominica 35 Grenada 39 St. Lucia 41 St. Vincent 56 Unallocated 6 Total 645 South Argentina 4 Brazil 8 Chile 10 Ecuador 20 Guyana 11 Peru 18 Total 71 Unallocated America 349 Total America 1,065 ASIA Middle East Jordan 527 Lebanon 4,126 Syria 61 Yemen, Arab Republic 72 Yemen, Democratic 11 Unallocated 66 Total 4,893 South Bangladesh 21,501 Bhutan 559 Burma 12,633 India 2,079 Maldives, Republic of 458 Nepal 1,509 Pakistan 7,569 Sri Lanka 8,882 Total 55,190 East China, Peoples Rep. 4,494 Hong Kong 106 Indonesia 42,918 Kampuchea (a) 2 ,099 Korea, Republic of 199 Laos 1,845 Malaysia 8,553 Philippines 16,707 Singapore 2,029 Thailand 15,676 Vietnam 1 Unallocated 3,386 Total 98,013 Unallocated Asia 6,115 Total Asia 164,211 OCEANIA Cook Islands 688 Fiji 12,474 Kiribati 2,289 Nauru 6 New Caledonia 3 Niue 251 Papua New Guinea 274,947 Pacific Islands (US) (d) 15 Polynesia, French 103 Solomon Islands 8,830 Tokelau Islands 1 Tonga 4,146 Tuvalu 1, 148 Vanuatu 5,881 Western Samoa 7,207 Unallocated 5,685 TOTAL OCEANIA 323,674 Unspecified World 7,123 WORLD TOTAL 552,440 (2) I do not consider it appropriate, in the context of Australia's aid program , to comment on or make judgements about the extent to which certain institutional benefits are enjoyed by the peoples of any country receiving Australian aid. A basic aim of the Australian aid program is to contribute to the overall social and economic advancement of the peoples in developing countries, including the poorest and most deprived sectors of the community. Question No. 500 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What sum have each of the local government authorities in the electoral division of Murray received from the Commonwealth Government (a) in the various categories of the Australian bicentennial road development fund and (b) for other roads programs in each year since 1980 and what is the estimated sum for each year to 1988-89. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth provides funds for roads to municipalities in Victoria through three sources 1. The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 2. The Roads Grants Act 1981 3. The jobs on local roads (JOLOR) program as part of the community employment program (CEP). AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT (ABRD) PROGRAM Under ABRD programs funds are available to municipalities for construction works on Local Roads. Estimated total entitlements to municipalities situated in the electoral division of Murray for the years 1982/83 to end of 1988 are shown below. These entitlements are based on an assumed total national expenditure of $2500m on all road categories over the same period. Estimated entitlement 1982-83 Municipalities in Murray Electorate to 1988 $ Shire of Cobram 102,900 Shire of Cohuna 76,100 Shire of Deakin 200,600 Shire of East Loddon 126,600 City of Echuca 44,100 City of Euroa 187,200 Shire of Gordon 171,900 Shire of Goulbourn 78,400 Borough of Kerang 23,700 Shire of Kerang 225,200 Town of Kyabram 31,000 Shire of Natalia 161,300 Shire of Numurkah 156,400 Shire of Rochester 255,500 Shire of Rodney 195,600 City of Shepparton 115,100 Shire of Shepparton 176,100 Shire of Tungamah 157,900 Shire of Violet Town 129,500 Shire of Waranga 232,800 Shire of Wycheproof 215 ,700 Part of municipality in Murray Electorate Under the ABRD program Rural Arterial projects are also required to be approved by me for funding. In the 1982/83 and 1983/84 ABRD Rural Arterial Roads programs two projects within this Electorate were approved duplication in Shepparton of 1.3km of Goulburn Valley Highway at a cost of $800 ,000 construction of a bridge over Loddon River on the Bridgewater/Serpentine Road costing $800,000. Roads Grants Act Program Under the Roads Grants Act program, the allocations for works on Local Roads to each municipality in the Murray Electorate are shown below for the yars 1980-81 to 1983-84. Likely allocations beyond 1983-84 are not known. *APPROVED ALLOCATIONS UNDER ROAD GRANTS ACT Municipalities in Murray Electorate 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ $ $ Shire of Cobram 161,600 170,200 181,300 188,000 Shire of Cohuna 269, 580 249,830 288,280 310,870 Shire of Deakin 250,400 265,300 288,400 383,300 Shire of East Loddon 255,300 297,125 295,425 380,075 City of Echuca 53,000 56, 300 105,350 99,000 *City of Euroa 315,560 291,700 310,100 388,600 Shire of Gordon 296,000 308,500 365,300 404,300 *Shire of Goulburn 199,080 224,400 298, 200 342,900 Borough of Kerang 66,700 92,100 93,800 99,300 *Shire of Kerang 412,800 439,100 476,500 582,200 Town of Kyabram 34,600 29,100 42,300 40,600 Shire of Natalia 249,000 270,900 299,100 375,850 Shire of Numurkah 272,100 299,100 330,200 467,800 Shire of Rochester 346,990 356,750 398,150 393,250 Shire of Rodney 269,400 383,100 308,400 340,100 City of Shepparton 89,700 96, 900 98,200 105,600 *Shire of Shepparton 225,100 247,700 333,000 353,800 *Shire of Tungamah 302,200 301,400 224,400 263,700 *Shire of Violet Town 176,500 169, 100 178,700 215,400 *Shire of Waranga 244,000 269,400 292,100 340,500 *Shire of Wycheproof 245,300 420,135 457,650 535,710 Percentage Federal funds 63.2 64.5 61.8 53.7 *These allocations are comprised of Federal and State funds which are not separable by individual municipality. However, the overall percentage of these funds, on a Statewide basis, is as shown at the bottom the table. * Part of municipality in Murray Electorate Note: Municipalities also benefit significantly from Arterial Roads funds provided under the Roads Grants Act. However, as there is no requirement under this Act for Arterial Roads projects to be submitted for my approval, specific details of expenditure in particular municipalities in Murray Electorate cannot be determined. JOLOR Program The Commonwealth has also allocated $16.7m to Victoria for road works in 1983- 84 under the JOLOR program as part of the Community Employment Program (CEP). Each municipality in Victoria will be allocated $26,670 as a base grant. The balance of $11.046m will be distributed for approved projects, determined on the basis of established road needs special regional employment needs energy and economic savings offered by the proposed projects. Question No. 541 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to cases of Australian citizens of Czechoslovakian origin being charged large fees for visas to visit Czechoslovakia. (2) Are these charges contrary to the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement of 1975. (3) What has Australia done, or can it do, to prevent this treatment of Australian citizens. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under Czechoslovakia's Government Direction No. 58 of 1977, a procedure was established whereby Czechoslovak citizens who left Czechoslovakia illegally could regularise their status. The procedure might involve the payment of a substantial fee. As I understand it, regularisation means that such citizens are offered the alternative of either a method of renouncing their Czechoslovak citizenship, or retrospective approval of their original departure. Thereafter persons concerned can visit Czechoslovakia without being treated as Czechoslovak citizens normally resident in Czechoslovakia while they are in the country. (2) and (3) The Helsinki Accords of 1975 were the result of a Conference on European Security and Co-operation at which Australia was not represented. The Government does, however, take account of the positions adopted at that Conference in assessing the action it should take where issues of this nature arise. The Czechoslovak authorities have said that Directive No. 58/77 contributes to an easing of restrictions on the international movement of people by permitting Czechoslovak citizens to enjoy freer movement and contacts with their families in Czechoslovakia. In looking at any question of citizenship, it is necessary to note that every country has the right to make laws dealing with the citizenship status of its own citizens, wherever they live. Accordingly, the Australian Government does not question the right of the Czechoslovak Government to enact laws affecting persons who are regarded as Czechoslovak citizens under Czechoslovak law. The Australian Government would, however, be concerned about any punitive, arbitrary or coercive effects such laws might have on Australian citizens of Czechoslovak origin. In the six years since the making of Directive No. 58/77 my Department has received a small steady stream of complaints about its implementation by the Czechoslovak authorities in Australia, indicating a degree of dissatisfaction among Australians of Czechoslovak origin over some facets of its implementation. Investigations into these complaints have, however, not indicated a need to date for formal representations to the Czechoslovak authorities about specific issues arising from the application of the directive itself. The matter is, however, kept under constant review. Question No. 546 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 September 1983: Is he able to say whether some travel agents have been paid commissions by certain airline companies involved in international air travel of up to 27 per cent of the cost of the sale of a first class ticket; if so, can he advise (a) which airlines have been providing these commissions, (b) for what reasons, and (c) whether the commissions are wholly retained by the agents concerned or are to some extent passed on to persons purchasing first class tickets by way of rebates or discounts, or otherwise as financial benefits relating to the purchase of tickets. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am unable to say whether certain international airlines have paid commission of up to 27 per cent on the sale of international first class tickets. I have, however, noted that recent press reports have made suggestions that commission levels in this order may be available to certain agents within Australia. I am informed that no international airline has filed with my Department to apply 27 per cent commission on the sale of first class tickets, or any other tickets within Australia. Question No. 547 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that (a) on 21 August 1983, at Brisbane Air Traffic Control Centre an air traffic controller trainee undergoing training, assaulted his Training Officer who was dealing with active aircraft, and rendered him unconscious, and (b) the regional control supervisor, when contacted by the person in control of the shift, advised that person not to enter the details of the assault in the log as an unusual occurrence, but simply to record that the injured officer had left early for home. (2) Will he (a) investigate these allegations, and (b) examine the need for establishing proper procedures for (i) the reporting of occurrences of the kind described, and (ii) assessing the psychological fitness of a person to act as an air traffic controller whose conduct is such as to give rise to doubts as to psychological fitness for rigorous and important work. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes, I have been advised that on 21 August 1983, in the Brisbane Area Approach Control Centre, an air traffic controller undergoing training assaulted his training officer. A senior air traffic controller who was standing adjacent to the approach position immediately assumed control over the position. The incident was investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation which reported that air safety had not been jeopardised. My Department is investigating the matter of the assault under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act. (b) No, such allegations have not been drawn to my attention. The journal or log is considered to be an operational document in which operational matters only are recorded. Whilst this alleged incident was regarded as unusual, it was not considered to be of operational significance since it was quickly ascertained that aircraft safety had not been jeopardised, and that the operational status of the facility was not affected. However, the occurrence was later recorded in the log as an incident involving the trainee and his training officer. (2) (a) As previously stated, the matter is under investigation. (b) (i) Proper procedures are established for the reporting of such occurrences and for (ii) assessing the psychological fitness of a person to act as an air traffic controller. Air traffic controllers are subject to regular medical examinations and must achieve prescribed standards of physical and mental health . In the case in question it would be normal practice for the controller to undergo a medical examination by an approved aviation medical practitioner. Question No. 565 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) Are Royal Australian Air Force aircraft fitted with communications equipment capable of using the international distress frequency of 121.5MHz; if not, why not. (2) Is he able to indicate whether aircraft of the armed forces of (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) France, (d) the USSR, (e) the People's Republic of China, (f) East Germany, (g) West Germany, (h) Canada, (i) Japan, (j) Sweden and (k) Norway are similarly fitted. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) With the exception of Macchi, Mirage and F111, all RAAF aircraft are fitted with VHF communications equipment capable of using the international distress frequency of 121.5MHz. Macchi, Mirage and F111 aircraft are presently fitted with UHF communications equipment which cannot use the international distress frequency, 121.5MHz. A modification program involving the fitting of VHF radio equipment to F111 aircraft is currently in progress and consideration is being given to installation of similar equipment in Macchi aircraft for air traffic control purposes. This equipment would enable use of the international distress frequency, 121.5MHz. The Mirage aircraft does not have an essential requirement for VHF communications in its tactical roles. However, when carrying out intercepts, Mirage aircraft are normally under the positive control of a military ground agency which does have VHF facilities and which also has direct communications with civil air traffic control agencies to meet any emergency. (2 ) (a), (b), (c), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k). The United States of America, United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Canada, Japan, Sweden and Norway armed forces have some military aircraft which are fitted with VHF communications equipment capable of using international distress frequency 121.5MHz. (2) (d) and (f) Whilst most aircraft of the USSR and East German armed forces are fitted with VHF communications equipment, it is not known whether such equipment is capable of using international distress frequency 121.5MHz. (2) (e) The type of communications equipment fitted to aircraft of the People's Republic of China armed forces is unknown. Question No. 577 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What are the terms of reference of the task force headed by Mr Colin Bourke to examine the development of training and employment opportunities for Aborigines. (2) With regard to the task force (a) how will it be conducted, (b) what resources have been made available, (c) when is it expected to be completed, (d) will the report be made public, (e) what form of consultations will be taken following the report and (f) what is the estimated total cost. Mr Holding —The answer to the honurable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Mr Bourke does not head a task force. He is engaged under Section 82 of the Public Service Act as a policy adviser for a fixed period of three years at a salary level equivalent to that paid to a Level 1, Second Division Officer within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Departmental resources are being provided to Mr Bourke in the normal way. Mr Bourke's duties are: Develop policies and strategies aimed at improving the training, career development and employment opportunities of Aboriginals and Islanders generally, and in particular in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Foster and encourage the development of Aboriginal leadership, initiative and administrative skills and abilities of Aboriginal employees, and within groups, organisations and communities. Prepare advice on the implementation of Aboriginal employment, career development and training policies and related programs, practices and guidelines . Propose policies, strategies and guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the Government's new national Aboriginal employment and training program. Formulate and introduce career development paths for Aboriginal employees and prepare related proposals and recommendations for the refinement, or adjustment of departmental establishment profiles to facilitate career development. Question No. 589 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the article 'Defending the Sunburnt Country ' by M. Hayes in Chain Reaction in the August-September 1983 issue. (2) If so, will he table in the House promptly any congressional testimony or technical publication regarding the new radome for Pine Gap referred to on page 14 of the article. (3) What attitude has Australia expressed to the current United States of America first-strike counterforce policy. (4) Is he able to say what cost assessments are available for an (a) effective anti-missile and first-strike capability, in terms of existing and projected incomes and defence budgets of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and (b) international communications, military surveillance disarmament monitoring, peace-keeping and armistice-policing force using joint facilities installed in Australia by USA military and intelligence agencies. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Contrary to the statement in the article in Chain Reaction, it is not US practice to publicise details of the equipments at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap and their purposes. I do not have any such Congressional testimony or technical publications to table. I can however advise that the purpose of the radome is to protect the enclosed antenna from the effects of the weather. (3) The characterisation of US strategic policy as a first strike counterforce policy is not accurate. Authoritative statements of US policy emphasise that US strategy is purely defensive and that pre-emptive of first strike action by the US has been ruled out. In this context I draw the honourable member's attention to the FY 1984 Defense Report issued by the US Secretary of Defense, Mr Weinberger, which contains the following statement on page 33: 'Our strategy excludes the possibility that the US would initiate war. The US would use its military strength only in response to aggression, not to pre-empt it.' (4) No. Question No. 615 Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: Will the Minister advise whether the Government policy for introducing inbound duty-free shopping at Australian international gateways means that (a) excise on Australian alcoholic beverages will be waived and (b) customs on imported alcoholic beverages will not be waived. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The matter of introducing inwards duty free shopping for passengers arriving in Australia is currently subject to consideration by an Inter-departmental committee which has been established for this purpose. The committee met during October and is scheduled to meet once more in November when it is expected it will finalise its considerations of the matter. A submission will then be made by the committee to the Government recommending whether or not inwards duty free shopping should be introduced in Australia. Under duty free shopping arrangements which presently exist in respect of passengers departing from Australia, both Australian and imported alcoholic beverages are available for sale. Should the Government decide to introduce inwards duty free shopping arrangements, it could be expected that both Australian and imported alcoholic beverages would be available for sale.