Wednesday, 9 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond,Mr Free,Mr Hawker,Mr Humphreys,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Mr Rocher,Mr Simmons and Mr White. To the Honourable 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 Mr Robert Brown,Mr Gorman,Mr Hollis,Mr Snow and Mr Uren. 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 kangaroos. 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Humphreys and Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia: That because there is much concern in the community over the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; That because there is much concern over the proposed Sex Discrimination Bill based upon, and intending to implement, the afore-mentioned U.N. Convention; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: 1. Immediately rescind the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 2. Completely reject and abandon the Sex Discrimination Bill currently before Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. 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 freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committe to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committe to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisation and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia that the Motor Vessel Krait remain as a dedicated operational war memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia: And that: your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the Krait for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the current proposal to remove the Krait from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra ACT would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid moneys were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. 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: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principal mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 shows: That the Rates Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory needs to be amended so that the burden of rates for the Australian Capital Territory is spread more equitably amongst all the ratepayers of the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: An inquiry be initiated to inquire into the Australian Capital Territory rating system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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 whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction, And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of plutonium 239 if utilised in light water reactors overseas, And whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram, And whereas plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers, And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years, And whereas plutonium coming in contact with the air forms and aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form, And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere, And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us, And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses, Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure: 1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio- medical purposes be banned, 2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Ukrainian nation has suffered a genocidal act at the hands of the Kremlin when 7 million Ukrainians perished of starvation in 1932-33 in a deliberately planned famine. Ukrainian Australians deplore the fact that the Kremlin has never been called upon by the free world to give a public account of this tragic event. Russian great power chauvinism which caused this famine survives to this day. The Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, in the forefront of the opposition to the Russification and Ukrainian cultural destruction has been ruthlessly eliminated and protests by the West on its behalf ignored. As the only founding member of the United Nations with no western diplomatic presence, Ukraine's political isolation allows Moscow to move unimpeded towards its goal of the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government denounce the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as a genocidal act by the Kremlin against the Ukrainian nation. 2. The tragic events of the Ukrainian famine holocaust be highlighted during a day set aside by the Australian Government to honour victims of genocidal acts and imperialistic aggression. 3. The Australian Government immediately implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to convene a Standing Committee to monitor the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of all signatories, in particular, the USSR. 4. The Australian Government immediately take steps to expand official government representation to include all member states of the United Nations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Lusher. To 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said oath and affirmation of allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present oath and affirmation of allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the oath of allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the affirmation of allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales 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 Gorman. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —Yesterday the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) referred to a reported statement on national radio earlier in the day and asked me to consider whether members had been wrongfully intimidated in the course of their duties. The specific statement the honourable member mentioned was one attributed to Mr Dolan, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) put pressure on all sorts of people in relation to the Government Caucus consideration of the uranium issue. The honourable member later lodged documents with the Clerk and subsequently wrote to me on the matter, enclosing copies of Press reports from the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 November and the Age of 5 November referring to the Government Party's consideration of the uranium issue. I have given most careful consideration to these matters. The Standing Orders provide that precedence over other business shall not be given if, in the opinion of the Speaker, a prima facie case of breach of privilege has not been made out or the matter has not been raised at the earliest opportunity. The question of whether or not the matters referred to can be taken to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt is a difficult matter necessarily involving a personal judgment on my part on the basis of the material submitted, and in light of the law and precedents that are available to me. House of Representatives Practice, at page 655, states: To attempt by any means to influence a Member in his conduct as a Member is a breach of privilege. So too is any conduct having a tendency to impair a Member' s independence in the future performance of his duty. Reference is then made to a matter raised in 1935 involving an alleged threat to a member by the then Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, to a 1947 House of Commons case and to the Bankstown Observer case of 1955. In its report on the case involving Mr Brown, MP, in 1947 the Commons Committee of Privileges stated: Your Committee think that the true nature of the privilege involved in the present case can be stated as follows: It is a breach of privilege to take or threaten action which is not merely calculated to affect the Member's course of action in Parliament, but is of a kind against which it is absolutely necessary that Members should be protected if they are to discharge their duties as such independently and without fear of punishment or hope of reward. The relevant extracts from May's Parliamentary Practice are: . . . any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member . . . of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. That is stated on page 143 of the twentieth edition. More specifically, it is stated on page 157: To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege. And at page 158 it is stated: Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege. I make particular comment on three aspects: First, there does not appear to have been a case where the Committee of Privileges, either of the House of Commons, or of this House, has reported in connection with disputations in respect of parliamentary party processes. There have therefore, to the best of my knowledge , been no decisions by either House on these specific matters. All honourable members will be aware that the realities of modern parliamentary life mean that members, and for that matter many others, involved in various ways in the political processes, are involved in elements of conflict and disputation. In the House of Commons significant issues involving party matters occurred both in respect of the Suez crisis and the consideration of Britain's entry into the Common Market. In connection with the Suez issue, and following suggestions by the Opposition that pressures had been applied to ensure that Government members supported the Government, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker Morrison, I understand, expressed the view that the activities of Whips and 'the usual channels' had never been regarded as a breach of the privileges of the whole House. In 1975, with reference to Cabinet guidelines concerning the conduct of Ministers in the House during the course of the Common Market referendum campaign-which guidelines related directly to parliamentary proceedings-Speaker Selwyn Lloyd stated: In general, I think that arrangements made within political parties in this House, would be unlikely to raise questions of contempt or privilege. He declined to accord precedence to a motion on this matter. Secondly, it is to be noted that, although the media reports referred to by the honourable member for Denison do refer to a reported statement by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe), no honourable member has raised in the House a claim that he considered himself to have been intimidated or obstructed in the discharge of his duty. Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the opinion of the House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in its 1967 report and, in particular, its recommendation that the House should follow the general rule that its powers in respect of privilege and contempt should be exercised (a) in any event as sparingly as possible and (b) only when the House is satisfied that to exercise it is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members and its officers, from such improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions. This is sound advice indeed, and in 1978 was adopted by the House of Commons and is now a principle guiding that House, its Speaker and its Committee of Privileges in these matters. It is a principle which should in my view be observed when we consider all matters of privilege and contempt, whether or not involving possible breaches by honourable members or other persons. I conclude that although the subject raised by the honourable member for Denison raises matters of real significance, on the basis of the material submitted by the honourable member I cannot see that it has been established that a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt has been made out. This means that I am not prepared to give precedence to a motion in respect of the matter. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence before giving my notice of motion-it is a serious matter-to say that I take and accept your ruling. In the light of your ruling and in the light of advice given, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) refers to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report, allegations of threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation and actual blackmail against and of Australian Labor Party Members of Parliament together with the letter from the honourable Member for Denison dated 8 November 1983 to Mr Speaker, and (2) calls upon the Government to enable debate of this notice of motion to ensue on the next day of sitting, 10 November 1983, or at such earlier time as the Leader of the House deems appropriate. Mr Wells-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is improper, surely, to give notice of such a motion when nobody claims to have been the subject of that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the significant contribution made by the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, the respect in which it is held by the three spheres of government and the need for its further funding to carry on its research program; (2) notes that the Government is to appoint a special committee to review the distribution to, and the use made by, local government, of the special personal income tax sharing grant, by local government; (3) calls on the Government to consider the ACIR as the most appropriate body to conduct such a review; (4) recommends the appropriation of additional funds to the ACIR for the purposes of the review; and (5) calls on the Government to extend the terms of reference of the review to determine local government's proper share of the Commonwealth tax pool appropriate to the additional programs and responsibilities it has assumed from the Commonwealth since Federation. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern at the allegations made by the honourable members for Hindmarsh and Melbourne and other Australian Labor Party members that the Prime Minister will be appointing a number of ALP members to assist Ministers, in order to pay off those members for their pro-uranium votes; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to refrain from such action. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes what are essentially technical amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974. However, these amendments form an integral part of a total approach by the Government to export development. In recent years there has been an intensification of credit competition in international trade. The recession in Western countries and slowdown in domestic activities has resulted in a scramble for all available export orders. In the capital goods area, interest rates and the cost of finance have become the key determinants of competitiveness. Most countries subsidise interest rates and there is an increasing use of aid funds to soften further credit terms in order to secure major contracts. Agricultural trade is also under pressure with major exporters aggresively attempting to expand overall market share. On top of these pressures, there is a lengthening list of countries with serious debt repayment problems. Requests for extended credit terms have become more frequent. An all-out credit war has been averted largely due to the limitation on subsidised credit terms which has come from international understandings, particularly the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's arrangement on export credit which sets minimum interest rates and maximum repayment terms for capital goods transactions. The arrangement, however, is under pressure as domestic interest rates in a number of countries approach or fall below the minimum rates applying to export credits. Japan in particular is now in that situation. Against this background of intense credit competition, and also in response to widespread criticism from the business community that credit facilities currently available to Australian exporters are no longer on a par with those available to our competitors, the Government has undertaken an extensive review of Australia's export credit policy. It was the Labor Government in 1974 which last took a serious look at the problems confronting exporters in the field of export credit. At that time, the existing Export Payments Insurance Corporation was reconstituted as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, or EFIC as it is generally referred to, with an export bank function to provide exporters with concessional finance to meet the subsidised interest rates being offered by most of our competitors. The Government has now decided on a range of initiatives designed to ensure that markets for Australian exports are made secure and developed to their full potential. On the export credit side, the supporting services available to exporters through EFIC are to be strengthened and the Government will pursue a more effective export credit policy generally. The Government's intention is that EFIC's facilities be expanded to enable the Corporation to provide foreign currency financing and give Australian exporters access to lower interest rate currencies for medium and long term credit with which to meet the terms being provided by competitors. The Government is also examining the various sources of funding for EFIC's finance facility, including general offshore borrowing, to ensure that the most suitable funding arrangements are utilised. The operating policies of EFIC currently restrict the provision of export finance to Australian dollar loans and the provision of buyer credit guarantees to Australian lending institutions, that is, where EFIC provides a lender making a loan to an overseas buyer of Australian goods with a guarantee of repayment. While the interest rates of our major competitors were above the OECD minima, this did not, in general, place Australian exporters at a disadvantage. That the yen and some other currencies can now be provided at below the OECD minima, and that other important trading currencies may shortly follow suit, make it desirable to extend EFIC's facilities to provide for foreign currency financing. This will be done by empowering EFIC to give a guarantee-what is known as buyer credit-to an Australian or overseas lending institution which provides a foreign currency loan to the overseas borrower or buyer, or, alternatively, EFIC itself raising foreign currency offshore in its own name and lending itself in that foreign currency to the overseas buyer. The benefits of foreign currency financing are twofold; not only will exporters have access to low interest rate currencies to match their competitors, but also with interest rates for many currencies presently lower than Australian interest rates, there is scope for the Government to achieve savings in the present cost of providing interest rate subsidies on Australian dollar loans. In some cases where the currency is below the OECD minima, no subsidy will be necessary. In other cases it will still be necessary to subsidise the interest rate on a foreign currency loan down to the OECD levels. It is this requirement with which the Bill is primarily concerned. No legislative action is required to enable EFIC to provide foreign currency financing. It is, however, necessary to provide EFIC with authority to provide subsidies to lenders giving buyer credit loans. As part of a more aggressive approach to export credit, I have requested EFIC to revise its operating procedures to reflect the Government's wish that the Corporation play a conspicuous and determined role in assisting Australian exporters to secure orders. Of course, this will be consistent with the Corporation's obligation to operate in accordance with sound commercial principles and comply with accepted international practice. This approach will include the establishment of credit lines or other facilities with countries which offer worth-while trade development prospects. Exporters will no longer be required to demonstrate a need to meet competition when seeking concessional export finance and EFIC, subject to OECD understandings, will take the initiative in determining appropriate credit terms. There will be a more flexible approach to the definition of capital goods and the value of transactions which qualify for export finance assistance. The Corporation has also been asked to inform the Government prior to withdrawing or limiting cover for individual countries on commercial grounds, where such action may place significant trade at risk. The Bill proposes a revised definition of 'lending' to include the provision of finance in any form. The expanded definition will enable EFIC to keep abreast of current trade financing techniques such as the purchase of and dealing in bills of exchange and promissory notes. This is particularly relevant to the financing of lower value transactions where the more complicated, lengthy and costly process of loan negotiations and formal documentation can be avoided. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision to remove the restrictions which generally limit EFIC's services to those not normally available from the private sector. I am concerned to ensure that EFIC does not become open to challenge if private operators were to seek to operate selectively in the less risky areas of EFIC's traditional activities. Rather than see the viability of a soundly run government operation undermined, this avenue for challenge is to be removed. Whilst the Government is anxious to preserve EFIC's traditional role, it does not see any need to extend EFIC's facilities into other areas of insurance as long as the private sector is effectively meeting the need of exporters. The regulations under the EFIC Act are to be amended to enable EFIC to provide up to 100 per cent cover against the risk on non-payment arising from political causes. The basic principle of credit insurance is that of co-insurance whereby the exporter, by bearing a share of the risk, will act with prudence and caution . While the Government sees merit in this practice, as it can influence the firms and organisations with which an exporter chooses to deal, it does not apply with the same force with respect to political risk which is beyond an exporter's influence. The increase in cover for political risks is consistent with the Government's wish to encourage exporters to pursue all reasonable commercial opportunities. Obviously, the practice of limiting Australia's exposure in countries with a poor payment record or those known to be an imminent risk of default will continue. Cover against commerical causes of loss, such as buyer insolvency, will remain at 90 per cent. Earlier, I mentioned briefly the use of aid funds in mixed credits by many of our competitors. A limited scheme, the Development Import Finance Facility, has been available through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau since 1981 to provide aid grants in conjunction with EFIC loans to soften the overall financial package available to support Australian exporters faced with competition from mixed credits. The DIFF scheme has only now started bearing fruit and to overcome the uncertainty for exporters involved in protracted negotiations on the future availability of funds, the Government has introduced a $60m commitment ceiling for the scheme as an interim arrangement pending the outcome of the current examination of Australia's aid program by the Jackson Committee. This will significantly strengthen the scheme by enabling exporters to tender for contracts in the knowledge that funds will be available if they are successful. I also mentioned earlier the work within the OECD to avert a credit race in international trade. To date, these efforts have been directed towards limiting subsidised finance and extended repayment terms for exports of manufactured goods. More recently, there has been increasing pressure to extend more generous payment terms than the usual 180 days for a range of agricultural commodities. Much of this stems directly from the demands of countries with debt servicing problems but there is also a strong push towards the use of attractive credit by suppliers to expand market share. Australia has instigated a study of the use of credit in agricultural trade and will continue to pursue an international agreement within the ambit of the OECD to limit the provision of officially supported credit for agricultural products. Australia's ability to win and maintain export markets depends increasingly on an effective framework of export credit arrangements. In particular, the support services available through EFIC must reflect the changing needs of Australian exporters in a rapidly changing international environment which is presently characterised by intense international competition involving generous credit terms for all available export business. As this situation is likely to continue through the 1980s, an essential feature of export credit policy must be an aggressive approach towards maintaining existing markets. The proposals I have outlined do not in themselves involve additional expenditure by the Government. The consequences of a more vigorous approach to export may be an increased amount of interest rate subsidy. However, this will be dependent on the success of exporters in winning business, and savings should be achieved through the use of lower interest rate foreign currency financing. The Government expects that these initiatives, when taken as a package, will meet much of the criticism from the business community that Australia's export credit facilities are not on par with those available to our competitors. They will also provide EFIC with the base from which it can play the conspicuous and determined role envisaged for it by the Government. These initiatives build further on the trade promotion measures to boost Australia's export performance which were announced in the Budget context. There is a continuing need to maintain Australia's international competiveness and none of the Government's measures I have outlined seek to compensate for the basic competitive elements such as price, quality and delivery. However, they are all designed to achieve greater penetration into the growth areas of world trade by adopting a more aggressive approach to exporting. Our promotional measures are heavily weighted towards manufactured goods as it is this area of world trade which has expanded and where Australia's performance has slipped back. Our manufacturing sector has contracted and employment has fallen dramatically. Manufactured exports can play a key role in reducing unemployment. The full range of measures I have outlined and other initiatives such as the current review of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service and the examination of a possible overseas trading corporation demonstrate clearly the planned approach that this Government is taking to revitalise the export sector of the Australian economy. Although the proposals contained in this Bill are technical and of limited impact in themselves, I am confident that the Government's total approach to export development, of which they are part, will be welcomed by exporters as a positive step towards regaining our position as a world trading nation. I commend this Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make technical amendments to the bank account debits tax legislation to overcome doubts that have been expressed about the constitutional validity of the provisions which enable banks to recover from account holders the amount of tax payable in respect of taxable debits to accounts kept with banks. The bank account debits tax was part of the former Government's 1982-83 Budget. The tax applies, subject to exemptions specified in the legislation, to debits made to cheque accounts kept with banks. The legislation was enacted in 1982 and the former Government announced before the election last March that 1 April 1983 would be proclaimed as the date of commencement of the tax. Following the election, the necessary formal proclamation was made, but we, as the new Government, announced that the operation of the tax, including the appropriateness or otherwise of exemptions, would be reviewed after approximately six months. That review is now in course and an announcement will be made after the review has been completed and the Government has taken decisions arising out of it. Bank Account Debits Bill 1983 The present Bill is not intended to pre-empt any decisions which the Government may wish to make as a result of the review, but simply to effect technical changes that ensure the constitutional validity of the provisions under which the tax has in fact been collected since 1 April 1983. Although, as was indicated when the legislation was introduced last year, the banks are primarily responsible for payment of the tax, the legislation is designed so that the incidence of the tax effectively falls on bank customers rather than of the banks. That is intended to be achieved by giving the banks a statutory right to recover from their customers the tax payable on debits made to customers' accounts. Questions have recently been raised about the constitutional validity of the provision that is expressed to give the banks that right of recovery. If that provision were held to be constitutionally invalid, so that banks would be unable to rely on statutory rights to recover the tax, the operative provisions of the legislation would fail. This would occur because a taxable debit made to a cheque account by law ceases to be a taxable debit if the tax imposed on it cannot be passed on by the bank to the account holder under the recovery provisions of the Administration Act. The Government has received advice that, if amendments were made to the legislation so that liability is imposed jointly and severally upon the bank and the account holder, the constitutional validity of the law would be put beyond doubt. Accordingly, this Bill will formally make the tax a joint and several liability of the bank and the customer concerned. The amendments proposed in this Bill do not introduce any new policy but simply give effect in a constitutionally valid manner to the scheme of the legislation as envisaged by the former Government. The Commissioner of Taxation will continue to call upon the banks to pay the tax in respect of their several liability with the account holder and, having done so, the banks will be authorised by the law to recover the tax from the account holder. A bank, under contractual arrangements with its customers, will also be at liberty, as it is now, to recover the tax in advance of its actual payment to the Commissioner. It is proposed that the amendments have effect from the formal commencement of the bank account debits tax legislation, namely, 31 December 1982. All of the amendments, including those that are consequential on the main provisions, are explained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members and I think I need do no more at this stage than commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to introduce new provisions into that Act which will have the effect of automatically indexing certain traditional excise duty rates at six monthly intervals. The introduction of this procedure was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on 23 August 1983. The first of the increases took effect from 8 p.m. eastern standard time on that night and reflected the 4.3 per cent increase in the consumer price index during the March and June quarters of this year. This increase was effected by the introduction of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 tabled on Budget night. The opportunity has been taken to incorporate Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 in this Bill and thus avoid the need for additional amending legislation. I will briefly outline the details of these and other proposals in a few moments. The indexation provisions in this Bill will provide that from now on. The six monthly indexation increases will occur automatically in February and August of each financial year. The Treasurer mentioned in his Budget Speech that past increases in nominal rates of excises have not been sufficiently frequent or, in aggregate, large enough to counteract the eroding effects of inflation on real rates of excise. Between 1973-74 and 1982-83, annual revenue from the traditional excises, measured in constant 1982-83 dollar terms, fell from $4.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Over the same period, the share of traditional excise collections in total Budget receipts fell from 13 per cent to a little over 7 per cent. Mr Speaker, despite this trend, some of the past discretionary increases have occasionally proved disruptive, destabilising the sales patterns of the industries concerned and imposing sudden and large price increases on consumers. The indexation arrangements contained in this Bill are designed to eliminate effectively these problems and will maintain the real value of excise collections. The Government considers that this new system will afford a greater degree of stability for consumers and industry alike. The excises will rise gradually in line with inflation as wages and other incomes increase. The Treasurer also mentioned that the new arrangements will effectively place excisable products on much the same basis as products subject to sales tax. In Budget Statement No. 4 of Budget Paper No. 1 it was estimated that the indexation of excise rates, including the new rates achieved by discretionary rate increases with effect from Budget night, will raise about $236m in 1983-84. Indexation of the excise equivalent component of like Customs duties is estimated to raise a further $13m in 1983-84. Full year revenue gains will be similar in magnitude to the 1983-84 gain. Gains in future years will be heavily influenced by future inflation rates. The indexation arrangements are considered to be straightforward and will not involve any additional staffing or administrative costs, nor are they expected to generate any significant compliance or administrative costs for the excise-paying business community. Mr Speaker, I now turn to the other provisions in this Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes to introduce a revised excise system for crude oil produced from fields discovered before 18 Septembr 1975. Prior to July 1983 the crude oil excise system contained a number of serious anomalies. In particular, returns to producers in some circumstances decreased as production increased, whereas in other circumstances these returns increased while the import parity price fell. When the Government came to office it saw a need to remove these anomalies with the aim of achieving a more rational excise scale, one that did not contain disincentives to producers and that protected the return to the community through a more predictable and stable pattern of crude oil excise revenues. It is the Government's intention that these anomalies and other problems be eventually tackled through the introduction of a resource rent tax but that approach will take some time to implement. In the meantime the Government considers that there is an urgent need to revise the crude oil excise system. The proposed revised system is effective from 1 July 1983 and provides for increases in excise rates as the annual production from a field increases. It has been operating on a provisional basis since 1 July 1983 under the established scheme of rebates provided for by section 77 of the Excise Act 1901. The continued use of rebates is, however, unsatisfactory in a number of respects . One important fact is that their use will become impractical should there be a change in the import parity price before the end of 1983-84. The revised excise scheme, which has been the subject of extensive consultation with producers, will ensure the systematic collection of excise duty during a financial year, analogous to the pay as you earn provisions in the income tax legislation, and will minimise fluctuations in receipts of excise. It caters for import parity price change in a financial year and for fields which commence production in a financial year. An additional feature, consistent with the proposed automatic excise indexation scheme, is that provision has been made for the excise duty rates in respect of crude oil to adjust automatically in accordance with movements in the import parity price of Bass Strait crude. It will also have a minimal impact on Government revenues. Revenues in 1983-84 under the new scheme will approximate those under the previous scheme-that is about $3,400m in 1983-84. Additional revenues may accrue, however, to the producers and to the community from any increased crude oil production that may result from the removal of the anomalies. I mentioned earlier that the opportunity has been taken to incorporate outstanding excise tariff proposals in this Bill. The proposals so incorporated are numbered 1 to 8 and are proposed to be enacted by clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill, effective from 1 July 1983, increases the rate of excise duty on avgas and avtur by 2c per litre and is expected to yield about $ 18m in 1983-84. This increase was announced by the Treasurer in his economic statement to the House on 19 May 1983 and was made instead of an increase in air navigation charges. Alterations from that date also increase the excise duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel by one cent per litre for the purpose of financing the Australian bicentennial road development program. The excise component of this program is now 2c and the estimated net gain to revenue for the program for 1983-84 is $410m. Paragraph (a) of the clause alters the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for international organisations. This is a technical amendment involving no loss of concessions to the organisations. Clause 6 of the Bill contains the alterations to the excise tariff to give effect to the excise measures outlined by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech on 23 August 1983. Briefly, the alterations, which operate from 8.00 p.m. on Budget night, increase the duty on beer, spirits, manufactured tobacco products and certain refined petroleum products. They also extend the excise base to include fortifying spirit, fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosenes and remove the duty on amylic alcohol and fusel oil, playing cards, cigarette tubes, paper and papers and matches. The tariff on tobacco products is also restructured. I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that the rates, shown in clause 6 of the Bill, reflect the alterations made to the Budget excise rates in respect of fortifying spirit-a decrease from $2.61 per litre of alcohol to $1.50 per litre of alcohol-and fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosene-a decrease from $0.09027 per litre to $0.01872 per litre. These reductions were made following representations received by the Government that the Budget increases would impose severe hardship upon industry and households. The revised excise revenue gain on the petroleum products is now estimated at $ 47m in 1983-84 some $69m less than that contained in the Budget estimate. It is estimated that the taxation revenue from the lower excise on fortifying spirit may not be significantly different from the original $13m estimate contained in the Budget. This is for the reason that the effect upon the industry is now expected to be considerably less than under the excise imposed at Budget time. Finally, clause 7 of the Bill abolishes with effect from 9 September 1983, the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for non-diplomatic trade commissioners following a review of these arrangements. The concessions are not required by any international agreement. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.9) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983, which is now before the House, proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains 11 schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1983 Autumn and Budget sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 2-14 (1983). The Bill also contains two changes which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. Amendments proposed in the Bill arise in the main from government decisions on the Temporary Assistance Authority report on fluorescent and filament lamps and the following Industries Assistance Commission reports: Gelatin-developing country preferences; The Australian tobacco industry; The commercial by-law system; Non-electrical absorption type refrigerators and freezers and parts; Sodium alkylxanthates and potassium alkylxan- thates-developing country preferences; Transformers-developing country preferences; Canning fruit; Certain iron and steel products and certain alloy steel products; Certain pigment dyestuffs and colour lakes-developing country preferences; Tableware and certain other goods, of pottery-developing country preferences; Stranded wire, cables, cordage, ropes, et cetera, of iron or steel wire- developing country preferences. Other amendments contained in the Bill which have previously been introduced into the Parliament by Customs tariff proposals provide for government decisions relating to: An increase of 2c per litre in the rate of Customs duty payable on imported aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel. This alteration is complementary to a change in the Excise Tariff Act; An additional 1c per litre surcharge on imported motor spirit and diesel fuel in accordance with the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. Again, this alteration is complementary to a change in the Excise Tariff Act; Duty free entry of certain imports required for approved Australian industry participation programs, including defence offset programs; Concessions available for goods imported by non-diplomatic trade commissioners, by international organisations and by visiting servicemen of the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand; Quota provisions for certain footwear; and A number of administrative changes to reflect correctly the intention, scope, or wording of various provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. Honourable members will recall that on each occasion when Customs tariff proposals were introduced, the decisions taken by the Government were outlined to the House. The Bill also includes two changes which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. The first change relates to a revision of section 24 of the Customs Tariff Act which provides for separate rates of duty for different components, parts, ingredients or accessories contained in goods. The change enables the determination, under all circumstances, of the amount of customs duty payable on goods imported under certain tariff classifications in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. The second change inserts section 26A into the Customs Tariff Act to implement the Government's budget decision to index automatically, on a six-monthly basis, Customs tariff rates which incorporate an excise component. Section 26A, as proposed, provides for the relevant Customs tariff rates to be increased by the same amount as the increase in the equivalent item in the excise tariff. This change is complementary to changes proposed in the Excise Tariff Act. The financial impact of those measures in this Bill which complement amendments to the Excise Tariff Act is outlined in my speech on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The measures in this category are: The indexation on a six-monthly basis of Customs tariff rates containing an excise component; The 2c per litre increase on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel; and The additional 1c per litre surcharge on imported motor spirit and diesel fuel. Apart from measures implemented for budgetary and revenue-raising reasons, the Bill contains in the main changes whose principal function is to alter levels of assistance accorded to certain industries. Some of these changes have the secondary effect of increasing or decreasing revenues. The precise revenue effects are difficult to predict as levels of imports and, therefore, the level of customs duty collected, are expected to be affected by such industries assistance decisions. The exact trade impact of these decisions may also not become clear for several months after a tariff change is made. For these reasons , financial impact has been broadly estimated on the assumption of no trade diversion arising from the Government's decisions, as being $3.15m additional revenue in a full financial year. Administrative amendments contained in the Bill are expected to have little financial impact. There are no additional significant costs to the Government associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule of the Bill has been prepared for the information of honourable members. Copies are available in the Bills and Papers Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 to introduce new provisions which emanate from the 1983 Budget. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his Budget Speech, announced an increase in the excise on diesel fuel. He said, however, that the rebate of excise on diesel fuel would not be increased when used off-road by the mining, forestry, farming and fishing industries, and by households, hospitals, nursing and aged persons homes. The excise increase on diesel fuel took effect from 8 p.m. on Budget night and from that time the rebate for eligible purposes will be pegged to 7. 155c per litre. By clause 6, this Bill proposes an amendment to section 164 of the Customs Act to give effect to the Budget decision, by providing for the rate of rebate on diesel fuel used for eligible purposes to be prescribed by regulations. It is proposed that the appropriate regulations be made as soon as possible after this Bill receives the royal assent. Similar consequential amendments are proposed to the Excise Act by clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill a number of machinery amendments to the Customs Act and Excise Act. In particular, clause 4 inserts a new provision into the Customs Act to enable additional criteria to be prescribed by regulation, under which depot licences will not be granted under the Act. Clause 10 of the Bill repeals a now redundant part of the Excise Act as a consequence of the introduction of the new crude oil excise system proposed by the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. Finally, clauses 11 and 12 contain amendments to the tariff proposal and by-law procedures in the Excise Act, to bring them into line with similar provisions in the Customs Act. The measures in this Bill will have no direct financial implications. However, the consequential financial implications of pegging the rate of rebate on diesel fuel to 7.155c per litre will result in an expected net increase to revenue of $30m in 1983-84. This is because eligible consumers of the fuel have been required to pay a net excise of 1.872c per litre since Budget night. The figure also includes the expected net revenue gain from indexation proposed to occur on 1 February next year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(11.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the scope and to increase the effectiveness of the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme. There can be few who fail to recognise the significance of advanced technology for the Australian economy. It is the key to the establishment of an internationally competitive industrial sector. It is crucial to the maintenance and growth of real national wealth. Both directly and indirectly it provides the means to create new employment opportunities and to maintain activity in traditional industries. Since 1967 successive Commonwealth governments have sought to encourage Australian industry to reduce dependence on imported technology, to increase indigenous innovation, and to undertake associated industrial research and development. The provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 and the annual budgetary allocation made to the incentives scheme established by the Act are central to that purpose. The Act provides for two distinct elements in its incentive grants. Manufacturing, mining and certain on-site construction companies with limited or no previous industrial research and development experience may obtain a legal entitlement to reimbursement of specified 'eligible expenditure'; that is, a commencement grant. The Act also empowers the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, whose members are chosen for their experience in technology and commerce, to enter agreements on behalf of the Commonwealth. It may make grants to companies to undertake industrial research and development projects which might not otherwise proceed, or which could not proceed at a sufficient pace to maximise the market potential. The Board comprises 12 members , six of whom were appointed by this Government and one reappointed. On 28 September I had pleasure in announcing that Dr Kevin Foley had been appointed Chairman of the Board. It is a Board which I am confident will give full effect to the Government's intentions to use the incentives scheme as its primary instrument in directing investment to the development of sunrise industries. The Government has further demonstrated its commitment to technology development in industry by increasing the budgetary allocation for 1983-84 to the industrial research and development incentives scheme by 15 per cent in real terms, with an even greater proportionate increase to the amount available for new projects which the Board may support. Despite its importance, industrial research and development has little purpose unless achievements are realised through commercial gains. This Government has foreshadowed action to stimulate the venture capital market, whose past inadequacies or, indeed, total absence, have frequently ended prospects of Australia benefiting from highly promising industrial research and development activities many of which have then gone off-shore. Provisions of this Bill extend that concern to assure a commercial reality to grant supported industrial research and development projects. They enable the Incentives Board, or AIRDIB, as it is known to its intimates, to provide advice to financial intermediaries and others from whom an applicant may be seeking venture capital, if the company in question wishes it. I have also asked the Board to be alert to the possible shortcomings or difficulties in the prototype or development phase and to steer applicants quickly in the direction of appropriate government or private sector assistance or expertise. Taken together these actions could significantly increase the effectiveness of the industrial research and development incentives scheme at no cost to the Government. I say frankly that we have modelled this measure on what happened when we revived the Australian film industry at the beginning of the 1970s. That kind of advice was available to prospective lenders , if requested. On 15 September I announced the relaxation of a policy which, until then, had restricted grant support to the computer software development industry. It was confined to projects directly related to new products of, and new or improved process employed in, manufacturing, mining, or eligible on-site building or construction activities. AIRDIB may now enter agreements for software development in the important growth areas of computer systems development and in the provision of both tangible economic sector and information sector services. Support is subject to the proposals meeting specified criteria which I have directed the Board to employ. Dr Harry Edwards —Not part of the Bill? Mr BARRY JONES —The criteria simply give the Minister the power to do so and to be flexible. I think it would be unduly restrictive to put it in the Bill. These criteria emphasise the need for a significant industrial research and development component to any proposal; a substantial advance over existing software in the field of application; and a demonstrable plan to exploit the software as a product. In other words, if we have 57 varieties of software, we cannot merely say: 'All right, we will get some money to bring on the fifty- eighth variety'. It must be new and it must be exportable. The Government has decided that it would not be appropriate to make similar extensions to entitlements under the commencement grant element of the incentives scheme. To do so could raise false expectations that the Government was prepared to subsidise software development of a 'routine' or 'in-house' nature. Such work offers no significant national benefits. In many instances, the company would have no need of a publicly funded incentive to undertake the work anyway. The provisions of this Bill, which relate to the definitions in the principal Act, are directed to clarify that Act in respect of software eligibility. In themselves they do not involve additional Budget costs. However, the demand for support consequent on extension to eligibility of software development companies is estimated to amount to about $5m per year. This demand was anticipated in the 1983-84 budgetary allocations and no further amount will be sought this year on this account. Increasingly, industrial research and development has been undertaken by companies dedicated to that purpose. In many instances these entities are precluded from the incentives scheme because they are not, nor can they be deemed to be, 'eligible companies'. The eligible companies in effect are essentially manufacturers. Yet many, including research associations, perform a valuable function as 'multiplier agencies' because they can provide the benefit of their efforts to a number of companies. The Bill provides that this exclusion be removed. Companies proposing to undertake specific industrial research and development projects on behalf of two or more unrelated corporate clients, at least one of whom shall be an 'eligible company', will be able to seek a project grant. I refer to companies such as A. E. Bishop and Associates in Sydney, of which I am sure the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) is well aware, which is designing steering equipment used internationally but which is not manufacturing. The discretionary nature of these grants will ensure that funding support is provided only where the applicant is acting as a multiplier agency. This provision will increase the effectiveness of the industrial research and development incentives scheme at no cost. The remaining changes proposed by this legislation relate to essentially technical matters. The Bill introduces provisions to empower AIRDIB to specify limits to the field of expertise or activity for which industrial research and development work is supervised by an 'approved employee' within the applicant company or performed by an 'approved research organisation' on its behalf. The ability to limit approvals in this way is desirable because of the increasing specialisation in research and because the existing provisions allow only for revocation and then only if approvals have been misused or abused. There is no evidence that this has occurred to any significant extent to date. There will be no budgetary costs in this, nor are there any identified savings. The incentives scheme has been subject to a complex statutory provision governing forward commitment. This has conflicted at times with budgetary dictates. The provisions of the Bill will eliminate these difficulties and establish simple means to specify limits to expenditure and limits to the commitments into which AIRDIB may bind the Commonwealth through project grant agreements. Finally, the Bill provides that a cut off date for receipt of commencement grant application may be deferred by regulation beyond 30 September. I assure the House that this provision is necessary. There is, at present, no discretion available to the Minister to allow for a deferral or variation of the cut off date. The Canberra mail strike, which carried over from September to October this year, prevented many claims reaching the Board before the due date. Without enactment of the provisions in this Bill, many would be denied their prospective entitlements. I believe the implementation of the provisions of this Bill will be welcomed in industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is designed to implement the Australian Labor Party's platform as it relates to postal services. The ALP platform contains commitments to: The development of an efficient postal system on the basis of a publicly owned national utility with exclusive rights to carry letters for reward; The postal system to be available to Australians who reasonably require the service; Electronic mail to be handled by Australia Post; and Australia Post to be empowered to competitively market a variety of services including high-speed and door-to-door pick up and delivery services. The Bill gives effect to these commitments by restoring the courier service, giving Australia Post power to operate electronic mail services, by retaining and clarifying the monopoly provisions and allowing Australia Post to enter a wider range of agency arrangements. The Bill gives effect to Government decisions following consideration of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission-the Bradley Committee- which I announced on 9 August 1983. The major provisions in the Bill are those which give powers to the Australian Postal Commission to operate courier services and to establish electronic mail services in its own right. Honourable members may recall that until 1980, Australia Post was successfully managing courier services in competition with the private sector; but under the short-sighted policy of the former Government its power to operate courier services was removed. This action was taken following the Review of Commonwealth Functions in the apparent belief that operation of courier services was a function which should be undertaken only by the private sector. The previous Government's decision was short-sighted in that it did not take account of Australia Post's need to provide the full range of postal and related services including the kind of fast, personalised postal service which the community demands for items needing reliable special delivery treatment. The power for Australia Post to operate electronic mail services in its own right is necessary to ensure the Commission can remain at the forefront of providing modern day communications services utilising the latest technological developments. In general, electronic mail services provide for the transmission of documents by both electronic and physical means. The simplest example is the transmission of documents by facsimile-combined with physical pick-up or delivery of the hard copy by the courier service. Other types of service are under study by Australia Post such as bulk mail services using linked computers and mail preparation and delivery facilities. It is difficult to forecast how electronic mail services will develop in the future or the degree to which they may replace traditional services, but it is clear that Australia Post must be able to participate. There are a number of consequential amendments in the Bill which flow from the provision of power to establish courier and electronic mail services. The Bill also provides for Australia Post to enter into agency arrangements with private sector principals. This is an extension of the existing power which enables Australia Post to enter agency arrangements with public sector principals. This measure will enable Australia Post to utilise its national network of post offices to provide supplementary services which should particularly benefit people in country areas. It also appears inequitable that private sector principals should be precluded from access to this network which is available to their public sector competitors. Extension of agency services in this way should lead to increased revenue to Australia Post thus benefiting all postal users. Turning to the monopoly provisions for Australia Post, it needs to be borne in mind that these apply only in relation to carriage of letters. A good deal of Australia Post's business such as the parcel post and carriage of non-letter articles is subject to competition. That competition comes from transport firms, courier services and the growing private delivery services. The Bradley Committee reaffirmed the necessity for Australia Post's basic monopoly on letters to continue if Australia was to have a uniform nation-wide postal service. The Government strongly endorsed that view as being consistent with the ALP platform. The Government considered a number of the exemptions to the monopoly proposed by Bradley. It decided to accept the recommendations that letters subject to a premium fee not be subject to the monopoly. Mostly such premium fees are charged by private courier services for speed pick up and delivery of letters. The amendment in the Bill will regularise this situation without putting Australia Post's essential basic monopoly in jeopardy. The Government has decided that the minimum premium fee should be 10 times the basic domestic letter rate, currently 30c. This will mean, for example, that private courier services will be able to carry letters for reward exempt from the Commission's monopoly if they charge a minimum of $3. Similar provision has been made for private sector carriage of letters to overseas destinations. The Bill also proposes a number of amendments of a technical nature such as allowing meetings to be held and decisions taken without all commissioners being physically present. It extends the power to lease or sell any land vested in the Commission and increases the amount payable for rewards for information. A further amendment allows for officers of the Commission to retire at the age of 55 years rather than at 60 years. This gives effect to another election undertaking of the Government and is complementary to a provision in another Bill before the Parliament which provides for a similar condition for officers of Telecom Australia. The opportunity has also been taken to clarify and restate the powers of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Commission to make by -laws. This has become desirable because some doubts have been raised about the effect of the procedures of notification adopted by the commissions to this time . Because of significance of the by-laws to Telecom and Australia Post it has been decided to adopt the prudent approach of putting the validity of by-laws beyond doubt. I believe the proposals in the Bill before the House will mark a significant milestone in Australia Post's operations. The powers encompassed in the Bill will enable Australia Post to offer new and dynamic services, make more efficient use of its extensive network of post offices, better meet the needs of the public and tap potential new technological developments which are both challenging and exciting. Altogether, Australia Post will be placed in the position of providing fast, reliable and comprehensive postal services for the benefit of all Australians. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [No. 3] Consideration resumed from 8 November. The Bill. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.44) —I intend to speak briefly against the amendment moved by the Opposition to the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 [No. 3]. During the second reading debate yesterday the Opposition made the point that it was concerned that in opposing this Bill it was not to be seen to be standing up continually for the interests of those who have avoided their taxation liability. While I certainly respect the views that are put forward from time to time by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I say with respect that the Government in this legislation has done its utmost to accommodate the views of the Opposition parties in terms of recoupment tax legislation. While my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) gave an excellent summary of the history of this legislation in the House yesterday, I think it is worth while briefly recounting the efforts of this Government in attempting to regain avoided tax, tax that ought to have been paid in the past. The honourable member for Hawker made the point yesterday that this is our third legislative attempt to recoup that tax. In our first legislative attempt we retained the provision for 12 months in which to pay and removed the aspects of capital profits from the legislation. We did that because we sought to accommodate the widest possible range of views. In our second legislative attempt we announced further concessions in relation to personal income tax. We said that the personal tax measures were to apply only to current year profits and we also said that there would be no liability for personal tax where the only company tax evaded for that year was undistributed profits tax. In this, our third and final attempt to accommodate all possible views on this matter, the Government has said that we will not further attempt to recoup personal tax. The Bill expands the anomalies relief provisions of the previous Government's legislation. As has been noted in debate, the new provisions of this Bill certainly assist public company shareholders who have been well removed from the actions giving rise to the recoupment tax liability. I emphasise that the Government has made every effort to accommodate views and to recover money which is rightfully owing. While the Opposition claims that it does not want to be seen to be protecting tax avoiders, I think its opposition to this legislation and the amendments it has moved show clearly that it is interested in protecting the interests of those who have avoided tax. I refer to the substantive aspects of the Bill, and the amendments moved by the Opposition, particularly in relation to section 3 (12) of the original Act, the innocence clause. That was introduced in the original legislation last year and was amended by a second Bill which was put through at a later stage. That exempted from liability shareholders in companies which had been sunk to the bottom of the harbour if those companies had been put into an unsuccessful tax avoidance scheme following the initial transaction, that is the sale from the directors who controlled the original companies and the first purchasers and directors in the line which ultimately led to the bottom of the harbour. Mr Jacobi —Those people who dabble in shares know what it is all about. Mr BRUMBY —That is right. There were a number of tests, of course to determine whether people would come within the provisions of section 3 (12) of that Act. Firstly, the scheme had to be entered into to eliminate or reduce the company's tax liability, ordinary and undistributed, for the year only in which the sale and purchase occurred. Secondly, the scheme had to be found to be unsuccessful in its purpose of creating deductions that would eliminate the company tax liability that had accrued to the date of the sale. Thirdly, the scheme had reasonably to have been expected to achieve its purpose. Fourthly, the scheme had to be unconnected with the stripping of a company and that the arrangement had not to be entered into for the purpose of securing the result that the company would be unable to pay its liabilities. That was the test of the innocence clause. In opposing this amendment in the Committee stage I bring to the attention of the Committee the letter from the Commissioner of Taxation dated 21 October 1982 to the then Treasurer in which the Commissioner said, amongst other things: The Bill has been changed, as you have requested- that is, the insertion of new section 3 (12)- to exclude from its scope cases where there was a post-sale avoidance scheme which, though ultimately unsuccessful,was reasonably expected at the time to be effective. The Commisioner went on to write: I hope that I am wrong, but observe that this change must open up the possibility that some promoters will, even though backdating of documents and the like, now seek to establish that after their purchase of the shares they did in fact put the company into one of the ''reasonably expected to be successful'' avoidance schemes. It may not matter that in execution they botch it up, what will be important is that they can show they tried. That was the advice that was received by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) from the Commissioner of Taxation. It shows clearly that sub-section 3 (12) is both obnoxious and illogical and ought never to have been included in the legislation. The Commissioner said it all but, despite that, it is in the legislation. This Government is certainly committed to seeing that innocence clause, that sub-section 3 (12), removed. The amendment also seeks to exclude from this legislation the naming of persons . I make some brief points on this. In this legislation the only people who are to be named are those who fail to pay a tax liability once it has been assessed. That is a consistent and similar treatment to that which applies to every other taxpayer. Why should the Opposition seek to make an exception in this case for people who have avoided a tax liability assessed by the Commissioner? If such people do not pay up when they are assessed, they ought to be treated equally with every other taxpayer. That is all that this legislation does and I find it extremely concerning that the Opposition seeks to oppose that. I move to the third major substance of the amendment moved by the Opposition, that is, the question of anomalies relief being extended to private shareholders . It is my view that that is a totaly opportunistic position. The honourable member for Bennelong, when speaking in the House last night, said: 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. But, of course, that view is quite contrary to the one he expressed in Perth two weeks ago. For the benefit of honourable members, I will quote from a Press release issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in which it is stated: The government's decision to give the same exemption from bottom of the harbour tax to what could be thousands of mainly small shareholders in public companies, as has already been given to Finance Minister Mr John Dawkins, was welcomed in Perth today by the Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr John Howard, M.P. . . . . Mr Howard said it had always been the previous government's clear intention that the tax should apply only to those who receive the benefit of the evasion. He said that he believed there was sufficient discretion- I repeat that: 'He said that he believed there was sufficient discretion'-- within the existing legislation to relieve small shareholders who derived no benefit or only a nominal benefit, from liability. This after all, had been the approach adopted in relation to Mr Dawkins' company. As the honourable member for Bennelong said last night in the House, he understands that there may be some administrative implications in extending relief to private company shareholders. The simple fact is that the honourable member for Bennelong knows full well that if that exemption, that anomalies relief, were extended to all private company shareholders, there would be not only minor administrative difficulties but also a massive backlog and clogging up of the system. He knows that well. As I have already said, and he alluded to this in his Press release, the existing legislation has already provided relief in the case of Mr Dawkins and Coomel Pty Ltd. Sub-sections 5 (4) and 6 (18) of the Act already give the Commissioner the discretion, if he wishes it for a variety of reasons or if the amount is under $100, to waive totally the amount. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.54) —Yesterday, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford)-I am sorry to see that he is not here today because we would be very glad to have his attention in the very little contribution that he may be able to make to the debate-in seeking to justify the Government's position on the proposal to remove the stripping test from the legislation, said that he would demonstrate to us why what we said was totally wrong. He said: 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. The Minister, who had conduct of the matter, asserted that to the House and to the Australian people. What did he do? He said that he would select three tests of particular importance. He accused us of empty rhetoric. I will demonstrate, as I said I would, that the Minister did not understand what he was saying. That is the only charitable interpretation that can be put upon his remarks. What are the tests he selected? He said: Firstly, there must be an amount of unpaid company tax. I agree with that, for whatever reason that company tax may be unpaid. It could be simply commercial misadventure. He said: Secondly, the excess consideration test means that the vendor-shareholders must have received a price for their shares which made no allowance- the words are 'no allowance'- for the company tax payable on pre-sale profits. That is nonsense. If one looks at the excess consideration test which is to be found in section 5 (1) (d) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act of 1982 one sees that it operates in this manner. The relevant part of the section states: the total consideration paid or given in respect of the sale or sales under the scheme of the shares . . . exceeds an amount ascertained in accordance with the formula A-(L+T) A equals assets, L equals liabilities and T equals liabilities where the liabilities do not include tax. In effect, one adds one's liabilities outside plus one's tax liabilities and subtracts that from the amount of assets for the purpose of determining whether that provision applies. It operates if the amount of the consideration exceeds the result of the formula by any amount. I will give an example to the Minister in round figures so that he can understand it. Let us assume that a company has assets of $100,000. Let us assume that there are liabilities in a company, excluding tax, of $10,000. Let us assume that its taxable liability is determined to be $15,000. What one does is to subtract liabilities other than tax and the tax liability, from the asset figure and arrive at a figure of $75,000. But if the sale price of that company is $75,010 it attracts the operation of the formula. It is demonstrable nonsense for the Minister to say, as he did, that the sale makes no allowance for company tax payable. I turn to the third test that he thinks to be so important to protect people and which renders unnecessary the stripping test. The Minister said: 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. That is also demonstrable nonsense. If the Minister has any understanding of how the same business test has been construed he should look at section 80E of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the decisions under that section. That section provides for the carry forward of losses in certain circumstances where there has been a change of beneficial ownership but the same business is continued to be carried on. The consequence of any change of any appreciable kind is that one does not satisfy the same business test. Therefore, if the person who acquires the company does so and then makes minor changes in the operations of the company's business, that test does not apply. The Minister failed to address any argument of any kind to the Committee in answer to the attacks that had been made on the deletion of the stripping test. It is the intention to strip which is surely so important. I remind honourable members of what is to be deleted. Section 5 (1) (h) relates to an arrangement or transaction which was entered into that secured or achieved the result that the company was unable to pay, having regard to other debts, all the company tax due and payable at the relevant time. That is what is to be removed. In the case where such a stripping transaction was entered into, clearly those involved were saying: 'We do not care a damn about the consequences to the revenue; we are content to evade'. It is of critical importance to the operation of this legislation, as the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) pointed out in a different context, that it should be directed, in effect, at stripping arrangements and at bottom of the harbour transactions. The Minister attempted in his answer to engage in a kind of McCarthyist tactic of which we have had so much in this chamber. Looking at him, I was very much reminded of the description of a non-entity-a hole in the air. This intellectual and moral non- entity said of me that I must have friends whom I am seeking to protect. He said : I have to make the charge that friends of those opposite whom they are trying to save from paying tax must be involved. Let me say right now that that is an outrageous assertion which degrades him and the Committee. Let me add that I have, on one occasion, advised in relation to a major bottom of the harbour transaction. I have indeed. The advice was given on 5 August 1980. The client was the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, instructing me on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation. Lengthy advice was given on sections 263 and 264, as those advising the Minister can inform him. That was my sole involvement in relation to bottom of the harbour transactions. It is outrageous for the Minister to seek so to divert the argument by making those kinds of allegations. But what does a weak and empty man do when he is cornered? He employs the classic technique-a smear. If one employs a smear perhaps people will not listen to what one is saying and will simply concentrate on the other man. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr LUSHER(Hume)(12.04) —I want to contribute to this debate because the provisions contained in the clauses of this Bill are of significant concern to me. I am especially concerned at this time about two clauses in this Bill. One involves the removal of sub-section 3 (12). The Bill seeks to ensure that the recoupment will not be avoided because a tax avoidance scheme which was related to the sale proved to be unsuccessful. The second concern I wish to address at this time is the fact that the clauses of the Bill seek to remove the necessity that a scheme or an arrangement had to be involved before recoupment liability could be established. That is the so-called stripping amendment. I want to make it totally clear that the attitude of the Opposition in relation to this matter is that we hold very firmly to the position we held when we were in government. The legislation introduced by the then Treasurer in 1982 was deliberately restricted. It was deliberately limited so that it would recover unpaid company tax from vendor-shareholders who had received a financial benefit because of the non-payment of the company tax. That was what that legislation was designed to do, and that is the position we continue to support in the debate on the clauses of this Bill. The 1982 legislation achieved that position without creating any penalties and without creating any situation of discrimination between taxpayers. The position we adopted was totally clear: If there was no benefit, there was no assessment. The position we adopted in 1982-which we hold to-was that the benefit that came to a vendor-shareholder had to have been derived from an illegal act which was designed to render the company concerned unable to meet its taxation liability. That is a very important position of principle to adopt and to hold to because if one does not hold to that principle a whole range of other things can become covered by the legislation. In fact, the amendments to the clauses in this Bill before the Committee at the moment have that effect. That is what concerns me. I repeat that our position was that there had to have been a benefit which resulted from an illegal act designed to render the company concerned unable to meet its taxation liability. The clauses in this Bill remove that provision so that people who acted totally legally can suddenly find themselves the subject of this legislation. That is of serious concern to me and ought to be of concern to everybody in this Parliament who is concerned about any sort of justice, equity and fairness in relation to taxation. Let me talk about this sub-section 3 (12) matter. The Bill seeks to ensure that the recoupment will not be avoided because a tax avoidance scheme that related to the sale of the company proved to be unsuccessful. The reason the then Government put in sub-section 3 (12) was to ensure that companies which did not go to the bottom of the harbour would not be caught in the legislation. That is an entirely proper position to have adopted. As I said in my preliminary remarks in relation to this matter, we were concerned to pick up those people who had received a benefit from the fact that a company had been rendered unable to meet its taxation liability through some totally improper transaction. That provision was included to ensure that a company that was rendered unable to meet its taxation liability for some reason other than being sent to the bottom of the harbour would not be caught in the legislation. As far as I am concerned the Government has not justified why there needs to be some change to that. I want to know whom the Government is after and whom it is seeking to bring into the net. Mr Robert Brown —The beneficiaries. Mr LUSHER —The beneficiaries of what? Mr Robert Brown —Of the arrangements. Mr LUSHER —Of what arrangements? Of legal arrangements? The Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) is saying that this is designed to bring into the net people who received some benefit from a legal arrangement. Mr Hurford —I did not say that. Mr LUSHER —The Minister did say that. That was what he said and that was what the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) said. The honourable member for Hunter is saying now that the Government is trying to pick up people who are involved in totally legal taxation arrangements. That is what it is all about and that is why the Opposition is concerned about it. I want to know what the estimates are. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his second reading speech said that the strengthening provisions are designed to pick up another $40m. I ask the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to explain to this Committee in the course of the debate on these clauses how that $40m is made up. Who is the Government picking up for entering into arrangements which were perfectly legal at the time and which, I suggest, are perfectly legal even today? People receiving a benefit under such arrangements today, even if the company concerned has not gone to the bottom of the harbour, will be picked up in the scenario of this legislation. That is the sort of rubbish we are asked to deal with. How is that $40m made up? I ask the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to explain to this chamber who is being picked up to provide the Government with this additional $40m, if that is the figure that relates to the strengthening provisions. This legislation is viciously retrospective, and it is newly so. It is not retrospective in the same way as the original legislation was. The Government is picking up people who were not picked up in the legislation introduced by my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) when he was the Treasurer. This did not appear until this legislation came before the House this year. It is newly retrospective and it ought to be seen as such. The Government ought to be nailed to the wall for what it is doing in relation to this legislation. The benefit accrued to vendor-shareholders not because a company was rendered unable to pay its tax liabilities; the benefit came through the use of quite legitimate arrangements, most of which still exist. If a company, for argument's sake, was involved in some sort of a water scheme or a film scheme there could have been a benefit to vendor-shareholders which resulted from a quite legal arrangement, and the Government is trying to pick that up now and include it in the legislation. That is what I challenge the Government on and that is what I am concerned about in respect of this legislation. Government members have to stand up and be counted. The second point that concerns me is the intention of the Bill to remove the necessity that a scheme or an arrangement has to be involved before a recoupment liability can be established-that is, what we call in this debate the stripping amendment. This amendment seeks to weaken the qualification that is necessary before a person can be picked up by this legislation. When we were in government we were quite specific about what companies and what benefit would be the subject of the recoupment legislation. This amendment broadens the number of cases that could be covered. It opens up all sorts of avenues that the Government has not considered or explored and certainly has not explained to this Parliament. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has argued that the test is unnecessary because three other tests ensure that the only cases picked up are bottom of the harbour cases. My colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) outlined the absolutely ridiculous nature of the suggestion that because of these three tests to which the Minister referred no other cases can be picked up if this stripping amendment is accepted. The fact of the matter is that other cases can be. The amendment opens up a whole class of new taxpayers who can be the subject of this legislation and who were never intended to be the subject of the legislation. That brings in another element of retrospectivity; people who were not involved in a scheme or an arrangement can now be picked up by this legislation. Those people are retrospectively being confronted with the possibility of being assessed for some liability. That again is retrospective, and it is newly so. It is not part of anything that was put before this House in the earlier legislation. The Minister now seeks to say: 'We are taking that provision out because there are these other three tests'. Each one of those three tests has been demolished by the honourable member for North Sydney. The Government must justify its stance and argue why the honourable member for North Sydney is wrong . The Government must justify-at least to satisfy me-why it is necessary for this stripping provision. Taxpayers who previously were not covered by this legislation will now be covered. I shall refer back to some of these matters before this debate is over. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(12.15) —I should like to reply to two matters that were raised this morning by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). The first matter he raised concerned the letter of 25 October 1982, which surfaced during the election campaign, written to me by Mr O'Reilly, the Commissioner of Taxation. It is true that in that letter the Commissioner of Taxation expressed concern about the inclusion of section 3 (12) in the principal Act. I do not mind admitting that the Commissioner of Taxation advised me against the inclusion of section 3 (12). I decided to include it because I believed-- Mr Robert Brown —You did not want to. Mr HOWARD —No, I supported the inclusion of it because I thought the representations put to me by some of my then colleagues who were concerned about the legislation were legitimate representations. I do not mind-- Mr Robert Brown —You didn't want to; you were forced. Mr HOWARD —No, on the contrary; I was perfectly happy to have it included. The reason was that it prevented this legislation having a reach beyond what was originally intended. The important thing is not who was for or against its inclusion; the important thing is whether the concerns expressed by Mr O'Reilly in that letter of 25 October have been borne out by the events. The fact is that they have not. Mr O'Reilly, properly exercising bureaucratic caution, said to me : 'Look, I know you want to insert the provision; I would rather you do not because I think there is a danger that something will happen'. Those fears have not materialised. The sum of $180m of the scheduled $590m has already been collected under the 1982 legislation. The advice that I received-I am sure it was openly given-a couple of days ago from senior officers of the Australian Taxation Office was that collections under the legislation were proceeding according to plan. There is no serious threat to the revenue from the operation of section 3 (12). Quite apart from whether that provision should or should not be there, nobody can seriously argue about it. I do not blame the Commissioner for expressing the view which he expressed to me in October last year, but I believe that circumstances have vindicated my judgment. In fact, the concerns expressed by the Commissioner have not been realised. The 12-month so-called amnesty proviso which allowed people to pay over a period of 12 months has worked extremely well . It is just as well that the Government has dropped the absurd opposition to that proposal which was expressed by the Australian Labor Party when it was on this side of the chamber when we brought in our legislation and which it repeated earlier this year. That provision has facilitated collections, which I knew it would do when I put it in the legislation last year against the opposition of the Labor Party. I think we can forget any suggestion that the existence of section 3 (12) is undermining collections. Whilst the Commissioner had his proper reasons for writing as he did in October last year, those concerns have not materialised. I now refer to the criticism which the honourable member for Bendigo made about the amendment. I think he is confused as to what the amendment is about. Under section 6 (18) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act there is a general discretion, in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation available to be exercised in respect of all shareholders, whether they are shareholders in a private company or in a public company. The Government is saying that that discretion is deficient in one respect, and in one respect only-it enables the Commissioner to remit only the totality of a potential recoupment liability and not part of it. In other words, the Government is saying that under the existing Act the Commissioner can remit the totality of a liability of either a private company shareholder or a public company shareholder but he cannot remit part of that liability. By this amendment the Government is giving the Commissioner the power to remit part of the liability but only in respect of public company shareholders. We say on the basis of consistent treatment that that power to remit part of the recoupment liability ought to be extended to private company shareholders. That is all we are saying. I shall be interested to know from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) when he replies-if he can confine himself to the facts of the matter- what is difficult about that, what is wrong about that and how that will create horrendous difficulties. There is nothing inconsistent between what I said last night about there not being a fast ball from the Opposition on this matter and what I said in Perth. I simply said in Perth that the Dawkins let out should be provided to all those other public company shareholders who were in a similar position. I have not criticised the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for letting Mr Dawkins off his taxation liability. I welcome the assurance given by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer- Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw the remarks that he made. It is quite wrong to say that the Taxation Commissioner let Mr Dawkins off his taxation liability. The Taxation Commissioner found that there was no liability and for the honourable member to put it in that way is quite wrong. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member is wrong. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —I will not withdraw my remarks. Everything that I said was absolutely correct. I welcome the fact that the discretion exercised, the let-out provided to the family company of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), will also be provided to other people who are in the same position. The other matter that I wanted to mention is the pathetic and absurd attack made last night by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He claimed that our opposition to the legislation was to protect some friends. All I can say to the Minister is that if there were friends of mine around to be protected, they did not think that I had protected them with the legislation that I sponsored through this chamber last year. If the Minister has any evidence at all to back up that suggestion I can promise him that we on this side of the House will facilitate the bringing on of a substantive motion about the matter. No doubt I will wither under the attack from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer and he will lay bare my sinister involvement with all of these people who have been dodging revenue over the years. I am sure that he will be able to destroy my reputation with one of his characteristic and withering vituperative attacks. I think it will be a very celebrated debate and I look forward with very keen interest to hearing from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who I really like very much and who is normally a very charitable gentleman. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) demonstrated, he was a bit short on argument; so he grabbed a fairly large brush labelled McCarthy and used it with gay abandon on the Opposition. I am sure that he did not really mean it. If he is true to his charitable form he will withdraw those scandalous imputations when he replies. Finally, I bring together the basis of the Opposition's objection to this legislation, with the exemption of the anomalies provision which we will support . In substance what this legislation seeks to do is to extend that colloquial description of these taxation arrangements, namely bottom of the harbour arrangements, to cover companies which are not at the bottom of the harbour but are still alive. That is the fundamental contradiction of what the Government is going to do. That comment, better than anything else I have said, demonstrates the way in which the Government cannot sustain what it is trying to do. It keeps calling the legislation bottom of the harbour legislation but it wants to extend it, to perpetrate the colloquialism, to companies which are not at the bottom of the harbour but are still alive. If one takes out section 3 (12), if one alters the other tests that are contained in the legislation, one will have that result . That will be a travesty of the original intention of the legislation. It will deny plain English words their proper meaning and demonstrate the barrenness of the case which has been put forward by the Government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.25) —I will add one or two points to what has already been said. I have pointed out that I gave advice to the Commissioner of Taxation on sections 263 and 264. I am sorry that the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) cannot have that advice because under the secrecy provisions of the taxation legislation he is not allowed to. Of course, I would never reveal the names of those who are involved but I thought it was relevant to mention the matter in view of what he has said. I agree with the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). The Minister Assisting the Treasurer was not behaving in his usual charitable style. I think it is relevant, in view of what he said, to point out that it is a very strange way of assisting people who are alleged to have been involved in bottom of the harbour activities to advise the Commissioner about the conduct of events relating to transactions which have since been described by that name. I will say nothing further on that subject. I trust that my advice was in all respects acted upon and that the results assisted the Commissioner in the fulfilment of his obligations under the Act. I do know that certain raids were carried out pursuant to my advice. However, I have never taken the matter any further. I will say very briefly one or two things on a couple of points that have been raised; for example, naming provisions. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has justified his case but in the existing Act one is named in respect of breaches or evasions of tax. The point that I wish to put before the House is that there can easily be cases in which a person is not at fault, has not engaged in anything which is illegal, never intended to engage in anything which is illegal and where he is, for whatever reasons, because of financial misadventure perhaps , unable to pay the tax which will eventually be sought to be recouped from him. I objected to the proposal when it was originally in a draft Bill which came before us when we were in government on the basis that it placed undue pressure upon people and I thought that was wrong. I still object to it on the same basis . All that the provision intends to do is to inspire in people the fear that they should forgo whatever legal rights they have and pay up. I do not believe that that is correct; I do not believe that it is fair. Those who have been found guilty of breaches and evasions are covered by the existing legislation and surely it is breaches and evasions that we are concerned about. I agree entirely with what the honourable member for Bennelong has said about the removal of section 3 (12). The same kind of reasoning would apply to the amendments which are proposed to section 5 (9). I repeat: Where those who have before or after acted legally and sought lawfully to avoid taxation, whether or not one regards it as desirable, that places them in an entirely different category from those who seek to evade tax. Those who seek to evade tax must take the consequences. I believe that the position of those who acted lawfully should be considered on a quite different basis. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.29) —I will briefly close the debate because unfortunately we are under time constraints. I know that the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) would very much have liked to contribute to the debate. It has been a replay of last night's debate with the Opposition seeking to defend the indefensible. The only difference is that today we had the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) adding to the huffing and puffing, it was nothing more than puff. I had my say last night on the Opposition's proposed amendments. I draw to the attention of those who may be looking at the record of this debate only in today's Hansard to page 2427 of yesterday's Hansard. Every one of the arguments that have been put again today has been answered. Because the honourable member for Hume entered the debate in relation to section 3 (12) I will give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing much about it. As he was not here last night to hear the response I will repeat some of what I had to say about section 3 (12). It 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, as I said last night, by sub-section 3 (12) involve conferring a benefit on vendor shareholders. These are not innocent people. Mr Lusher —I take a point of order. Mr HURFORD —Are you being as irresponsible as ever? Mr Lusher —No, I am not. I think the Minister is being irresponsible. My point of order is that the Minister is reading from last night's Hansard exactly the same words that he said last night. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Lusher —It is a point of order because it is in relation to questions raised in the second reading debate. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HURFORD —If the honourable member does not want me to go through- Mr Lusher —That is what the Minister said in relation to the second reading debate. We have been discussing the clauses and he is not dealing with the issues which have been raised. Mr HURFORD —If the honourable member does not want me to go through the courtesy of pointing out to him the points the Opposition has already raised- Mr Howard —Why is our amendment not acceptable? Mr HURFORD —I have not even mentioned the honourable member's amendment yet. Mr Howard —No, that is right. That is what I would like to know. Mr HURFORD —I will come to the honourable member's admendment. Mr Howard —Good. Mr HURFORD —I am doing the honourable member, and those honourable members opposite who have been huffing and puffing with him, the courtesy of commenting on some of the things which were mentioned in the Committee stage debate. Admittedly, that was not the subject of any amendment; I know that. I understand that only one amendment is before the Committee and I will come to that in a moment, if honourable members give me time to do so. Let me say in regard to section 3 (12) that it provides that an unsuccessful post-sale tax avoidance scheme will provide a let out from the recoupment tax legislatoin if, when the scheme was entered into, there was a reasonable expectation on objective grounds that the scheme would suceed and that it was not entered into for the purposes of evading company tax. I repeat what I said last night: The application of section 3 (12) to bottom of the harbour schemes was simply a matter of luck of the draw. Some promoters used this technique; others did not. From the point of view of the vendors, there was absolutely no difference between these cases and the bottom of the harbour schemes. They are simply another variety of the same schemes. Let me say again that the reason I raised last night this matter of the motivation of the Opposition was to throw the question to it and to say: 'It has given us no reason why there should be this discrimination; none whatsoever'. Mr Howard —Do you make any allegations? Are you making that allegation? Mr HURFORD —Therefore I made those allegations. I gave the honourable member the opportunity to answer them. Mr Howard —Will you withdraw them? Mr HURFORD —I say that the honourable member has refused the occasion to answer the point that I made. Mr Howard —Are you making any allegations? Mr HURFORD —So I must still have the same doubts in my mind about the honourable member's motivation; he must be a friend of some promoters who were in this type of scheme and not in any other ones, because I can think of no other reason why the honourable member discriminates in their favour in this case. Let me go on to say that the estimate of $40m was made on the basis of cases so far identified as being probable section 3 (12) cases. The Government does not have, and is not entitled to receive, details of those cases. As honourable members know that information is protected by the secrecy provisions of the income tax law. It is obvious that I must have cut honourable members opposite to the quick when talking about their motivation, because they are doing nothing more, even while I am on my feet, than to huff and puff. They do not want me to have the freedom to answer on the part of the Government. Mr Spender —It is time that you answered the question. Mr HURFORD —Honourable members opposite are behaving like schoolboys. It is time they stopped talking and listened. Mr Lusher —Deal with the substance of the amendment. Mr HURFORD —As I understand it, the Opposition is moving only one amendment. Let me come to the basis of that amendment. It relates to- Mr Lusher —Ha, ha. Mr HURFORD —It is all very well for the honourable member to say 'ha, ha' in his immature way but the fact is that the honourable member did not apply himself to the subject of the amendment. Mr Lusher —I did. Mr HURFORD —You did not. Mr Lusher —I did ask several specific questions, and you have not answered any of them. You have not dealt with the amendment. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I think it might help if the Minister were to address his remarks through me. Mr HURFORD —Mr Deputy Chairman, I am very pleased to address my remarks through you. I come back to the fact that the only amendment which the Opposition has moved relates to anomalies relief. The Opposition is apparently disturbed that we are relating that relief to public companies only. The Opposition deserves a reply and I hope it will give me the courtesy of listening to my reply. It seeks to extend the proposed anomalies relief to private companies as well as public companies. The justification it has put forward for this extension is that the existing relief provisions are not limited to public company cases. The proposed relief is designed to overcome what the Government has identified as anomalies. The existing legislation already enables a person to be relieved from recoupment liability when he derived no benefit from the evasion. The anomaly in the existing legislation is that it does not allow partial relief in a case in which a person not connected with the scheme derived some benefit from the evasion, but that benefit is less than his recoupment liability. This kind of anomaly is seen in practice only to arise in public company cases. In the case of a shareholder in a public company, the question of whether that person derived a benefit normally depends on the market value of his shares on the stock exchange. It is quite reasonable that public shareholders have sold shares for prices which only partly reflected the company tax evaded. In such a case it is anomalous-we have agreed that it is anomalous and that is why we have introduced this Bill to clear the matter up-that a person should pay recoupment tax in excess of the benefit that that person derived. Mr Howard —That is right. Mr HURFORD —So, the honourable member opposite understands now, I hope, that the Bill proposes that, in those company cases, relief will be available. I ask the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who is trying to interject, to hear me out. As I said before and I state again, anomalies of that kind do not arise in private company cases. This is because the value of private company shares is not determined on the stock exchange, affected as it is by a variety of circumstances which make up the market. On the contrary private company shares are invariably valued on the basis of the net assets of the company. When a private company sold a subsidiary which was then subject to a pre-tax profit strip, the private company received a price for its subsidiary. This made no allowance for the subsidiary company's tax liability and as a result the net assets of the private company vendor were increased and, correspondingly, the value of the shares held by the private company shareholders fully reflected that increase in net assets. Let me put that in other words: It is in the nature of a private company that an increase in its net assets is fully reflected in the value of its shares. Accordingly, part-benefit cases do not in the nature of things arise where a private company is involved. Mr Lusher —It is absolute nonsense. Mr HURFORD —It is not nonsense. Mr Lusher —You are supposed to have been an accountant. It is absolutely outrageous. Mr HURFORD —I bet I have done a heck of a lot more valuations of private company shares than the honourable member has ever done. A further distinction between private companies and public companies concerns the question of control and management. I guess we come close to the question of innocence here. An investor in a public company may have had absolutely no knowledge of the attempt to avoid tax and no connection with any person who was involved in the scheme. But by contrast shareholders of private companies are not at arms length as are people in public companies; they are usually very directly involved and, if not, they are indirectly involved in the running of a company or are generally associated with such persons who are. These are very good reasons why we should not accept the amendment in this case . For these reasons, there is no need to extend the proposed relief to include private companies. Furthermore the proposed extension would cause very substantial administrative problems. This is because private company shareholders would have nothing to lose by requesting relief and, if refused relief by the Commissioner of Taxation, by lodging an objection. In other words, the proposed amendment is an invitation for frivolous requests for relief which would bog down the administration of the law and delay the collection of tax. Mr Porter —What about the 20 per cent? Mr HURFORD —It is interesting that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) should walk into this House and interject. The only time we ever hear from the honourable member for Barker is when he interjects in his immature way. It is a pity he did not take part earlier in this debate. I say, for all the reasons I have given, that we reject the amendment put forward by the Opposition. I hope that on the next occasion when income tax legislation comes before this House there will be a far more responsible debate than we have had on these Bills. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(12.40) —I want to make just one very brief comment in relation to the total lack of understanding on the part of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) about the valuation of private companies. There is a myriad of examples of private companies that have been floated onto the stock exchange. The Minister would be aware of that. In relation to those companies, whatever evaluation they may have had in terms of accountants' valuations, net asset valuations and what have you, the price at which they were floated on the stock exchange and the day on which they were listed bear absolutely no relationship to any of the other valuations that have been used. Even in the case of- Mr Hurford —That is irrelevant. Mr LUSHER —It is not irrelevant. In many cases the underwriters who are charged with the responsibility of organising the flotation of those private companies assess a price at which the shares will be issued. In many cases it has been demonstrated when the shares actually hit the market that the valuation has been out either on the high side or on the low side. This simply demonstrates in a very clear and tangible way that private company valuations are not related to the net asset valuation. For the Minister, who is supposed to have some professional experience in these things, to try to indicate to this House in some serious way that there is only one way in which one can value a private company, is to evade the issue completely and totally miss the point. It emphasises the concern that the Opposition has in relation to private companies. There are and can easily be significant variations in valuations. The Minister ought to take that into account. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Hurford, C. J.Blanchard, C. A. Jacobi, R.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Mountford, J. G. Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Ronald Fife, W. C.Cunningham, B. T. Anthony, J. D.Charlesworth, R. I. Katter, R. C.Kelly, R. J. Cameron, IanJones, Barry Millar, P. C. In division- Mr Scholes-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Honourable members opposite want to know why the Treasurer is not in the chamber. He is paired with one of the Opposition members who cannot be here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! There is no point of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.53 to 2 p.m. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Is it true that the Government has decided to impose royalty charges for the use of air waves by radio operators? Will taxi operators and other users of private two-way radios be required to pay this new charge? How much revenue will these charges raise? Could these charges be interpreted as a tax on the air we breathe? What other novel taxes does the Government have in mind? Mr DUFFY —The question of royalties was dealt with in legislation in this Parliament some weeks ago. The matters which were raised, not directly but indirectly by the honourable member, were in fact debated. In respect of the royalty component of any collection of fees it was pointed out at that time that in fact the policy which was followed by this Government was a policy which was adopted by the previous Government. There has been no new collection of revenue, as far as I am aware, in terms of the type of revenue collected under this Government additional to what was in fact collected by the previous Government. Mrs CHILD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the effect of the Government's education policies on the poorer Catholic parochial schools? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the funding for these schools will not be reduced? Mr HAWKE —I am very glad to see the deep interest of my friends on the other side of the House on this question. Because of their deep interest I know that they will listen intently to the answer. Not only am I able to assure the House that grants in respect of students of poorer Catholic schools will not be reduced by the education policies of this Government, but also I can confirm to the House that under our policies grants in respect of those students in 1984 will increase in real terms by 3 per cent. May I point out-I hope honourable members opposite listen to this even more closely-that under the previous Government's policy schools at which those students are enrolled would have received $5m less. Mr Simmons —How much? Mr HAWKE —Five million dollars less under the previous Government's policy. The Government is providing a significant boost to education funding for non- government schools in 1984, a rise of about 1 1/2 per cent in real terms over 1983. In addition, the Government has assured the schools that the funds will be distributed in a way which achieves much greater equity than previously. As we have made quite clear, this will entail a significant redistribution of funds away from a small number of better-off private schools towards other non- government schools. In particular, as I pointed out, some funds will be directed away from the 41 wealthiest non-government schools to those in greatest need. Not only do we not make any apology for this, but also we are proud that in the process of having to deal with a range of demands upon limited resources we have been able to increase funding and do it in a more equitable way. May I conclude by reminding the House that there are over 2,000 non-government schools in Australia. The great bulk of these 2,000 plus non-government schools- over 90 per cent-will be better off under this Government's funding policies for 1984. In particular, grants in respect of over half a million students at non- government schools will increase by 3 per cent in real terms in 1984. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that an estimated 18,000 or more Australian pensioners are living overseas? How can the Government apply the assets test to migrants who have elected to retire in the land of their birth? Is it true that the average pension of $70 per week goes a long way in many overseas countries? When these people go back after a stay of 10 years or more, they put their Australian income into assets and property that places them in the well-off bracket in their native lands. Is this costing the Australian taxpayer between $ 50m and $60m a year? Can the Minister investigate this situation so that overseas assets tests are comparable with those on Australian citizens? Dr BLEWETT —Reciprocal relationships have developed between this Government and overseas governments in relation to pensioners. There has been a bipartisan policy for years now which the Opposition developed and which we supported. I would expect the same support for the policies that we are now developing. I point out that when the assets test last applied there were also a number of these agreements with overseas countries. It was quite possible to work out the application of the assets test for pensioners with Australian pensioner entitlement in those overseas countries. I will follow up the honourable member' s specific question with the Minister for Social Security and give a more detailed answer. I would point out that the assets test operated at an earlier period in relation to pensioners living in overseas countries. Mr GORMAN —What action will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs be taking to assist the Aboriginal people living under adverse conditions in the city areas, especially the Redfern district of Sydney, to ensure that they obtain and enjoy a better lifestyle as the problems caused by the existing conditions under which these true Australians are forced to live are reflecting adversely on the whole of the Aboriginal community? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It is true that the situation in Redfern, which has been a matter of concern to all honourable members in this House, has been very directly attributable to the living conditions of Aboriginal people in the Redfern community. The question of police relations with the Aboriginal community in Redfern is very much the responsibility of the Government of New South Wales. Honourable members will be aware of the fact that a conference took place in Sydney last night. Some 200 Aboriginal people attended a meeting which was presided over by Mr Paul Coe of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Redfern. At that meeting there were some fairly candid and frank exchanges between the Aboriginal people present, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the State of New South Wales and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The Commonwealth has kept a continuous involvement in this situation. At my request, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mr Perkins, also had extensive meetings with Aboriginal people in Redfern over the last two days. He is preparing a report for the consideration of the Government dealing with a number of projects which the Aboriginal people have suggested. If the Government can support these projects, they could quite materially alleviate some of the problems and tensions in that area. Mr ANDREW —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology. In answer to a question on 5 October, the Minister for Primary Industry referred to the difficulties associated with the use of the chemical ethylene dibromide in agriculture. Is the Minister aware that on the same day the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Towards 2000 suggested that gamma rays could be used as a safe alternative to EDB as a fumigant for citrus fruit? Does the Minister agree with the use of gamma rays as an alternative to EDB as a fumigant for citrus fruit? Mr BARRY JONES —The use of gamma rays and a number of other highly complicated physical means of replacing chemical means of treatment of fruit, meat and other products is being reviewed at the moment. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is doing a lot of work in this area. Essentially, people are approaching the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board with specific projects. On the whole, the response of the Government will not be to initiate new techniques, but to respond to demands from particular sections of industry. As we become increasingly conscious of the environmental and other side effects from chemicals such as EDB, we will clearly be looking for alternatives. On the other hand, we must also be concerned to know what is the 'worst case' scenario for new technologies. It would not be sensible to change the configuration of our industry so that we were very heavily committed to the use of gamma irradiation if we found that some unforeseen toxic consequence arose from it. If the honourable member wants more specific information, I will be glad to get my Department to provide it for him. But the current situation is that we are really responding to applications from industry itself. Mr MILDREN —Is the Minister for Defence aware of the widespread concern in the community at the Government's decision to include salaries of Defence Force reservists as fully taxable income? Is he also aware of the concern expressed that this policy will affect retention rates among Defence Force reservists? Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and the extensive representations that he and other honourable members have made on this matter. I am aware of the concern which exists relating to the tax on Reserve pay and allowances. The Government had, as a result of its Budget considerations, indicated a position on that matter; but, following widespread representations, it has reviewed that position. Following discussions between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and me, Cabinet has approved an alteration in the scheme which will not affect revenue for this year. The tax will now apply to 50 per cent of pay and allowances received in the Defence Force reserves rather than 100 per cent, as previously announced. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will, of course, be aware that a principal objective on both sides during the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Thailand is to repair the damage to relations between the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia caused by the Government's attitude to Kampuchea and Vietnam. I draw the Minister's attention to the reported statement of the Singapore Foreign Minister in today's Melbourne Age that ASEAN will be seeking assurances on four specific issues in considering whether to restore regular dialogue with Australia. Given that the Foreign Minister has chosen not to join the Prime Minister during the Bangkok talks, and given the now obvious futility of his Indo-China initiative, will the Minister be recommending to the Prime Minister that he give the assurances sought by ASEAN. Mr HAYDEN —It is always diverting to receive lectures from one of Australia's longest serving and least remembered Foreign Ministers on the conduct of foreign affairs. I invite honourable members to recall the achievements during the five years the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Young —Shirley MacLaine. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Port Adelaide is correct. Faded sepia prints of a celluloid thespian are about the best he can produce. The recollection that the Australian community has of him is as a sort of fag end of the Peter Stuyvesant jet set. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to answer the question. Mr HAYDEN —I think from the response of the audience, it is much more engaging than-- Mr SPEAKER —As Speaker, I am more interested in parliamentary procedures than the responses of audiences. Mr HAYDEN —Let me say in a nutshell, Mr Speaker, in deference to you and to serve the cause of compactness of expression, there will be a debate in a few minutes on this subject. I am sure I will be addressing some of those points. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the excellent Minister for Health. As country newspapers appear to have been overlooked in the explanation of the new Medicare scheme, will the Minister correct this apparent anomaly as soon as practicable and advise country newspaper editors of the requirement for advertising space to explain the operation of the excellent new Medicare scheme? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question and also his submissions in relation to this matter. Honourable members will no doubt be aware that we are conducting an extensive publicity program to provide information for all parts of the Australian population on the Medicare program. Therefore, as we provide that material we will be using, over time, all the facilities available to us. As the advertising campaign unfolds, material is likely to be placed in some of the smaller country papers which have not yet been used. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. I refer again to the parlous state of relations between Australia and the Association of South East Asian Nations, which is unprecedented in Australia's history. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that no danger occurs to Australia's trade relations because of the parlous state that has been created by the inept handling of the portfolio by the Minister for Foreign Affairs? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is no parlous state either in trade or in foreign affairs. The only parlous state exists for the Opposition with its Leader. That is the problem. Mr Peacock —No dialogue? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition does not give me a chance to answer the question. The point is that our trade is improving, as I told him a few weeks ago. It is at record levels and will continue to improve. We have very good relations with ASEAN. We are sponsoring trade exhibitions in countries belonging to ASEAN and they have been invited here to do likewise. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is so sensitive about this issue. There is nothing wrong with our relations with ASEAN. Mr KENT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission, which states: The assistance arrangements for the passenger motor vehicles, and textiles, clothing and footwear industries were intended to expose these industries to some adjustment pressures. Further, it states: The Commission considers that any relaxation in the pressure which these arrangements impose on the industries would be highly undesirable. In view of that statement, will the Minister assure the motor vehicle and the textile, clothing and footwear industries that the Government will not reduce the level of protection to Australian manufacturing industries in times of high unemployment? Mr JOHN BROWN —My attention, of course, has been drawn to those sections of the Industries Assistance Commission's annual report. It is also pertinent to note the very sensitive and sincere concern that the honourable member for Hotham has always expressed about Australians and the necessity to have their jobs protected. While the Government appreciates that reductions in protection in the long term are desirable, it has been made perfectly clear by this Government that, considering the economic climate at the moment, and in view of the unacceptably high unemployment level, there will be no immediate or severe downturn in available protection. Mr Peacock —But the Foreign Minister said you were embalming geriatric industries in the formaldehyde of protection. What about the formaldehyde? Mr JOHN BROWN —Do you mind if I answer- Mr Peacock —I just want to know what happened to the Foreign Minister's views. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —The Leader of the Opposition had his period on this side of the House before he was placed in formaldehyde over there; it will be for quite some period, I can assure him. Having said that about no immediate scaling down in protection, of course the previously scheduled tariff phase-downs will continue. In respect of the programs for textile, clothing and footwear and passenger motor vehicles, the position again is perfectly clear, as has been stated from this side of the House on many occasions since we assumed government. The Government has publicly confirmed that the basic features of the seven-year program for TCF will be maintained to provide a predictable framework for those industries to invest in and for continuity of stability within which that-- Mr Peacock —So you are following our program? Mr JOHN BROWN —It was one of your better programs-I would have to say that-and we do not intend to alter it. Mr Peacock —Thank you. Mr JOHN BROWN —That is all right. We do not mind giving you what little credit you are entitled to. Mr Peacock —There are many of them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the two honourable members not to indulge in private conversation but to take the House into their confidence. I call the Minister to answer the question. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, Mr Speaker-- Mr Peacock —I caught him short. Mr Hodgman —You hate koalas and you hate Tasmania. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, the koala was not caught short; that was fairly obvious. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Minister has ceased answering the question, he should sit down; otherwise he should get on with it. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —If there were no interjections, I could get on with it. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest you disregard them. Mr JOHN BROWN —While the TCF program involves phased down tariff protection and tariff quota liberalisation to encourage concentration of activity in the more efficient areas of production, it still provides a substantial level of assistance to the industries concerned. Mr Hodgman —Who wrote this-the koala? Mr Peacock —If I were reading this, I would be laughing, too. Mr JOHN BROWN —This is a very important subject. If honourable members opposite only realised that we are now talking about the future prospects of Australian workers, they might share the same concern as the honourable member for Hotham displayed when he asked the question. Mr Peacock —It was our program that you just endorsed. Mr JOHN BROWN —If the honourable member would just be quiet for a moment and stop his inane chattering I might be able to tell him what the situation is. Mr Peacock —It is the same stuff I used. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is stretching the tolerance allowed to an honourable member in his position. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, his disdain for Australian workers is so well known that I am not surprised. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to get on with the answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —Certain aspects of the current and proposed assistance arrangements for the passenger motor vehicle industry are under review, but any changes to the assistance arrangements that presently exist in that industry will change only after extensive consultations with that industry. As the Leader of the Opposition and most of his colleagues should well know, the question of light commercial vehicles is presently a subject of discussion with the Industries Assistance Commission. Of course, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has announced that the Car Industry Council has been established to inquire into a whole range of questions that concern the future viability of that industry. The Council's membership, of course, includes representatives of not only the industry and of government but also of unions and of consumers. In summing up, it is fair to say that, while the Government shares the concern that has been expressed in the Industries Assistance Commission's annual report about the high level of protection, it also wishes to point out very clearly that, given the economic circumstances that confront the nation following seven years of conservative government, the time is not now ripe to be reducing protection levels. This Government will consistently pursue a phased reduction in tariffs and protections over the ensuing years. Mr HICKS —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the widespread resentment that the introduction of countrywide calling has caused in the remote areas of Australia? Will he personally investigate the legitimate complaints of these people, particularly that they have lost their access to an untimed local call, which is the accepted right of all other Australians? Will the Minister instruct Telecom Australia to reinstate this fundamental right to these people? Can he deny that the introduction of timed local calls in remote areas is the start of timed local calls throughout Australia? Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member is aware, I organised through Telecom a meeting at Parliament House, which I think he attended and at which a Telecom representative explained the impact of countrywide calling developed by Telecom to overcome the problems associated with the provision of services in sparsely settled areas. The main features involved were the need for larger zones to provide customers with access to a reasonable number of people at lower call charges and the need to consider the carrying capacity of the digital radio concentrator service. Anomalies which have developed have been drawn to my attention and the attention of Telecom by people such as the honourable member. The honourable member for Maranoa was particularly concerned about certain areas in his electorate. Those matters are presently being looked at by Telecom and some alterations have already been made. In respect of the general thrust of the honourable member's question, I assure him that Telecom is looking at the problems, but in overall terms it is still the view of Telecom, as it expressed earlier, that the benefits to people will far outweigh the problems that have been raised by honourable members such as the honourable member for Riverina. I repeat: The matters raised by the honourable member and those raised by other honourable members, particularly from country areas, are being examined by Telecom. Mr DUFFY —Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet could I refer to the question asked earlier by the honourable member for Wilmot and make a correction to my answer to that? Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the Minister to do that. Mr DUFFY —In asking a question of me earlier today, I think the honourable member for Wilmot was referring to radio communications licence fees. In the answer that I gave him, I am sure I referred to broadcasting licence fees for both radio and television. I think the honourable member for Wilmot was referring to the new scale of radio communications licence fees implemented on 1 September. That new scale represents a departure from the user-pays principle. In reaching that decision, this Government made a decision that the radio frequency spectrum was a highly valuable national resource and it was considered appropriate that the fees charged to users of the spectrum should include a royalty as well as a cost recovery component. In the term of the previous Government, radio communications licence fees for 1981 and 1982 were in fact set on a cost recovery basis. The Radiocommunications Licence Fees Regulations were amended this year as from 1 September for a new scale of radio communications licence fees. They involve an increase of 23 per cent in average licence fees, including a royalty as well as a cost recovery component. I am sure the honourable member was adverting to that matter, and I confused it with broadcasting licence fees. Mr CROSS —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted reports this morning that France has apparently assisted in the helicopter evacuation of Yasser Arafat from Tripoli in Lebanon? Did he also note reports that the French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Cheysson, has said that the existence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation is vital for a peaceful solution in what he called the ' Near East'? Does the Australian Government agree with the comment of the French Foreign Minister, which will seem to many people to be quite surprising? Mr HAYDEN —As far as we can establish at this point, the French Defence Ministry has denied the account that a French helicopter was used to evacuate Yasser Arafat. However, a record has come in which relates to comments by Mr Cheysson, the French Foreign Minister. It expresses some of his sentiment about the role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I have before me a cablegram dealing with some of this. Mr Cheysson is quoted as having said outside the Senate within the last 24 hours: The disappearance of the Palestinian organisation loyal to Yasser Arafat could not but diminish the possibility of negotiations in the Middle East. The cable states further: In a background comment he- that is, Mr Cheysson- voiced concern that if the PLO were to disappear as a strong and independent organisation the inevitable result would be a resurgence of Palestinian terrorism. I wish quickly to make a few more comments, but before doing so I remind honourable members that any comments one makes on this subject must be read in the context of a statement of policy on Middle Eastern matters and, more specifically, concerning Israel and its right to live within secure borders and to have its sovereignty respected by other countries, and an acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people in a number of respects. That is a matter of public record. I mention it so that my further comments will not be misunderstood. I think they have some important substance. Given conditions in the Middle East, which I think all honourable members would acknowledge are disturbing and which furthermore, I think honourable members would also acknowledge, display the propensity to deteriorate rather rapidly if not handled carefully, the conflict which is taking place between the PLO forces is, I would suggest, more than a tinpot brawl between warring factions of an institutional organisation. I think-and it is open to further testing-given conditions in the Middle East, that if Yasser Arafat were eliminated and his faction largely destroyed that would leave a faction of the PLO which is much more radical, with a clearly expressed propensity for terrorism. That would have a very destabilising effect in the Middle East and, I suspect, elsewhere. Of concern in weighing up these matters-in a problematical way, as one has to do as one sees these events unfold-is that, should that faction be successful in the intent I have mentioned, should it become the cat's paw of another large and powerful regional and national force such as Syria, it would give that power a trump card to play in the Middle East. It would mean that Yasser Arafat who, for all of the deficiencies that many may see in him, nonetheless represents a comparatively-I stress the word 'comparatively'-more moderate position than the more radical group which is-- Mr Lusher —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAYDEN —Everything is comparative. I am not stressing this too much, but I ask for serious consideration to be given to this matter and for the issue to be seen in a more responsible, analytical light because of its capability of providing flashpoints- Mr Peacock —It is all very well your asking for that in areas where you are not involved. What about showing the same responsibility where you are involved? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAYDEN —That will be handled a little later. Mr Peacock —No, it is not a little later. It is a question of continuity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAYDEN —Oh, is it? Mr Peacock —Yes, indeed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will not warn the Leader of the Opposition again. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition is his royal highness in charge of pomposity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should proceed with the answer. Mr HAYDEN —Oh, well, one cannot win them all. The point I wish to make very shortly is simply this: Were such a regional power to be successful in the way in which I have outlined, it would have extraordinary clout within that region, first of all with Arab countries and, secondly, with the Palestinian people, especially on the West Bank and in Gaza. That in turn would complicate greatly the already very difficult and extraordinarily complicated process of trying to unravel the problems in the Middle East. I suggest that in those circumstances the comments of Mr Cheysson are worthy of much more sober consideration than perhaps they have been given and which certainly the Opposition, or at least its leader, is capable of extending. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that Senator Ryan announced in her education guidelines three months ago that Commonwealth capital funding would not automatically be available to new non- government schools in areas where the opening of such schools might affect enrolments in existing government schools? Is it not a fact that this restriction will apply to the expansion of the systemic system in precisely the same way as it will apply to the expansion of other schools within the non- government sector? If not, will the Prime Minister kindly tell the House why not ? Mr HAWKE —I am aware, of course, of the statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I can only say in answer to the question that the statement of Government policy by Senator Ryan represents the outcome of a great deal of consideration not only within this Party forming the Government but also as a result of discussions with the private education system as well as those concerned in the public education system. That policy, which has been announced and which will be followed through, represents, as I have said, the outcome of the considered opinion of the Government in consultation with all bodies concerned with education. I repeat-- Mr Howard —You have not answered the question. You are not answering the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker-- Mr Howard —You don't understand your own education policy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! A certain amount of tolerance is given to the leaders of the parties on both sides of the House. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is getting beyond the limit. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —The development of that policy in regard to funding for existing schools, the policy which was relevant in regard to the building and the facilitation of new schools, represents the outcome, as I have said, of discussions between the system, private and public, and our Party, and we do not in any sense depart from it. It is quite clear. I repeat what I said yesterday: It was clearly understood by the Australian electorate when we went to it on 5 March and was overwhelmingly endorsed. Mr BALDWIN —Is the Minister for Defence Support aware of reports that Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd intends to lay off some 1,000 workers between March and June next year consequential on the completion of the first underway replenishment ship, HMAS Success, and that this will mean unemployment for substantial numbers of additional people employed in firms dependent on Cockatoo 's shipbuilding activities? What steps is the Government taking in response to this prospective calamity for working people in the inner Sydney region? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I appreciate the interest that he and a number of other honourable members representing the Sydney area have taken in the future of Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard. The decision announced on 12 October to build the two Australian frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard indicates the commitment of this Government to Australian defence shipbuilding. This decision will mean that Australia now has the capacity to build warships as well as to undertake major refits and modernisation of FFG- type vessels. Flowing from this desision, both government-owned shipyards, Williamstown Naval Dockyard and Garden Island Dockyard, will be sustained in workload for a considerable period. As honourable members will be aware, Cockatoo Island Dockyard has been operated by the Vickers company since the late 1940s. As the honourable member suggests, it is true that, unless additional work can be found, the company has indicated that demand for certain metal trades will diminish from April next year. In saying that, I certainly do not suggest that the position is as serious as was suggested by the honourable member for Sydney. I do not endorse the figures suggested but I think it is true that, because of the particular stage that HMAS Success is at, the demand for certain metal workers will be considerably diminished. The dockyard is a major dockyard in terms of the Government's defence priorities, particularly in relation to ship repairs. It will continue to undertake Oberon class submarine repairs through into the early 1990s. People will recognise that this year's defence budget, announced by my colleague the Minister for Defence, is severely constrained by forward capital commitments made by the previous Government. There is very little scope in this year's Budget for major new capital spending. Certainly, that places question marks, if not severe restraints, on the possibilities of an immediate move towards a second replenishment ship. However, responsibility for the defence work load of the Vickers yard is not simply a matter for the Government. It is a commercial yard and, when one looks at its future, one has to look at not only what contracts it might receive in terms of the defence budget and defence requirements but also its capacity to get commercial repair work. That, of course, is not easy within the current context of the ship repair industry which is in a very depressed state. The Government is very concerned about the possibility of the loss of jobs at Vickers Cockatoo. My colleague the Minister for Defence and I are looking at the situation very seriously. It is our intention to discuss several options both with the management of the dockyard and with employees in the not too distant future and certainly before the end of this year. Mr McVeigh —Will the Minister table the documents from which he was quoting? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Darling Downs has asked for the tabling of the documents. Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr HOWE —Just notes. Mr SINCLAIR —I direct my question to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that, prior to his announcement last Thursday night about the change in the level of interest rates on Australian Savings Bonds, there had been widespread community discussion about the level of Aussie Bond interest rates and Press comment that they were overvalued. Is the Treasurer aware that there was apparently an unprecedented volume of sales of Aussie Bonds at the Parliament House post office between 4.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. on that same day? Does he recall authorising his staff to advise the Press Gallery at about 4.30 p.m. of his intention to hold a Press conference on that matter at 5 o'clock that day? While recognising and appreciating the Treasurer's courtesy in providing advice on such matters on a confidential basis to the Opposition, will the Treasurer ensure that a public notification on this kind of market sensitive information will not be given in future, providing as it does an opportunity for profitable speculation by a select few who are uninhibited by requirements of confidentiality at the public's expense? Mr KEATING —I do not think anyone would have needed a crystal ball to have known that the Government was considering the Australian Savings Bond rate. In fact I had been saying for some time that we were keeping the rate under review. Therefore, given the fact that we had seen a decline in secondary markets for treasury bonds and also a very sharp decline last week in the rates for treasury notes, I am sure anybody who wanted to take advantage of the rate which was then applying to the current series of ASBs could have taken them up. I am not aware of any sales from the Parliament House post office. I do not keep my eye on its activities. If the right honourable gentleman is miffed by missing out himself, perhaps he ought to ride the trends a little more closely and read the Press comment in the financial pages. If he wants to contact my office, I will give him some clues as to the indices that he can look at to see the trend in interest rates. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year ended 30 June 1983, together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year on reports made to the Minister. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 19C of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960, I present the National Standards Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), for the information of honourable members I present a report on a study to develop a perspective on Australia's water resources to the year 2000, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to the report. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-This report, 'Water 2000: A Perspective on Australia's water resources to the year 2000', considers one of the most pressing long term issues which this country and the Government must face. Water is indeed Australia's most vital resource and many fear that by the year 2050 our water resources will be fully committed. For this reason, I am surprised that the report is being tabled some six months after its completion. I hope that this delay does not demonstrate the Government's lack of concern about the issues raised and recommendations contained within it. It is important because the report was commissioned by the Fraser Government to ensure that it had in place proposals for consideration by the government before the present national water resources program ended at the end of this financial year. Because of the delay, the Hawke Government is unlikely to be in a position to introduce new projects, nor will it have time to develop a consolidated program with the State governments prior to the next Budget. The report is an excellent document and a credit to those who compiled it. It is also a credit to the Minister at the time, Senator Sir John Carrick, who regarded this matter as being of such importance to Australia. Its tabling coincides with the ending of the worst drought this century. Consequently, it is a matter of major importance that the report's recommendations be treated with more urgency than we have seen to date so that the Parliament can consider the Government's recommendations in the context at least of the 1984-85 Budget, if not before. Timing in the development of water programs is obviously essential. The States must agree and funds and resources must be allocated. The suggested priority areas in the report include: The completion of irrigation projects already under construction; improving the security of existing irrigation water supplies; new projects where users can pay; improved water quality in rural communities; action plan development to combat water borne diseases; the investigation of particular surface water characteristics; and the investigation of ground-water resources in arid regions; in addition, adequate and reliable supplies for country areas, cities and towns; comprehensive salinity management program; a comprehensive wetlands management program; a comprehensive flood plain management program; and increased community involvement. I must draw the attention of the House to the report's comments in support of the work of the National Water Research Council which was established with the full co-operation of the States and on the recommendation of the Australian Water Resources Council, which is also commended in the report for its work. I make this observation because the Government is considering the establishment of an Institute of Freshwater Studies and has already established an interim council to examine the case for such an institute. It should be noted that the Australian Water Resources Council considered and recommended against the establishment of such an institution. The response of the present Government has been to suspend the work of the Council, and since its election there have been no initiatives except to scrap the Fraser Government's bicentennial water resources program which would have included improvements in existing water supplies; the Kalgoorlie pipeline; the Wimmera pipeline; a new filtration plant for South Australia; the construction of projects such as the Glenbawn Dam; and improvements relevant to the River Murray. This report underpins the farsightedness of the Fraser Government in deciding to proceed with these projects and the shortsightedness and loss of valuable time caused by the Hawke Government's decision not to proceed with the program. It is imperative that the Government think ahead on subjects such as water management. Australia has probably lost up to four years because of the unnecessary delays caused by the Government's unwillingness to proceed with the Fraser Government's water programs beyond this year and its inexplicable failure in not publishing this excellent report at least six months ago when it would have been available to the Government. Australia has much to contribute to the world in the area of water management. Consequently, we should be able to develop techniques for a co-ordinated approach to water resources management and water conservation. This is the approach the Opposition favours in relation to the River Murray and its catchment areas in particular. It is pleasing to see that the report supports this approach. Early consideration of the 59 recommendations contained within the report is required to ensure that next year's Budget includes appropriations which carry on from and take full advantage of the water resources program introduced by the Fraser Government. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —by leave-With due deference to my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) ought to have studied the report in greater depth than he did. The 'Water 2000' study had the task of presenting a perspective on Australia's water resources to the end of the century and identifying those water-related issues to be considered in planning for national development. In my view, the major importance of this study is that it commissioned 18 consultants' reports which have compiled an enormous amount of information on many different aspects of water resource use in this country. The range of these studies is shown by the various consultants engaged, which include the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, various government departments, the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, university bodies and private consulting engineers. I congratulate all those involved for a lengthy and detailed report. In spite of the work of the consultants the report observes: A common conclusion emerging from virtually all the investigations undertaken for this study is the inadequacy of data quality and quantity, as well as the inadequacy of data analysis and interpretation. This applied equally to the assessment of water resources, water use, water quality and hydrological data for catchment and flood studies. Increased effort on data collection and analysis is essential for a full understanding of Australia's water problems and the development of policies and plans for the future. The report also comments on the need for research into aquatic ecosystems, research into desalination of ground and surface waters, comprehensive socio- economic and agronomic studies on water pricing and allocation issues and detailed research on salinity control. Clearly, the development of water policies which will serve this country well for the next two decades will require a much greater effort in research across a wide range of disciplines as well as improve data acquisition and dissemination. Precisely for this reason I introduced 2 1/2 years ago a Bill to set up an Institute of Freshwater Studies. The recommendations contained in the 'Water 2000' report are not likely to stir much controversy among public interest groups and authorities interested in water management issues. Most of the recommendations and conclusions in the report have been heard time after time and can largely be regarded as basic common sense. In relation to the Murray-Darling, for example, the report states: A stream network and its catchment constitute a unified system; its use and management should be considered as a whole and options for the use of water and land resources should be determined in relation to the perceived present and future needs of the community in a manner that will maintain their long term capability. Integrated land and water management embraces such issues as: Erosion of catchments and sedimentation of reservoirs and streams; land and water salinity; water pollution and water quality; water quantity and distribution; water- related health issues; protection of aquatic ecosystems; and floodplain management. Further, the report states: Assistance to the States for salinity control projects in the Murray Valley should preferably be an integral component of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with salinity problems on a valley-wide basis, including river regulation procedures and incentives to irrigators to improve irrigation practices and hence reduce the buildup of salinity. The previous Government's schemes in no way applied to that problem. The problem with the report is that it does not address the constitutional limitations and the institutional barriers in the way of such important recommendations. Many of the problems in water resource management arise because of the fragmentation of water management both within and between the States. There is the additional limitation in that the Australian Government, the only government capable of protecting national rather than State interests, has less constitutional control over water resource development management than any other national government in the world. At a time when other national governments have been forced to take a greater involvement in water resource management issues, this presents a serious limitation for Australia and places responsible water management in jeopardy. This has been the case for the last 80 years. There is simply no point in defining national water issues and recommending corrective national action in sweeping terms if those actions can never be put into effect within the current water management regimes. Unfortunately, the ' Water 2000' report takes the existing regimes for granted. In spite of this failure, the comprehensive information compiled by the report and its consultants will ensure the importance of the report in water policy decisions. I accept that. The report also raises many important issues which, hopefully, will raise public debate on water issues. For example, advocates of smaller government and tax cuts should note an important observation in the report. Members of the National Party should also note it. It states: . . . future increases in water supplies will be achieved in many instances only at a significant increase in cost. At the same time many authorities are faced with the need to undertake expensive rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, in an environment of decreasing government subsidisation and increased competition for public funds. The combined effects of these factors can be expected to lead to significant increases in the real cost of water in some cities and towns. I thank the House for the opportunity to make these brief, pertinent and, I believe, constructive observations on a very voluminous, detailed and lengthy report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on the review of radioactive waste management-report No. 6-1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980, I present the third Australian Bicentennial Authority annual report 1982-83. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah ( Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The confusion in Australian foreign policy particularly as demonstrated by the crisis with ASEAN. 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 MACKELLAR(Warringah)(3.02) —This past week Australians have been observing a foreign policy of disarray. Serious questions which were raised by the Opposition in the proceedings of this Parliament as matters of public importance are now claiming public attention and concern. It is no longer possible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to treat the matter in some manner imitative of Paul Hogan-however much he admires the physical resemblance. It is no longer a matter to trivialise by a schoolboy psychology of poking fun. The facts are that for a number of weeks the Association of South East Asian Nations has been signalling the Australian Government to treat seriously its concerns about our policy towards the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. These concerns were triggered in the first instance by a clumsy exercise in diplomacy and by statements made in defence of that diplomacy. The crisis was not triggered by ASEAN but by the Foreign Minister. According to him, the policy has a validity, independent of his courtship of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. He tended almost to pretend that the faction did not exist, and if it did exist it did not have any suasion over his thinking. We all know that the stength of the faction is no longer to be denied. It runs the Victorian Branch, and it is so powerful there that the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, did not dare venture out of his closet to pass a view on the uranium issue, notwithstanding the fact that his branch wants to deny Australia an industry which will increase Australia's prosperity and create jobs for thousands. He and the left wing, it seems, would rather increase charges on the Victorian taxpayer than increase Consolidated Revenue. Members of the Victorian Left are not to be denied or ignored in national politics. Uranium is not the only thing they are interested in. Foreign policy is their chief concern, and even now they are busy capitalising on using their protest movement resources to attack the joint facilities at Pine Gap. Anti-Americanism is their stock-in-trade. Let us recall that even yesterday, with Dr Henry Kissinger present in this House, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) referred to Pine Gap as a United States spy station. Where does the honourable member come from? What branch ensures his pre-selection for this Parliament? The Victorian Branch is the socialist Left, so the problems piling up for the Government are not centred on the uranim issue only, but on all issues connected with those obvious relationships which reinforce the defence and security of this nation. But it was the leadership of the Government which launched Australia into the crisis with ASEAN. The Left could be pacified, it was apparently argued, by a strong thrust to bring Vietnam out of the cold. The arguments for doing this were specious enough. It would even, it was said, weaken the influence of the Soviet Union in the region. There can be no argument about the theory of the proposition. If we could produce a resistance to Soviet policies on Vietnam, we would weaken the position of the Soviet Union. But the job of the Australian Foreign Minister is to assess the realities and argue from that premise. The left wing leaders know the reality. They know that any leftward lurch to Vietnam will create divisions with ASEAN, and the isolation of ASEAN from Australia is a very desirable Soviet objective. It is a nice result, from their point of view, and for this situation to be triggered by an anti-Soviet line was a very small price to pay. The cost to Australia's reputation in the international community is now reaching unacceptable proportions. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), despite his obvious reluctance to do so, has had to intervene to restore the ASEAN situation . The Prime Minister should have acted much earlier. But the concern, according to the Melbourne Age, is now deeper than even the critics of the government had been led to expect. The Age newspaper, to its credit, has given its main lead story to ASEAN concerns. Under the headline 'ASEAN lashes out at Australia', the Age features a report from the meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers in Jakarta on Monday. The report is above the name of Australia's most distinguished correspondent in South East Asia, Mr Michael Richardson. Mr Richardson said that Australia's Foreign Minister has been accused of 'trying to bend over backwards to please Vietnam'. Mr Richardson was quoting Singapore's Foreign Minister, Mr Dhanabalan. Mr Dhanabalan, according to Mr Richardson, attributed the cause of the problem to recent statements by Australia's Foreign Minister. That is the significant point. Recent statements by Australia's Foreign Minister, according to Singapore , had caused serious doubts in ASEAN about the Australian Government's initiatives. The Singapore Foreign Minister said: Any role that Australia had as a facilitator has been greatly undermined because there is definitely some loss of confidence .. . . We are questioning what role Australia has to play. Asked what Australia could do to restore confidence, Mr Dhanabalan said: First, it is necessary for- Australia's- political leaders to make clear where they stand on Kampuchea in terms of rejecting the Vietnamese occupation and a clear indication that they would maintain political and diplomatic pressure to get Vietnam to change its policy. They- that is, the Vietnamese- must get the clear message that there is no erosion in the rejection of their action. This is very important because they are very optimistic the non- communist world hasn't got the stamina, hasn't got the patience to wear them out and that all they have to do is keep stonewalling and sooner or later we will give in. The kind of moves that have been signalled by Australia will confirm to them that they are right in their course. Mr Richardson in his report referred also to the failure of the Minister's statement to condemn the Vietnamese invasion and occupation. He also stated that ASEAN Ministers were upset by Australia's decision not to co-sponsor their resolution in the United Nations. Certainly, this switch in Australian action has been very unsettling. It is the first time since the Vietnamese occupied Kampuchea that Australia has failed to co-sponsor. It is useful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to compare this position with that of another ASEAN dialogue partner, the United States of America. The delegation spokesman for the United States at the United Nations was Congressman Solarz. As all would know, Congressman Solarz is a New Yorker with a reputation for supporting very liberal causes. He is by no means a shell-backed conservative. Congressman Solarz informed the General Assembly that the House of Representatives unanimously endorsed-note that; unanimously endorsed-the ASEAN resolution at the United Nations. He reported this fact to the United Nations in the following terms: As far as my own country is concerned, let me state that, although there are, under our democratic system of Government, inevitably differences from time to time between the executive branch and the Congress over key policy issues, on this issue both branches of Government are clearly united. Only three days ago, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution unanimously endorsing the resolution. Congressman Solarz stated that this resolution-the resolution from which we withdrew our co-sponsorship-provides the mechanism to address all Vietnam's fears. He said: It would produce a free and neutral Kampuchea, a threat to none of its neighbours, respecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Hanoi should accept this opportunity for a settlement. Ravaged by conflict, famine, genocide, and foreign oppression, Kampuchea's recovery will be a long-term and formidable task. The task to bring peace to Kampuchea, however, is potentially less formidable. It would also end Vietnam's international isolation. It is no good this Government allowing the argument from its Left wing that the ASEAN resolution and policy does not limit the proposal of Pol Pot to return to power. That is the argument that this Government and this Minister have consistently put to this House. As we have heard in the United Nations, the resolution creates the conditions for a non-aligned Kampuchea whose future would be determined not by Vietnam, not by Pol Pot, but by the Khmer people themselves . The truth is, and we all know it, that the reason Australia refused co- sponsorship lies more in the politics that motivate the Labor Party as it tries to accommodate the pressures from the Left than anything in the resolution. The fact that the resolution drew the unanimous support of the United States Congress may provide a good reason for the socialist Left to oppose our co- sponsorship. However an Australian government which finds itself in a situation in which its position contrasts so markedly with a unanimous United States Congress and Executive needs examination. The situation with ASEAN is now acknowledged by the Prime Minister as serious. But the Foreign Minister, who has been a central figure, will not be present in Bangkok when these matters are to be discussed with the objective of sorting out the differences. Why, having caused the problem that Australia now finds itself in, is he not there to play his part in repairing the damage that he has caused? Was it his decision not to go, or does the Prime Minister believe the presence of his Foreign Minister would only add to the problems? I believe that may be closer to the mark. The Prime Minister has important tasks in the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the Foreign Minister is not attending that meeting either. Does this mean that the Foreign Minister seeks to downplay the role of the Commonwealth in world affairs? That would be utterly consistent with his previous remarks in relation to the Commonwealth and the worth of the Commonwealth. It would certainly not be out of character for him to take a negative position on the Commonwealth. The Minister, in his speech in this House on the ASEAN issue, justified his stand by arguing that his position on ASEAN proceeded from his desire to make a contribution to the stability of the region. This is the whole point. We object to his position not on the ground that he is adding to stability but on the grounds that he is destabilising relations with ASEAN and in so doing he is enticing the Vietnamese to believe that their intransigence is paying off. I refer again to the concerns of ASEAN, that Vietnam may be inclined to work to the view that: The non-communist world hasn't got the stamina, hasn't got the patience to wear them out, and that all they have to do is to keep stonewalling and sooner or later we will give in. I think that the way the Government has gone about the task, the way it has allowed the relations with ASEAN to develop into a critical issue, is not encouraging the Vietnamese hardliners to change their stance. Let us hope that Australia will take full responsibility for the problems this Government has caused and get on with the job of working closely with ASEAN for the security of the region. Last week Cabinet made two important policy decisions. We all know about them. One was on uranium and one was on Grenada. It was clear that it would complicate Cabinet's task with the Left in Caucus if it gave a clear-cut lead on Grenada. When the issue of a Commonwealth role in Grenada came into public focus the Foreign Minister quashed the idea of Australian participation. The confusion in the handling of this matter led to a considerable confusion in the Department of Foreign Affairs and particularly in Australia's United Nations delegation. There is no need to dwell on this unhappy chapter in the administration of our foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the Government made no effort to put the technical facts of this matter to the Australian people. Sir Paul Scoon, the Governor-General of Grenada, emerges as a central figure. He is recognised by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth as the legitimate authority in Grenada. Sir Paul invited the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to intervene to drive out the assassins and the Cubans. How could such an action be recognised by Australia as anything but an act of self-defence? But this Government and this Minister gave no leadership on this matter of tremendous public importance. It contented itself with a statement of what it would not do. It is basically afraid to speak out on such issues, because if it does, Caucus will split down the middle. So what do we have? We have a paralysis in public leadership on foreign policy, and the toleration of attacks on our closest friends-ASEAN and the United States. The ASEAN crisis and the Grenada vote are not monuments to out national pride but how many more obstacles and debacles are in the pipeline given the record of this Government and particularly this Minister? That is an extremely worrying question not only for this House but for all Australians. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.16) —This matter of public importance, with some slight variation but effectively the same, has been before the Parliament several times. At least there is much more consistency in the speech of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). It does not seem to change; so there will not be much need for me to dwell on the contents of his speech. However, there are other matters which are related to this general topic which I want to raise. One or two points raised by the honourable member for Warringah do require some quick attention. There is a dominating confusion in his mind as to the distinction between co-sponsorship of the resolution put before the United Nations on the situation in Kampuchea and actual support for it. That was mainfestly clear in the way in which he sought to condemn this Government. For instance he stated that the United States of America supported the resolution. He then went on to outline the reasons why it supported the resolution. For the information of the honourable member this Government also supported the resolution. We like the United States, did not co-sponsor the resolution. This matter raised by the Opposition has come up several times. There is no dispute about it as I will make clear in a few minutes. Especially in the last several hours, a rather jagged, rough cutting edge has been introduced into public commentary on this issue. It has not been introduced by the Government. It has certainly not been introduced by me. I invite honourable members to address themselves to the record in recent months as this matter has developed. They will note that the provocative commentary has not come from the Government; it has largely come from outside this country. Again, it has been taken up in a predictable opportunistic way by the Opposition. It is not without its problems for a Government addressing itself to something that has attracted some sensitivity internationally because the robust style of exchange in debate in this Parliament goes beyond what generally takes place in international forums. However, I note for the record that the exchange which has come most recently from international forum, that of Mr Dhanabalan, the Foreign Minister for Singapore, certainly introduces all of the element of robustness to which we are used and more. I intend to address myself to that matter in a few ticks. However, the honourable member for Warringah sought to labour two points, as he has in the past. He does this in company with some of our friends of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I stress the word 'friends' in spite of our differences of the moment. They have referred either to our failure to co- sponsor the resolution on Kampuchea or our alleged failure to condemn the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. On the former, we believe that we had sound ground for not co-sponsoring and in our statement to the United Nations we alluded to it in terms which were developed after consultation with ASEAN partners. I stress that so that there is no misunderstanding as to the style of that statement. As a sovereign nation, if we make a determination as to a certain course of action being in the best interests of this nation or of objectives we are seeking to promote, no matter how modest they may be, we stand firmly by our right to make a decision on such matters. I want to come back to the general implications for foreign policy to be found in the statement of the honourable member for Warringah. To use the argument that if some other country does not like what we are doing and that is if it criticises and protests we have to change, implies some awesome consequences. The other matter he laboured was our alleged failure to condemn the occupation of Kampuchea by Vietnamese forces. That has been condemned by me to ASEAN partners at the post-ASEAN conference. It has been condemned in other public and private fora. It has been condemned by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and it was condemned again at the United Nations in a statement by Mr Woolcott, our representative there. That statement was authorised by me and delivered on 26 October of this year. In spite of all that evidence the Opposition and certain spokesmen in other parts of the world not too far distant continue to resort to the assertion that we failed to condemn the occupation of Vietnam. Additionally, they fail to recall, although we have mentioned it often enough, that the record shows that the occupation of Kampuchea has never been condemned at the United Nations by Foreign Ministers of the previous Government on any of the occasions when this matter came up. It was not condemned by the honourable member for Corangamite ( Mr Street) or the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) when they held the portfolio of Minister for Foreign Affairs. My statement was no less strong than the strongest of their statements, and much stronger than the general views which have been presented by them. Again, I suggest that the record speaks for itself. We have to look beyond these statements for their motivation, and I must say I find myself somewhat confused on this matter. Let me move on to statements which were attributed to Mr Dhanabalan in the Age of this morning. I shall not go over all of it. He declares four stipulations, and says that they are matters which will have to be addressed satisfactorily by the Prime Minister of Australia when he visits Bangkok in a little over a week's time. I find the statements extraordinary on two grounds: First of all Mr Dhanabalan, who is Singapore's Minister for Foreign Affairs, is declaring publicly the standards which will be required of the Thai Government, not of the Singaporean Government. He has taken it upon himself to state quite forcefully and with crystal clarity what the Thai Government should do. That is an extraordinary principle to introduce into foreign policy. The second matter is that he creates an intolerable set of conditions for the Prime Minister of Australia. He says: 'Here are four matters'. The Prime Minister of Australia will come to Bangkok and will be required to address himself to these questions and to give an explanation. It is quite clear from what Mr Dhanabalan says that if the explanation is satisfactory, the Prime Minister of Australia will be sent away with a merit badge to wear. That is fine, except that it is offensive. If the explanation is not satisfactory, he will be sent packing without his lunch, and that is even more offensive. Mr Dhanabalan has laid down conditions for the visit of the No. 1 government figure of this country, the elected leader of the Government-the Prime Minister. I find it quite extraordinary. I have never heard of such conditions ever before being stipulated in regard to relationships between countries anywhere, least of all between friendly ones. Therefore I say quite bluntly: I am not surprised to have received cables in the course of this morning covering views from some ASEAN sources expressing concern that this matter is getting out of hand, that it has gone too far. It is not getting out of hand because of me and it is not going too far because of me. I have acted with restraint. The comments have been coming from elsewhere. Let us look at the four examination questions which will be set for the Prime Minister. The first one is: An undertaking that Australia would give no aid to Vietnam unless it agreed to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea. With the greatest of respect, I find this extraordinary. Our attitude on aid for Vietnam is well known to all the ASEAN countries. I have explained it to them. I have discussed it with them. Aid has not been resumed. I have made it clear that were we to contemplate that-and we do not have that contemplation before us now and I do not see it in the near future, given other initiatives we have been seeking to promote-we would consult with them. Putting humanitarian aid to one side, and no one quibbles with that, I find it extraordinary that this quite overt pressure is being applied to the Australian Government to determine what its policies will be. This is regardless of what the Australian Government might conclude in the context of its domestic environment and how it sees the national interest being best promoted, to such things as stability in its region, international obligations and a whole range of things. I find it extraordinary that the ante has been lifted in this way. The next condition is: Continued Australian aid to displaced Kampucheans along the Thai-Kampuchea border and no development aid within Kampuchea itself, only humanitarian aid. May I have the indulgence of the honourable member for Warringah to have a table included in Hansard, otherwise I shall not have enough time? The table I am seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard shows that insofar as aid to Kampuchea and the border is concerned we are following the same policy that the last Government followed. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALAN AID TO CAMBODIA Total Thai/Cambodian Border Inside Cambodia 1982-83 $5.09m $2.42m for displaced Cambodians on border comprising $580,000 to ICRC, $1.8m to UNBRO, $37,000 to Catholic Relief, plus $1m for UNHCR holding camps $1.67m comprising $910,000 to UNHCR for Cambodian returnees, $762,000 to Australian NGOs 1983-84 $3.5m ($4m if UNHCR food aid approved) $500,000 to ICRC for displaced Cambodians on border. Under consideration-$500, 000 for high protein biscuits for UNHCR holding camps $3m comprising $1m to UNHCR for Cambodian returnees, $500,000 to Australian NGOs , $1.5m to UNICEF for health and water supply projects Note: All aid is of a humanitarian nature-no economic development assistance projects inside Cambodia are involved. But see attached material on the balance between border and internal aid. To date about 300,000 Cambodians have voluntarily returned to Cambodia, including about 13,000 so far this year with another 60,000 estimated to return in the remainder of the year, Australia's $1m to UNHCR for these returnees is to take the form of food-milk powder, rice, infant formula, soya beans, wheat flour high protein biscuits. Mr HAYDEN —I thank the House. The aid which we are making available is provided largely through international agencies, the exceptions being some of the non- government organisations. Let us make it crystal clear-we do not want any ambiguity about this-our conclusion is this: If aid is provided only at the border there will be an incentive for people in Kampuchea to move towards the border in large numbers. That will add to the pressures, the instability and to the level of tension and conflict there. Therefore it seems to me to make more sense to provide the sort of humanitarian aid which the last conservative government provided, which we are now providing, and to provide it also in Kampuchea. It escapes some people, not all of them in this country, that there is also the matter of common compassion and humanitarianism. We make no apologies for being influenced by those values. The third point made by Mr Dhanabalan calls for: A clear indication to Vietnam that unless it agreed to pull its forces out of Kampuchea it could not count on Australian sympathy. We made that clear. We are not squandering sympathy or spending it, not even austerely, on Vietnam. We have stipulated many times to Vietnam that our whole commitment is predicated on a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea. The fourth point calls for: An end to public ''denigration'' by Australia of the Kampuchean coalition Government linking the ousted Khmer Rouge regime and two non-communist groups . . . I will not read the rest. It is on the record. The comments which have been made by the Prime Minister, in the United Nations by our representatives there, by me and by spokesmen of the Australian Labor Party condemning Pol Pot are justified. I would not have made this next observation except for the provocation caused by this comment. We are justified in having reservations about the situation on the border in relation to the coalition forces. What is not known and has not been published before, as far as I am aware-it should be after this-is that the Khmer Rouge turns its guns on the Khmer People's National Liberation Front-the Son Sann forces-and not infrequently. A struggle for power is going on there. I know we are used to internecine brawling in the coalition forces of the Queensland Liberal-National Party. Metaphorically speaking, that can be pretty bloody, but this struggle is destructive and terminal. Why should our good friends in Singapore or elsewhere expect us to remain silent in the face of the provocation of their Foreign Minister in the statement which he consciously released last night? Why should we remain silent on the sort of information which is available to us? Let me quickly make a couple of other points. If it is accepted by the Opposition that criticism determines we should not be doing something, freezing in policy a change in policy, does this mean that, because the Malaysians do not like our policy on Antarctica and are taking a different line, we do not do anything? Again there is concern in the community that $90m of taxpayers' money is funding the education of Asian students who receive higher education. They are largely from South East Asia and many of them come from wealthy homes. The distribution of the tax burden in this country means that in many cases Australians who are poor are subsidising that education. Does this mean that if we want to review this situation and make some decisions we cannot do so if those decisions are criticised? We may not review it. I can see strong reasons for keeping it going. At the moment we want to know what we are funding. Does this mean that if for defence reasons-we have not addressed ourselves to this matter yet-we decided that more than the $1,000m invested in a squadron of FA18s should stay in Australia, we could not implement that decision if the Opposition said that someone else said that we should not? (Extension of time granted) I am grateful for the indulgence of the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). I am sure that he has reasons for proposing an extension of time. Least among them would be the intent to be helpful. In the conditions about which I am talking a situation has been developed which obviously is creating some stress. It should not have happened. I have sought to avoid it. Our initiative in this matter has been relatively modest. We have always acknowledged the difficulties of the task and almost overwhelmingly the likelihood of its failure. Until quite recently there appeared to be no problems about this. Our ASEAN friends certainly expressed some reservations about certain aspects of it. But all of a sudden, because we exercised our independent , sovereign right about co-sponsorship we found this reaction. Secondly, it is claimed quite falsely that we have failed to condemn the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. We have done so and the record shows it. These sorts of experiences are not novel. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) resigned from the Ministry on 28 April 1981. On that date he made a statement in the Parliament. He made a number of points as to why he resigned. One of the main points related to a matter not dissimilar to that which we are discussing. He said: I now give an account of events illustrating a pattern of the Prime Minister's conduct which contributed to my resignation. He then referred to the Government of Kampuchea. Referring to 10 September he went on: On that night the Prime Minister, despite his undertaking, issued, on Mr Lee's behalf, a Press statement dealing with the Kampuchean question. He then condemned that statement and said that it was a statement of Mr Lee's, circulated by the Prime Minister. He made it clear that that statement was designed to undermine him on the issue as to whether Australia continued to recognise the claims of the Pol Pot Government to a seat in the United Nations. That statement undermined him so seriously that it was the major cause for his resignation from the Ministry. When the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, now Leader of the Opposition, had problems in relation to that issue, we did not seek to make cheap political capital out of it. We realised how important that issue was to this country's national interest. Similarly, quite recently, the Leader of the National Party while in New Zealand was decent enough to acknowledge that we did not seek to take political opportunity at the expense of the former Government when it was having difficulties negotiating the agreement on closer economic relations. We did not because we recognised those difficulties. We recognised how a certain prominent figure, who was also extraordinarily robust in his expressions in New Zealand, sought to wrong-foot the Australian Government in the hope that the then Opposition would take advantage of it. We did not. I suggest that the conduct of this debate should proceed at perhaps a lower level of intensity in this Parliament because then the national interest could be served. I say a couple of final things. According to some newspaper comments this morning it is claimed that the Prime Minister did two things: Firstly, he instructed me not to issue an aide-memoir to ASEAN heads of mission represented in Canberra who were then called to the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is wrong. Secondly, it is claimed that I was asked to dilute the expressions which were in the guidelines for the discussion with those heads of mission. That, too , is wrong. The statement which was delivered orally to those heads of mission was very much in accord with the statement which the Prime Minister had seen. More than that, the Prime Minister declared that he was on all fours with me on this issue and backed me. I repeat that now- Mr MacKellar —When did he say that? Mr HAYDEN —Yesterday afternoon just before the ASEAN heads of mission went to the Foreign Affairs Department. Mr MacKellar —He did not say it in the Parliament. Mr HAYDEN —It is clearly on the record now and the Prime Minister will confirm it. I want to read from a statement, which I decided not to release yesterday, concerning that meeting. I decided to release it today because of the tactic which has been adopted, I think quite objectionably, by Mr Dhanabalan in his comments reported in the Press this morning. The statement, which is dated 9 November 1983, reads: In response to questions concerning a meeting on Tuesday 8 November 1983 between ASEAN Heads of Mission and the Secretary of my Department, Mr Peter Henderson, and the First Assistant Secretary, South East Asia and Pacific Division, Mr Gerry Nutter, the following is a summary of the points made at that meeting. Honourable members should bear in mind that the Prime Minister saw this summary and endorsed it. The statement continued: The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs spoke to ASEAN Heads of Mission on the afternoon of 8 November in response to reports following the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Jakarta from 6 to 7 November. He told the Heads of Mission that there were several implications in those reports which, if correct, were not acceptable to the Australian Government. He referred to the continuing criticism from ASEAN countries that in his UNGA General Debate statement Mr Hayden failed to mention Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. He reminded the ASEAN Heads of Mission that General Debate statements by previous Australian Foreign Ministers had also not made this reference and that the Australian position on the Vietnamese invasion had been made clear on many occasions, including when Mr Hayden met ASEAN Foreign Ministers in July 1983 in Bangkok. The Secretary told the Heads of Mission that continued ASEAN criticism of Australia's Cambodia policy was not likely to result in any change of that policy, particularly in relation to Australia's attitude towards the Khmers Rouges. The Secretary also said that the implications in the reports that an explanation of Australia's foreign policy would be demanded of the Australian Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to Bangkok was not conducive to establishing a good atmosphere for the visit which was, after all, designed to promote the bilateral relationship between Australia and Thailand. I implore-I expect totally unproductively; but nonetheless I implore-the Opposition to bear in mind the implications of the opportunistic exercises that it undertakes in this Parliament. It is not serving the national interests of this country. It is seeking to disadvantage this country by playing up statements which have come from elsewhere; statements which do not have the united support of all the ASEAN partners, at least according to the cable traffic that I have seen today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable Minister's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(3.38) —We have just heard an extraordinary speech from the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which can serve only to deepen the Association of South East Asian Nations crisis which, because of his handling of it, is already far too deep. For example, we read in the Age this morning: . . . the Federal Government last night was unusually sensitive about a meeting -- the Foreign Minister has just described this meeting- between the head of Foreign Affairs . . . and the ASEAN ambassadors . . . Yet, at the same time, in the Sydney edition of today's Sydney Morning Herald- the report was confirmed by the Foreign Minister a few minutes ago-we see that the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs yesterday called in the five ASEAN ambassadors and told them that their comments on Australian foreign policy were 'not acceptable'; that they would get no further explanation of Australian policy; and, in effect, he rebuked them. This is an extraordinary state of affairs, created, of course, by the Foreign Minister. What is supposed to justify this reported rebuke? This is the position: The Foreign Minister, obviously not looking to Australia's interests but to the interests of his own Caucus, has radically changed established foreign policy. He has, of course, an Australian Labor Party policy which is pro-Vietnam, which does not condemn Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia and which, in effect, condones it by wanting to resume aid to Vietnam. To follow this policy entirely would be much too much for the Australian people. So instead of dealing in aid, the Foreign Minister wants to give Vietnam moral support. He made a speech at the United Nations in which he discussed the Cambodian situation without mentioning the Soviet-backed Vietnam conquest of the country. That is quite a victory for Vietnam and an insult to ASEAN. Then he ordered Australia to withdraw from co- sponsorship of the ASEAN-United Nations resolution on the settlement of Cambodia although a record number of countries co-sponsored it. That is another victory for Vietnam and another insult to ASEAN. We get no explanation from the Minister , other than that there has been some changes in the resolution. At least that is what he told the House on 11 October. He repeated it today. On neither occasion did he explain it. Let us look at the changes. There are three changes between the 1982 and 1983 resolutions. The 1983 resolution adds a reference in the preamble to the renewed attack on civilians by those forces-referring to the foreign forces-in violation of humanitarian principles. If that is one of the reasons why we could not co- sponsor the resolution this year, that is an extraordinary state of affairs. Surely the Foreign Minister does not deny the attacks in January and April and other attacks on civilian encampments on the Thai-Cambodian border. That is one of the changes. Can it seriously be assumed that that justifies a withdrawal from co-sponsorship? I do not believe that it can. The second change is a reference to reported demographic changes being imposed in Kampuchea by foreign occupation forces. Surely the Foreign Minister does not deny a large scale, officially sponsored Vietnam immigration into Cambodia. There are disagreements about the scale and the size. That it is large scale, that it is officially sponsored and that it amounts to a demographic change cannot possibly be denied. So can this justify our withdrawal from co- sponsorship? We are told that these changes do justify it. The third change is that the 1983 resolution refers to an increasing effectiveness of the anti-Vietnam coalition. Can the Foreign Minister deny that? Can he deny the reports of the demoralisation of the puppet army in Kampuchea and the general increasing resistance to the occupation? I refer briefly to the statement made a few weeks ago by John C. Monjo, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. I will quote two paragraphs to make my point. They state: The Heng Samrin regime's own army is weak and inneffective. Widespread conscription has brought its strength to 20-30,000 men but morale is low and desertion a widespread problem. Even the main force units are considered unreliable by the Vietnamese while some local militia are apparently suspected by the Vietnamese of collaborating with the resistance. The Vietnamese, however, have been unable to eliminate the resistance threat and face the prospect of protracted conflict. There are many other sources that we can rely on. That is the third change between last year's resolution and this year's. It is on the basis of those changes, and only on the basis of those changes, which are all sound changes or at least extremely defensible changes, that Australia withdrew from co- sponsorship. That is the only justification the Minister has given for withdrawing from co-sponsorship, which is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs and one on which the ASEAN countries could not place any credibility. This is all against a background of years of patient and careful diplomacy, including conciliatory offers to talk with Hanoi by the ASEAN powers aimed at refusing recognition of the puppet regime in Cambodia, in bringing about a withdrawal of foreign troops and at self-determination in Cambodia. Australia now, under the new policy, has gone as far as it can without actually giving Vietnam full support. It will not condemn the occupation in the most appropriate forum, the United Nations General Assembly. It will not co-sponsor the ASEAN-United Nations resolution. It attempts to undermine the ASEAN stand. For what? For Australia's national interests? Of course not. To use one of the Foreign Minister's own metaphors, it rolls over like a poodle waiting to be scratched on the belly every time Vietnam clicks its fingers. This is presumably to appease the left wing of the Labor Party. Is it any surprise that Malaysia's Foreign Minister walked out of our Foreign Minister's United Nations speech? The Foreign Minister told the House that the Malaysian Foreign Minister had to go to lunch. Our Foreign Minister was apparently satisfied with that explanation. If he believes that, he will believe anything. No wonder the Malaysian Foreign Minister walked out. This is how the Australian Foreign Minister described the Cambodian situation: We are naturally concerned that a stalemate continues over the Cambodian question. This perpetuates a situation of instability between the countries of Indo-China and neighbouring countries, in which the immediate victims are the Cambodian people themselves. What fine impartiality. There is 'a stalemate' in which, by strong implication, both sides-Vietnam and ASEAN-are to blame equally for the instability between the countries of Indo-China and neighbouring countries. There is no statement of Vietnamese conquest, not a word about Vietnam's basic responsibility to the whole situation. Even worse, the Foreign Minister went on: We do not support any approach based on a continuation of the present military activity. This obviously implies a criticism of ASEAN for supporting armed resistance to Vietnam's occupation. In my view it is one of the most deplorable speeches ever given by any Australian Foreign Minister. No wonder the Malaysian Foreign Minister said that the Australian Foreign Minister could not have done a better job of antagonising others and losing friends. No wonder ASEAN cancelled last month's annual ASEAN-Australian talks or deferred them indefinitely. No sooner had the dust begun to settle on this matter than the Foreign Minister announced a major change of policy in refusing to co-sponsor ASEAN's Kampuchean resolution. No wonder Singapore's Foreign Minister made the serious statements on Monday-they have been mentioned in this debate-that Australia was bending over backwards to please Vietnam, that Australia was signalling that it lacked the stamina to sustain an anti-Vietnam position, that the Australian Foreign Minister had taken the pro-Vietnam view that the anti-Vietnam coalition in Kampuchea was a wasting asset. Singapore's Foreign Minister said simply: 'We are trying to work at something which can offer the people of Kampuchea a non- communist alternative. One would have thought that if others did not have a better idea they would at least support us'. After all these Australian provocations-I believe that that is not too strong a word-the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs is reported to have called in the ASEAN ambassadors and told them that their criticism of Australia's egregious policies was 'not acceptable'. They are acceptable to many Australians, probably to most Australians who writhe with embarrassment at the way in which the Australian Foreign Minister is conducting his foreign policy. Last week it seemed that the fiasco of Australia's vote supporting Nicaragua against the United States because the Foreign Minister could not send clear voting instructions was the symbol of Australia's new foreign policy. Now the paradigm of Labor's policy is the tragic undermining of Australia's relations with ASEAN, all to please a detestable regime in Hanoi and to appease the lunatic Left of his own Party. Mr MORRISON(St George)(3.48) —There appears to be a fashion developing in this House to quote ex cathedra statements emanating from Singapore. With the indulgence of the House, I will add to the passing parade of those quotations. I will quote what Mr Rajaratnam had to say on the Australian action. He stated that Australia's actions: . . . will certainly damage the foreign-policy interests of Australia, seriously question its credentials as a reliable ally of those who have taken up the Soviet challenge in South East Asia and bring comfort to the Vietnamese. That statement was made in May 1981, in response to the previous Government's decision to derecognise the democratic Kampuchean regime. If honourable members want another quotation, it is in these terms: . . . the Philippines Foreign Minister described Australia as being ' recalcitrant' on the issue, and reservations were also reported to have been expressed by the US and Chinese officials. That statement was made in June 1981. This is the second occasion within the week that I have spoken in similar vein. I made an observation in the defence debate and pleaded with this House on behalf of the Australian national interest to prevent-- Mr MacKellar —What do you think we are raising? Mr MORRISON —Just wait for it-to prevent petty political point scoring on a subject on which there has been and there still is, if the Opposition is prepared to be honest, complete bipartisan support. The Australian position today has developed directly and logically from a decision made by the Opposition when it was in government, and that decision was a correct decision. It was a decision that the Australian Labor Party, then on this side of the House in opposition, supported. We did not quote Rajaratnam or Dhanabalan or anybody else in the Association of South East Asian Nations because they were making the same comments that they are now making about the Opposition. But we believe that there was a purpose in maintaining a common Australia united front. I only ask honourable members opposite to give away the petty point scoring that they are indulging in and think primarily of an Australian national interest. There are very strong differences of opinion between the countries of ASEAN and within the countries of ASEAN on these matters and there are differences of opinion in Australia. Mr MacKellar —We will agree with you if you are right. Mr MORRISON —We happen to be right and I applaud the honourable member for finally saying that we are right. The Opposition has now agreed that we are right and I accept that point. The point that we must keep in mind is that there is a logical-and I challenge the Opposition to say that this is not so-and consequential development of our policy. The present Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) made a very famous speech. This matter comes down to the question of Pol Pot and the question of the coalition. In a rather dramatic speech on 28 April 1981 he stated: On principle- that is strange for members of the Opposition, but I will accept it- I could not remain part of a government committed to recognition of the Pol Pot regime. After the Cabinet meeting I called on the Prime Minister and resigned. I told him that I resigned because I could not sustain a credible foreign policy for this country while we continued recognition of this regime. That point was accepted. When the previous Government voted on this issue in the United Nations, I remember publicly commending in this House the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), for the decision that was made by the then Government. I pointed out that I was aware of the pressures that had been exerted by the United States. I was aware of the pressures that had been exerted by China and the pressures that had been exerted by ASEAN in making that decision. But that decision was made. It was supported by the Labor Party and we did not seek to point-score because of the statements emanating from that very same source, Singapore, about the position of Pol Pot. In that statement of 28 April 1981-and it is ironic that Singapore keeps being brought out in this debate-the present Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the Prime Minister had issued on behalf of Mr Lee, the Prime Minister of Singapore, a Press statement dealing with the Kampuchean question which was selectively quoted to do damage to the present Leader of the Opposition. So we have had a continuity of policy. I again make the plea that we consider the Australian national interest. I submit that on the question of Pol Pot and the influence of Pol Pot there is no difference in the Australian political party scene. There has been a continuity of concern about the proposition. There has also been the continuity of criticism emanating particularly from Singapore. The Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) referred to the very extraordinary presentation by the Singapore Foreign Minister, setting out a guideline to Australian foreign policy. I do not mind people making observations about Australian foreign policy. But as an Australian, I believe it is Australia that decides what its foreign policy will be and we do not need the obiter dicta of people such as Mr Dhanabalan in making these observations. He wants us to end public denigration by Australia of the Kampuchean coalition. Let me say very clearly that it hardly constitutes a coalition. There are three groups and they make very strange and uncomfortable bedfellows. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out, they spend a lot of time realistically sniping at each other. I had the pleasure of meeting Sihanouk many years ago. He is a mercurial character and is always on the point of, or having just returned from, resigning from something or other. He is always on the verge of withdrawing. In the unlikely event that the coalition did succeed-I make this point very clearly because I challenge the Opposition to contest it-the Pol Pot section of that coalition would reassert itself. I had a discussion yesterday with an eminent American. The eminent American's observation was: 'Yes, this coalition is good stuff for propaganda purposes, but God forbid that they ever succeed, because then Pol Pot would reassert himself in any future government that may come about in Kampuchea'. I am not questioning this. I want to refer to some very eminent people. This is an eminent statement by a very eminent Australian: I put the view very strongly that if international support is wanted for the coalition, it is going to be much easier to obtain if the figure of Pol Pot is not part of it. That was a statement made by former Prime Minister Fraser after discussions in China. This is another observation by another eminent Australian: I think it's too early yet to make any judgement on the coalition, how it will work, whether it will work. But a settlement in Cambodia must involve a return of sovereignty to the Cambodian people over their own country . . . The Cambodians don't want the Khmer Rouge back, they don't want a government imposed on them. That statement was made by the honourable member for Corangamite. I accept those propositions and I always have. I have never disputed them in this House. In fact, we have supported those propositions. The official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia-I will read it quickly- refers to discussions we had with representatives of the Indonesian Foreign Office. It states: ASEAN would like to exclude Pol Pot from any solution but China will not agree. Peace in Southeast Asia will not be achieved until there is peace between China and Vietnam. China should realise that it does not belong to the Southeast Asian region and should not attempt to interfere in Southeast Asian affairs. Those views came from ASEAN. Again, I make the plea that the Opposition should not try to denigrate Australia in the propositions that honourable members opposite have put forward over the last few weeks. There is an Australian national interest. There is Australian bipartisan support for our fundamental position in relation to Pol Pot and a future resolution of the conflict in Kampuchea. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allocated for discussion of this matter of public importance has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —I present the 210th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WHITE —The 210th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report (No. 199) on financial statements for Commonwealth undertakings. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 199th report, a discussion paper on the form and standard of financial statements for Commonwealth undertakings, was tabled in Parliament on 28 October 1982. The 199th report contrasted public sector and private sector reporting and canvassed contemporary views of financial reporting by public sector bodies. In evaluating the private sector the Committee was concerned only with its relevance to the public sector; it made no judgments on the adequacy of the process or standards for the private sector itself. Public Accounts Committee The report covers a wide range of accounting and financial reporting issues dealing both with practical steps which may be implemented in the short term to improve the quality of financial statements and with the direction research in Government accounting should take in the longer term. The Committee is generally satisfied with the Department of Finance response to report No. 199 and is pleased to note continuing widespread discussion and critical analysis of the issues surrounding the development and content of accounting standards for the public sector. A major step in implementing the Committee's findings was taken on 16 May 1983 when the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) issued guidelines which are intended to be adopted by Commonwealth undertakings which have their financial statements approved by the Minister for Finance. Earlier, in November 1982, guidelines were issues for annual reports of Departments and authorities. While the Committee welcomes the issuing of guidelines it wishes to stress that such guidelines are only the initial step in the process of improving published financial information on Commonwealth undertakings. The following three recent developments are of interest to the Committee: 1. The announcement on 1 September 1983 by the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities that an Accounting Standards Review Board will be established and operate from 1 January 1984. 2. The announcement during September 1983 by the Australian accounting profession that it has established a Public Sector Accounting Standards Board; and 3. The recommendation of the New South Wales Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee that a New South Wales Annual Reports Act be introduced to specify the reporting and accounting requirements for New South Wales Statutory Authorities. The Committee commends the initiative of the Australian accounting profession establishing the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board and expresses the hope that the Board's responsibility and powers of enforcement are in accordance with the theme of the 199th report's recommendations. The Committee will be monitoring the activities of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board in so far as they relate to Commonwealth administration. The Committee wishes to be accorded observer status at all meetings of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. As previously stated, the Committee is generally satisfied with the responses to its 199th report given that it is a discussion paper. The Committee is concerned that those responses in the Finance Minute calling for further research not go unnoticed and that appropriate resources be made available for the undertaking of such research. The Committee requests that the Minister for Finance report to the Committee, on or before 31 October 1984, on the progress made in researching those matters noted in his Department's response. I commend the report to honourable members. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters)(4. 04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This legislation represents a further step by this Government towards the implementation of its industrial relations platform and is in accordance with the Statement of Accord reached between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions prior to the Government being formed. It introduces a range of measures aimed at improving the framework of industrial relations in Australia. At the same time the Bill incorporates significant elements of the industrial relations legislation that were introduced in 1982 by the previous Government, and which we supported, but which had not been passed by the time of the dissolution of Parliament at the beginning of this year. I refer in particular to the proposals in this Bill for greater co-ordination between Commonwealth and State industrial systems, the incorporation of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and changes to certain administrative arrangements under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Honourable members will be aware that an essential principle of this Government 's approach to industrial relations is to create a climate whereby any changes that are put forward by the Government affecting the industrial relations framework should first be fully examined by the parties through the National Labour Consultative Council. Accordingly, the provisions of this legislation have been the subject of extensive discussion and examination by the parties through the NLCC; in some cases these discussions have been going on for several years. Apart from an aspect that I will mention later, the legislation has the full support of the NLCC. When I announced the establishment of the Review of Australia's Industrial Relations system in July, I explained that this decision would not preclude the Government from introducing changes that it considered essential in the short term to overcome aspects of the current arrangements which were seen as deficient or which impeded the day-to-day effectiveness of the system. By its nature this legislation is designed to do just that. I should point out to honourable members that the NLCC considers, with one exception, that all of the matters covered in this legislation should be implemented forthwith by the Government, and should not be delayed until the report of the Review is available in 1985. The Bill consists of the following elements. First, it provides for improved co -ordination in the work of the Commonwealth and State industrial tribunals through the re-introduction, in identical terms, of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill 1982. Second, it re-introduces, with certain amendments, provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 relating to term of office, common rules, and casual vacancies. Third, it repeals the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 and transfers the jurisdiction under that Act to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is based on the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Government Service) Amendment Bill 1982. Fourth, it gives effect to proposals that have been agreed by NLCC in recent years but which had not been acted upon by the previous Government. These proposals concern: Changes to the accounting and financial reporting provisions contained in Part VIIIAA of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which were agreed by NLCC in 1982 ; and amendments to the Act to enable certain persons to become or remain members of federally registered employee organisations. Fifth, the legislation gives effect to some proposals that have been extensively discussed by NLCC this year. These proposals concern: Changes to the presentation and publication of accounts and related statements by organisations; amendments to the disqualification from office provisions and to the loans, grants and donations provisions of the Act; petitioning procedures to be followed in seeking officially conducted elections ; and clarification of the rule amending powers of committees of management. Finally, there are several technical amendments which are introduced to overcome certain deficiencies and anomalies that have been identified in various administrative arrangements. I now turn to examine the amendments in greater detail. The amendments designed to achieve a greater co-ordination between the Commonwealth and State industrial systems are based on recommendations put forward by a Commonwealth-State working party. The previous Government introduced legislation last year to give effect to these recommendations. The changes introduced are in identical terms to those contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill 1982. They provide for: Joint sittings by single members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a State Tribunal; expansion of the powers of local industrial boards-when constituted by a State industrial authority-to permit them to exercise federal conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction; and the exercise, by agreement, of State jurisdiction by members of the Australian Commission. In the past attempts to resolve some industrial disputes have been impeded because they have involved both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. These changes are designed to remove some of the inflexibilities in the present systems so that tribunals concerned might come together to resolve them or authorise a member of one of the jurisdictions to deal with the matter. This issue was addressed at the National Economic Summit Conference when I endorsed the views of other participants on the need for complementary industrial relations legislation as part of our overall prices and incomes strategy. The Government considers these amendments to be a significant first step in moving towards even greater co-ordination and this issue will of course be one of the major areas to be looked at by the review of Australia's industrial relations system. In May of this year I advised Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for labour that the Government proposed to reintroduce this legislation. State Ministers also agreed at that meeting to proceed with similar legislation. Already Queensland and New South Wales have enacted, but have not yet proclaimed, legislation to give effect to the proposals. I am confident that each of the other States will proceed as soon as practicable to introduce similar legislation to complement and give effect to the proposals contained in this Bill. I now turn to consider the proposals for extension of term of office. Under the Act the rules of organisations cannot permit a person to be elected to hold office for a period exceeding four years without being re-elected. This can create difficulties where an officer's term of office is to expire shortly before his proposed date of retirement. Such an officer must either stand for re -election, and serve only part of a term, or retire earlier than intended. The Government believes that organisations should be able to have rules enabling the holder of a full time office, who is due to retire within a period of 12 months after the expiration of the period for which he is elected, to remain in office, if desired, until retirement. Clause 24 gives effect to this proposal. It is in identical terms to that contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982. I refer next to the provisions under the Act concerning common rules. The Act provides that the Commission may declare any award or part of an award to be a common rule within a Territory. Once such a common rule is made all the employees and employers in the industry covered by the award in that Territory are automatically bound by the award. The existing provisions for varying such common rules are cumbersome and often result in long delays in passing on to employees the benefit of the award variations involved. In 1981, following representations from the President of the Commission, NLCC agreed to amendments to simplify the existing procedures in relation to common rule variation. Provisions contained in the lapsed Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 were designed to reflect NLCC's recommendation. However, for reasons of a technical nature, those provisions did not exactly conform with the proposal agreed by NLCC. The relevant provisions of the1982 Bill are reintroduced with the necessary changes to reflect NLCC's recommendations. Clause 12 thus provides that where the Commission varies a term of an award that is a common rule the variation, once agreed to by the Commission, will operate automatically as a common rule and, after a 28 day period for objections, the variation will be enforceable except against those who successfully object. Another amendment concerns casual vacancies. The Government also considers that the provisions of the Act concerning casual vacancies should be amended to overcome practical difficulties that have been experienced by organisations under the current arrangements. The Act requires the rules of organisations to provide for the election of office holders by either a direct voting system or a defined form of collegiate electoral system. There are no statutory provisions for the filling of casual vacancies in elected positions. Following consideration of the question of casual vacancies by the NLCC in 1981 , the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 contained a proposed amendment to enable the rules of an organisation to provide for the filling of a casual vacancy provided that the unexpired period of office was not more than 12 months. At meetings of NLCC this year, both the ACTU and the Confederation of Australian Industry strongly urged that the 1982 legislative proposals be changed to permit the filling of casual vacancies by appointment for up to three years. The Government considered that the proposal went too far. On the other hand the provisions of the 1982 Bill were, in the Government's view, too restrictive and did not go far enough to overcome the inconvenience and cost currently incurred by organisations in having to hold special elections. The Government believes it is necessary to achieve an acceptable balance between the need to prevent undue inconvenience and cost for organisations and the need to maintain the principle of democratic control by members and prevent the possibility of abuse and manipulation of the electoral system. The changes introduced by clause 25 provide that the rules of organisations reflect those considerations. The rules may provide for the filling of casual vacancies in elected positions in two circumstances: Firstly, where the term of office is for up to 12 months, then until the expiration of the term; and, secondly, where the term of office is longer than 12 months, for up to three quarters of that term or until the next regular election for the filling of that office, whichever comes first. Where a vacancy is so filled in a collegiate electoral system the person shall be deemed to have been elected to the office for the purposes of participating in a further collegiate election. The effect of this amendment will be to provide the necessary degree of flexibility to organisations in filling casual vacancies whilst at the same time reducing the possibility of abuse or manipulation. Both the ACTU and CAI have indicated their support for this amendment. I now turn to those provisions of the Bill which repeal the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 and vest the jurisdiction under that Act in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Apart from certain changes which I will outline below, this legislation incorporates the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Government Service) Amendment Bill 1982. The legislation gives effect to recommendations of the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. It reflects the principles of integration that were first agreed by the NLCC in 1977. Since the Public Service Arbitration Act was enacted in 1920 to deal with unique features of Commonwealth Public Service employment, the Public Service Arbitrator's functions have changed considerably and jurisdiction has merged to a significant degree with that of the Commission. Some of the most notable changes in that direction have been provision for appeals and reference to the Commission in 1952, transfer of hearing of some claims to the Commission in 1956, dispute notification and settling procedures in 1972 and the filling of the positions of Arbitrator and Deputy Arbitrator by members of the Commission. What is proposed is a natural progression from these developments and will mean that all major employment areas covered by Federal awards will now be regulated by the national tribunal. There are two substantive changes to the provisions of the 1982 Bill. These changes have the full support of the ACTU, the CAI and the Public Service staff associations. The first change is intended to restore the full scope of the jurisdiction of the tribunal that applied prior to the amendments by the previous Government to the Public Service Arbitration Act in 1978. As a result of this change the Commission will not be constrained from considering matters involving the selection of persons for appointment, re-appointment, employment or promotion in the Public Service. The Government has also decided that it would not be appropriate to restrict the scope of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to orders that it may make in the manner proposed in the legislation introduced by the previous Government. Consequently the Bill does not include the detailed provisions concerning the types of orders that may be made by the Commission and the provisions concerning the consequences for employees of being stood down that were contained in the 1982 Bill. The Government is advised that this change in no way restricts the ability of public employers to gain stand-down or no work as directed no pay orders. Public sector employers will still be able to apply to the Commission for such orders in the same way that private sector employers are. This is consistent with the Government's general approach, fully supported by the NLCC, that the position of the Commission in relation to public and private sector employment should as far as possible be the same. Four other amendments of a minor nature are proposed to the provisions of the 1982 Government Service Bill to remedy technical deficiencies. The Government has also decided to amend the Act to clarify the position regarding membership of federally registered organisations. Once again I should stress that the two amendments relating to this area introduced by the Bill have the full support of the NLCC and were in fact recommendations by that body in 1982. The first amendment, in clause 22, is to take account of amendments in 1979 to the provisions of the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 related to membership of State registered unions in New South Wales. In conformity with the intention of section 132 (4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the amendment proposed will allow persons able to join a New South Wales State registered union, which is a branch of a Federal union, to become members of that Federal union. The second amendment validates the membership of those who were validly enrolled as members of a Federal union before amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1977 made them ineligible to remain members of Federal organisations. The 1977 amendments aligned more closely the eligibility for membership of State and Federal organisations. The amendment proposed requires that such persons should have had continuous membership of the Federal organisation immediately before and subsequent to the coming into operation of the 1977 Act. I now turn to the amendments proposed to Part VIIIAA of the Act. This part of the legislation which deals with accounts and audit in respect of registered organisations came into operation at the end of December 1980. The then Government, the ACTU and the employers agreed that its operation be monitored so that any problems could be rectified. The NLCC has identified a number of these problems and the Government has accepted the recommendations for change. The first group of proposals is designed to introduce some flexibility into the requirements of Part VIIIAA concerning presentation and publication of accounts. The amendments do not affect the basic obligations of organisations and rights of members concerned in relation to the supply, presentation and filing of accounts, statements and auditors' reports. At present an organisation is required under existing arrangements to supply or publish free of charge to each of its members copies of that organisation's accounts, auditors statements and accompanying statement in full. This has imposed considerable cost burdens on organisations; at the same time there is little evidence to suggest that members have derived significant benefits from the provision of such material in this form. The requirements of presentation are not structured to inform a person without some familiarity in accountancy. The Government accepts the recommendation of the NLCC that a more practical and effective arrangement for all concerned would be to give organisations an option to supply summaries of the accounts, reports and statements to their members. Under the amendments to these requirements, in clause 33, such summaries will be regarded as fulfilling the obligations of organisations under the Act in those cases where: the summary is accompanied by a notice indicating that members could obtain, free of charge, the full set of accounts, reports and statements of the organisation on request; the auditor duly certifies that the summary represented a true and fair summary of the accounts, reports and statements of the organisation; such a summary sets out in full any qualification on the accounts made by the auditor; and copies are filed with the Registrar. At present where an organisation is divided into branches, the branches are treated as separate units for the purposes of the financial reporting requirements of Part VIIIAA of the Act. Thus, even in those cases where the Federal body of an organisation under its rules exercises effective control over the financial management of the whole of the organisation, the branches are nevertheless required to present and file separate accounts. The Government has accepted an NLCC recommendation that these requirements are too rigid and impose unnecessary burdens on organisations. The amendments contained in clause 29 are designed to take into account the existence of a number of employer and employee organisations that operate, in financial management terms, at the Federal level. The Bill provides that the Registrar may upon application issue a certificate to an organisation if he is satisfied that the committee of management of the organisation has by the rules or by practice the right of custody, control or management of assets of the organisation, including assets of the branches. Where a certificate is issued the organisation will be able to comply with the provisions of Part VIIIAA of the Act by consolidating the accounts for the organisation. The amendments proposed do not affect the rights of members under Part VIIIAA. The NLCC is currently developing the details of proposals which would allow organisations with less centralised control of branch assets to consolidate accounts for the purposes of Part VIIIAA if they so elect. Under these proposals branches would retain autonomy and members would be able to obtain details of branch accounts and reports, et cetera on request. I hope to be in the position of introducing amendments to give effect to that proposal in the 1984 autumn sittings. The Bill also gives effect to essentially technical amendments designed to overcome practical difficulties in the operation of Part VIIIAA identified by the NLCC. These deal with various statutory time limits for presentation of accounts, the appointment of competent auditors and their attendance at meetings , accounting on a cash basis for membership subscriptions, investigations by the Registrar of qualified accounts and procedures relating to the publication of the Federal organisation's accounts in branch journals. Both the ACTU and the CAI have strongly urged the Government to introduce all of these changes as soon as possible to overcome constraints which in their view are totally unnecessary. Another area of amendments relates to the disqualification from office provisions and the loans, grants and donations provisions passed by the Parliament last year. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Management of Organisations) Act 1982, which introduced those measures, was designed by the previous Government to give effect to recommendations made by the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction employees and Builders Labourers Federation. Those recommendations in summary suggested that the Government adopt in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the same sorts of provisions as in the uniform companies legislation to disqualify office holders and to prevent abuse of the making of loans, grants and donations by organisations. However, the 1982 Act went much further than the Winneke recommendations. For example, it provided for disqualification from holding office in a federally registered organisation where the person concerned had been convicted of crimes relating to damage of property and violence. The range of offences included was much broader than that applying under the companies legislation and had in most cases nothing whatsoever to do with the management of a registered organisation. The ACTU and the CAI have proposed that these provisions be referred to the tripartite review of industrial relations for consideration. However, proposals have been put to the Government by the ACTU and other interested parties for amendments to the disqualification provisions that should be implemented prior to the report of the review committee as an interim measure. While the Government considers that it is desirable that the provisions be examined by the review it does, nevertheless, recognise that the existing provisions might have the effect of debarring people from holding office because they have been convicted of relatively minor offences or of offences which are not directly connected with the person's fitness to hold office in an organisation; for example, a technical assault or a driving offence. Accordingly, clause 23 amends section 132F of the Act by reducing the range of offences set out in paragraph 132F (1) (B) so that the offences are confined to those relating to elections or ballots under the Act and by changing the basis of paragraph 132F (1) (D) so that the paragraph will refer only to convictions imposed for crimes associated with damage or violence intentionally committed for which a person serves a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, only criminal offences which the court regards as sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment will attract the disqualification provisions. The Government also believes that the loans, grants and donations provisions of the Act should be examined by the review. However, one practical difficulty has been identified by the NLCC which the Government considers warrants immediate attention. The problem with existing section 133B of the Act is that no loan, et cetera, of more than $1,000 can be made without the prior approval of the committee of management. In circumstances where a member or his dependents suffer sudden severe financial hardship, the committee of management may not be able to approve a payment out of distress funds in time to be of assistance to such a person. To overcome this situation, clause 26 provides that a person authorised under the rules of an organisation will be able to approve payment for such purposes up to $3,000, and the committee of management will be able to endorse the payment at its next meeting. This will only apply where the rules of the organisation so provide. Finally, clause 38 is designed to enable the making of regulations to prescribe a procedure for lodging petitions by members for officially conducted elections. This amendment is to overcome concerns that have been expressed to the Government that the existing procedures are open to abuse. Many of the changes proposed in this legislation are, as I explained at the outset, identical or similar to proposals that were introduced last year by the previous Government but which lapsed. These changes represent important improvements which are designed to meet the Government's overall objective of establishing a flexible and effective framework for the resolution of industrial disputes and for the regulation of the affairs of organisations to the extent that this is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. [COGNATE PAPERS: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM Report ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE Report] Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the motions to take note of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and the report of the inquiry into the disclosure of electoral expenditure. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker , that you permit the subject matter of the three orders of the day to be discussed in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.31) —The Australian Labor Party has often blamed the electoral system when it has failed to win Federal elections. This attitude was typical of the approach of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who, as an Opposition front bencher and then as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the person who set up the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, made frequent and often outrageous charges against the coalition parties. However, there has been an ironical twist to his position. A man who so falsely accused others of political corruption has been the victim of his own outrageous lack of standards in the conduct of his public responsibilities and has resigned his office. However, from here on there will be a new position from which the Labor Party must rationalise its next electoral defeat. Because the Government set up the Committee study, which it has, in the main, followed in drafting the amending legislation, in future it cannot cry foul. When the time comes it may have to admit that its philosophy of socialism and its elevation of the state to a higher level of importance than the individual is not supported by most Australians and is tolerated by them for only short periods when they are expressing discontent with the coalition administrations. In the broad sense the Opposition supports the objectives of this legislation and recognises the valuable work of the Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the honourable member for Prospect ( Dr Klugman). I do that now for his very able and successful leadership of the Committee, in welding it into a useful and productive group of representatives- as the Committee was-of disparate political party selection. However, the impressive tally of amendments to the electoral machinery now set out before us does not allow the Government to claim credit for the legislation as though it is ushering in some new era of political justice for Australia. The basic rules for elections have been honed through the years of past political debate and amendment and remain largely unaltered by this legislation. Single member electorates for the House of Representatives with a 10 per cent tolerance of quota; proportional representation for the election of the Senate; compulsory and preferential voting; distributions by fair electoral commissions; voting at 18 years of age; and an electoral Act built on the basis of facilitating electors' rights to vote are all in place now, before the passage of this Bill. The Government, in travelling its first electoral path on this issue, is really about the business of housekeeping the Electoral Act. The Act quite obviously, needs modernising and updating. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has claimed credit for the Government's move on this front. He has our support in this action, although the amendments to be moved on behalf of the Opposition will indicate that there are points of difference in a number of areas. The other path the Government is following is sharply ideological and we vehemently disagree with the amendments proposed in this direction. They point up the Government's view that it believes that it can help itself by altering the system. The most significant of these is the proposal to take taxpayers' money and pay it to political parties to fund their election campaigns. I can assure the Minister that this has very little public support. This fact was highlighted by the Morgan gallup poll which appeared in the Bulletin of 19 July this year and which showed that 56 per cent of the people of Australia were against public funding of political parties. I remind the Minister that the parallel Bill concerning the unwarranted move to increase the size of Parliament has an even lower measure of public support, with 76 per cent against the move. Incidentally , I am told that such a move will force an increase in the size of the new Parliament House before that structure is even finished. That contention is supported by a publication put out this week by the Institute of Public Affairs. I find it a peculiar system of governmental management that gets behind the construction of this new facility and, before it is finished, if this Bill is passed, additional plans have to be drawn to enlarge the scheme of things from what is now planned to be built. However, we will deal with the proposition of the prospective increase in the size of Parliament when the Bill proceeds through this House next week, and I leave that matter until then. There are several very undesirable factors about public funding. Firstly, it lowers public regard for political parties even further than its low level of today. When electors see more of what they consider to be stupid or, worse, deceitful election propaganda-who can blame them after the cynical election promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now littering the Caucus floor-they will be enraged to know that they will be paying for a substantial part of it. There is a further principle, however. It removes the necessity for a major policital party to attract monetary support by performance. The two major contending sides of politics have a recognisable base vote and they will get a substantial sum regardless of how they perform. It is nonsense for the Government to claim that the legislation will remove the possibility of corruption at the Federal level. Firstly, the Minister should admit that the Federal scene has been remarkably free of corruption. I have enough confidence in members from both sides of this Parliament to claim that none exists here today in the terms referred to in the Minister's second reading speech. The potential for real corruption exists at the level of political performance and centres on the question of whether Ministers will administer as they believe that they should or whether they will be diverted from that course by party or personal overriding interests. How would the world know the reasons behind the appointment of a Minister to a diplomatic post? How does the matter of public funding get to the core of any of these issues? I refer to this question also in the context of the Government's very expensive campaign to get unenrolled Australians to enrol and vote. I put to the Minister that their cynicism and apathy, to which he has referred on other occasions, will be increased and their political lethargy extended when they learn that the self-interested political parties are supported by taxpayers. It is probably a reflection of the socialist mind that the overlying intention of the legislation is, for the first time, really to entrench political parties into the electoral system. The inevitable corollary of so doing is that the individual, either as an elector or a candidate, is downgraded in authority and influence. This is not a desirable factor for the coalition parties, whose basic building block in the political structure is the individual. Nevertheless, it is automatic that Labor' s move into public funding and the list system of voting will bring about the official registration of political parties and those parties will begin to possess power and authority by the very nature of that registration. I remind the House that it is proposed that all public funding go to the parties. As far as the Government is concerned, the candidates-the electors' choice, the people on whom an election is centred-are totally reliant upon the good will of their party for any public funds. That is the sort of authoritarian view that suits Labor. It does not suit us, and we have an amendment to move at the appropriate time. The proposal that donations of over $200 to a candidate and $1,000 to a party must be disclosed is another self-interested move by the Australian Labor Party. In a very self-righteous fashion Labor supporters complain about donations from business interests to the coalition parties. They ignore the fact that Labor receives some very considerable donations from business. There are some highly amusing stories of company secretaries who inadvertently switched envelopes when donations were posted. To the astonishment of both parties in the case that I know of, the amounts were the same. Of course, Labor supporters conveniently forget the massive support that unions hand over to the Labor machine. Quite frankly, whilst I do not charge the Minister now responsible for this legislation with this intention, I believe a number of Labor supporters see an advantage for their Party in that unions will continue to give to the Labor Party while business will not do so because it fears union victimisation of its undertakings. Quite frankly, I believe there would be a number of potential donors to any or all political parties who will either fear such a possibility, whether on a personal or on a business level, or simply resent the intrusion into privacy which it represents and will not proceed with their support. It is on the basis of that disclosure that the individual's freedom is abrogated. It is a freedom which is greatly treasured and strongly preserved in other areas of government legislation. We oppose this part of the Bill for those reasons. The consequences are that parties will be continually more heavily dependent on the public purse as community support for them declines. I return to the list system of voting for the Senate which I previously mentioned in the context of the registration of political parties. We oppose that system because it militates against the effective use of preferences by individual voters and encourages electors in a simple, unquestioning fashion to accept the preferences put to them by the parties. While the choice will remain for the elector to go through the process of full preference selection, the simple tick in the box which can, in one stroke, accept the how to vote instructions of a party, will induce and entice many voters to that form of voting. That system may offer convenience but it will have undesirable effects. It will encourage parties to have friendly and dummy groups stand at Senate elections, simply to collect the preferences which those groups can direct through the list system, and it will introduce a form of voting other than by numbers which will lead to some confusion and more informal votes, especially in House of Representatives voting. We cannot expect to have ticks and crosses in the voting system for the Senate and numbers for the House of Representatives elections without some errors occurring through a transposition of voting methods. This will work against the reason which the Government used for proposing the list system in the very first place. The Government, in truth, overemphasises the loss of votes through informality. We support proper moves to reduce the incidence of informal votes, but a formal vote of 90 per cent for the Senate is something I view optimistically in the sense that it is a compliment to electors and is significantly representative of public opinion. I concur with efforts in this Bill aimed at raising the level of formality, but I do not concur with the use of the list system, which cannot be based on a democratic view and which will bring about further voting confusion. It needs to be said at this stage that the Bill represents a very complex piece of drafting which must have engaged counsel over many weeks of intricate work. The Opposition had no possibility of examining this Bill on a line by line basis in the time between its introduction last week and this debate today. That pleasure must await senators, who have a greater lead time before they vote on this measure. I have, however, developed a number of amendments which will be moved on behalf of the Opposition and which convey the views of the coalition arrived at after very careful study in the limited time available. I cannot pretend that every word of these amendments is as a parliamentary counsel would advise because it is a complex Bill, as I have said, and much of it contains clauses which are interdependent. I ask the Minister to accept these amendments at the proper time in the spirit in which they are offered with the knowledge that the Senate will have the opportunity to correct formal defects. I go further than that and ask the Minister to accept the amendments we offer because of the good sense that they make. However, I again stress the interdependence of many clauses and the complexity that that interdependence creates for the Opposition to express a view by amendments to appropriate clauses. Because of this I will move an amendment at the second reading stage, drawing together a number of Opposition concerns in a way which will clearly state our views, which may be difficult to convey at a later stage. Before I mention some of those amendments I shall turn to the Minister's second reading speech for a few of the contradictions in approach that one would expect to find. The Minister at the beginning of his speech worked up a reasonably strong criticism of undue privilege and mentioned property votes and rich cliques as part of the now superseded undesirable aspects of past influences. I agree, but the Minister did not go on to draw attention to the new political power in modern Australian society-the power of the politically motivated union whose fees are tax free, an organisation which can donate a proportion of those fees to the Labor Party and, more importantly, an organisation which can force social and economic decisions through political strikes. The Minister might like to contemplate the $50,000 tax free gift to the Labor campaign depicted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 February this year. In a wider sense he might also give some thought to the power those organisations have over Australian shipping , mining and building, to name but a few industries that are attacked by them. Further, the Minister in his speech deplored the previous use of dummy candidates in Senate elections in the context of promoting the list system of voting, which probably will lead to a wider use of dummy teams in future. The Minister stated: . . . worthy parties and candidates might not be able to afford the considerable sums necessary to make their policies known. He adopted this approach while naively excluding candidates from directly receiving public funds. I have already referred to these matters and I shall now turn to the amendments. I interpose at this stage to mention that my colleague the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has closely studied the question of bringing parliamentary representation of the Territories within the operation of the nexus. He will speak on this issue and will move amendments at the appropriate time. I commend to the House the speech which he will make in support of those amendments. I have examined the Bill and have drawn up, as I indicated, a number of amendments to bring to the attention of the Parliament the Opposition's views which differ from those presented in the Bill. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst approving the passage of this Bill to improve the efficiency of the electoral system, the House- (1) deplores those aspects of the legislation which attack individual freedoms, threaten the continuation of the preferential system of voting and introduce public funding, and (2) requests the Government to withdraw those clauses which require the registration of political parties, the introduction of the list system of voting , the public funding of political parties and the disclosure of political donations'. That overall approach at the second reading stage relates particularly to clause 42 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which sets out to implement the registration of political parties. We oppose this quite vehemently on the basis that it will increase the muscle of organisations in the political process at the expense and standing of individuals in the community. The very nature of that registration creates an undue power of parties and an undue power of government and the existing authorities over parties. It is necessary to register to get the benefits in money and electoral terms that are offered. It is a control which until now we have kept out of the system in Australia. It creates the possibility of party dependence on the state and future discipline to toe the official line. Of course, the registration of parties is a necessary product of public funding and the list system of voting. This is why in all good faith in approaching this Bill it is considered that the Opposition cannot in simple terms move to disallow this clause. The realities of the House are that the move would not succeed in any event. But the Opposition believes that, the Government having put up a proposal on a matter of such consequence to the community, should address itself seriously to it. Having moved a motion on the matter in round terms at this stage, we will not move an amendment to the particular clause because if the House passes this legislation, inlcuding the list system and public funding, inevitably there must be registration. We will remain true to our- Dr Klugman —Even just to put the names of the parties on the ballot paper? Mr STEELE HALL —I do not agree that that is necessary. The honourable member who interjects will understand, if he reflects on the matter, that it is quite possible to put names on ballot papers without that registration. Paragraphs on pages 103 and 106 of the Bill deal with group voting tickets which is another way of describing the introduction of the list system. The Bill also deals with public funding and the marking of votes for the Senate. We have the rather ridiculous system which introduces ticks and crosses in the list system to go alongside the rise of numbers in the other form of voting. In relation to lists, what further evidence could there be of the peculiarities and the rather stupid way this has been brought in than to indicate that there is a capacity for a party to have two positions on the ballot paper. Under this legislation a party can say: 'We want this recommendation put to the people. They can tick this box in the list system that we have on the top of our Senate team but we also want an alternative. We want to give the people who vote for our team the right to vote the other way; so they can tick two boxes'. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you believe that electors would approach the election day knowing that they could properly select two positions for one team on the ballot paper? Mr White —They will tick both of them. Mr STEELE HALL —Of course they are likely to tick both of the boxes. There are some significant areas in this legislation which will increase the number of informal votes and work against the declared overall intention of the Government , maintained throughout its discussion on this matter, to reduce the number of informal votes. This is one particular example: The use of the ticks and crosses parallel with the use of numbers and two boxes if a party demands that right. That is covered in the overall second reading amendment. We have something like 17 amendments drafted in relation to further important aspects of the Bill. One of them will deal with parliamentary disallowance. This Government intends to remove the parliamentary disallowance of redistributions from the power of Parliament. We will move to reinstate parliamentary disallowance of redistributions in the Bill because we believe that in a matter as important as this the Parliament should be the final arbiter of a distribution, and in so being the final arbiter be a public arbiter and exhibit to the public the reasons why it takes action if it so desires. We also believe that it is essential that an addition be made to the Bill. We suggest that two amendments are necessary. The first, a test one, would appear on page 30 of the Bill. It would require dissenting commissioners or those who are concerned with the distribution of votes to give reasons why they dissent. It seems to us to further the democratic process, if the Government is interested in it, to know both sides of the argument and what the commissioners believe about distributions. We believe that the same reasoning should apply to determination as well as the initial preparation of the distribution. We would also like to see left as it is the proposition that electors have their occupation and sex stated next to their name on the electoral roll. There is no reason for that except the quite valid factor of convenience. Quite often two people who have the same name live at the same address or in close proximity . Most of us know of instances of that and we need some further evidence to distinguish them from each other. It seems to us that there is no good reason for deleting that information except to try to bring some form of privacy into this matter. However, this cannot be successfully intruded and still maintain an effective roll. As everyone knows, there is enough trouble on election day with the use of even a well-prepared roll. We should not place further obstacles in the way of differentiating people from each other. The Opposition will also move an amendment concerning prisoners to reinstate the position as it is. We do not believe as a matter of principle that the reasons for losing a seat in Parliament because of a criminal activity should be any different from those that apply to the right of an elector to vote. We will be moving an amendment accordingly. We will also move an amendment to tighten up the enrolment of 17-year-olds. We certainly believe that anyone who is 18 years old the day before or the day of polling should have the right to vote. We do not see the slightest reason to put any obstacle in his or her way. However, we also believe that it is cluttering the administration and putting pressure on the system generally to enable anyone over 17 years old to enrol, and thus be so noted on the roll to safeguard his or her position on the eighteenth birthday. We will move an amendment to allow the enrolment of such a person but we will limit that period until after the proclamation of the election and before the election date. The physical restrictions as to where postal votes may be witnessed is altogether too narrow and rather ridiculous. There needs to be a tightening up of the definition of 'formal defect' to make sure that we do not have some doubt as to what an officer may consider to be a formal defect in allowing or disallowing the counting of a postal vote. Every honourable member knows of the fight that develops in any closely contested election about postal votes. I can find no definition in the Bill of formal defect. If one looks at a dictionary one gets a very wide and varied description of it and we think that needs tightening up. Members from all sides of politics might be very grateful to have a much firmer definition when it comes to the scramble for postal votes in a closely fought election. I know that the Committee reported on the matter of the colour of ballot papers , but on due consideration it seems to the coalition that it is not sensible to move to having ballot papers of one colour for both Houses. There is always the odd case of confusion and of physical mixing of votes. More so, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is confusion in the voters' minds. We believe the papers should be green and white, and we will move accordingly. We will move to retain the 8 o 'clock closing of election booths. We will move to maintain the full voting rights in sub-divisions only, so that the application proposed in this Bill for full voting over an entire division will not apply. It will therefore not allow more multiple and illegal voting which could occur when electors vote outside the place where they are likely to be known. I refer to pages 108 and 109 of the Bill. We believe that there is a need to move an amendment in relation to notifying candidates of the attendance of visitors and mobile booths at hospitals. We will move amendments to restore consecutive voting at Senate elections and in regard to the payment of candidates. I have moved my second reading amendment. I again inform the House that it has been moved in the round. I have mentioned the main points of ideological difference between us and the Government in relation to public funding, the list system and disclosure of donations. I look forward to supporting the amendment at the appropriate time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cadman —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(5.02) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill . As a result of my predicament over the past few months, I was not sure whether this would be the first Bill on which I would speak. However, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. I noticed that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) had something to say about my predicament, but I do not intend to reply to that until the correct time arises. The proper time will be when Mr Justice Hope responds. I wish to remind people and the House of what is said in South Australia about the honourable member for Boothby: He has all the attributes of a dog except loyalty. I do not think the people of Canberra should miss out on this description given to him by people in South Australia. He has a very narrow right wing attitude to most political questions. Honourable members have again seen this attitude displayed in what was a very pathetic performance during the second reading debate on a very major piece of reform legislation. This legislation was brought into this House after the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform had conducted a review and many hearings for some months in order to give us something to consider in regard to the changes to the electoral laws. It is a great pity that Senator Sir John Carrick, from the other place, was not in the House of Representatives for this debate to give some intellectual input to the Liberal Party of Australia as to its views on these questions. I am afraid the Party has not been served very well by the honourable member for Boothby. Honourable members would know that there is never an end to the debates which occur or to the reforms which have to be brought in regarding legislation of this nature. It has been going on since Federation. This is merely another step in the direction of bringing up to date some of the measures that we in the Australian Labor Party believe have to be corrected as a result of 30 years of neglect by the conservatives. It is true that we were in government from 1972 to 1975. It is also true that on a number of occasions we introduced legislation to bring about reform of the electoral laws in Australia only to have it frustrated on a record number of occasions by the Senate in that period between 1972 and 1975. So one can say that the right to reform these laws has remained almost exclusively with the conservatives between 1949 and 1983. No one, Mr Deputy Speaker, should be surprised that these reforms have been brought in eight months after our election to government in 1983. We have not kept secret our attitudes towards the electoral reform which we considered was necessary in this country. The honourable member for Boothby quite correctly pointed out that I, among others, have been very vocal over a long period of years about the necessity to look at these laws. In Opposition, we spoke on numerous occasions and introduced private member's Bills and general business motions so that we could continually bring before the people of Australia the necessity for electoral reform in this country. It is a great pity that the experiences of other Western democracies have had no influence at all on the conservative attitude as expressed by the honourable member for Boothby, because the attitudes he expresses today could well have been expressed 100 years ago. There has been no element of enlightenment in his contribution here today, in spite of all the evidence which overwhelmingly supports what we are putting forward. As I have said in Opposition on many occasions before our election in 1983, what we are doing is not all that radical . It would hardly make the headlines in any of the Western democracies that we are bringing ourselves into line in many cases with what has been the order of the day in those countries for many years. But still some conservatives-not all because I have spoken to many honourable members opposite in this House and in the other chamber-who belong to the other parties applaud the steps which we are taking in relation to these reforms. The Opposition parties, of course, have to try to maintain the fact that in some way they are opposed to electoral reform because there is something sinister about what the Labor Party is attempting to do. The honourable member for Boothby did not mention one thing. Perhaps he did not mention it because he scabbed on the Liberal Party a few years ago. The Liberal Party, when it put its submission to the Committee, acknowledged that the Labor Party had a mandate for this reform. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party submission acknowledged, inasmuch as it was putting forward views about the way in which reform ought to be carried out, that Labor made no secret of these reforms which it would bring in. It was specifically mentioned during the last election campaign. It has been mentioned ever since 1975 and during the period 1972-74. This Committee report represents what has been a very strongly held view not only in the parliamentary Labor Party and in the Labor Party throughout Australia but also among many progressive thinking people in the community. As I said at the outset, it does not put a full stop on all of the things which might have to be done in future. Many of the propositions which have been looked at by the Committee have been looked at by earlier committees, and we have decided to stick with them. We decided to stick with the concept of a single electorate. We decided to continue with compulsory voting. I for one hold very strong views about that. Some people glory in the fact that Mrs Thatcher was returned at the last election in the United Kingdom. Mrs Thatcher received 34 per cent of the votes of those people eligible to vote in the United Kingdom on a non-compulsory, first past the post system of voting. The people of Britain may think that that is a good system, and they are entitled to their view. It is not a system which I endorse; I endorse compulsory voting, because it seems to me that we get the best results when people have to express their views by way of the ballot box in regard to the Government they want. Other countries have other views and these have been tested in Australia over and over again. What the Committee has done is refine the views and the policies which the Labor Party enunciated. As a result of its work the Committee has been able to give us a vehicle in the form of this legislation with which we have been able to move to do some of the things we talked about. The Committee's work again reflects the opportunity for this House to use the committee system in a certain fashion, and that is not to set up a committee to do work over five years but to set up a committee to do its work in a rapid progression and look at legislation which ought to be produced so that members have a better grasp of matters on which they are likely to legislate. It is not necessary to reply to too much of what the honourable member for Boothby said. His opposition is expressed in his amendment moved at the second reading stage, which states in part, that the House: deplores those aspects of the legislation which attack individual freedoms, threaten the continuation of the preferential system of voting and introduce public funding . . . Mr Deputy Speaker, you and honourable members would be surprised to know that the individual freedoms which are allegedly threatened in Australia apparently are not threatened in any other western country which has this system. Other western countries register political parties and they have public funding. Most of these countries do not have preferential voting. But the honourable member for Boothby thinks that we are quite a unique cast of people who in some way are threatened because we are to bring ourselves into line with what exists in most parts of the western world. Australia is one of the very few countries that are still fortunate enough to call themselves a democracy. Australian citizens over 18 years of age can vote to decide who will be in government. The laws, as encompassed in the electoral system, are of enormous importance to us. They were never changed under the conservatives because the conservatives believe, having won every election from 1949 to 1972, having been put back into government by the Governor-General in 1975 and then having won the next three elections, that they should not change a system that had been so good to them. The Liberal Party got the same vote in 1969 as the Labor Party got in 1980. The 1969 election result gave a substantial majority to the Liberals. The same result in 1980 gave the Labor Party a minority. The system that applied in this country was not a fair one. Let us look at the other rorts under which the Liberal Party has operated. The honourable member for Boothby said that young people are apathetic and that they will become more apathetic because of some of these reforms. What did his former leader do in calling the election in 1983? He gave people 24 hours to get on the roll and denied at least 300,000 people, mostly young Australians, the right to vote. That would make them a bit apathetic in their attitude towards politicians . The honourable member for Boothby said that it was wrong to use taxpayers' money. He used as an example the Bulletin poll of July. I do not know who prepared his speech but there is another poll in today's Bulletin. Sometimes politicians are supposed to be out in front, not always sitting behind waiting to see what the polls will tell them. The honourable member for Boothby ought to get off his tractor occasionally and decide to take the lead on some of these questions. The systems that have been adopted in Europe have not been adopted just by labour parties; they have been adopted by conservative parties and some people almost as conservative, almost as reactionary and almost as right wing as the honourable member for Boothby. The Christian Democrats in Sweden and West Germany have gone a lot further. They pay money into their political parties for educational processes and for the printing of their newspapers. Their systems are not set up to aid and abet one political philosophy. They are set up because those countries see them as major contributors to, as bastions of their political systems. The honourable member for Boothby did not mention, of course, a lot of the good work that was done by the Committee in terms of what is involved in the Bill, which is what we said we would do. First of all, we promised we would establish an independent electoral commission under our legislation which we have now done . Apparently, the conservatives have no opposition to it. We have not seen the honourable member for Boothby's other amendment. We have only his amendment to the second reading of the Bill. I did not hear him say anything about the independent Electoral Commission which is to carry out the functions of the Australian Electoral Office. In some ways the conservatives saw the Electoral Office as a nuisance office, they tried to deprive it of funds and influence. They just hoped it would be there as a mechanism to keep them in office every time they decided to call an election. That should not be the role of an electoral commission which has a very major responsibility in a democracy such as that which we have in Australia. We should see that it carries out this responsibility by furnishing it with the financial and human resources required to bring about the education of people as to what is in the electoral system. The response that the Government got in the surveys that were taken of people's attitudes that are at fault to the electoral systems in Australia was pathetic. It is not just the systems. The honourable member for Boothby said that people will cry foul when they find that some of their taxes have to go to paying political parties and the majority are against it. But if the honourable member for Boothby went out into the electorate and asked: 'How many people are in favour of politicians getting $40,000 a year?' a lot more than 57 per cent would be against it; I can tell him that. He should not run that rule of thumb test too far about what the public thinks of the political system and politicians independently. On these questions the Electoral Commission will have a very major responsibility to fill the gap that has been established by the ignorance of conservative parties in trying to see that these things were submerged and that they continued with the benefits that might flow to them. The redistribution provisions have not changed greatly. The legislation will ensure that frequent redistribution are done by an independent commission in the States or collectively as a result of electorates getting out of kilter. The conservatives have said that proposed distributions should come back to the Parliament so that we can change them. That is not our concept of what ought to be done. If honourable members opposite follow what the Labor Party has been doing they will find that, in South Australia, the independent Electoral Commission does not report its findings to the Parliament for approval. Once it prints them that is the final decision. The decision which was printed in South Australia just a few short weeks ago brought a number of shocks to both political parties. The Leader of the Opposition has to change his electorate, the Deputy Premier of the State has to change his electorate and a number of other members found that their electorates had been changed quite dramatically. We are not here to decide how the boundaries ought to be drawn up. We are here to fight it out to see who can get 50 per cent plus one of the votes after the boundaries have been established. It is up to the Electoral Commission, set up independently of this Parliament, to do the job that is required of it. That is the way in which we have put it; that is the way in which the Committee has recommended it and that is the way in which it is encompassed in this legislation. There are appeal systems within that legislation to ensure that a majority of the commissioners, acting both nationally and from within the States , can decide on any appeals that may come to them. But the appeals must be based on the criteria which have been established for the purposes of that redistribution. I come now to public funding. I have read the minority report of Senator Sir John Carrick and we have heard from the honourable member for Boothby. There is nothing new from the Liberal Party on public funding. This Parliament is not the first to introduce public funding. New South Wales has established it and I am pretty sure that other States will follow. But we are one of the last of the democracies in the western world to move into this field. We do it for very sound reasons. The honourable member for Boothby asked: 'What about the photograph of someone giving a cheque for $50,000 to the Labor Party in front of the offices of the Sydney Morning Herald?' We are acting like a bunch of angels compared with the way in which the Liberal and the National parties act. If we look at the National Times of 14 October 1983 we see that corporate donations to the New South Wales Liberal Party in that year were $1,200,000 from many companies. I just wonder how those companies reached the decision about the donations they would make to the Liberal Party. Did they call a mass meeting of all their shareholders to decide that they would make those donations? Did they offer information to the National Times to make it public or was it scurried out of the various Liberal Party vaults so that people in Australia could get some introduction to the relationship between the Liberal Party and these donors? I have no objection to anybody who wants to make it clear to the world that he or she is making a donation to a political party. Trade unions have always published their donations-they have to under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But Australia is one of the countries which is dominated by overseas investment more than almost any other country. We are controlled to an extent by foreign money almost more than any other country, perhaps with the exception of Canada. If one had a satellite sitting on top of the world and one was able to look down at the way in which money was flowing around this planet one would see money coming in and out of Australia and people trying to manipulate the system to their own benefit. It seems to us that one of the areas over which we should have complete and utter control is the political system. The only way in which we can do that is not to bar private donations altogether, although at one time I was a keen subscriber to that. Rather, if people want to make private donations running parallel with the system of public funding which is established under this legislation, it should all be out in the clear so that everybody can see what is happening. If shareholders in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or other companies object to the donations that they may be making to the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party they can object and stop those donations. But the political system should be above suspicion. It is all right for people to say: 'We have no evidence of what may or may not have happened'. That may be the case in many countries, although quite recently a Prime Minister of Japan was found guilty of receiving $US1.2m from the Lockheed company. These sorts of things can happen. If it is all out in the open it is above suspicion. People are able to say: 'Well, it might be costing the taxpayers of Australia a few bob '. We are falling into line with what has been established right throughout the Western world. We are not doing anything unique. We are not using moneys that are not being used in exactly the same way in other countries with which we might compare ourselves, but everybody in the country can see the relationship between the corporate sector and the political parties or the trade unions in the political parties. Let us not forget that some trade unions donate to other parties besides the Labor Party. We would like to see all those things out in the open, so the relationship can be seen. If people have suspicions that a political party elected to govern this country is doing something which is closely related to a major donation made to that political party, questions can be asked and it is out in the open. That is the way it ought to be. As I said at the outset, there has been no secret about what we promised in this legislation. There is no doubt, as has been envisaged by the submission by the Liberal Party of Australia to the committee of inquiry, that the Liberal Party said that we have a mandate for this legislation. So we do. We thank the Committee wholeheartedly for refining all the ideas that went before it and which enable us to use this vehicle, this piece of legislation, to refine all the ideas we have and to add to them. Many things have not been mentioned by the honourable member for Boothby or me. Even the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) did not have time to mention that we will bring about worthwhile reforms, such as mobile polling booths and so forth. All these things will be worth while. We will have a much better system as a result of this great overhaul of the electoral laws which has been the greatest move since Federation . Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(5.22) —While the National Party of Australia has many reservations about aspects of this legislation, it welcomes two very important policy decisions by the Government. These policy decisions are very important to the people whom we represent and to our Party. Firstly, we are pleased that the Government did not proceed to reduce the tolerance for electorate redistributions from 10 per cent to 5 per cent as was forecast by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) when he was Special Minister of State. It was in accordance with the Australian Labor Party's former policy. There are a number of submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, particularly from the National Party, opposing that reduction. Secondly, we are pleased that the Government has abandoned the optional preferential concept for voting. This concept was a first step towards first past the post voting. As recent events have proved in the United Kingdom, it would make a mockery of an election system and it fails to give a real expression of the voters' intention. So I do hope that the Committee, in its deliberations, has put paid to that concept and to the views held by people who apparently have some attachment to the principle of first past the post, or a system that would ultimately lead to it. This substantial piece of legislation is like the curate's egg. As the minority report indicates, neither I nor the National Party supports all the majority recommendations of the Joint Committee. Therefore, we support a substantial number of amendments, amendments that have been outlined in the House by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). The National Party is strongly opposed to many of those provisons in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. However, I must say that a rewrite of the Electoral Act was long overdue. Indeed, the thrust of some of the amendments in this legislation was incorporated in a Bill which I presented to this Parliament as Minister for the Interior as far back as 1972. The legislation also takes into account much of the work undertaken by other Ministers in the Fraser Government who were responsible for the Electoral Act. As a member of the Joint Committee, I can assure the House that the review of the Electoral Act was a massive task. I give full credit once again to the Chairman of that Committee, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), for his chairmanship; and to the Electoral Office for the advice, co-operation and the hours it gave to members of the Committee enabling it to make the effort that was necessary to get the report to Parliament early in September. It was a massive task indeed. There is no doubt a complete review and a complete rewrite of the Electoral Act were essential. I believe that members of the Joint Committee approached their task as co-operatively and as objectively as they could, against the background, constraints and policies of their respective parties. When consensus was possible, it was achieved on many issues. Notwithstanding this fact, the National Party supports a great number of the amendments that will be moved in Committee and will be referred to in the course of this debate. I thought in the limited time available I should devote most of my attention to those policy areas to which my Party is very much opposed. Firstly, the National Party is absolutely opposed to direct public funding of political parties, groups and candidates. We believe that the principle infringes upon the very principles of the parliamentary democratic system. Direct government funding of political parties and disclosure of private donations to parties are forms of bureaucratic regulation that will ultimately lead to a form of nationalisation of the political party system. It places the party system at the mercy of governments and in the hands of the bureaucracy. I never thought I would see the day when this Parliament would agree to the virtual nationalisation of the party system. I never thought I would see the day when we would place our party political system in the hands of bureaucratic regulators of the Public Service. This is precisely what public funding and disclosure do to the political system. So often one hears the complaint that political parties when in government will implement only those of its policies that are acceptable to the chain of bureaucrats that give advice to the governments of the day. We hear that said time and again outside and we are hearing it now about the Hawke Labor Government, particularly from those people who voted Labor in the last election. If that perception is around, this legislation takes the polical system a step further. It makes the political party system a victim of bureaucratic regulation . In any event, surely it is presumptuous to require taxpayers to provide additional money directly to help politicians to get elected to office. Public funding, which means funding by taxpayers, large and small, whether they want to or not, will not strengthen the democratic system; it will weaken it. It will lead to even more cynicism about our political and parliamentary system. No political party or political cause should be able to force its greedy hands into the pockets of the taxpayers to survive. Surely if a political party has the right policies it should have moral and financial public support. No political party worth its salt should have to force its hands into the public till or into the taxpayers' pockets. I am proud of the National Party's self-help approach in New South Wales. We have over 50,000 subscribing members to our Party in this State and 80 per cent of our funds come from party membership. That is how all political parties in this country should operate. This is how a political party should survive. If a political party cannot sustain its membership and live on its financial support and the financial support of its membership, it should not have recourse to direct taxpayer support. I do not support the Labor Party's claim that public funding will strengthen the democratic process. It will ultimately lead to a loss of party membership, voluntary contributions and effort and a falling off of grass roots involvement in the political processes. Is that what we really want in our political system? In time it will lead to further demands by political parties, propped up by public funding for election campaign purposes and further demands for funds for day to day administration. I do not think for a moment the public funding of political parties will stop where it began. I am not impressed by the argument that because Denmark does it we should do it. Public funding will divorce parties from their rank and file, the people who should provide the mainspring for commitment to worthwhile policy objectives. Without rank and file support, parties will be encouraged simply to seek to attract votes and will lack any deep commitment to worthwhile policy objectives consistent with the aspirations of the people. If people think there is expediency in politics today, they should wait until this legislation becomes law and parties grow fat on public funding. When public funding is guaranteed, ruling cliques are likely to evolve, independent of party membeship and aspirations, and their contributions will be able to manipulate party policy, candidate preselections and the parliamentary members. The cost of electioneering these days, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) claimed , is high. But why should the public be asked to pay the cost? I firmly believe that too much money is allowed to be spent on the national electronic media. How often do honourable members hear members of the public saying that they are fed up to the teeth with the television advertising that goes on during election campaigns? Why should their taxes go to finance those sorts of advertising programs? No doubt, public funding will mean many more of them. One wonders whether they should be prohibited. Indeed, in the United Kingdom television advertisements for electioneering as we know them are not permissible. Yet we are here debating public funding. The Minister in his second reading speech stated: The cost of electioneering these days . . . would have been unthinkable to the politicians of, say 1949 . . . Why are they unthinkable? They are unthinkable because of the high cost of television advertising and television production costs. Yet the Labor Party does not address itself to the reasons for the greatly accelerated cost of electioneering. It simply goes to the public till in characteristic fashion to make the taxpayer pay for these unthinkable costs. Mr Lusher —Snouts in the trough. Mr HUNT —That is a good expression. The Labor Party concerns itself with its obsession that public funding should replace the so-called 'big donor' who is supposedly giving a donation for a corrupt reason. It does not concern itself with the reasons for the high costs of electioneering or the likely damage public funding can do to the political system and the consequent diminution of the influence and importance of the rank and file membership. The Labor Party presumes to be worried by the undue influence of private or corporate donations to parties. Yet the Party admits that it is the recipient of a great number of them. It does not accept that its pecuniary affiliation with trade unions is morally wrong. This is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most incredible inconsistencies in the present political scene. Surely, it is morally wrong for a party that purports to be a national party concerned with the national interest to be affiliated financially with a sectional group. The incestuous relationship between the Labor Party and the trade union movement is morally wrong, indeed improper, in this day and age. Why should non-Labor trade union voters pay a levy to the Australian Labor Party? How can the ALP claim to represent the national interest when it is financially bound to the sectional demands of the trade union movement? My party was also affiliated with farmers' associations until the 1940s. But fortunately, it decided to break this incestuous financial affiliation so that the party could broaden its base and sphere of interest and concern. It was the best thing that the former Country Party ever did. Indeed, there should be a law preventing national political parties from having a pecuniary relationship with any sectional organisation, if we are serious about untoward influences of political donations or financial contributions. If the ALP is concerned about donations and the influence they may have on political parties, it should be consistent and break its pecuniary affiliation with the trade union movement. It should not accept such donations from the trade union movement as the one it received from the Australian Teachers Federation. Mr Howard —Some $750,000. Mr HUNT —It received $750,000. It served to achieve the destruction of the bipartisan support for state aid in this country. That is what that $750,000 did . That is what that pecuniary affiliation with the trade union movement has achieved. The National Party is also opposed to disclosure because of the expensive and complex bureaucratic processes that will be required to make it work. I do not believe any system will effectively stop those who seek to avoid disclosure. It will not stop those groups in the community who wish to support a party and its policy from doing so and avoiding the disclosure processes. Disclosure can also lead to intimidation and retaliation by unscrupulous people , groups and associations in the community. As a consequence, it will undoubtedly lead to fewer donations being made to political parties because of a fear by some that, if they support one party, they will have to support the lot, and support them equally, or run the risk of overt or covert intimidation. Indeed, this could be the very motive of the ALP. I see disclosure as an intrusion into people's civil liberties and privacy. There are some who value dearly the right to the secret ballot. Indeed, it is law. Yet here we are forcing people by law to disclose to the world at large donations over a certain limit. Having made the National Party's views known on these two major issues, I say that the Party believes that, if the Government makes public funding and disclosure the law, it has no alternative but to abide by that law. To do otherwise would place National Party candidates, organisations and members at a disadvantage compared with other parties and their supporters. Therefore, if the Labor Party is determined to introduce public funding, the Party accepts the fact that it cannot and will not give the Labor Party a multimillion dollar election advantage. The principle is wrong. But if Labor enforces its principles by law, we will accept our share of public funding. There are other areas of concern to me and the National Party-I will not have time to deal with them all-such as the provision to allow ordinary voting within a division. I am firmly opposed-and the Party is firmly opposed-to the decision by the Government to permit such voting, which we believe will result in greater attempts by people to achieve multiple votes and therefore it will encourage electoral abuse. In a large rural electorate, an elector can travel large distances and cast an ordinary vote more than once with very little likelihood of recognition under the provision that the Government has made in this legislation. Dr Klugman —How often does it happen? We got evidence on it, didn't we? It does not happen at all. Mr HUNT —It has not happened yet, but the Government is opening the floodgates for it to happen, because an ordinary vote loses its identity once the vote is in the ballot box. Postal, absentee and section votes are subject to scrutiny before the ballot paper is lodged. Needless to say, this restraint has helped to minimise abuse of the electoral system. I am also opposed to the provision that does not require the distribution commissioners to submit their redistribution proposals to the Parliament for comment and debate before finalising their determinations. There should be an obligation upon the commissioners to report their proposals to this Parliament, for there to be an opportunity for debate, and for the commissioners to take note of the views of this Parliament. They are , after all, subject to the laws and the provisions that are the product of this Parliament. I am also concerned that the Government has adopted the majority recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to close polling booths at 6 p .m. This will definitely be of disadvantage to 8 per cent of the Australian voters, many of whom live in country areas, and have to travel great distances to attend sporting functions, cricket matches or whatever, which at times do not end until 6 o'clock. It will be a matter of great inconvenience to many people in country areas, apart from those people who have religious convictions that prevent them from voting until after 6 o'clock. I am pleased that sensible changes have been made to facilitate the benefit of postal voting for people in remote areas. The mobile booths will be of great value to many disadvantaged people entitled to vote. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) covered some other areas of concern to the Opposition parties, but the National Party applauds the restoration of 'area' as a factor to be taken into account by commissioners when drawing electoral boundaries. Unfortunately the 'area' provision was removed from the 1977 redistribution and replaced by the so-called 5,000 square kilometres provision which did nothing to prevent rural electorates from becoming larger and larger not only in area but also in population. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library which sets out the voter population of each electorate as at 4 February. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Percentage deviation Area Net from State (Km2) enrolment average (approx.) New South Wales Banks 72,190 -4.43 47 Barton 67,422 -10.74 85 Bennelong 71,296 -5.61 51 Berowra 72,088 -4.56 300 Blaxland 72,482 -4.04 55 Bradfield 72,751 -3.69 90 Calare 72,590 -3.90 R 24,219 Chifley 79,725 +5.54 117 Cook 74,433 -1.46 74 Cowper 84,291 +11.59 R 20,069 Cunningham 79,568 +5.34 234 Dundas 71,411 -5.46 49 Eden-Monaro 78,902 +4.45 R 41,582 Farrer 74,468 -1.42 R 29,213 Grayndler 66,174 -12.40 28 Gwydir 73,111 -3.21 R 242,672 Hughes 80,211 +6.19 712 Hume 70,456 -6.73 R 52,969 Hunter 84,728 +12.17 1,947 Kingsford-Smith 70,261 -6.98 61 Lowe 69,553 -7.92 46 Lyne 84,287 +11.58 R 15,366 Macarthur 85,821 +13.61 R 8,432 Mackellar 71,093 -5.88 213 Macquarie 93,387 +23.63 1,839 Mitchell 89, 494 +18.48 2,621 Newcastle 70,446 -6.74 158 New England 70,683 -6.43 R 41,094 North Sydney 68,117 -9.82 33 Parramatta 73,929 -2.13 51 Paterson 73,110 -3.21 R 48,923 Phillip 66,933 -11.39 17 Prospect 82,219 +8.85 426 Reid 67,978 -10. 01 61 Richmond 85,388 +13.04 R 13,702 Riverina 71,959 -4.74 R 251,777 Robertson 89,385 +18.33 R 935 St. George 69,834 -7.55 31 Shortland 83,161 +10.09 414 Sydney 68,792 -8.93 72 Warringah 67,413 -10.75 47 Wentworth 65,495 -13.29 23 Werriwa 91,001 +20.47 672 State total 3,248,036 801,527 State average 75,536 Av. 13 rural electorates = 77,676 2.8% above. 30 metropolitan electorates = 74,608 1.23% below. Australian Electoral Office. Victoria Balaclava 67,774 -10.43 33 Ballarat 71,525 -5.47 R 7,500 Batman 71,588 -5.39 50 Bendigo 73,632 -2.69 R 15,160 Bruce 79,528 +5.11 64 Burke 81,342 +7.50 2, 580 Casey 79,990 +5.72 1,410 Chisholm 72,808 -3.77 42 Corangamite 73,209 -3. 24 R 14,170 Corio 75,850 +0.25 745 Deakin 84,763 +12.03 64 Diamond Valley 82, 699 +9.30 131 Flinders 85,855 +13.47 1,510 Gellibrand 73,485 -2.88 64 Gippsland 73,294 -3.13 R 38,400 Henty 70,829 -6.39 36 Higgins 68,403 -9.60 32 Holt 88,590 +17.08 732 Hotham 81,542 +7.76 75 Indi 71,282 -5.79 R 30,050 Isaacs 74,915 -0.99 75 Kooyong 69,310 -8.40 41 Lalor 88,273 +16.66 817 La Trobe 81,113 +7.20 435 McMillan 74,797 -1.15 R 8,035 Mallee 68,650 -9.27 R 57 ,720 Maribyrnong 78,601 +3.88 345 Melbourne 68,094 -10.00 49 Melbourne Ports 68,528 -9.43 37 Murray 72,000 -4.84 R 16,035 Scullin 82,680 +9.27 609 Wannon 68,474 -9.50 R 31,225 Wills 73,481 -2.89 36 State total 1,496,904 228,307 State average 75,664 74,100 Quota Australian Electoral Office. 9 x Rural seats 5% under quota. 24 x Metropolitan 1.87% above quota. 24 Metropolitan seats 77,085 electors (av). Total 1,850,041 electors. 9 x Rural 646,870 electors, (av) 71,874. Queensland Bowman 82,242 +6.09 600 Brisbane 69,067 -10.90 50 Capricornia 72,538 -6.43 R 25,000 Darling Downs 74,468 -3.94 R 8,350 Dawson 77,757 +0.31 R 67,850 Fadden 100,856 +30.10 4,320 Fisher 100,109 +29.14 R 7,150 Griffith 64,500 -16.79 260 Herbert 78,481 -1.24 R 8,400 Kennedy 64,728 -16.50 R 663,150 Leichhardt 74,964 -3.30 R 406,650 Lilley 66,459 -14.27 125 McPherson 95,553 +23.20 1,500 Maranoa 68,011 -12.27 R 517,400 Moreton 69,566 -10.26 60 Oxley 80,772 +4.20 R 2,575 Petrie 77,057 -0.60 140 Ryan 77,864 +0.45 270 Wide Bay 77,869 +0.45 R 14,150 State total 1,472,861 1,728,000 State average 77,519 South Australia Adelaide 77,625 -3.07 66 Barker 78,827 -1.57R 55,600 Bonython 87,050 +8.70 439 Boothby 82,134 +2.56 550 Grey 74,884 -6.49R 890,584 Hawker 76,610 -4.34R 47 Hindmarsh 79,700 -0.48 67 Kingston 85,565 +6.84 380 Port Adelaide 79,381 -0 .88 210 Sturt 80,987 +1.13 237 Wakefield 78,173 -2.39R 36,220 State total 880,936 984,400 State average 80,085 South Australia- 4 rural seats 308,494 = 77,123 = 3.7%- 7 metropolitan seats 572,442 = 81,777 = 2.1%+ Queensland- 10 rural electorates av. 0.95% below. 9 metropolitan electorates av. 0.78% above. 9 Metropolitan seats 703,164 = av. 78,129. 10 Rural seats 769,697 = av. 76,970. Australian Electoral Office. Western Australia Canning 80,329 +10.79 2,103 Curtin 63,832 -11.96 86 Forrest 70,637 - 2.58 R 41,934 Fremantle 74,663 + 2.97 297 Kalgoorlie 72,808 + 0.42 R 2,285,072 Moore 85,065 +17.32 17,918 O'Connor 65,854 - 9.18 R 177,683 Perth 68,988 - 4.85 66 Stirling 70,938 - 2.16 79 Swan 68,090 - 6.09 125 Tangney 76,377 + 5.34 137 State total 797,581 2,525,500 State average 72,507 3 Rural = 209,299 = 69,766 av. = 3.78-below Tasmania Bass 57,027 + 0.94 7,720 Braddon 54,231 - 4.01 21,632 Denison 55,839 - 1.16 233 Franklin 58,395 + 3.37 6,402 Wilmot 56,975 + 0.85 34,160 State total 282,467 70,147 State average 56,493 Total all States 9,178,785 6,337,881 A.C.T. and Northern Territory Canberra 68,917 + 0.37 1,919 Fraser 68,407 - 0.37 510 Territory total 137,324 2,429 Territory average 68,662 Northern Territory 57,471 1,347,524 Total Australia 9,373,580 7,687,834 Australian Electoral Office. Mr HUNT —In New South Wales the State average enrolment was 75,536 as at 4 February. Rural electorates averaged 77,327 electors. In fact, it is an extraordinary state of affairs that the rural electorates in New South Wales have larger average voting populations than the metropolitan electorates. Also, the National Party seats have the highest average elector populations in New South Wales. The National Party remains very much opposed to public funding disclosure and the other matters to which I have referred. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.42) —I congratulate the Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, and the Government for following almost completely the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The two previous Opposition speakers were both members of that Committee and nearly all the honourable members on this side of the House who will participate in the debate were members on it. The Committee went through most of the issues raised again today by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). Before I get on to the specific issues, I will deal with what seems to me to be one of the furphies in relation to the non-enrolment of young people. It is said that young people, and others, are alienated because they feel that they cannot influence politics although deep down they are really highly motivated and just bursting at the seams to participate in the political process but have not had occasion to do so. In September 1983 the Australian Electoral Office published a research report on the magazine readership of the population at large and of the unenrolled population. One of the interesting things it revealed was that 40 per cent of unenrolled respondents compared with 20 per cent of those enrolled read Cleo, You, Cosmopolitan, Australian Playboy and Australian Penthouse, publications which to my mind do not seem to indicate high political motivation. There seems to my mind to be some doubt as to whether that is the explanation for the lack of enrolment. The last speaker, when dealing with public funding and because he knew he was on thin ice, kept emphasising that he opposed 'direct' public funding. He kept referring to 'direct public funding', and said that it was not a good thing to have public funding directly. He said that because there is already a lot of public funding of elections. In the first instance, let us look at why political parties of all types, some more obviously and some more hypocritically, are keen to get funding. In the October 1980 election $2.76m was spent by Australian political parties on electronic media advertising. In the March 1983 election, less than 2 1/2 years later, expenditure on electronic media advertising by Australian political parties was $4.3m. The necessity for funding of the political process is not peculiar to Australia. The Committee recommended, and the Government accepted, that funding should reimburse political parties, up to a certain limit, for Federal election campaign expenditure. If I have time later I will read to the House what the Liberal Party submitted to the Committee on this subject. The Liberal Party recommended that there should be funding not only of political campaigns but also to run the political parties themselves. Amongst the countries which have public funding are the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, the United States of America, Israel and France; as well as New South Wales. Let us look at the people who recommend public funding. This week Mr Puplick, who was Senator Puplick and probably at some stage will again be Senator Puplick, saw some publicity from associating himself with a publication of the Institute of Public Affairs. I note that former Senator Puplick, in his maiden speech in the Senate on 20 September 1978, as reported at page 775 of Hansard, started his remarks by saying: As a democrat I regret the imperfections of our political system which are within our power to remedy. Despite what might be my lamentable idealism, I look forward to the days when we have public funding of political parties, disclosure of donations, some register of pecuniary interests, fair redistributions, one vote one value, a revised Federal Constitution and real popular participation in government. Mr Beddall —Who was that? Dr KLUGMAN —That was former Senator Puplick who, of course, presented, though had not prepared, the Liberal Party's submission on funding. The Liberal Party's submission on funding to the Committee stated that the Liberal Party was philosophically opposed to it. There is a big difference between the Liberal Party and the National Party on the question of public funding. The Liberal Party is philosophically opposed to it. The National Party is both philosophically and morally opposed to it which, I take it, makes it much more difficult for the National Party to accept the money, because one can sometimes overcome one's philosophical scruples but not one's moral scruples. The submission from the Liberal Party dealing with public funding stated: We note that advocates for such schemes have further stated that it would benefit the whole political system to 'free' parties from execessive dependency on sources of funds other than those provided by the State or from their own party financial membership. In paragraph 3.6 the submission said: The Liberal Party acknowledges that public funding has been a commitment of the ALP for some years, and is clearly stated in several points on page 21 of their 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules. We further acknowledge that such a commitment was also made (p. 29) in the Policy Speech delivered by Mr Hawke on 16 February 1983. The Liberal Party went to a lot of trouble to make it easy for us to find reasons to introduce public funding. It headed its next chapter 'Facing Reality' : Given the above, the Liberal Party recognises that there will be public funding . . . Clearly, and if the experience of New South Wales is to be any guide, public funding legislation may impose obligations upon a political party (for instance compulsory registration or compulsory disclosure of donations) whether or not that party elects to apply for public funding. It asks that the scheme be administered by a truly independent authority free from ministerial or governmental interference. I emphasise this because the Liberal Party itself said that public funding is likely to come in, that it does not really have any great objection to it but that it should be done on a certain basis. It suggested a truly independent authority. We have agreed to that. The submission continued: Consequently the Liberal Party will, while reaffirming its philosophical objections, propose the outlines of a public funding scheme, based upon the following principles: and the Committee accepted all those principles- . . . the scheme should not be used as a means for the covert change of the electoral system itself; . . . the scheme should be fair to all participants; . . . the scheme should ensure that support is provided in a way which accurately reflects the true level of support given to parties by the electorate ; . . . the scheme should give full and adequate protection to the civil rights of individuals; . . . the scheme should be administered by an independent, neutral body . . . . . . any disclosure provisions should have levels of disclosure set at a reasonable figure; As I said earlier, the Liberal Party also stated: The scheme should be extended to provide support for Party maintenance operations as well as election campaign expenses. So much for the philosophical objections from the Liberal Party. The submission goes into the Liberal Party's scheme in some detail but I do not have enough time to do so. The Liberal Party would have to agree that we have accepted most of its recommendations. We have not accepted the proposition that public funding ought to be provided for parties in between elections but we have even come to some compromise on its argument that the minimum level to be disclosed should be $10,000. I think it is relevant to read part of the National Party's submission, which puts strong views on the question of disclosure. On page 14 it is stated: Individual contributions to a party or candidate, whether in money or in kind . . . should only be disclosed when in excess of $10,000. This figure should be indexed to take account of inflation. While $10,000 may be regarded as rather high it is most unlikely that any influence of consequence could be 'bought' for less. This is a submission from the National Party. Members of that Party say that we cannot get them for less than $10,000. I know that people say that they have got them for less. I point out to the House one reason why the honourable member for Gwydir acted like a legal person and carefully kept on emphasising that he was opposed to direct public funding as distinct from public funding. I have before me a copy of a letter from the National Party of Australia, Queensland, signed by Sir Robert Sparkes, State President, which asks for donations to the Bjelke- Petersen Foundation. It states, in part: I reiterate and stress the fact that any individual or Company that supports the concept of the Foundation can provide indirect financial assistance in a manner that is tax deductible, provided of course that the supporter has a product or service that can be advertised. The procedure is for the supporter to purchase advertising space in the Party paper ''National Outlook'' which circulates throughout the State to approximately 25,000 people. If desired the outlay can be spread over say, 3 financial years. In the case of a company paying 46 per cent tax this of course means the actual cost of the assistance is reduced to 54 per cent of the nominal value. There is no doubt whatsoever about the legitimacy of the advertising approach as far as the Taxation Department is concerned. The Foundation has obtained impeccable legal and accounting opinion on this matter, and it unequivocally confirms that the Taxation Department has no authority to query the ''Value for money'' aspect of the advertising. Enclosed is a photocopy of an opinion in support of this contention. The question has been raised before. The previous Treasurer and I think the current Treasurer have said that this is not possible. All I can say is that the National Party has certainly collected a great deal of money out of it. When I asked Mr Mike Evans, Secretary to the Queensland National Party, whether any taxation benefits were available to the Foundation or to the people who donated to it, he said: Yes. Currently, a contributor making donations to the Foundation, can be assessed for income tax deductions'. That was said on 19 July 1983 before the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. Mr Griffiths —Can you read that again? Mr Hunt —Don't bother, Dick; it will take up time. Dr KLUGMAN —I am sorry; I realise that we do not have much time. I shall deal quickly with the question of list voting. I suppose we will be discussing it in more detail tomorrow. List voting was proposed by the Liberal Party. I emphasise that. The Liberal Party in its submission was keen on preferential voting. On pages 50 and 51 in relation to Senate elections and the high number of informal votes-I shall refer to that if I have time-it said: It is conceded that the problems are far greater in relation to the Senate. This rose to a national high of 16.3 per cent in Lalor where voters were presented with 50 candidates. There were even more, of course, in New South Wales. I emphasise that this is a Liberal Party submission. It went on: If some simplification of this system is sought, the Liberal Party would only be prepared to support the use of a 'list system' of marking the ballot paper where such an indication meant that the vote in question was recorded as a fully preferential vote cast in accordance with a registered party's 'how-to vote' card which itself had been registered with and certified to the Electoral Commission. The Liberal Party would vigorously oppose any 'list system' which did not extend preferences fully and completely to all candidates on the ballot paper. This is exactly what we have brought in. We have brought in one of the recommendations made by the Federal Liberal Party. The Committee asked the Australian Electoral Office to supply figures relating to the informal votes for the Senate in the 1983 election in, if I remember rightly, 12 or 13 electorates. I do not know whether any of the representatives of those electorates are in the House to have the benefit of hearing the figures for their electorates. Let us take the electorate of Lyne. I think the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) was here a few minutes ago. There were 9,000-odd informal Senate votes in that electorate, 5,177 of which resulted from ballot papers being marked in an incorrect numeric sequence and 3,000 of which resulted from more than one square being left blank. Out of 9,000 votes 8,000 were unintentionally informal. We propose in this legislation two alternatives for people voting for the Senate. If one accepts the proposition that we should follow the party ticket one can write the figure '1' against the Liberal-National Party joint Senate ticket or a single Senate ticket for either of those parties, for the Labor Party or whatever. If one does not feel inclined that way one can still vote for people individually by numbering the squares on the ballot paper '1', '2', '3', et cetera. We have said that no more than 10 per cent of the squares may be left blank. In the last election in New South Wales there were 63 candidates for the Senate. Provided no more than six squares are left blank and if, for example, one repeats the number 23, the vote will be considered to be formal until such time as it becomes informal. That strikes me as a terribly reasonable proposition. If we look at the breakdown-I am sure the honourable member for Gwydir agrees with me; Senator Sir John Carrick did too-it is always accepted or assumed that the Australian Labor Party suffers most from informal votes and that therefore the Liberal Party wants to have as many informal votes as possible. In fact, that is not quite true. What really happens-I had noticed it when I was scrutineering-is that a greater proportion of elderly people tend to vote informally. Because there is a greater proportion of Liberal or National Party voters amongst the elderly, for practical purposes this affects the Opposition in the same way as it does the Labor Party. Where it was possible we had a breakdown of voters' intentions in the informal Senate vote. For practical purposes, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party were affected in exactly the same way. The highest number of informal votes was for the small parties, the Australian Democrats and the other parties, the reason being that they do not have people handing out how-to-vote cards and therefore people make mistakes. There are masses of other points that I want to deal with. I hope to have that opportunity tomorrow in the debate at the Committee stage. I was pleased to hear that both the honourable member for Boothby and the honourable member for Gwydir basically agree-perhaps with certain reservations, to put it one way-that the legislation is a step in the right direction. It is a huge Bill, as honourable members know. There are 186 pages and hundreds of clauses to it. It will be a step in the right direction for democracy in Australia when all or 99.9 per cent of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform are enacted. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(6.08) —In this debate I draw attention in particular to one matter of concern that I have with the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. My colleague the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) referred to it in his speech. The Government, in introducing this Bill, has shown its concern and awareness of the implications for the Constitution of the representation in the House of Representatives from the States. High Court decisions have made clear the manner in which fractions of quotas are to be apportioned to the States so the original States are to be represented in this House by the number of members in proportion to the population of all the States with a quota determined and applied to the population of the States. In fact this legislation goes one step further than previous legislation because it takes account of the problem that could arise if shortly before an election a State either became eligible for an additional member or two, or, because of rapid population shifts, became ineligible for as many as were previously allocated and had to have its representation reduced by one of two members. But no formula is applied to the provisions dealing with the Territories. In the Committee debate I will ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) whether he will accept amendments to apply principles to representation from the Territories in a manner similar to the principles applied to the States. The representation in the Territories is dealt with in different sections of the Constitution. Section 7 of the Constitution, in dealing with the States, provides that in the Senate, unless the Parliament otherwise provides, each original State shall have six senators and an equal number of senators, whether it be six or some increased number, and the number of senators cannot be reduced below six. The Constitution further provides that the senators from a State must be chosen by the people. In the House of Representatives the number of members must be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. They must be chosen by the people and the seats must be allocated in proportion to the populations of the several States. It is interesting to note in that section that the Constitution does not refer to the several original States but to the several States which rather implies that, should a new State be created, the Constitution may well require that it be represented only in proportion to its population. In the case of the House of Representatives there is a further proviso which states, in the case of original States, that no original State can be represented in this House by fewer than five members. I have been a delegate from the Parliament to a number of constitutional conventions. On the agenda for the Perth Constitutional Convention, for the first time there was a proposal in my name that was aimed at amending sections 121 and 122 of the Constitution. These two sections deal with representation in both Houses of Parliament from new States and from the Territories. As those sections are worded at present, there is no obligation upon the Parliament to require that members or senators from the Territories be chosen by the people. In fact they are, and I believe there should be a constitutional guarantee that they always will be so chosen. Likewise, in the provisions relating to the Territories, no formula is laid down as to how the numbers of members or senators from a Territory shall be determined. It is my view that the representation in this House from a Territory should be in proportion to the population of the Territory, applying to the population of the Territory a quota similar to that worked out to determine representation in this chamber from the original States. Likewise, it is my view that the representation in the Senate should be the two senators that each Territory now has but should increase above two only as each Territory achieves a growth in population so that it is entitled to another senator to match additional members in accordance with the ratio of one senator for two members in this House. In a sense, it is a reverse nexus but, while the nexus remains, in the interests of the proper representation in this chamber and in the Senate of the people of the original States, similar limitations should be placed upon the number of senators and the number of members that there may be from the Territories. The Bill before the House provides that there shall be two members of the House of Representatives from the Australian Capital Territory and one from the Northern Territory. It makes no provision and lays down no formula about what would happen if the population of, for example, the Australian Capital Territory were to rise to a level that would entitle it to three members on the quotas applicable to the States. Such a formula should be written into the legislation so that the Parliament and the people of the nation can be assured that the Government is genuine when it says that it wants representation in this chamber from electorates that have similar quotas and electorates with tolerances not exceeding 10 per cent. Therefore, I will in the Commitee stage be urging the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) to consider accepting an amendment that would enable this formula to be written into the legislation. Likewise, I hope that he will agree to limit the number of senators from the Territories in a similar manner. If he agrees to both those things it will be evidence of the Government's good faith in its desire to ensure that, to use its phraseology, there is one vote, one value. I will have a further opportunity to explain in some more detail those recommendations. It would still be my hope that the item on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention which has been deferred for further consideration would one day achieve a situation whereby these guaranteed rights of the people of the Territories, together with the limitations on the number of members and senators from those Territories in accordance with a population and nexus formula, are written into the Constitution. I will be using my best endeavours to ensure that at an appropriate time that important matter is considered by the Constitutional Convention. I now turn briefly to talk about the important function of the electoral commissioners, for their function is one of vital significance to the future of the Australian democratic system. To a significant extent the future of our democratic system is in their hands. If the representation in parliament is to reflect truly the wishes of the people electoral boundaries need to be drawn in such a way that they are truly sensitive to public opinion as expressed through the ballot box in elections for this House. The electoral commissioners are required to take into account a number of factors when they draw boundaries, but they are not called upon to give an explanation as to the manner in which those proposals take account of the criteria that are contained in the legislation before this House at this time. They, therefore, will in fact have a very wide discretionary power, the exercise of which can make our country either more or less democratic according to the manner in which they exercise those powers. The term 'gerrymander' is very often used by the Australian Labor Party to describe what is, in fact, malapportionment. The term 'gerrymander' when correctly used describes a number of practices aimed at the manipulation of divisional boundaries to secure unfairly a disproportionate influence at the elections of some party or group of candidates. Gerrymander in its strict sense does not mean malapportionment. Boundaries drawn in a way which can bring about a result which is highly sensitive to public opinion and which does not necessarily bring about a result that gives a disproportionate influence can be achieved with electorates of different sizes. We have come to accept the fact that it is desirable that electorates should be as nearly as possible equal in size in terms of the numbers of electors. When the term 'gerrymander' is used in its strict meaning it is assumed that electoral divisions comprise an equal number of electors and that their boundaries are manipulated to concentrate one party's votes in as few electorates as possible, while spreading the dependable majorities of another party over as many seats as possible. Although the electoral commissioners are expected to be politically impartial, the paradox is that the Electoral Commission will not be able to perform its task fairly unless it takes into account and has some regard for voting patterns . The Electoral Commission, in drawing up its plans for a redistribution, should take care to ensure that a disproportionate influence is not given to one party. Therefore, it needs to take account of overall voting patterns if changes in electoral boundaries are to bring about, from the electors' point of view, a fair result rather than the reverse. It is possible by drawing boundaries a given way to secure for one party an influence in terms of seats disproportionate to the votes cast throughout the nation, a State or a region. Electoral commissioners will, however, be concerned with States and they should take account of the proper balance of political representation so that they do not gerrymander the electorates even though there are a similar number of electors within each electorate. If there is to be electoral justice notice must be taken of the voting patterns otherwise, unwittingly, the consequences of a redistribution could be to favour unfairly a particular party when the objective should be to favour none. The number of seats won by any party should be a true barometer of public opinion in a nation, within a State and within a region. It will be argued that an electoral system based on single member electorates may give a winning party a bonus of seats proportionately greater than its total percentage vote. If the system is to be truly democratic the pivot point at which a party can gain a majority of seats-with or without some sort of bonus- should be as close as possible to the 50-50 mark not merely in first preference votes but in two-party preferred votes. I was very pleased that I had the opportunity today of hearing the remarks in this House of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) for he affirmed that it was his view, and he had previously said that it was his view, that the important thing is that government should change hands at the 50-50 point. I want to quote him. This was a speech he made when he held ministerial responsibility as Special Minister of State. On 4 May this year, as recorded at page 205 of Hansard, he said: As I have said publicly, the laws that will be brought into this Parliament and approved by this Government will mean that if conservative parties of this country get 50 per cent of the vote plus one they will be the government but if the Labor Party gets 50 per cent plus one it will be the government. That is the way it ought to be. That is the real challenge to electoral commissioners, to ensure that as they draw the boundaries within each State each of the major political groupings in this country has the opportunity to achieve government on a 50-50 split of the two-party preferred vote. My time has nearly expired. I want to make one further point, and that is that my views about the need to simplify the preferential system are no different today than they were nearly 10 years ago when we had a similar debate on this matter. I think it is important that electors be enabled to express their views clearly and that their votes can be counted. If they want to express their views in accordance with a party's how to vote card their right to do so should be made as easy as possible. In conclusion I again ask the Minister whether he will give consideration to the point I made first concerning the representation from the Territories. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(6.18) —At the outset I will make a couple of comments with respect to my participation on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That was my first experience on a joint select committee. Prior to becoming a member of this place I did not have a particularly high regard for members of the Opposition. I would like to put on record as a personal comment that just working with some members of that Committee I think tempered some of my great personal disposition towards contempt. Working with people such as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the senators on that Committee to some extent at least built a personal relationship but not one that will be built into anything of too much substance in the future, I would not think. That is just a function of the party system but, certainly, I shall not be spending any time now trading insults with either of those honourable members. With respect to the comments made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson ), it seems that he spent a large part of the time allocated to him discussing certain matters with respect to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Suffice it to say that, if a matter seemed likely to be a problem, it would be addressed by the Parliament on time. That time seems to me to be a long way off at the moment. I think one can run into problems when one is legislating for possibilities rather than a problem which is likely to confront this Parliament in the foreseeable future. The honourable member also spent some time talking about multimember electorates. He said that he was not of the view that that concept ought to be supported. Once again it is not part of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, and it seems to me to be singularly inappropriate to waste the time of the Parliament by going into that matter in depth. When the honourable member for Sturt spoke I was reminded of the degree to which relative wealth may possibly have an impact on how the Australian electorate is represented in this chamber. I am not quite sure how much truth or veracity there is in this statement, but certainly it is part of some political folklore in this place that the honourable member for Sturt simply took over the seat that was represented with distinction by his father. The oft-quoted comment is that a great input of personal family resources may have had something to do with his election. I simply make that point because I have a very strongly held view that a financial disadvantage on the part of members or, indeed, parties may have a fairly significant influence on the outcome on any electoral contest. The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill has been adequately dealt with. Because of time constraints I shall not repeat what earlier speakers put, but certainly that part of the Bill dealing with an independent electoral commission is one that ought to be commended by this place. In the course of the hearings of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform there were no substantive points of disagreement with that concept. There certainly were disagreements at the margin, but not substantive ones. The Government has a firm conviction that the electoral commission not only ought to be seen to be independent but also should be independent. The idea of a government having a second guess on matters as close to the heart of politicians as redistributions seems to me to be akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Politicians are not the best guardians of public interest in these matters. Indeed, as a joke, one member of the Opposition suggested that there might be an amendment to one aspect of the Bill to provide greater input by members of parliament. I simply leave it to the electorate to judge whether it wants parliamentarians involved in deciding who should and who should not have seats with particular advantages or disadvantages. The criteria set down for redistribution were again adverted to very briefly. The fundamental change from the previous practice, apart from the Parliament not having any power to knock back a redistribution, is that as far as practicable the initial enrolment for seats is set in order to equalise enrolments half way between the period of each redistribution. Certainly, that is a part of the legislation with which I fundamentally agree. We have had debates in this House and elsewhere about the degree to which any method of redistribution will increase the democratic nature of our Parliament, but I do not think many people would disagree with that as a mandatory objective. The other aspects take into account community of interest, the means of communication and travel, the trend of population changes within a State or Territory and the physical features and area of the proposed division. Also included of course, are the boundaries of existing divisions, which have to be taken into account when one is looking at a redistribution proposal. The Australian Labor Party submission in this regard was that the division ought not to depart from the State quota by any more than 5 per cent. In the Labor Party there is a very strong feeling indeed that that part of our policy ought to have been adhered to. It is one instance only, but certainly a significant instance, of the Labor members of that Committee going some considerable way towards accommodating the divergent views of the other party members on that Committee. I think that point was acknowledged by the honourable member for Gwydir. The public funding aspect received quite a deal of attention. I do not think I need to remind the House that there is a degree of cynicism involved in the position put by the National Party. The National Party simply says: 'We morally disagree with the proposition but we will hold out our reltively grubby hands for the loot'. It would have been a great education for the honourable member for Gwydir to listen to the submissions presented to the Joint Select Committee, particularly those from the Queensland Branch of the National Party. As indicated by my colleague the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), National Party members were in some difficulty with respect to the tax deductibility or otherwise of donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. I think Mr Mike Evans indicated that they were tax deductible; that is, that the taxpayers were supporting the electoral expenditure of the National Party that was derived by way of donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Whilst he put that view quite adamantly-I refer honourable members to the transcript- one of his colleagues, seeing that they might be in difficulty on that score a little later, disagreed that that was the case. Nevertheless, I think it is quite an accepted part of commercial practice that donations of this nature in fact form part of a company's tax deductible expenditure. I also concede that trade union dues are tax deductible, and the part of those fees which subsequently finds its way to politicial parties is also tax deductible. I am not arguing that that is necessarily a bad principle. I am saying quite simply that it should be all above board-on deck. If the Australian electorate does or does not have a strong view one way or the other that matter can be addressed through the normal democratic processes. We have heard of knighthoods being handed out. Of course this is not hearsay; the fellow who received a knighthood because he had given a $100,000 donation to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation went on the public record-- Dr Klugman —Hickey. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am reminded of his name by the Chairman of the Committee, but I shall not repeat it at this stage of the debate. In any event he would not dispute it. In any event, that matter would be the subject of quite some cynicism when people assess why this individual was awarded such a high honour. He concedes that he was awarded the high honour because he donated $100,000 to the Queensland National Party. Of course, there are other aspects of donations that-- Mr Ruddock —Is this all on the public record? Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes. I refer the honourable member to the submission made by Mr Mike Evans on behalf of the Queensland National Party. He certainly would not dispute the position I have put. He certainly might dispute the position I am about to put, and that is, whether or not it can be established in a court of law, there is a widely held perception within the Australian electorate, and certainly within the Queensland electorate, that donations to the Bjelke- Petersen Foundation-this view is endorsed by the previous Liberal Party Secretary in Queensland-are an essential prerequisite to the obtaining of government contracts from the Bjelke-Petersen Government. I am not saying that that necessarily is the case; I am saying that that perception is widely held, and I do not think that can be disputed. I do not need to remind honourable members of various public affairs programs that have widely canvassed that possibility. I am simply saying that where there may be that sort of perception we ought to act to put our own House in order and to put on the public record the donations that particular parties receive. Public funding for an ordinary triennial election will be provided to registered political parties and to registered groups and candidates who are not endorsed by a registered political party on the basis of 60c per vote in House of Representatives elections or by-elections and 30c per vote in Senate elections occurring simultaneously with a House of Representatives election. We supposedly aspire to triennial elections. I concede that elections have been more frequent of late but at the moment we are supposed to have triennial elections. That may change in the near future but that translates to the equivalent of one postage stamp per year, per voter. That is not a particularly onerous cost to put on voters given that they certainly do assist particular political parties by dint of those donors who, under the current system, have access to tax deductibility for their donations. I think it is better that it is on the public record and that any money that is going to be creamed off from the taxpayer and diverted to particular political parties ought to be paid up front. People should understand precisely what particular parties they are funding and what it may or may not be costing the system. The amount of money made available for public funding will be paid only up to the amount incurred by particular political parties whose performance has been proven, that is, when appropriate receipts are made available to the relevant authority. The public disclosure of donations is part of the proposals which cause a great deal of discomfort to the Opposition parties. They often argue-in fact, it has become their cliche response to this matter-that if the donations of businessmen are made public, they will be the subject of intimidatory tactics from rogue trade unions. I remind honourable members that some weeks ago the National Times published a long list of companies which, quite properly, had made donations to the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. I prefer this to be on the public record. If honourable members opposite can indicate to this House one example of intimidatory tactics being used by a particular union with respect to any of those donors I would like to hear it. My strongly held view is that that situation would simply not arise. In the short time that I was a trade union official, if I had gone into any establishment in my role as union official and indicated to the workers there that they ought to take some punitive action against either the company with which they were employed or an alternative company simply because of some alleged payment to the conservative parties, I would have been laughed out of the place, if I were lucky. More than likely I would have been thrown out of the place. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of Australian workers. Mr Ruddock —Do you reckon there was not some ALP official around there the next week, saying: 'Look here; what have you got for us?'? I am sure that is the case . Mr GRIFFITHS —I am trying to be reasonably bipartisan on these matters. If we really want to dig our hands in the bucket and start throwing the stuff around, I will be happy to do that at a later date. The Liberal Party is in a particularly vulnerable position when it comes to these matters. In the leadup to the last election we had the spectacle of Mr Fraser closing the rolls within 24 hours of issuing the election writs, thus disfranchising in the vicinity of 300,000 people. They all may not have wished to exercise their right to vote. But it is indisputable that the closing the rolls within 24 hours effectively precluded those people who were eligible to vote but who were not enrolled from exercising their democratic right to vote. We have brought in what I call the Fraser amendment, to that part of the Act where provision is made for the electoral rolls to be closed seven days after the issue of election writs. Never again will we have that shameful, disgraceful situation in which, by use of a cynical power that Mr Fraser had, those people were precluded from exercising their right to vote. If one looks at the pattern of voting within the younger age groups one can see quite easily why Mr Fraser would not have wanted them to vote. There is a range of important parts of the Bill that go to the very substance of what our democratic system is about but there are a lot of smaller machinery parts on which members of the Joint Select Committee were often in total unanimity. For example, parts of the Bill provide for mobile polling booths. There was very little debate about that. Of particular interest to me are the parts of the Bill which provide assistance for handicapped persons who vote at polling booths, including the rights of handicapped voters to request polling officials to follow a particular how-to-vote ticket. I argued very strongly that in my electorate office I wished to have facilities for disabled persons. It took many months to find a suitable office but I now have an office that has toilet facilities available for handicapped persons. It has lift access for those people who have difficulty climbing stairs. I have a strong view that in much of the legislation that goes through this House handicapped people in Australia are not given the appropriate consideration they deserve. The Chairman of the Joint Select Committee indicated accurately that the Opposition's submission requested that the list system of voting be included in the legislation. That is what we have done. However, now the Opposition seeks to have a second bite at the cherry in this place. I could go on; it is a comprehensive Bill. It is a landmark in terms of electoral reform not only in this country but also around the world. I congratulate those members of the Committee with whom I spent so many hours. I hope the degree of unanimity and compromise that was exemplified during the period that I was on the Committee will be continued through further debates, particularly the debates in another place. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.38) —I join other speakers in congratulating members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on their report. Of course, the legislation that we are debating now is a result of that report. As other speakers have pointed out, this has been the first serious attempt for many years to draw together some real reforms in our electoral system. I certainly do not agree with some recommendations and aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. However, I commend the genuine bipartisan attempt which has obviously been made by members of the Committee to come together and put forward some real reforms to help the democratic process in this country. I think it is interesting to those who support the registration of political parties that when we debate this matter on party lines in the House the divisions are more obvious and the bipartisan approach of which members of the Committee have already spoken is split right down the middle. In some ways that is unfortunate. I was somewhat intrigued to read the second reading speech of the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). He stated: We have advanced some distance from the eighteenth century. But, there is still a potential for the corruption of candidates and parties, who just like the politicians of other days, must have money to campaign even if today it does not go on bribes. It seemed to me that that statement rather implied that this legislation would stop all potential for the corruption of candidates and parties. Of course, no legislation will remove that potential; that will be with us forever, because, as other honourable members have mentioned, if the instinct for corruption is there, no legislation in the world will prevent it. One aspect of our electoral system should give us all concern. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) touched on it before. I refer to the large number of Australians, particularly young Australians, who seem to have completely by-passed their rights under our democratic system. I tend to disagree with the honourable member for Prospect who said he thought this happened for reasons other than lack of political interest. I think that basically it is a lack of political interest. They have become disenchanted with the system. I hope that simplifying and bringing up to date our electoral system will bring back into the process those who have now stepped outside it. I think it is very disappointing that in this country hundreds of thousands of our citizens cannot be bothered to enrol. If I am correct, they have become so disenchanted by the political system that they cannot be bothered enrolling or, if they have enrolled, they cannot be bothered voting. It is a democratic right which has been hard won in years past. I think that the Committee's review of the system will go some way towards encouraging them to come back to the political process. Mr Deputy Speaker, on the question of public funding, I find I am opposed to the proposals in this legislation. I appreciate the arguments which have been put in favour of public funding: Australians have a right to know who is donating to political parties and many other countries seemed to have survived quite successfully with public funding. I do not find it a particularly strong reason to say that we should do what other countries do. There is no doubt that public funding will allow individuals and smaller parties the chance to put their points of view when they have some funds behind them. Mr Robert Brown —Do you accept it? Will you accept it? Mr WHITE —The Party accepts it. I find myself, I suppose, in the position of my friend the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who a moment ago spoke very strongly against public funding and then said he would have to accept it. There is another reason in favour of public funding, and that is that as a result of this legislation unions will have to disclose their donations. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said quite unequivocally a little while ago in this House that unions now by law have to disclose their donations to the Labor Party, where most of their money goes, or to any party. Very few union donations go to the Liberal Party. Unfortunately the honourable member for Port Adelaide is not here but I would like him to tell me where it is written, where is the law which enforces unions to disclose their donations? I would be very happy to be shown that. Dr Klugman —Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, they have to publish their accounts each year. Mrs Child —Including their donations to political parties. Mr WHITE —I will follow that up. I will be happy to see it because I have been able to find no reference. I have mentioned some arguments in favour of public funding, but there are some considerable arguments against it. Firstly, I believe quite strongly that individuals have a right to make their donations in private and to give their money to whomever they wish without the world knowing. Although I might be stretching the long bow a bit, it is after all something of an extension of a secret ballot. Secondly, there is the real prospect of some of the unions discriminating against those businesses which make donations to parties which are not of the unions' choosing. There is the prospect of individual registered parties being entirely dependent on public funding. In the democratic environment in which we work I do not believe that that is a healthy thing, nor do I believe it is healthy for individuals within parties to become dependent for funding on their party, which is what this Bill proposes. I come back again to the matter of the privacy of the individual. Generally speaking, I am against public funding. I recognise that men of goodwill strongly believe in it. Supporting views have been put here tonight. I appreciate their arguments, but on balance I would come out against them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also find myself opposed to the principle of list voting. It seems to me that it is the start of a system of first past the post voting. I am pleased to see that no optional preferential first past the post voting has been introduced in this legislation. It seems to me that if 90 per cent of the voters can get it right in the very complicated Senate ballots, which we have from time to time, that is not a bad average. I cannot accept, particularly when parties and groups will have the right to put two different groupings on a ballot paper, that list voting will simplify it at all. I do not think that the proposals contained in this legislation will simplify the voting system for the Senate. If, as the Special Minister of State has said, a considerable amount of money will be spent on electoral education, I believe that we should stick with the present system and make sure that more than 90 per cent of the voters get it right. In regard to Senate voting, I am very much in favour of eliminating that clause in the Bill which states that a minor mistake makes the vote invalid. I think that to accept the validity of a vote up to the point where a mistake has been made is very much a step in the right direction. I wish to say a few words in regard to the Labor Party's proposed increase in the number of members in this House. Mr Hand —No, that is the National Party's proposal. Mr WHITE —That is its stand on the matter as well. This will be debated next week. I do not propose to speak at any length about it but I would like to quote again from the introductory speech of the Special Minister of State. He said: The size of electorates and the increasing complexity and weight of demands on members have denied the electors the services they deserve and have a right to demand. The last census figures show that I represent the largest electorate in Australia in terms of the total number of people. I think it has the second or third largest number of people on the rolls, so I have a right to say something in regard to this matter. Mr Adermann —Third largest. Mr WHITE —I am corrected by my friend the honourable member for Fisher. My electorate contains the largest number of people, so I disagree very strongly with what the Special Minister of State has said. I do not believe it is necessary to increase the number of members in this House. There is certainly a case for redistributing and bringing large electorates down to their proper quota, and that will take place next year-thank God for that. But a case can be argued for increasing the assistance given to members by providing one extra assistant in each office and certainly some modern office equipment, which would go a long way to providing those services we talk about. At this stage I can see no rational reason for increasing the number of members in the House of Representatives, and I certainly cannot see any valid reason for increasing the number of senators. I strongly urge that the consideration of a referendum which would break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives be taken up at the first opportunity. We have agreed to cut our time short, and I will mention briefly some of the other aspects which I think are important in this legislation. The proposal in regard to placing party affiliations on the ballot paper seems to me to be a very sensible move. I do not believe that if we were not to register political parties we could not make that change and make sure that party affiliations are shown on the ballot paper. The prospect of having mobile polling booths in a country like Australia which has vast areas of land with sparse population makes considerable sense to me. But I would hope that those people would also retain the right to a postal vote if they so wished. I refer to the status of the Electoral Commission with reference to this Parliament. I recognise again that there are considerable arguments on both sides as to whether the Commission should be entirely separate from the Parliament or whether it should be answerable to the Parliament in the last resort. On balance I believe that it should be answerable to the Parliament for the very simple reason that the Parliament in this country or in any country should remain supreme. I do not see the electoral commissioner's recommendations coming to parliament and being drastically altered. But I believe it is important that the Parliament, as the supreme body in this country, retains the ultimate right to change, recommend or direct to that Commission that changes be made. It is to be hoped that that power would never be used. I am very pleased to see that servicemen in particular will be given better facilities than they have been given in the past in regard to overseas voting, although I point out to the Australian Labor Party that it will regret making it easier for servicemen. If there is one community group in Australia that is discenchanted with what is happening to the Services in this country it is the defence forces of Australia. As I said at the outset, I welcome much of this legislation that has come into the Parliament. Much of it is a step in the right direction. I particularly congratulate all those members of the Joint Select Committee that brought it forward. We hope that many of the sensible reforms in this legislation will be passed by this Parliament. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(6.53) —The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 represents far and away the most sweeping reform of our electoral system for more than half a century. In fact, from 1949 to 1983 the conservative parties have resisted any changes at all. We have almost dragged them screaming into the twentieth century. There can be no doubt that the passage of this legislation will result in a more democratic, more accessible and more easily understood electoral system. The fact that such legislation had to be introduced by an Australian Labor Party Government speaks volumes about the basic nature of Labor's opponents. Anti-Labor government has held office in Australia for three years to every one year of Labor government. The same anti-Labor government has always paraded itself as the champion of liberty and freedom. It has persistently maintained that the Labor Party is a party of collectivisation and forced labour, caring nothing for the rights of the individual. In reality, of course, Labor governments have demonstrated a consistent commitment to maintaining and expanding individual rights. One of the most basic of these rights is the right freely to choose and dismiss governments. Universal suffrage is not in itself a sufficient guarantee of that right. Electoral systems theoretically based on universal suffrage can still contain many impediments which either deliberately or inadvertently frustrate that right. These impediments can include gerrymanders, malapportionments, unequal access for candidates to the electors and complications in the voting system which promote informality and thereby distort the democratic process. Labor's opponents have always opposed reforms and designs to democratise the electoral system. They have done so because, historically, they have always represented elite groups, anxious to avoid sharing too much of their power and influence with the hoi polloi. Labor is not afraid of democracy. Labor is not afraid of the voices of ordinary men and women. Our opponents claim that this legislation is basically designed to gain a partisan advantage; that we are pushing it merely to advantage Labor. In one sense I guess that they are right. This legislation will advantage the Labor Party. Any legislation which ensures that the electoral system is truly reflective of the will of the people will always advantage the Labor Party. So there we see the reality. The more democratic the system, the better off Labor will be. The less democratic the system, so much the better for Labor's opponents. I referred earlier to a number of impediments which can operate to frustrate the basic right freely to choose and dismiss governments. The legislation currently before the House will go a long way towards overcoming many of these impediments. I will list the more significant changes for the benefit of the House. The establishment of a truly independent Electoral Commission will take the drawing of electoral boundaries and the general operation of the Electoral Act out of the hands of politicians. This step should go a long way towards overcoming the inevitable cankerous wrangling which accompanies every redistribution. It is the nature of opposition parties to accuse the Government of attempting to rig the boundaries. Sometimes they even believe the allegations they are making. With an independent Electoral Commission, such allegations should cease as they will have no credibility. The process of redistributions will not be subject to the approval of either House of Parliament. In addition, the timing of redistributions will similarly be out of the hands of the Parliament. No future Commonwealth Government will be able, like the Premier of Queensland, to whistle up a redistribution whenever it suits it. Of course, Mr Bjelke-Petersen's latest attempt at whistling up did not turn out too well. I am sure that an independent Electoral Commission would also be inclined to bite him on the leg. The second significant change relates to the introduction of public funding and public disclosures of donations. Our opponents have attempted to portray public funding of political parties as a typical socialist plot to extort money from the pockets of electors as a means of ensuring that the Labor Party will win every election. I have not noticed too many socialists winning office recently in Japan or the United States of America, yet these are only two of many democracies which employ public funding. Honourable members would be well aware of the political scandals which have erupted in both these countries as a result of corrupted funding of parties and candidates precipitating the introduction of public funding. We should not kid ourselves that the same thing could not happen here. Public funding and public disclosure are essential steps to protect the integrity of the political process. Under the 'grab what you can' system currently operating in Australia, anything is possible. The cost of political campaigning has exploded to such a degree that every party machine spends most of its time struggling to pay off its ever-increasing debts. In a healthy political system, parties would concentrate on researching and developing policies and training well-informed candidates capable of carrying them out, rather than frantically thinking up new ways of squeezing money out of people. Our current system is not only inefficient and time consuming but also undemocratic. Today money is the most important determinant of a political candidate's ability to communicate with the electors. There was a time when public meetings and door-knockings were effective means of communication. These days people do not go to public meetings because they are all at home watching television. Meanwhile, the enormous increase in the size of electorate has reduced the effectiveness of door-knocking. There just is not enough time to reach any more than a comparative handful of voters. I know that because I spent some five years knocking on the doors in Henty. Now that I am a member of parliament I simply do not have the time to get around to communicate with my voters, however much I would like to do so. I still think it is the best way of campaigning. But times change and we move on. While Australians are resistant to change I think the time has come when we have to open our eyes a bit and look at what is happening in the world today. No one, either on this side of the House or on the other side of the House, can get round to knock on those doors. With the best will in the world we cannot manage it. Today, if candidates or parties cannot afford extensive television, radio and Press advertising they might as well not bother to nominate. If the quantity of the message is to be more important than the quality, something has to be done to ensure equity in the quantity of advertising. An electoral system where the major means of mass communication are dominated by one party or candidate on a two, three or four to one basis as happens consistently in Australia is democratic only in name. Public funding and public disclosure will serve to clean up the political process. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) in his second reading speech stated: The price of public funding is a small insurance to pay against the possibility of corruption. They will also serve to make the process fairer so that, hopefully, the winning candidates or parties will be the ones with the best arguments, not the fattest cheque books. In many other respects this legislation will make the voting process simpler and easier to understand. The new procedure proposed for the marking of ballot papers will substantially reduce the incidence of inadvertent informal voting. This particularly applies to the migrant voter. Frankly, the changes in this respect do not go as far as I would like. I am unable to understand why any voter should be compelled to express a preference beyond that which he or she wishes to express. I have only one wish when I go to vote and that is to vote for the Labor Party. I am forced to list my preferences or my vote becomes invalid. At least this new situation will be an advance on the current situation where an elector is forced to choose between Senate candidates from the flat earth society and the radical bomb throwers and collectors, or lose his or her entire vote. Finally, the idea of a ballot for a position on the ballot paper is not new; it is done for the Senate. It is certainly more democratic than putting us in alphabetical order. It is not by coincidence that 23 of the 49 members opposite have surnames covered by the first quarter of the alphabet. On this side of the House 15 of our members are covered by the last quarter of the alphabet. We are all aware of the value of the donkey vote. After all, in 1974 when the Liberal Party of Australia in my electorate decided to drop Max Fox who had served that Party very well for 19 years and go for someone whose name started with 'A', it did not do so because of the quality of the candidate; it did so because it needed 2 per cent to win the seat. The donkey vote gave it an extra one per cent . If we ballot for position, whether we are in the 'A', 'B' or 'C' category at the top of the alphabet or down in 'X', 'Y' or 'Z' categories, we are all going to have an equal chance. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.02) —Firstly, I commend the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which has brought forward this report on electoral reform which we are discussing in conjunction with the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Obviously many members have commended the Committee today upon its work, the report that it produced and the consensus that it was able to achieve in a number of areas. Unfortunately, the consensus that was achieved contrasts very unfavourably with the speech that we have just heard from the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) who I think adopted a very different attitude in relation to the Opposition parties. Notwithstanding the fact that there were many matters upon which agreement was obtained and where the parties were able to come to a view which represented proper and welcome reforms, there were aspects of the report and aspects of this legislation on which, quite properly, there were dissenting reports and upon which members of the Parliament from this side of the chamber disagree. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the Chairman of the Committee, commented upon some of the submissions that were received from political parties . I sense that he used them as a form of ridicule of some of the views that the Opposition is now putting. Let me make it very clear that the Liberal Party of Australia is not bound and has never been bound to follow the dictates of its own councils, and its councils have never forced or endeavoured to force a view upon us. I make this position clear not with any sense of rancour, but simply to contrast that with the position that the Australian Labor Party has adopted over so many years and with some of the recent discussions in the Labor Party about whether it ought to be bound to follow the decisions of its own councils. I understand it has caused some difficulty for honourable members opposite. Of course they have moved away from that view slightly. I gather that some members of the Caucus are very much of the view that they should follow the decisions of their own councils, and some are of the view that they should not. So if we are going to try to score points on the basis of the extent to which people are prepared to follow the dictates of their party or otherwise I think we will go on all night, and that will be very negative and not helpful. I would also like to make clear the fact that some members of parliamentary committees, in contributing to the way in which these reports have developed, have come to a view that might not now be reflected in the view that the party has adopted and ought not to be a basis for point scoring either. I want to congratulate all members of the Committee who endeavoured to reduce the areas of conflict because I think it is important that those areas be reduced. As I have said, I want to congratulate them on the report they have produced, to commend them for it and to say that there can still be some areas upon which there is disagreement. I will speak about a number of them. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) talked about Dracula in charge of the blood bank when he was referring to parliamentarians having an interest in redistributions. I must say that I thought that analogy would be far more apt if it were used in relation to parliamentarians receiving moneys from the public purse to help fund their campaigns. I suspect that while people want to know the amount that might be paid for postage stamps, the sums of money involved will ultimately be significant. They will be significant in terms of campaign funding and they will be significant in terms of the amount of money the public of Australia will need to find. I think there will be very considerable public disquiet or alarm at these provisions. I think it is expressed in public opinion polls that we have seen and will be increasingly expressed in the objection that the public at large will have to its funds being used directly to fund the campaigns of the major political parties. I think one cannot sum up this matter in any better way than by quoting the words of Senator Sir John Carrick in his dissenting report. He had this to say: It is not possible to legislate for honesty. That is a view I have put on previous occasions. It was a view that I supported fully when Senator Sir John Carrick put it. He continued: To erect a facade which cannot work and to represent it to the community as a reform to strengthen the integrity of the democratic system is to do the community a grave disservice. I think that in more ways than any other sums up what this legislation is about. Democracy is a very important matter. Countries can have different electoral processes and still be democratic. I do not believe that we can make a proper judgment as to whether Australia is democratic by asking whether it has public funding or whether it does not. To assert simply that public funding is needed does not make it correct, in my judgment. To assert simply that it will remove dishonesty does not in my judgment mean that we will have a framework of legislation that will remove dishonesty. Dishonest people will still find ways around legislation of this sort. Allegations have been made about where funds have been obtained. I do not think this legislation will make one iota of difference to the sorts of allegations that will be made in Queensland or New South Wales if one wants to make a retort . I think one will still find, with this legislation, the sorts of problems that we had when there was no legislation. The Liberal Party does have very serious reservations about electoral funding arrangements. The matters that are very much in our minds will be spelt out in far more detail by my colleagues. I emphasise that the fund raising code of the Liberal Party which has been in place for many years and which ensures that its candidates are not involved directly in the raising of funds for election campaigns is very important. No fund raising code is involved in this legislation. In fact, the legislation envisages that if a candidate has not appointed an agent, that candidate will be responsible for disclosing information about donations and the like received in relation to his own campaign. A candidate without an agent and without someone else taking that responsibility puts himself in a very difficult position. Whether the information is publicly disclosed or not that person is taking responsibility for seeking money. That is in conflict with the public fund raising code that the Liberal Party has had over many years. If one is going to have in place the sort of fund raising code that the Liberal Party has had in place, one has to appoint an agent. This is demanded in the legislation. Let me just ask honourable members how they think they will go, after one or two elections, at being able to find willing volunteers in the community who will want to be an agent. It may be that paid officials will be prepared to wear the fines on these matters. Let us look at the position of an agent of a candidate; not a paid official, an agent of a candidate. If he fails to furnish a return as an agent of a candidate he will be liable for a maximum fine, personally, of $1,000. Mr Hand —Tony Eggleton? Mr RUDDOCK —No, not Tony Eggleton. I am talking about Philip Ruddock's campaign. The fellow's name is Ern Watson. He is a retired bank manager. He is a very genuine volunteer and if he is going to do that job for me, he will have to accept the responsibility laid down in this legislation. If he fails, he is liable to the fines that I am detailing. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) set out those details in a note which we received today. It states, in effect, that if Ern Watson-Philip Ruddock's agent-retired bank manager, submits an incomplete return, as an agent of a candidate he will be liable to a fine of $1,000. If he fails to retain the records of Philip Ruddock's campaign, he will be liable to a fine of $1,000. If he knowingly furnishes a false claim or return , he will be liable to a maximum fine of $5,000, with the possibility that it will be an indictable offence. If he knowingly furnishes false information to a person required to furnish a return, he will be liable to a fine of $1,000. If he continues to fail to furnish a return, he will be liable to a fine of $100 daily. If he refuses or fails to comply with a notice to produce documents or to give evidence, he will be liable to a fine of $1,000. I appeared before the Committee of Inquiry into the Disclosure of Electoral Expenses, Sir Clarrie Harders's Committee, which looked into these matters and I gave some evidence to that Committee about the difficulties faced by political parties in finding volunteers who will give service to political parties to assist the philosophy that they support. I believe that political parties will find it very difficult to get those volunteers to give service in their electorates. If we look at the documents which the Minister furnished to us today, on page 9 we will also find some provisions which relate to the inability to complete returns. There are also involved in this legislation investigatory powers put in the hands of the Electoral Commission. Honourable members must understand that from my reading of proposed section 153Y, if Ern Watson is not able to obtain adequate information in relation to the branches that might have given donations to the campaign in Dundas, he will then have to provide information as to other office bearers in Liberal Party branches. So there will be a distinct possibility that the Electoral Commissioner will be able to ask the office bearers in each of the electorate branches to furnish information. Any person who wants to take on an honorary position in any honourable member's branch will face the possibility of being chased by the Electoral Commissioner and the possibility of having made himself liable for fines in each of the areas I have mentioned. I regard that as being most undesirable. It is a matter that has not been raised before. I see it as one which will make it extraordinarily difficult for candidates to excuse themselves from being involved in the collection of money for political parties. It will put a greater onus on them to be involved, because they are the ones who will be standing for election and nobody will want to volunteer to be their agent. The other comments which I want to address briefly are those that have been made in relation to the Electoral Commission, suggesting that under this legislation it will in some way be independent. I admit that the legislation will improve the situation. But I make this point: In no way will the Commission be truly independent or free from possible criticism. Since this Government first appointed Dr Wilenski as Chairman of the Public Service Board and has put into legislation provision to make people chosen by him eligible for appointment , I believe that one cannot but doubt the nature of the appointments that might be made to this sort of body. Specific positions have been designated for those people who will constitute members of redistribution committees in the Electoral Commission. In my judgment , the Chairman of the Public Service Board will be influential in choosing public officials. In the States of Australia designated officials will also be chosen. I know that in New South Wales the Wran Labor Government gives a great deal of attention to the appointment of the Surveyor-General, and in the future I think it will give great attention to the appointment of the Auditor-General. To suggest that these provisions will in any way obviate people from being suspicious or concerned about the way in which these redistributions will emerge is somewhat futile. It will be very important that the Parliament be left with the sanction to be able to refuse a redistribution. That is one of the amendments that the Opposition will move, for which I will be voting very strongly. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(7.15) —I make first of all a few brief comments about the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and its Chairman. It was a unique committee in that all of its members were experts by practice in the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It was perhaps mainly for that reason that members of the Committee worked so well together. It was quite an experience for me to work with Senator Sir John Carrick, who played a devil's advocate. I am sure that he could not have been serious about some of the points he made, but his points were helpful in teasing out facts so that the best result finally emerged. The Committee worked long and hard during the recess and , of course, our electorate work suffered. But I have noted many compliments from both sides of the House on the work of the Committee. It should not go unrecognised that the final result came about because of the hard work that went into it. There were many submissions from various groups, all of the political parties took part-individuals and so on. On 21 April 1973, at the opening of first session of the Thirty-third Parliament, the Governor-General said: A wide range of proposals and legislation designed to enhance the quality of government in Australia and to strengthen the foundations of Parliamentary democracy will be submitted for your consideration. My advisers deeply believe that public confidence in the effectiveness and integrity of our parliamentary institution must be strengthened. Legislation will be introduced to ensure that the principle of one vote-one value is clearly established. My Government will introduce public funding of election campaigns and measures to reduce the incidence of informal voting through simpler voting procedures. The Parliamentary Committee system of the national Parliament will be strengthened to give Members of Parliament a more effective role and participation in the great affairs of this nation. The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which is being dealt with today will bring in those measures referred to in the Governor-General's Speech, along with many others. The Bill and the reports, however, are the result of possibly the greatest review of the Australian electoral provisions yet undertaken. Consequently, a great number of issues can be touched on. I will try to refer to a few matters in particular. Public funding of political parties for election campaigns is one area of some controversy. However, the Labor Government clearly put this issue before the public and was elected with public funding of election campaigns as a part of its election platform. A great deal of the work was carried out by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which was set up by the former Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I wish to pay tribute to his long years of campaigning for public funding of election campaigns in order to put an end to corrupt funding and big corporation funding of certain conservative parties. Any perusal of speeches made in this House over a number of years by the honourable member for Port Adelaide will reflect a consistent view on public funding. Political parties, including the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia- sometimes referred to as the Country Party-the Australian Democrats and many other minor parties and individuals made submissions to the Electoral Reform Committee with regard to public funding of political parties. The Australian Labor Party put the view that elections should be decided on the quality of the policies put forward, not the quantity of money, which has always been more readily available to the conservative parties, such moneys coming from the large corporations. The Australian Democrats also supported public funding of election campaigns on the grounds that it would ensure a greater level of equality between the aspirants for public office and would minimise the risk of financial considerations corrupting the political process. The Liberal Party was opposed to public funding. One can only assume that its finances from the big corporations will continue. However, on the assumption that public funding would be introduced, and clearly there is a mandate for such public funding, the Liberal Party suggested a fund related to a cost per elector to be divided into State and Territory funds directly proportional to the numbers of electors in each State or Territory. The Liberal Party also put forward a proposal for annual party maintenance activities, referred to by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The National Party was also opposed to public funding but, like its conservative Liberal Party colleague, the National Party organisation in Victoria and New South Wales proposed an estimate involving a pool raised by tax check-offs to be disbursed one-third to candidates, one-third to State party organisations and one-third to national level party organisations on the basis of percentage of the formal vote cast, with a maximum of 50 per cent of any section of the vote. It is significant to note that both the Liberal and National parties added to their basic objection that, should a system of public funding be introduced, they would participate, otherwise their parties and their supporters would be disadvantaged in the process. The question of public funding was well canvassed and the foregoing merely touches on the positions of the major parties. I again refer to the Governor-General's speech on that question. A great deal was attempted to be made of union donations and affiliation fees to the Australian Labor Party, and there were some outrageous suggestions of vast sums that were supposed to be tax free. I want to take on board the arguments of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I take as an example the $50,000 recently donated by the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, my organisation, to the Australian Labor Party. The $50,000, if divided by 150,000 members-actually there are 171,000 members, but let us keep the mathematics simple-makes 33c per member for each election. On a three- year basis, that is 11c per member per year. If the tax due is 30 per cent, that makes each member's contribution 3 1/2c. That is the tax free dodge which those opposite are talking about and trying to make an issue of. That is what the conservative parties call tax dodging-3 1/2c per year! Mr Hand —The Liberals always take their money though. Mr SCOTT —They get it from the bottom of the harbour, but we are trying to keep this debate friendly. Mr Hand —Why? Mr SCOTT —Because the argument is on our side. We do not have to resort to the kind of muck thrown around by the honourable member for Boothby. I am sorry that he did that, because he did not do it in the Committee. Affiliation fees, which are separate again, would not be much more and would certainly be less than 10c a year. The point should be made that union subscriptions and professional association fees for the individual are tax deductible. Whether one is a fitter and turner, a doctor in the Australian Medical Association, a civil engineer or even a Qantas pilot, one's union subscriptions are tax deductible; and it is only 3 1/2c per year which these conservatives are trying to make an issue of. I hope that argument is put to rest. Let me look at some of the other points raised by the honourable member for Boothby. On the question of disclosure, much has been said about unions hiding their political donations. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act unions are required to publish their accounts. They are available to every member. The are priced at 10c, but one can get them free from any union office. The accounts are available for every member who wants to see them. So let us stop this humbug about unions hiding their donations. Really it would be better for Australia if political parties stopped the kind of conniving that surrounded the last donation of $50,000 when, by trickery, a photographer managed to get Laurie Carmichael into the picture with a caption saying: 'Communist chief Laurie Carmichael gives donation to Bob Hawke'. That is really hitting below the belt. It is the kind of dirt those opposite seem to enjoy being in. Donations to the Liberal and National parties were touched on by my good friend the honourable member for Prospect. Those details came to the Committee through its consideration of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. That was one aspect. Also in the Business Review Weekly of 26 February 1983 there was a list of companies and individuals who donated to the New South Wales Liberal Party. That list runs into pages and pages. I am quite sure that that document is not normally available to the public. The amounts of donations are not made known in that list, but reference has been made to over $1m being donated. So I contend that my earlier argument is correct. One of the problems discussed in the Committee was that of some organisations supporting different parties and the amount of money involved in advertisements during the elections. In South Australia we have had a long run of this kind of anonymous advertisement, normally from someone using a box number as his address. I have here one published during the election campaign in 1980, dated 17 October and authorised by Nigel Buick, Kingscote, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. The caption at the top says: ' Independent Election Advertisement'. That is the kind of thing that is indulged in, whereas unions donate publicly. Their leaders have their pictures taken and are proud to donate to the Australian Labor Party, not this anonymous crap here. Another advertisement authorised by the same person on Kangaroo Island stated: A win by the Labor-Socialists could give the left-wing Unions effective control of Canberra. I wish it was true, but it did not happen. Perhaps the daddy of them all was an advertisement in the News in South Australia which again was depicted as an independent election advertisement. It was inserted by 'a large group of businessmen vitally concerned with keeping a responsible Liberal Government in Canberra' and was authorised by D. Hill, 39 The Esplanade, South Perth. Mr Kent —Who is he? Mr SCOTT —Nobody knows who he is. Mr Kent —From the bottom of the harbour? Mr SCOTT —They are quite good at that kind of thing over in Perth. Because of an agreement to limit speaking times to allow other members to speak, I will wind up by touching very briefly on a number of other matters, including the habitation review. I wish to record my respect and admiration for the work done by those people in the Australian Electoral Office. Mr Maher —Hear, hear! Mr SCOTT —I point out that in a 12-month period in my electorate there were 14, 000 new enrolments. I heard my friend the honourable member for Lowe saying: ' Hear, hear!' Of course, one of the problems is not having enough stamps to send out letters to welcome people into one's electorate. That was a good commercial for the honourable member for Lowe! Habitation reviews are important, if they are carried out to try to get people on to the roll, as are the enrolment of Aborigines, educational programs, the Distribution Commission and the question of positions on ballot papers not being determined by the alphabetical method. I would have liked to say a lot more, but there will be an opportunity no doubt at the Committee stage. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(7.29) —We have in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill a real mixed bag of issues. Some are acceptable and in the nature of sensible amendment. However, there are a number of proposals which I not only cannot support but also find totally objectionable. One amendment in particular, however, pleases me. Students of politics and history who have assiduously followed my speeches in this House over the years will have noted that I took my own Government very severely to task on one matter related to the previous Act and its administration. The Act provided that where a certain percentage of the seats-I think 25 or 30 per cent-in a State became malapportioned there may be a distribution. When I spoke in the last Parliament on this matter, almost 40 per cent of the Federal seats in Queensland were in that category. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE PAPERS: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM Report ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE Report] Debate resumed. Mr ADERMANN —When I spoke on this matter in the last Parliament almost 40 per cent of the Federal seats in Queensland were in the category I have just mentioned, with seats like Fisher and Fadden 30,000 in excess of quota and McPherson nearly as bad. This, of course, creates a situation which is quite unfair to constituents and the members who try to serve them. I said then that it was neither defensible nor honest to provide the facility in the Act to redistribute in that case and then fail to act upon it. I am pleased that the amendment now proposed will make mandatory a redistribution in that situation. However, I am most concerned that these amendments take away from the Parliament the capacity ultimately to accept or reject the Electoral Commission's redistribution decision. The review by the Federal Court of Australia does not and cannot meet the reason for my objection. It is the Parliament which sets down the criteria which should be considered in determining the proposed electorates. It is for the Parliament to decide whether the Commission's decision complies with the letter and intent of the legislation of the Parliament in these matters. Let me give examples. When legal provision was made for variation from quota of 20 per cent, the distribution commissioners never used it beyond 7 per cent. When the variation became 10 per cent the commissioners in Queensland used a maximum of about 3 per cent. Community of interest was a criterion, yet I can quote glaring examples of transgression of this provision. For example, what community of interest consideration would have compensated division of the Sunshine Coast into two separate electorates and uniting northern Brisbane suburbia with the southern part of the Sunshine Coast? The point I make very strongly is that if the Parliament places in its legislation specific criteria for consideration, and the commissioners ignore or patently contravene those specific guidelines, surely it is the Parliament which ultimately should judge whether the commissioners' proposals conform with the detail and intent of the Parliament's own Act. To give that role over to having to seek a prerogative writ in the Federal Court is not an acceptable amendment. How can a third party, even if it is a court, be the best arbiter of what the Parliament has said, written, or intended? Another amendment seems to invite malpractice. At present, when a voter casts his vote within the division but outside his subdivision, he has to make an absentee vote. That poses no great inconvenience or difficulty, and the present provision ought not to be altered. The amendment which provides that an elector can vote outside his subdivision anywhere in his division by casting an ordinary non-absentee vote is dangerous and unnecessary. It makes multiple voting possible. In early years a popular proverb, that the Labor Party's slogan was ' vote early and vote often', was in vogue. This amendment provides the ready facility to vote early and vote often. Once an ordinary vote is cast it becomes unidentifiable in the ballot box, so even if a voter is detected as having voted more than once, each vote will nevertheless be counted, and in close finishes could be significant. The absentee vote at least could be quarantined until the rolls were checked and the present Act could thus contain some restraint. If absentee voting were a complicated hassle or inconvenience, I could understand the amendment, but it is not a hassle, at least within an elector's own division . Such an absentee vote can be quickly obtained and conveniently cast. The proposed amendment is unnecessary, not required, and opens the door to possible malpractice. It ought to be rejected. I would have liked to talk about funding-many speakers have done so-but as we have an agreement about time I just record my absolute opposition to public funding. It seems to me to be arrant hypocrisy for the Government to tell pensioners and others that their pensions, their support, cannot be increased because the Treasury is empty and yet at the next election take $8.6m to fund political parties. Mr Braithwaite-And they knocked back local government by $13m. Mr ADERMANN —Yes, that is the sort of performance they give. Every public opinion poll on the issue gives a resounding 'no'. The taxpayer is not being considered. It is totally indefensible and absolutely repugnant to fly in the face of that clear view. It is a cruel betrayal and totally despicable behaviour . With the same perverted reasoning the Labor Party has been prompted to put in this Bill the disclosure of contribution provisions. The justification of this proposal just cannot stand up to scrutiny. The simple and totally indefensible reason for the proposal is that the Government is hell-bent on taxpayer-funded elections and is vainly casting around for some excuse to justify them. If the poor Australian constituent does not already suffer enough political advertising in his newspapers and on commercial and Australian Broadcasting Corporation television until he is sick and tired of it by election day, with the generous grab into Treasury now proposed he will get an even greater dose and have to pay for it in increased taxes. Mr Braithwaite-Over 60 per cent of the people don't want it. Mr ADERMANN —That is true. I turn now to the proposed list system of Senate voting. I am ready to agree that it is not good to see the relatively high level of informality in Senate voting. I am also ready to agree that this is largely due to the inordinately high numbers of candidates on the Senate ballot paper. Certainly we need to address the problem. Indeed the very great increase in deposits required from prospective Senate and House of Representatives candidates is claimed to be part of the solution. But some very serious concerns attach to the list system proposal. Where there are many independents, or where we have a party such as the Australian Democrats who issue alternative choice how-to-vote cards with differing preference allocation, there is a great complication. The placing of a box to be ticked if a registered party list is to be followed just does not meet the need. If I had the time I could demonstrate that we need a multiplicity of boxes. A coercive element is also contained in this suggestion in that electors are encouraged to dilute their assessment of individual candidates and opt for the easy course of party regimentation. It encourages the person who wants to make some value judgment of individual candidates to diverge from that commendable ideal and opt for the easy way out. I have the distinct impression that it is deliberately contrived to make it even more difficult for genuine Independent candidates to have any chance of election. Earlier I said that a bipartisan study of the most equitable solution to the problem of informality is to be commended and that that could be accomplished by seeking opinions from all interested sources and not confining such a study to such a brief time span that faces the Committee on this occasion. The list system in my view is not the best answer and it has the added disadvantages and complications that I have outlined . If I were a facetious fellow-I am not-I would tell the House that the departure from alphabetical listing of candidates is an abrogation of a splendid democratic tradition. I am sure the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and perhaps even the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley) will agree with me. But there is no such thing as a donkey vote. Therefore, we will accept the amendment and we will not be dividing the House on that issue. I think that subject to necessary provisions and safeguards the mobile polling booths which have worked successfully in Queensland State elections are very desirable. Such qualifications, however, ought to be considered as enabling a voter to opt for a postal ballot if he wishes and ensuring that all candidates are notified in advance of the time of the visit of the polling officer and the polling box. That is very important. I would like to say more about those things but as long as the Government is conscious of the concern about those matters we can leave it at that. In country areas where distances from polling booths are substantial and electors are engaged in farming, or as somebody said, bowling, I have found opposition to the proposal to shorten the polling hours. I am sure that if the amendments are passed, at the next Federal election some people will be caught by earlier closure of the polls. Some religious groups have problems with the closure of the polls at 6 p. m. I am concerned that it is the remote country electorates that might find the change something of a problem, and the large electorates have enough to endure without any additional difficulty. In conformity with the agreement I wish to deal with one more amendment. It has not attracted much notice but it is one that I would commend. That amendment provides for steps to be taken to ensure that a person's address is not included in the roll if it is shown that the publishing of the address would place at risk the personal safety of him or his family. I mention it because on more than one occasion I have met constituents who have been in that situation. As we know that electoral rolls are fairly easily obtained-indeed, sometimes too easily because they are used by insurance salesmen and everybody else to peddle their wares-I think this is an amendment of some value and importance. The Bill is like the curate's egg, with some of it good and some of it bad. As I have indicated, what is bad is very bad and of such major proportion that I am led to oppose it. I want to close by commending the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and its Chairman. They showed commendable bipartisanship and dedication in their consideration and in the report that they have brought before the Parliament. It is a report that we appreciate and one that the Parliament has considered well. As has been mentioned, it has shown some give and take on both sides of the Parliament. The Committee is to be commended. But I cannot commend or support the Government on some of the amendments that are in this Bill, particularly on funding and declaration of donations. I have outlined some of the dangers of those amendments. I believe that the motives that have prompted the Government to put them forward are not to be commended. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(7.41) —The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill is extremely important and is quite shattering for the conservative parties in Australia because for once the Australian Labor Party will go into a campaign with the possibility of having public election funding which is the right of all democratic parties in the Western countries with which we compare ourselves. I am the only member of this House, as far as I know, who has ever received public funding. I received that under the New South Wales legislation in the 1981 State election. This scheme evolved through the suggestions of the very hard working Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform-I pay tribute to it and to its Chairman-which has come up with an extremely simple and straightforward system of public funding and an equally straightforward system of disclosure. The two go hand in hand. In the New South Wales scheme, which is admittedly a pilot scheme for our nation, there is a very complex system of disclosure and pages of returns are required. In my case, the agent whom I appointed died a few weeks after the election and the whole task of completing all the returns fell on me. I know exactly what is involved and I say to members of the Opposition and to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that they need have no fears. The few matters that have to be declared should be readily available to them and there should be no problem of obtaining local agents or State party paid officials to act as agents. This legislation will work. It will take the best out of the New South Wales system and the best out of the systems that operate overseas. I noticed that none of the Opposition speakers mentioned the fact that President Reagan in America received $29.4m by way of government subsidy in the 1980 presidential election. That fact was totally overlooked. The scheme evolved to pay members of this House the equivalent of 60c per vote received is an admirable scheme. It is fair and it will be understood and totally endorsed by the electorate. The whole question of disclosure is the one that really rankles the Opposition. I have actually gone back to a speech I made in another Parliament in 1981 concerning public funding. I referred then and I refer again tonight to an incident that happened in the 1977 elections when Sir Robert Crichton-Brown, Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia, sent out letters seeking donations. By accident, a reply to one of those letters got into someone else's post box in Melbourne. It referred to a $3,000 donation from Mauri Bros and Thomson Ltd and it was revealed in the Australian Financial Review that that company had said that it wanted that donation to be anonymous. What was the company getting out of it and why was it frightened to let the public know what it was giving? As the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said, how many of the shareholders in that company were consulted before that anonymous donation was made? Why are the conservative forces in this country frightened to reveal who makes payments to them? What corruption takes place? What favours are received? What considerations are given by the conservative forces in this country when they are in government? Fortunately, the situation has changed and they will not be in government for many years in the future. There are many existing forms of public funding. We all know of the abuses by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia when they were in government before the last election, with the use of ministerial cars, their electorate offices, their stamp allowances and their phones. Everyone of those members, through section 74 of the Income Tax Assessment Act can claim deductions as a candidate. They receive deductions for all their expenditure in elections. Tonight we have the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Australian people were revolted in some of the Senate elections in the 1970s when dummy candidates were deliberately drummed up in the hope that Labor voters would vote informally. I was impressed tonight by the comments of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) who pointed out that the conservation forces lose a vote for every vote that the Labor Party loses through dummy Senate candidates who make no contribution to the nation except to confuse voters. I know that in the Lowe by-election there were 12 or 13 candidates and a very high informal vote, but that fell by half at the election early this year. The whole notion of a donkey vote in Senate elections will disappear with this admirable scheme proposed by the Committee. There will be great appreciation for the reforms from amongst our ethnic communities, from people who are used to a simple voting system, a simple scheme for recording a vote and who are not used to the practice of filling out a vast array of numbers ranging from one to 74 or something like that. Aged and infirm people will benefit from this scheme. One does not have to be aged or infirm; anyone can go to a polling booth and forget to take one's glasses, have a sore arm or something like that and have trouble filling out a very complex ballot paper. The honourable member for Dundas also raised the question of the Liberal Party' s fund raising code. We know that it has no morals when it comes to fund raising . It will take money from anyone and its members tonight are frightened that henceforth their secret slush funds will be open to the nation and they will have to disclose who has contributed to their funds and who has made donations to their election campaigns. In every campaign with which I have been involved, going back many years-perhaps 30 years or more-the Liberal Party, the conservative forces, have always outspent Labor candidates, by 10 to one in some cases. In the 1975 campaign the Liberal candidates could not even spend the money they had. They had so much money that they did not know where it was coming from-at least, they knew where it was coming from but no one else ever knew. Public funding has worked very successfully in New South Wales. The Liberal Party and the National Party have now accepted public funding there. They have accepted what goes with it, that is, public disclosure of election donations. Tonight in this House we have this hypocritical campaign by members of the Opposition. Yet in the one State where public funding and public disclosure applies, they have totally come over to it and agreed with the legislation. They will be in there with their hand out and their declarations ready to be lodged- Mr Cross —Both hands out. Mr MAHER —With both hands out, except that in this Parliament the contribution is twice what it is in the States so I suppose in the States they have just one hand out. In conclusion, I think this is a very important piece of legislation when I think of members who have served here in the past or, perhaps of, unsuccessful candidates who have gone from this place impoverished or who never even got here yet who spent their entire savings trying to do so. We can all on both sides think of many men and women who gave their all, who spent their savings and their wives' savings, who contributed their long service leave and perhaps their little nest eggs to get here. Those people suffered in the cause of public life, for democracy in this place. At long last, thank God, they have been vindicated and I urge the House to support this important pioneering legislation. Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker! Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker! Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(7.50) —I thank honourable members for their contributions and move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Steele Hall's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brown, John McLeay, LeoBrown, Robert Maher, M. J.Brumby, J. M. Mayer, H.Campbell, G. Mildren, J. B.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. (Teller)Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Mountford, J. G. Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Ronald Fife, W. C.Cunningham, B. T. Anthony, J. D.Charlesworth, R. I. Katter, R. C.Kelly, R. J. Cameron, IanJones, Barry Millar, P. C.Keating, P. J. Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clause 1 (Short title, &c.). Progress reported. Parliamentary Privilege Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.02) —Mr Speaker, your learned and erudite opinion on the question of privilege raised by me in this House yesterday has been greeted with approval from all sides of politics, by constitutional lawyers and students of the long-standing traditions of parliamentary practice. It was spontaneously recognised as an epic and historic opinion which will be accorded great respect within this Parliament and within all parliaments in the Commonwealth. In order to provide a complete record in today's edition of Hansard I shall now read to the House the letter I wrote to you yesterday, Mr Speaker, and upon which your learned opinion was delivered this morning. I do so without debating the matter and simply to complete the record for posterity. The letter states: Dear Mr Speaker, I desire to respectfully submit to you that the matters raised by myself in the House of Representatives today, do constitute a serious Breach of Parliamentary Privilege. I make this submission on the basis of my own service as a membert of the Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives since 1976; 16 years Parliamentary experience (both State and Federal) and 21 years Legal experience, since my admission to the Bar in 1962. Mr Speaker, the matters set out in my Notice of Motion relating to 'threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation and actual blackmail against and of ALP Members of the Federal Parliament' and, specifically, the House of Representatives, would, if established, clearly constitute Breaches of Parliamentary Privilege. The Law relating to Parliamentary Privilege is, I respectfully submit, set out in House of Representatives Practice, Edited by J. A. Pettifer C.B.E., former Clerk of the House of Representatives, in Chapter 19, page 640 et seq. I particularly refer to page 655 Attempted intimidation of Members, where it is clearly stated that 'to attempt by any means to influence a Member in his conduct as a Member is a breach of Privilege'. The Chairman of Sydney Stock Exchange Case (1935) is cited as authority for this proposition as is the Browne and Fitzpatrick Case (See page 656 and, in the High Court of Australia R. v. Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157). I respectfully point out the actual words of the finding of the Committee of Privileges in its Report to the House of Representatives that 'Messrs Fitzpatrick and Browne were guilty of a serious Breach of Privilege by publishing articles intended to influence and intimidate a Member (Mr Morgan) . . .'. Mr Speaker, I reply upon the following attached exhibits, to establish a prima facie case of Breach of Parliamentary Privilege: (1) A Report on page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald for Saturday, 5 November 1983, which I am reliably assured is true and correct, in which a Minister of State, the Minister for Defence Support (Hon. Brian Howe, MP), specifically alleged intimidation of Ministers and Backbenchers by the Prime Minister. (2) The transcript of an interview on AM for Tuesday, 8 November 1983 (which I am reliably informed is a true and correct transcript), where the President of the ACTU (Mr Dolan) alleged that the Prime Minister had put pressure on all sorts of people in relation to a Caucus vote yesterday. I respectfully submit that it is clear from Mr Dolan's comments that he was referring to pressure being applied to Members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and this, I respectfully submit corroborates the allegation made by the Hon. Brian Howe, MP. Mr Milton —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has already given a notice of motion and he is now debating the issue here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is referring to standing order 82. The Speaker, in allowing debate, must note whether that motion is likely to be called on. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —The letter continues: (3) A Report in the Melbourne 'Age' for Saturday, 5 November 1983, where Mr Howe is reported as saying that a 'whole stack of people had been hauled in and done over by the Prime Minister'. In corroboration of this allegation there was a further Press Report relating to Mr David Charles, MP. Mr Speaker, the allegations are serious; they have been made by a Minister of State and are corroborated by a respected Community Leader; it is clear that influencing a Member in his conduct is not restricted to his conduct in the House and applies to all his conduct as an MP and, the allegation here, goes beyond mere 'influencing' in that the word intimidation is specifically used. Mr Speaker, I respectfully submit that this matter can only be resolved after full and proper Inquiry by the Committee of Privileges. What is certain, I respectfully submit, is that a prima facie case has been established. This view is obviously, though unwittingly shared by a Minister of State, the Hon. Clyde Holding, MP, a Member of the Victorian Legal Profession of many years standing. I have further outside legal advice to the effect that whether a Breach of Privilege- Mr Wells —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 85 no member may persist in tedious repetition either of his own-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.07 p.m. The following notices were given: Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: RAAF Base Williamtown NSW-F/A-18 Hornet facilities development. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, NSW. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 9 November 1983: States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedule to the subsidy scheme in relation to the State of Queensland, dated 28 October 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 352 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was created with changes to the administrative arrangements order on 11 March 1983. To date no cases have arisen involving claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury. With regard to the Australian Tourist Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport, I wish to advise that no such cases have arisen during the period in question. Question No. 368 Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice , on 24 August 1983: (1) How many people have been appointed to hear appeals in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2) What is the average length of time between lodgment and finalisation of an appeal. (3) Has this period of time lengthened since June 1982; if so, what steps will the Government take to reduce this time lag. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As at 31 October 1983 there were 45 full and part time members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Further appointments are under active consideration. (2) The average length of time between lodgment and finalisation of an appeal varies markedly between the various jurisdictions of the Tribunal. It is also influenced by whether a case is settled without the necessity to proceed to a formal hearing. The two largest jurisdictions are those arising under the Social Security Act 1947 (64 per cent of all applications 1982-83) and the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (17 per cent). Of the Social Security matters in 1982-83: 75 per cent were finalised without the need for a formal hearing. For these, average time between lodgment and settlement was between four and five months. Of the 25 per cent which went to a formal hearing 80 per cent are invalid pension cases. These take on average 10 months to finalise. the average time to finalise the remaining 20 per cent is seven to eight months Of the Compensation matters in 1982-1983 40 per cent were finalised without the need for a formal hearing. For these the average time between lodgment and settlement is seven to eight months. 60 per cent go to a formal hearing. The average time to finalise these is 13 months. In relation to applications concerning other areas of jurisdiction the majority of applications are only finalised after a formal hearing and the average length of time between lodgment and finalisation is six months. Those applications that do not go to a hearing would take on average between three and four months to finalise. The average overall would be five months. (3) Generally, the period of time taken to finalise matters has lengthened since June 1982. The time taken to finalise matters is largely within the control of the parties . Problems of delay are particularly apparent in cases where it is necessary to obtain specialist medical opinion. To the extent that the time taken is within the control of the AAT it is expected that the situation will improve following initiatives the Government has taken to make new appointments to the Tribunal, particularly for the Tribunal's social security jurisdiction. Attention is also being given to providing additional accommodation and staffing for the Tribunal. Question No. 382 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners of June 1982, on the Second Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, by the editor of that Journal who attended as an observer. (2) Is he able to say whether half the West Germans aged 18 to 24 expect the world to be destroyed by a nuclear war. (3) Is he also able to say whether three out of four West Germans believe politicians do not know what ordinary people are thinking. (4) Is he further able to say whether psychiatrists believe that (a) protests of young people at this threat allows some older people to transfer some of their own fears of the situation to a fear of the protesters, (b) most people (i ) fail to face the approach of probably world destruction with the present international political order because they feel it is unhealthy to think about doom which is true only in the short term, (ii) falsely find mass destruction (A ) so difficult to imagine that it does not deserve rational consideration, (B) unlikely because the threat is so longstanding or inhumane, and (C) only the sort of increase in destruction that has happened in the past between wars, or ( iii) suppress their fear, (c) such suppression as in (b) (iii) unconsciously then promotes other less rational fears or incapacities to avoid facing the more intolerable fear, as evidenced by (i) the prevalence of diet fads, (ii) loss of confidence in the economy and (iii) scapegoating and stereotyping the citizens of a supposed enemy country as wholly evil and so seeking to increase the threat from one's own side in the quest for unilateral supremacy by force as a just and rational defence, whereas rational suggestions for a co-operative search for acceptable arbitration in a new international political order are seen as prompted by machinations of the enemy, (d) this collective paranoia is aggravated by increasing unilateral non-arbitrated government statements on international and foreign affairs whenever the probability of apocalypse increases, (e) healing this collective insanity and avoiding doomsday for posterity requires vivid publicity of nuclear war horrors, informed descriptions of probable effects of a bomb on the nearest posible target and the more widespread cumulative effects of nuclear war and (f) factors increasing the likelihood of mad resort to nuclear war are increasing in those whose job involves control of nuclear weapons. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, my attention has been drawn to the conference report contained in the Journal. (2) to (4) No. I am unable to confirm or otherwise the propositions suggested. It would be, in fact, very difficult for me to know what West Germans either expect or believe or to know what psychiatrists believe. The only information readily available to me is the precis of the paper on this field of work, contained in the Journal report. While many have sought to envisage the impact of a nuclear explosion on a community, such an impact is probably beyond the limits of our imagination. I would like to assure Dr Everingham that I share, as will all thinking Australians, his concern about the danger of a nuclear war and I thank him for drawing attention to these particular medical facets of such a calamity. Question No. 421 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Trade, 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 Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For parts (a)-(e) Commonwealth funds in the form of grants, amounting to $10, 450,000, were paid to the Queensland Government, for the purpose of creating employment opportunities in the Maryborough region. No other forms of payment were made and none were returned or refused. Question No. 618 Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) Has he received the National Health and Medical Research Council model food standards regulations (a) P3-spirits and liqueurs, and (b) P4-wine and wine products, adopted at the 95th session of the Council in June 1983. (2) If so, (a) with whom has he consulted about the contents of the regulations , and (b) has he decided to implement any of the regulations, in particular those with respect to (i) Australian products and (ii) imported products. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The National Health and Medical Reseach Council is an autonomous body representing Federal and State health authorities, the specialist medical colleges and scientific, academic and consumer organisations. In the development of model food standards regulations such as those for wines and spirits, input is received from the industry, food technologists, nutritionists, consumer organisations and State and Territory health authorities. Once endorsed by the Council, such standards are recommended to State and Territory Governments for adoption into their respective food regulations. The regulation of both domestically produced and imported alcoholic beverages is a responsibility of State and Territory health authorities. I have been advised by my Department regarding criticisms of these standards which are considered to be without basis. Far from allowing the manufacture of wine and brandy from inferior ingredients, the revised standard recognises essential and traditional practices in wine making which require the use of grape skins, seeds and stalks for provision of colour, tannin and flavour. Representatives of the Australian industry were involved in all stages of the revision of the standards. They would obviously not have advocated any changes which would be to the detriment of their industry. Similarly the revised standard breaks new ground in setting limits for methyl alcohol content of spirits in line with those in other major countries. This will allow control of beverages containing high levels of methyl alcohol for the first time. This can hardly be seen to be detrimental to consumers or to the quality of either Australian or imported products. Question No. 410 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the concern amongst Australian potato growers that importers of New Zealand potatoes may be breaching the strict quarantine requirement that imported potatoes be immediately processed. (2) Are any checks made by his Department to ensure that quarantine standards are maintained in the interests of Australian growers; if so, what checks. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Although strict quarantine conditions are set out for the import and processing of potatoes from New Zealand, this does not include a requirement that they be processed immediately on arrival. However any undue delay will not be permitted and in practice processing is completed in two weeks. (2) Processing premises are inspected by quarantine staff and must comply with certain stringent requirements including: adequate and secure storage facilities, all processing wastes are destroyed under quarantine supervision, all packaging materials are disinfected, the importer must maintain records of all potatoes received and processed. Potato movement in containers from wharf to the processing premises is under complete quarantine surveillance. Initial operations and processing are under regular daily surveillance. Short of a complete prohibition the present quarantine requirements are considered adequate and satisfactory to ensure that imported potatoes are not diverted for retail. Question No. 642 Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: In view of the impending visit to Australian waters of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, will he request the United Kingdom government to arrange for the fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, including the Harrier jump jet, on the ship to be exercised and displayed while in Australian waters to demonstrate the vessel's operational capabilities. Mr Scholes —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: Arrangements are in hand for HMS Invincible and its aircraft to exercise with elements of the Australian Defence Force in Australian waters during its visit. In addition, it is planned that the ship will visit the ports of Fremantle and Sydney from 1-14 November 1983 and over the Christmas/New Year period respectively, during which periods it will be open for public inspecion.