Wednesday, 16 November 1983 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. Les Johnson) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. (Quorum formed) The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Dr Blewett,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Ms Fatin,Mr Groom,Mr Jacobi,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Saunderson and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Dobie,Ms Fatin and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school parent club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents' clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Jacobi. 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 Committee 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 committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any health insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth rebate list. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth rebate list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganization of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms, entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provides an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. 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 in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: we urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; we urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; we urge the Government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy; and we urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas space exploration involves the very highest levels of technological expertise and scientific endeavour that has proved beneficial to mankind; and Whereas Australia would face a deterioration of living standards and economy without access to such technologies; The Australian Government should support the worth of peaceful space exploration at an international level, at the United Nations and with individual nations; and The Australian Government should place a far stronger emphasis on the value of the space sciences, and also encourage industrial support for space technology programs; and The Australian Government should undertake to support biomedical space experiments proposed by Australian medical researchers; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. 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 U.S.S.R. (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 Labour 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 governments. 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 Braithwaite,Mr Burr,Mr Lusher and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of residents of Mount Riverview respectfully showeth that there is a genuine need for a post office agency selling stamps, money orders, letter and parcels registration and all business of a normal suburban post office, to serve the needs of a large and growing area placed approximately three and a half kilometres from such nearest facilities. The area has many aged and invalid people who cannot reach Blaxland to transact business. The local chemist, situated in Mt. Riverview shopping centre, is eager to handle such an agency, and is a competent and reliable person to do so. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will give earnest consideration to our request for such an Agency at a very early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of parents' Club bank accounts by way of the bank account debit tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by government regulations in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are school councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt parent clubs from the tax in the same way as are school councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens, the electors of the Division of Paterson, protest against the increases in the cost of postage and Telecom charges. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government tries to contain its costs. We accept that a wage pause is necessary but feel that the Government should look at the increased costs that are burdening us the taxpayers. We are expected to pay increased costs from the State and Federal governments as well as the private sector. We feel that the Government should be setting an example for the private sector by containing its costs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. Petitions received. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its lack of consensus, reconciliation and consultation with the non-Labor State Tasmania and the non- Labor Northern Territory. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores yesterday's action of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in making a unilateral declaration of independence; and (2) calls upon the Turkish Government to use its good offices with the Turkish Cypriot leader to ensure a reconciliation of the problems between the Turkish Cypriot people and the Greek Cypriot people and a return to the conference table to have this problem settled by the United Nations rather than by a unilateral declaration of independence. Mr Peacock-Mr Acting Speaker, with your indulgence, the Opposition agrees with the notice of motion given by the honourable member. I would not wish to embarrass him by calling it on if he was not ready; but, if he wishes to debate the matter, and subject to the wishes of the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen), we can call it on now. Otherwise, I would like him to know that we join him in the sentiments he has expressed in his notice of motion. Mr Lionel Bowen-Mr Acting Speaker, with your indulgence, this is a very important matter. I would like to give consideration to perhaps having a debate later in the day. The Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), I know, has a keen interest in this matter. The expressions by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) would definitely be in accordance with the Government's view. The only thing I have some difficulty with is trying to get the legislative program through. We will see whether we can make some arrangements. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes- (a) The criticism of UNESCO by the former Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, Professor Owen Harries, that UNESCO has become highly politicised, ideologically charged and anti-democratic; and (b) Professor Harries' appeal to the United States of America to announce formally that it will withdraw from UNESCO in one year unless there are substantial changes in the organisation, and the removal of the present head of UNESCO; and (2) calls on the Australian Government to consider Professor Harries' suggestion that Australia adopt a similar policy. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Government for its attempts to improve education and education resources for the majority of Australian school pupils; and (2) condemns those in the community, and members of the Opposition, who are deliberately misrepresenting the Government's educational policies. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) draws to the attention of the Australian public the statements of the Minister for Defence Support with respect to intimidation of members of this Parliament; and (2) calls upon the Government to bring on for debate general business notice of motion No. 1 for 16 November, and also General Business notice of motion No. 261 , both motions standing in the name of the member for Denison, so that this national scandal may be fully investigated and exposed. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in the absence of compelling evidence of intimidation alleged daily by the honourable member for Denison, the House notes with concern his open intimidation and slander, when Minister for the Capital Territory, against an inoffensive youth who had a swastika painted temporarily on his garage. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that following the cessation of drought, the rate of infestation of Paterson's Curse has been very pronounced in South Eastern Australia; (2) acknowledges the fact that, apart from problems caused to farmers by Paterson's Curse, great distress is caused to many people by allergies associated with close contact with Paterson's Curse; and (3) urges the Minister for Health, in conjunction with the States, to expedite the preparation of legislation for the biological control of Paterson's Curse. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with deep concern that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in a collusive attempt to find an election issue, has put at risk a major tourist investment project at Yulara in the Northern Territory, which could result in the loss of a substantial number of jobs. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the associated Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill is to repeal the Australian National Railways Act 1917 and replace it with legislation appropriate to the Commission's role as a commercially oriented business undertaking operating in the 1980s. The Bill defines precisely the Commission's powers and responsibilities and enhances its opportunity to operate commercially in competitive markets. Let me make one point perfectly clear at the outset. We believe the Federal Government has a major role to play in improving the efficiency of railways in Australia's national transport system. This role has not always been recognised- the most obvious example being that, as a result of parochial thinking in past years, Australia now has five separate rail systems using three different gauges . Previous Federal governments of various political persuasions have made major efforts to overcome the difficulties of this legacy by attempting to unify and standardise the national rail network. Rail's performance can, and must, be improved. This can be done by the introduction of more flexible and more commercial management and a more consistent national transport policy than in the past. The long term viability of rail systems depends upon not only adequate infrastructure but also effective pricing, marketing, organisation and personnel policies. With this legislation we are providing AN with the powers to operate in this manner. Railway operations should not concentrate solely on traditional areas of business. We expect railways as dynamic organisations to be looking for new traffic to expand its business. By promoting business growth, railways can increase efficiency and productivity and help generate additional employment opportunities. An improved industrial relations environment, better management and rational investment plans will reduce transit times, improve reliability and increase the opportunity for real growth in rail business. Unfortunately, funding is simply not available to undertake all of the investment needs of railways immediately. All governments currently face extremely difficult budgetary situations. Because of this, further investment in rail programs will need to be guided by a careful and responsible assessment of priorities. A good case in point is the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. No one would deny that if resources were no object it may be desirable to construct the railway. This Government is committed to upgrading transport services to the Northern Territory and the inquiry being conducted by Mr David Hill will determine the facts on whether the rail or road option is the more economically and socially sound. Notwithstanding the current difficult economic conditions, governments are, as much as possible, pressing ahead with major railway projects. They are showing their confidence in railways' future by committing further funds for new projects which will expand the overall tasks performed by railways. With adequate investment and improved efficiency Australian railways will play an essential role in the development of Australia for the rest of this century and beyond. It is a matter of special concern that the national rail network operates efficiently and meets national needs. In addition to infrastructure, railways must also be properly equipped with manpower and management resources and the practices necessary to perform their role. A healthy working relationship between labour and management is as important for railways as it is in any industry. Co-operation and consultation are the basic working principles of this Government. Upon becoming Minister for Transport I therefore initiated regular meetings with the unions and AN to discuss issues of mutual concern. This process of consultation and co-operation is being expanded both at ministerial level and within AN. In this way, AN's employees have a greater opportunity to contribute to improvements in AN and to have an input into policy . The ANRC Bill has as one of its objectives the establishment of a unified organisation dedicated to operating a sound and efficient railway system. It is up to AN and its employees to grasp the chance for success and work hard to achieve it. The Government can set the climate, but management and unions together must accept the challenge. In AN, the Australian Government's own railway system, these things are happening. For instance, the Commission is upgrading its marketing effort to ensure that it wins its share of the freight available, and is seeking to improve the information available to management. Honourable members will recall that it was the previous Labor Government which began the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway, completed in 1980. The new standard gauge line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook has also commenced operating successfully, notwithstanding the overall adverse economic conditions. In the first 10 months of operation, over 1.1 million tonnes of freight have been carried on the line. Work is proceeding on the Adelaide rail passenger terminal, a new interstate terminal being built at Keswick. It will commence passenger operations early next year. Along with many other transport enterprises, AN's financial performance has suffered as a result of the economic downturn and severe drought. Honourable members will recall that on assuming office we were told that an additional $34. 5m was needed in 1982-83 to meet Commission losses, a 50 per cent increase over the original allocation, giving a total contribution for the year 1982-83 of $ 106m. I will describe later the steps we are implementing to avoid a repeat of this experience. In 1983-84 the Government is providing a revenue supplement of $85m or some $21m less than in 1982-83. I have also asked the Commission to identify those services where it believes government support should be provided to maintain these operations. Over the years it is clear that railways have undertaken tasks that they would not do if they operated solely on commercial criteria. In order that the Commission can operate efficiently in terms of both its commercial and non-commercial activities it is clear that this latter group has to be indentified so that the cost can clearly be seen and taken into account. It is then for others, rather than AN, to determine whether these services should be maintained and, if so, to be prepared to meet the costs associated with the provision of the services. Obviously it is incumbent upon government to fulfil this role. In this manner AN's performance can be judged against broad commercial criteria and community services can be undertaken without detriment to the Commission's overall financial performance. This approach accords with the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its 1982 report on the Australian National Railways Commission. It also accords with the Government's social audit policy in transport. As well as completion of the Adelaide-Crystal Brook project, capital works to be undertaken this year include continuation of the rehabilitation of the Tasmanian rail system, the purchase of 10 new locomotives and construction of AN 's new headquarters building. In total, these projects will cost $40m in 1983-84 . Further support for AN is being provided under the Commonwealth's own share of the community employment program. All of the $1.6m allocated to AN under CEP in 1983-84 will be used to employ 130 extra people for railway and re-sleepering projects in South Australia and Western Australia. What I have described are a number of the major initiatives this Government has already taken to prepare AN for the challenge of the 1980s. The Bill now before us will provide the framework under which AN can function as a commercially oriented transport authority. The legislation contains many provisions of an earlier Bill introduced into the House with bipartisan support by the former Minister for Transport and Construction. I commend him for this action. Explanatory memoranda have been circulated to assist honourable members in their consideration of the Bill. The Commission, as established under the Australian National Railways Act 1917, will continue in existence. An important feature of this Bill is that the powers of the Commission have been comprehensively defined. Ministerial intervention in day to day activities is minimised while ministerial oversight is retained in critical areas. This ensures that the Commission is provided with that necessary flexibility to operate commercially but remains properly accountable to the Parliament. Of the provisions of the legislation changing our predecessor's Bill, the most important relate to the accountability of the Commission for attaining financial targets. We are satisfied these changes are necessary if AN is to be clearly responsible for its financial performance against defined criteria. Certain other clauses have been streamlined in order to simplify the legislation. AN's past financial performance, similar to that of other railway systems, leaves considerable scope for improvement. We believe that improvement will in part be achieved through greater financial accountability. As I said earlier, I have asked AN to identify its community service obligations. Factors such as these being taken into account, AN will be provided with a revenue supplement in the Budget context. It will then be AN's responsibility to ensure that this financial target is at least achieved if not bettered. To do this the Commission will be able to be more flexible and to adapt readily to changing conditions. This Bill will ensure that the annual revenue supplement decided in the Budget becomes the level of contribution that the Government provides to the Commission for that year. But we will not be unreasonable about this. AN will be required to submit to the Minister a financial target for each year not later than 60 days before the start of that financial year. We will then consult with the Commission to reach a fair and just figure involving responsible use of the taxpayer's money. AN will then be responsible for reviewing at least six monthly progress towards achieving the financial target. If it is not on target, AN must determine what actions it will take to meet the financial objective by the end of the year. Notwithstanding all that this review process involves, should AN's operating results then indicate that the target will not be met, the Commission will be required to inform the Minister of the measures it will take to meet this shortfall. The legislation provides that these measures cannot include further recourse to the Budget. Before implementing its proposed measures, the Commission will seek in the normal way any Government approvals that might be required. All borrowings, for example, are subject to the Treasurer's approval. The success of our approach depends largely on the ability of the Commission and the Government to consult to determine a realistic annual revenue supplement. We will be working with AN's Commission and staff to ensure that this is achieved. On the basis that a realistic revenue supplement is determined, AN will have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of any improvements it might achieve above that level during the year. Clearly, the financial target will be the bench-mark against which AN' s performance can be judged. The division between AN's powers and responsibilities and those of the Minister are clearly distinguished in the Bill. This arrangement emphasises the need for AN to operate as a commercially orientated transport authority. The responsibility for commercial initiatives rests squarely with the Commission. AN 's greater commercial freedom will be evident in relation to day to day matters such as the fixing of fares and freight rates. AN is obliged by the Bill to determine the principles which it proposes to apply in order to fix rates of charges for prescribed services. This concept was included in amendments which I recently introduced to the Australian Shipping Commission Act. It will provide approved parameters within which AN will be able to determine and vary fares and freight rates, thus avoiding excessive Government intervention in routine operating decisions. These principles are to be determined by AN and advised to the Minister, who may accept them or redetermine the principles that are to form the basis of AN's charges. Again, as indicated earlier, the Bill enables the Minister to direct the Commission to undertake non-commercial activities which may be socially desirable. If the Government requires AN to engage in particular activities for social or other reasons, the Minister will issue a direction to the Commission. AN will be reimbursed for any losses involved in carrying out the Minister's directions. Such directions are required to be tabled in Parliament. Although the Bill removes a number of constraints, reasonable provisions for ministerial oversight will remain. For contracts valued at more than $2m, approval of the Minister will be required. I intend to use the provision to vary this level by regulation to maintain the current level in real terms. Such action would, I expect, be undertaken annually. Ministerial approval must be obtained before AN takes part in the formation of companies or enters into agreements for lease financing. AN will have the power to construct small extensions to its existing railway network. Previously it was necessary for all railway construction to be approved by an Act of Parliament. Under the proposed provision, legislation will be required only when railways over 25 kilometres long are built. This power would allow AN to further its business interests by construction of sidings or spur lines to clients' premises. This will increase the ability of AN to compete with other transport operators. The Commission's powers relating to the operation, maintenance and construction of railways, including the right to enter and occupy land, have been modernised. This is consistent with the powers provided to other statutory authorities and will help ensure that AN is able to fulfil its proper functions in a timely and efficient manner. There are some changes to the Commission itself. There will be an option for appointing the Chairman on either a part time or full time basis. The Bill also provides for a Deputy Chairman to be appointed. The statutory retiring age of 65 for part time commissioners will be removed. The rights of employees of the Commission, including those transferred from the former Tasmanian Railways and South Australian Railways, have not been changed. But there have been improvements in the area of personnel practices. Conditions of employment of AN staff will no longer be determined by the Public Service Board. Ministerial approval of salaries of senior positions will not be required. Such matters are more properly a matter for the commercial judgment of AN. There are several other provisions which I would like to also briefly mention. The accident reporting provisions have been revised to specify the types of accidents that must be reported to the Minister. The Minister's power to initiate independent investigation of accidents has also been strengthened. The current legislation has a number of separate provisions covering different kinds of offences. These have been replaced by the one provision, which identifies the single, serious offence of endangering the safety of railways and provides for a substantial penalty. The Commission also has the power to make by-laws to protect railway users and property. Penalties of up to $500 can be prescribed for offences. Any such by-laws will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same manner as regulations. This Bill is not a money Bill and therefore has no direct financial impact on the Budget. The legislation is an important step in giving AN the responsibilities and powers to increase the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of its railway operations. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983. Its purpose is threefold. It repeals the Australian National Railways Act 1917 with effect from the date of proclamation of the new ANRC Act. It makes necessary arrangements to ensure continuity in the Commission's operations. In particular, it continues the appointment and terms and conditions of service of the Chairman, commissioners, General Manager, officers and employees of the Commission as if the Act had not been repealed. Lastly, it changes references in other legislation where this is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority for a system that may be used uniformly throughout Australia for the service by post of summonses in respect of taxation offences that, on summary conviction, are punishable by a fine. The Australian Taxation Office issues more than 100,000 summonses annually throughout Australia for non-indictable offences against the various taxation laws. Most of these relate to failure to lodge income tax returns or to provide requested information. In some States-notably Victoria, South Australia and Queensland-taxation summonses are already served by post under relevant State laws. However, in Western Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales they are served personally by police officers, taxation officers or private process servers. Of the large number of taxation summonses issued in Australia each year a significant proportion is issued in New South Wales. Until now, service in that State has, by arrangement, been undertaken by the State police. The New South Wales Government and the Police Association in that State have, for some time, been expressing the opinion that the use of police resources on this work is a waste of valuable manpower which, if released from this function, could be better deployed on law enforcement activities. With this general proposition the Government is in agreement, but we have been concerned to ensure that any system implemented to replace personal service should incorporate adequate safeguards. The proposed system contains essential safeguards to protect people from the consequences of non-receipt or late receipt of a summons or notice of conviction sent by post. A person convicted in his or her absence of an offence in respect of which a summons has been postally served and without entering a plea to the charge will be advised, by a notice which may be served by post, of details of the conviction, of any fine imposed and of the time allowed by the court for payment of the fine. This notice will also advise the convicted person of rights available under the system to apply for the conviction to be set aside and the charge re-heard. Where the court hearing an application for setting aside a conviction is satisfied that the postally served summons was not received either at all or was not received in sufficient time to enable attendance at the hearing of the charge, or where the court considers it desirable in the interests of justice to do so, the conviction is to be set aside and the matter re-heard. The system will also provide that, if any fine is not paid within the longer of the time allowed by the court or 21 days, a warning notice must be personally served on a convicted person and a further period of 21 days allowed to elapse before he or she can be imprisoned for non-payment. Following personal service of this warning notice, there will be a further opportunity to seek a setting aside of the conviction and to obtain a re-hearing of the charge. The court would, however, need to be satisfied that the summons and notice of conviction were not received or were not received in sufficient time to enable the person to appear at the original hearing or to have earlier exercised the right to have the conviction set aside and the matter re-heard. In the event of non-receipt or late receipt of a summons there will therefore be at least two opportunities to have a conviction set aside and to obtain a re- hearing before a warrant of commitment to prison may be issued. The system will in general provide safeguards greater than those contained in the laws of States and Territories which now provide for the service of summonses by post. In no case will the proposed Commonwealth system provide less safeguards. The system will be implemented initially in States in which personal service of summonses is at present carried out, namely, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania. I also mention that in States and Territories where persons may, under State or Territory law, enter a plea by post to a charge of having committed an offence, that procedure will also apply in relation to summonses for taxation offences served by post under the new Commonwealth system. The introduction of the system provided for by this Bill will not result in any cost to the revenue. There will, however, be savings for State police forces in the States in which police officers now personally serve taxation summonses. Some savings in Commonwealth expenditure and resources will also result in States in which summonses are now served by taxation officers or process servers . A memorandum explaining the technical features of the Bill is, as is usual with taxation Bills, being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Minister for Primary Industry)(11.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enact legislation to validate the payment and collection of amounts under the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 and the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979. The Charge Act was amended by Part XVII of the Export Control ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 with effect from 1 January 1983. The title of the first Act and the definition of 'abattoir' in Section 4 of that Act were amended to reflect the repeal of the Exports (Meat) Regulations by the Export Control (General) Regulations made under the Export Control Act 1982 also with effect from 1 January 1983. The new definition of an abattoir in the Charge Act requires that premises used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughter and dressing of animals from which meat intended for export is obtained be prescribed. In the event such premises were not prescribed. This related to the administration of the previous Government. Fees within the maximum rates of charge set under section 6 of the Charge Act and prescribed by regulation have continued to be collected since 1 January 1983 notwithstanding the failure in the administration of the previous Government premises. Those maximums and the operative rates of charge prescribed in regulation 3 of the charge regulations were increased in the context of the budget with effect from 1 October 1983. The charge regulations are being amended to prescribe premises that are registered premises within the meaning of the Export Control Act 1982 for the purposes of the definition of 'abattoir' in section 4 of the Charge Act. The Bill will overcome a technical deficiency in the legislation which has become apparent. This Bill covers the period from 1 January 1983 until the regulations which I have already signed came into effect. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 to implement the Government's election commitment to extend the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation-AIDC-to enable it to allocate additional finance for the restructuring and revitalisation of industry and for high technology and other growth industries. This commitment was made in recognition of the need to take a more positive approach to industry policy and to create the most favourable environment possible for the growth and development of Australian Industry. There is a need for a variety of measures to be adopted to strengthen and improve the competitiveness of industry if this country's natural wealth and the wide range of skills available in our workforce are to be utilised to their best advantage. Several major reports on industry policy, such as the Crawford, Myers and Espie reports, have noted the shortage of finance, particularly in the form of equity, for the development of industry. The changes proposed to be made to the functions and capital structure of the AIDC by this Bill will enable the Corporation to increase very significantly its provision of both equity and loan finance for industry. The Government recognises that since the establishment of the AIDC in 1970, it has played an important role in providing industry development funds. It has become a significant provider of medium to long term finance, in particular it has been instrumental in the formation of lending consortia for industrial and resource developments requiring loans too large for any other single lending institution. The Government believes that still more needs to be done. It has, therefore, acted to increase the resources available to the AIDC with an additional $12.5m capital allocated to AIDC in the 1983-84 Budget. This Bill will allow for a $50m increase in AIDC's statutory capital to $150m. The AIDC will be able to call upon this additional capital in amounts of up to $ 12.5m per annum. To expand AIDC's lending potential further, it is proposed to increase its gearing ratio so that it will be able to borrow up to 15 times the level of its capital and reserves, compared with eight times at present. Provision is made for the AIDC's borrowings to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth . This should improve the Corporation's access to funds on both domestic and overseas markets. AIDC's capacity to provide equity finance is proposed to be increased by relaxing restrictions on the investment of its capital. This investment restriction was originally imposed as a means of reassuring potential investors. The Government believes that this is now unnecessary because of the AIDC's established track record and government guarantee of its borrowings. In the future it is proposed that the AIDC will be able to invest in any industry and will continue as a general supplier of development finance on commercial terms. Clause 3 of the Bill, however, proposes that priority is to be given to manufacturing and internationally tradeable services, including tourism and the development of new technology industry. These areas are the most in need of an improved source of finance to enhance their position in the economy. The legislation also requires the AIDC to place greater emphasis on the strengthening and restructuring of existing industry and promoting new industries with good growth prospects. These are of particular importance to the Government and to the development of a strong and viable industry. AIDC will usefully complement and supplement other sources of finances for high technology. In particular it will assist in the commercialisation of government sponsored innovations, an area of considerable potential which the Government believes is worthy of greater attention. The AIDC's operations will continue to be largely independent. The Bill, however, introduces a procedure, similar to that applying to the Commonwealth Bank, which will impose a modest degree of government guidance and will enhance the Corporation's accountability. The provisions of clause 7 of the Bill require the Corporation to report annually on its policies in relation to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. A consultative mechanism for resolving differences is also proposed. The Government considers that this is appropriate as the AIDC is established to serve national purposes. I re-iterate, however, that the AIDC will retain the independence to make its own commercial judgements on projcts. Because the AIDC Act has not been substantially revised since 1975, the Bill incorporates a number of administrative changes designed to improve the operation of the Corporation. The most important change relates to the procedures which allow the Government to fund certain projects considered to be in the national interest. Clause 6 of the Bill, while preserving ultimate parliamentary control, simplifies these procedures by removing the requirement for a national interest committee and telescoping the reporting requirements. I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure for its valuable contribution to the consideration of the AIDC's future role. The Bill gives effect to the thrust of the recommendations of the Committee's report on the AIDC in January 1980. The Committee recommended that the AIDC be allowed to invest in service industries, that it be guaranteed, that restrictions on its investment of capital be removed, that it be required to pay a dividend, that changes be made to the Board structure, and that it no longer be required to locate its head office in Canberra. The Committee also recommended a freeing up of the AIDC's gearing and a clarification of the AIDC's operating guidelines. The Government has not implemented the Committee's recommendations that uncalled capital be counted for the purpose of gearing and that future capital calls be by way of subordinated loans. These recommendations have been largely overtaken by the decision to give the AIDC a substantial injection of capital to perform its new functions. The increase in the AIDC's capital will cost the Government $12.5m this financial year and up to $12.5m in successive financial years. The Government will, however, obtain revenue through the requirement for the AIDC to pay 50 per cent of its net profits as dividends. In this regard, the AIDC made a net profit of $15.3m in the 1982-83 financial year. The Government considers that the revised role of the AIDC, including the increased funds available for equity and loan finance, will be of considerable benefit to industry in increasing its overall efficiency and profitability. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.17) —The Opposition supports the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill, which provides for a number of what the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) describes as essentially technical amendments to the Act but which nevertheless are significant. We will support every appropriate effort, whether by government or the private sector, to enhance Australia's export performance because an improved export performance is absolutely vital. The former Liberal-Country Party Government established the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, and in 1974 it became the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. EFIC's function is to assist the national export effort by providing insurance cover against many of the hazards of exporting by providing lines of credit, buyer credit guarantees, overseas investment insurance and performance guarantees. EFIC's export finance facility provides competitive finance to support exports and is funded by loans from trading banks at commercial rates supported by a government subsidy. The Bill proposes three main changes to the legislation currently governing EFIC's activities, allowing the Corporation to provide export finance in foreign currencies-this is currently limited to Australian dollar loans-expanding the definition of 'lending' to include the provision of finance in any form and removing the restriction which generally limits EFIC's services to those not normally available from the private sector. The first two alterations can be classified as machinery measures and should help EFIC's work in assisting exporters by widening the extent of its services. The third should come under closer scrutiny. The Minister for Trade, in his second reading speech, explained : 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. He also said: While the Government is anxious to preserve EFIC's traditional role it does not see the need to extend EFIC's facilities into other areas of insurance as long as the private sector is effectively meeting the needs of exporters. Restrictions on EFIC entering into payments insurance contracts against risks normally insured by commercial insurers are to be removed as are restrictions on providing overseas investment insurance against risks normally insured by commercial insurers. The restriction on EFIC's export finance facility competing with commercial financial institutions is also to be removed by the legislation. The moves are of relatively low impact and it might well be that the latter is, in fact, unlikely to result in any conflict between commercial and government interests because the element of subsidy involved is much of the activity under the export finance facility. However, I register my concern that there should not be too much intrusion by EFIC into areas normally covered by financial or commercial institutions. This is something we must always watch with an Australian Labor Party Government in office because the Labor Party is by nature inclined to intervene in what should be private sector activities. Certainly, I hope that whenever the Government contemplates changes in these matters there will be full consultation with the private sector. The Government has proposed the establishment of an overseas trading corporation and there again I think we ought to be concerned about the Labor Party's propensity to involve itself too deeply in areas which should be and can be quite properly handled by the private sector. Unlike the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation which was set up as a body to co-ordinate the efforts of Australian firms in overseas activities where such co-ordination was needed, the proposed trading corporation appears to be designed to go somewhat further and actually to get involved in trading itself, although on behalf of individual companies. But this is a matter for another day. This Bill is designed to make changes that will assist exporters, and therefore we support it with the reservation that I mentioned earlier. There is a very great need for Australia to do all it can to modify the composition of its exports. Agriculture has been and remains the mainstay of our export effort and it will continue to be the mainstay. In more recent years mining has taken up an increasingly important role and there have been strong advances in manufacturing exports. However, the two major areas of exports, agriculture and mining, are areas in which the growth of world trade has been the slowest. Manufacturing, processing, high technology, capital and skill- intensive products are the areas in which growth lies and we need to increase our activities and our performance in these areas. We have to do many other things to improve our export trading performance. As I have explained, we have to modify the composition of our exports by doing better with manufactured and processed exports. We have to do more to liberalise trade, and a lot more to restructure our industries to make them more export oriented. As a nation, as government, business and unions, we have to make much more dedicated and effective efforts to maintain our international competitiveness. The many other things we have to do can be elaborated on at some other time, but for the moment the Opposition expresses support for the Bill that is now before the House. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(11.25) —It is with pleasure that I support the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to give the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation authority to provide subsidies to lenders where the Corporation guarantees the repayment of loans made by lending institutions to overseas buyers of Australian capital goods and related services. It has particular application where foreign currency is being used to finance such loans. To some extent the amendments in the Bill are rather technical but necessary. In order to enable the Corporation to keep abreast of current trade financing techniques, particularly in smaller transactions, the Bill broadens the existing definition of a loan or the lending of money to include the provision of finance in any form. Finally, the Bill gives effect to the Government's decision to remove the restrictions which generally limit the Corporation's services to those not normally available in the private sector. In summary, it can be said that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation provides export credit insurance and guarantee facilities, insurance cover for direct investment overseas against non-commercial risks, and where necessary, export finance for medium and long term credit sales of capital goods. It plays, and has done since its inception, an extremely important role. Formerly, as is known by all honourable members, it was known as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. No private sector competitors provide the range of services currently offered by the Corporation. Some private insurers may provide some of the insurance facilities provided by the Corporation, but on an extremely limited scale. I think we all understand that the Corporation's operations cover a number of critically important areas: Firstly, insurance of exporters against non-payment by overseas buyers; secondly, provision of guarantees to Australian banks in respect of finance which they provide to Australian exporters; thirdly, insurance of investment by Australian firms and enterprises in foreign countries against the risk of loss from expropriation, war damage or exchange transfer delays; and fourthly, the indemnification of banks and insurance companies against loss arising in respect of various types of bonding facilities related to exports. The total business transacted by the Corporation amounted to $1.3 billion in 1979. Its business is primarily concentrated in areas of insurance of payments for exports of raw materials, primary products and consumer goods and services sold on the short term market, on short term credit. It also provides subsidised finance facilities to exporters to match the support given overseas to their competitors. Initially $4m was advanced by the Commonwealth to provide funds for the set lending facilities and at the end of 1979 subsidies paid by the Commonwealth Government for such lending amounted to around $1.73m. The Corporation, in addition to its other activities, acts as the agent of the Commonwealth Government in the administration of insurance facilities where a proposal is not considered to be commercially acceptable but where cover may be desirable in the national interests. These are propositions which the Corporation does not consider to be commercially acceptable for its normal credit insurance cover. In such cases the Corporation refers the proposals to the Commonwealth Government for consideration in the national interest and, if approved, takes a share of the commitment. In deciding whether insurance cover will be given in the national interest the following considerations are relevant: Firstly, whether the proposition holds promise of opening up worthwhile new export markets for Australian products; secondly, whether the transaction is important for a particular Australian area or industry, for example, in relation to employment and development; and, finally, whether the transaction would confer such obvious and significant benefits for Australia's commercial and other relations with the countries concerned. I wish to develop that aspect a little later as, although it is not pertinent to the Bill, it is pertinent to industry as a whole. Between the introduction of the national interest provisions in 1961 and March 1980, liability totalling a little over $1 billion was undertaken under the national interest arrangements. Of this figure, $49m represented overseas investment insurance which until 1975 could be underwritten only under the national interest provisions. To that extent it has played more than a critically important role. Over the 12 months to March 1980, total liability assumed amounted to $272m, none of which involved overseas investment insurance. I now pass to some observations made by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. In its report, it indicated that the Corporation: . . . has a general charter to encourage international trade and commerce by developing and expanding its business. Through government ownership it provides specialised facilities not normally obtainable in commercial markets. It recognised that the Corporation: . . . operates in a unique market environment. The participation of EFIC (and its counterpart institutions in other countries) may, for example, yield important economic externalities in respect of Australia's export performance and world trade more generally. I believe it took us a little too long to get the Corporation off the ground. The report continued: Usage of EFIC's direct lending and related buyer credit guarantee facilities is confined to situations where there is a clear market gap-- I want to come back to that shortly- in the financing options open to Australian exporters. These facilities are partly, if not solely, a response to the actions of other governments and can best be provided through a government-owned institution. Similarly, EFIC's export payments insurance and associated operations offer protection for Australia's international trade and commerce against both political, non-commercial risks and commercial risks of default by overseas importers. The Committee is satisfied that here too EFIC fills a market gap; it can fulfil these functions more effectively because it is owned by government. I want to come back to that point in a few moments. To continue: Moreover, there would not appear to be a more cost-effective way of securing the associated externalities or responding to the international market imperfection. It is unlikely that EFIC is pre-emptive of viable private financial enterprises in Australia performing the same function. . . . . The Committee's concern relates only to the adequate disclosure of the true and total cost to the Government of the facilities. Accordingly, it suggests that the accounts should note any shortfall in achieved premiums and, whenever possible, the total cost of Government assistance. We ought to note what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has remarked on a number of occasions. He has said that Australia' s position in world trade is regrettably declining. The measures in this Bill will be out of step towards redressing the decline, but we need to do more. The Deputy Prime Minister, in a statement when opening the World Trade Centre recently, said: I am sure that everyone here today realises the importance of international trade to Australia. I regret that Australia's trade performance has been in a serious decline with our share of world exports falling from 1.7 per cent in 1970 to 1.3 per cent in 1982. Australia has slipped from thirteenth to sixteenth place as a world trading nation in the same period. I also commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his initiative as set out in a statement dated 3 November: Australia needs to set up an overseas trading company to boost its role in world trade, the Deputy Prime Minister urged yesterday. An overseas trading company controlled by the private sector would offer a much needed valuable trade outlet for Australian small manufacturers, he told the World Trade Centre in Melbourne yesterday. I compliment the Deputy Prime Minister for his initiative. I deviate from the provisions of the Bill to touch on an issue which the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) indicated but did not tackle. Honourable members will have noticed that there appears on the Notice Paper today Question No. 813 from me to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button ). It asked: (1) Has his attention been drawn to recent statements of the Foreign Investments Review Board particularly as they relate to invisible payments. (2) What was the value of investment approved by the Board in 1982-83 which was expected to be directed towards the services and real estate industries and what proportion was this of total investment approved. (3) What has been (a) the value and (b) the proportion, of invisible payments in (i) Australian current account balances and (ii) global current account balances in each year since 1972-73. If one studies those figures one finds that regrettably there is a marked decline in invisibles returns in this country. I further asked: (4) What forms of assistance are provided to Australian business in searching for possibilities for trade with other countries. (5) Is the Government involved in any form of market research about trade possibilities for Australian companies; if so, how is the information disseminated. (6) What assistance is given to Australian companies involved in the provision of services to companies and governments overseas. This measure before the House is one small segment of that. To continue: (7) Are there gaps in the provision of the support mentioned in parts (4) to (6 ). The answer is obviously yes. To continue: (8) Is there an urgent need for statistical information in the trade area, particularly if markets within the Asian area are to be penetrated and developed . The answer is that there is a vital need for statistical information if we are to penetrate the Asian market. We have the information, but it is fragmented all over the place. I further asked: (9) Is it a fact that without statistical information and support, small trading companies are at a distinct disadvantage. Let me expand on that question. I do not think there is any doubt at all that large multinational trading corporations-I use that term in a constructive sense -are more than aptly equipped with the statistical information to know world marketing trends in their specific area of interest. They keep this information up to date and, in most cases, they have extrapolations for from 10 to 50 years. Smaller Australian companies are not in that position. They are at a distinct disadvantage. I notice that a former Prime Minister proposed the same sort of thing except that he wanted a bureau of statistics confined principally to the private sector. My last question was: (10) Will he- the Minister- take steps to set up a Bureau of Statistical Studies as a joint venture between the Government and private enterprise. That is long overdue. We have been obliged to do this in the area of finance and insurance, but we need to expand it to the area of trade if we are to overcome the problem of our invisibles deficit. If anybody takes the time to study this, I do not think there is any doubt that he or she will come up with the conclusion that a great deal of statistical information is available. It is in a great number of government departments, semi-government and private organisations as well as private corporations. A few of those are the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Primary Industry, trade and industry departments in the States throughout Australia, the State Agents-General, the wool, wheat, coal and dairy boards, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and foreign chambers of commerce in this country, other trade associations such as shipping conferences and chambers of manufactures and individual companies such as the Australian banks, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Wormald International Ltd. In addition to that, a lot is held by international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the International Bank of Settlements, and the International Chamber of Commerce centred in Paris. The difficulty is that so much of the information is located in so many different places. It is inordinately fragmented. For instance, there are in Australia a register of company and business names and standard industrial classifications. The Reserve Bank has details of who imports what from where and who exports what to where. The guide book to export incentive grants in Australia shows that the Export Market Development Grants Act of 1974 and the Expansion Grants Act of 1978 provide grants for a diverse range of activities, including market research and the obtaining of market information for a large number of diverse enterprises. But the tragic fact is that in this country we have no facility for bringing together all of this statistical data in order to analyse and disseminate it and thus enable small companies, in particular Australian-based, to understand which markets they can penetrate and what chance they have of operating profitably in them. The sooner we set up a bureau of statistical information, which the Government ought to take the initiative in planning and setting up, the better. If we are to increase our export potential we can only do so by providing companies with the necessary information. I refer particularly to those companies that, for a variety of reasons, including not having the required facilities, are not able to collect information. The Corporation has proved a success down the years. It has proved an enormous security for companies that wish to participate in the export market. We ought to do more than we are in that direction. The Corporation has a limited role. We need a complementary organisation to bring together statistics and other useful information so that companies may be assisted. Without doubt one of the weaknesses from which the mining sector has suffered down the years is the fact that small companies cannot compete with large transnational corporations. I can remember, as will the Deputy Prime Minister-it is perhaps a small example but a very telling one-that when Labor was in Government between 1972 and 1975 certain action was taken by the former honourable member for Cunningham, Mr Connor, to whom history will doubtless be a lot kinder than were his contemporaries. Coal exporters were being carved up in their attempts to obtain a reasonable return for their product in Japan. The weakness was that in those days the Government never really had the information that it ought to have had. Finally, it was obtained and, rather than individual corporations having to compete against the rational structures in Japan, the position changed. Connor went to Japan and came back with a far better deal than the ordinary Australian companies could glean. We were able to compile the statistics necessary to match the Japanese on the question of contract prices. We can, as a government do better for companies in this country if we look to the area of trade through the activities of this Corporation. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister upon his initiative in this area and sincerely trust that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will at least study seriously the initiative that I have placed on the Notice Paper today. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.45) —I compliment the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), on his very penetrating analysis of some of Australia's trade problems and emphasise that the Opposition parties of course are not opposing these amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation legislation. EFIC's objective is to encourage Australia's export trade by providing exporters with a specialised range of insurance, guarantee and financing facilities not normally obtainable from the private commercial market. It is empowered to provide, among other things, insurance to exporters against the risks of non-payment by overseas buyers, for a variety of commercial , economic and political risks; guarantees to Australian banks in respect of finance which they provide to Australian exporters; finance for Australian exporters of capital goods and related services at concessional rates of interest to match overseas competition; insurance of investments of Australian firms and enterprises in foreign countries against the risk of loss from expropriation, war damage or exchange transfer delays; and the indemnification of banks and insurance companies against loss arising in respect of various types of bonding facilities. The purpose of this amending legislation is to strengthen the services offered by EFIC with the objective of developing further Australia's export trade. The Corporation's facilities are to be expanded to provide foreign currency finance and to give Australian exporters access to lower interest rate currencies for medium and long term credit to meet the terms provided by competitors. I think that it is fair to say that no Australian company involved in the export market would seriously question the useful part that EFIC has been able to play, since its inception, in underpinning at a financial level the capacity of Australian companies to trade overseas. However, EFIC's annual report for 1982 clearly identifies the difficulties being faced by Australian exporters. There was, for example, a major fall in the amount of insurance cover given by EFIC in the metals area, due to decline in price and demand. Similarly, there was a fall in the export of machinery and transport equipment, although there were increases in exports of iron ore and steel, miscellaneous manufactured goods and live sheep and cattle. A further acknowledgement of the economic problems faced by exporters in overseas markets was a growing usage of EFIC's cover for irrevocable letters of credit, which represents an increase of some 20 per cent over the previous year. EFIC also played a useful role in insuring the provision overseas of professional and technical services against the risk of non-payment. It is worth noting that the Middle East in particular offers great potential for Australian consultancy services in a range of areas, not the least of which is dry farming techniques. I recall in my earliest years in this House being probably the first member of parliament to recommend strongly that EFIC's terms of reference be changed to ensure that adequate cover could be made available for not only exporters of Australian goods but also exporters of Australian services. I am delighted to see the increase in export of services which has resulted in recent years principally because this additional level of insurance cover has been made available. EFIC's facilities have become essential to the undertaking of a number of major projects. In the period covered by the last financial year, some 17 specific projects, of an aggregate value of $17.5m, were under cover. In addition, EFIC's direct lending facility provides immediate and long term finance to overseas borrowers to support the sale of Australian-made capital goods and the provision of consultancy and related services by Australian firms. Cover is also given in the form of insurance and guarantee facilities to protect exporters who sell capital goods on supply credit, and construction contractors who receive payment for works and services over an extended construction period. It is worth noting that the Association of South East Asian Nations continues to account for up to 90 per cent of EFIC's insurance portfolios which, in June 1982, had a current liability of $89.4m. This insurance cover has enabled Australian companies to make investments overseas, especially within our own region, which help them to diversify and thus gain access to foreign markets. It is quite clear that while there are indications of economic recovery, especially in the United States, the recession is still having a major impact on the potential expanding export markets and all indications are that recovery will be slow. Liquidity problems in the private sector in many developed countries may increase the trend for buyers of Australian goods and services to demand more generous credit terms, while others will seek extensions of payment beyond the original arrangements. In addition, as more countries, especially in the Third World, face foreign exchange difficulties to pay for their imports, greater pressure can be expected on countries such as Australia to provide extended credit facilities. In such a difficult international climate, the role of EFIC is therefore particularly sensitive. In its annual report for 1982 it stated: What is clear is that the global incidence of private buyer insolvency and public buyer default is increasing at a disturbing rate. If the recent experience of our counterparts is any guide, this is likely to be reflected sooner rather than later in EFIC's loss ratios. It is precisely in times such as these that EFIC facilities are of most value to the exporting and banking community. These are the points to which I believe the Government must give particular consideration in the next year or so because they could be of fundamental importance to the long term viability and protection of Australia's trading position. Australian companies are thus operating in a world where the trading environment fundamentally is different from that of any previous period in this century. The report of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service of October 1983 , which the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) tabled in this House a few days ago, makes the following interesting points: Not only is world trade becoming increasingly competitive but major structural adjustments and technological advancements throughout the world's industrialised nations are resulting in major shifts in world production and consumption patterns. Product and market opportunities in some traditional areas are declining while new opportunities, for example in services and skills, are emerging. Other nations are already responding to these world developments and Australia needs to move quickly if it is to take advantage of new product and market opportunities. Australian industry must, to be successful at exporting, continuously adapt to changing world trading conditions. I regret that the record would suggest that in a range of industries that has not been the situation to date. I would agree, however, as the report states, that the Government must support the activities of Australian companies in new product development for export with a view to effecting changes in the composition of Australian exports to parallel more closely existing and anticipated world demand, support and facilitate Australian financial investment overseas and overseas investment in Australia, and support the development of long term Australian Government and business strategies in the trade and industrial spheres. In the context of that very significant report the question must be asked: What has the Government done since its election in March this year to support the development of Australian trade? I think the single most important measure affecting exports taken since 1 March relates to the exchange rate. There was a devaluation of the dollar of 10 per cent. However, the same dollar has since been allowed to appreciate, which has effectively wiped out the effects of the March devaluation. It is worth noting that depressing economic activity through exchange rate appreciation always operates partly through exports. The appreciation of the Australian dollar means that exports become more expensive to sell. It also means that returns to exporters are accordingly reduced. A second major decision affecting exports indirectly but most significantly has been the Government's support of full indexation of wages to the consumer price index. Devaluation of the dollar will tend to expand exports. Unfortunately, it will also tend to raise the prices of imports, thus contributing to rises in the consumer price index. However, by indexing wages to the CPI the Government has effectively ensured that the price increases resulting from the devaluation will pass through into wages and hence cost increases, offsetting to some extent the beneficial effects of devaluation for exports. These matters are of significant importance to all Australian industries involved in the export field. It is worth noting, as a comparison, the position in the United States of America. It is estimated that in the United States the on-cost of wage increases in the steel industry, for example, represents 60c in every dollar. I do not know what the equivalent Australian figure is, but I have no doubt that it would probably compare unfavourably with that experience. Australia has always been regarded as a great trading nation. From the earliest days of our colony we exported the produce of our soil. The composition of our exports has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. For example, in 1952-53 manufacture accounted for 5 per cent of our exports. By 1980-81 this amount had grown to 18 per cent. In 1952-53 minerals accounted for 7 per cent of our exports and that increased to 28 per cent in 1980-81, while farm produce over the same period has fallen from 83 per cent to 49 per cent. The consumers of our production have also changed radically in that same period. In 1953 the United Kingdom accounted for over one-third of our exports. Today it is some 4 per cent . Japan, on the other hand, has taken the position as our major market. The Association of South East Asian Nations region in particular is now our largest group customer, with exports increasing by over 260 per cent in less than eight years. The problem which many Australian exporters must face is simply that the importers of Australian bulk commodities would quickly go elsewhere if there were alternative sources of supply at a reasonable price and on the basis of reliable delivery. What a sad reflection this is on the credibility of this country and obviously no government, and certainly not the private sector and those industries involved in major exports, can afford to be complacent about this situation. In recent years Australia has dropped from No. 11 to No. 17 on the list of the world's trading nations. The value of our manufacturing exports has declined over the last four years from 22 per cent to 18 per cent of total exports, while the domestic market for our manufactured goods has become saturated. The value of Australia's exports as a proportion of its gross domestic product is low relative to that of a number of other OECD countries. I seek leave of the House to incorporate a recent OECD analysis of this situation which compares Australia's performance with that of a range of other OECD countries. It is most unsatisfactory. Leave granted. The document read as follows- OECD OBSERVER No. 121 MARCH 1983 New United United Japan Luxembourg Netherlands Zealand Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Kingdom States CURRENCY Luxem- New bourger Zealand Swiss Turkish monetary unit Yen Franc Guilder Dollar Krome Escudo Peseta Krona Franc Pound Pound Dollar Unit per US $ 31st December 1982 at market rates 235.00 46.92 2.63 1.37 7.05 89 .06 125.60 7.30 2.00 186.75 0.62 1.00 Units per SDR 31st December 1982 259.00 51 .75 2.90 1.51 7.78 98.24 138.54 8.05 2.20 205.99 0.68 1.10 IMPORTS-(goods only) Total (CIF) million US $ 142,669 61,852 * 65,920 5,734 15,620 9,744 32,178 28, 848 30,595 8,944 102,799 260,982 From other OECD contries million US $ 49,433 49 ,455 * 47,361 . . 14,000 6,719 16,445 22,944 26,329 4,228 80,498 138,175 From rest of world million US $ (excl. unspecified) 93,229 12,368 * 18,558 . . 1,621 3,010 15,728 5,904 4,266 4,716 22,072 122,803 Total imports as percentage of GDP at current prices 12.6 62.5 * 46.9 22.9 27.3 40.9 17.3 25.7 32.4 15.5 20.7 9.0 Volume change of total imports from 1976 to 1981 percentage per year 2.3 2.2 * 1.2 1.0 2.1 . . 2.7 * 1.3 * 6.9 -4.1 -2.5 3.1 EXPORTS-(goods only) Total (fob) million US $ 151,759 55,476 * 68,464 5,618 17,928 4,142 20,457 28, 543 26,892 4,772 102,808 233,740 To other OECD countries million US $ 71,750 46, 482 * 56,874 . . 15,974 3,218 12,208 22,277 19,613 2,282 72,564 132,276 To rest of world million US $ (excl. unspecified) 80,009 8,414 * 10,030 . . 1,954 825 7 ,989 6,266 7,279 2,489 29,368 100,488 Total export as percentage of GDP at current prices 13.4 56.1 * 48.7 22.5 31.4 17.4 11.0 25.4 28.5 8.3 20.7 8.0 Volume change of total exports from 1976 to 1981 percentage per year 7.1 3.3 * 2.0 3.9 5.7 . . 12.0 * 3.4 * 4.9 5.5 2.8 5.3 CONSUMER PRICES Increase 1982 per cent (Dec. 81-Dec. 82) 1.8 10.4 4.3 15.3 11.7 18.8 14.0 9.6 5 .5 29.6 5.4 3.9 Average annual increase 1977-1982 per cent per year 4.6 6.2 5.5 14.9 9.7 21.0 16.0 10.3 4.2 56.5 12.0 9.8 Industrial production change 1982 (Dec . 81-Dec. 82) -0.9 -15.5 -7.1 . . 0.2 -2.4 * -1.1 ** -1.6 -7.7 ** . . 0.8 -6.1 INTERNATIONAL TOURISM Recepits as per cent of GDP 0.1 1.7 * 1.2 1.0 1.3 4.4 3.7 0.9 3.2 0.7 1.2 0.4 Expenditure as per cent of final private consumption 0.7 4.5 * 4.3 3.7 5.3 1.5 0.8 3.7 3.6 0.3 2.2 0.1 * BLEU: Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union. * 1974-79. *1975-80. * September 1981-September 1982. ** November 1981-November 1982. ** Q4-81-Q4-82. OECD OBSERVER No. 121 MARCH 1983 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy CURRENCY Australian Belgian Canadian Finnish French Deutsche Irish monetary unit Dollar Schilling Franc Dollar Krone Mark Franc Mark Drachma Krona Pound Lira Unit per US $ 31st December 1982 at market rates 0.98 16.69 46.92 1.23 8.38 5. 29 6.73 2.38 70.57 16.63 0.72 1,370.00 Units per SDR 31st December 1982 1.08 18 .41 51.75 1.36 9.25 5.84 7.42 2.62 77.84 18.34 0.79 1,511.00 IMPORTS-(goods only) Total (CIF) million US $ 23,765 21,003 61,852 * 66,500 17,502 14,197 120,497 162,691 8,911 1,036 10,631 91,201 From other OECD countries million US $ 17,103 15,705 49,455 * 56,450 14,808 8,866 79,559 120,161 5,987 892 9,852 53,714 From rest of world million US $ (excl. unspecified) 6,553 5,298 12,368 * 10,050 2, 694 5,331 39,959 42,408 2,924 144 721 37,459 Total imports as percentage of GDP at current prices 14.8 31.6 62.5 * 23.4 30.1 28.9 21.2 23.8 24.3 35.1 63.7 26.0 Volume change of total imports from 1976 to 1981 percentage per year 1.0 * 3.7 2.2 * 2.3 -1.1 1.8 4.0 3.7 2.1 . . 7.7 2.5 EXPORTS-(goods only) Total (fob) million US $ 21,775 15,808 55,476 * 70,566 15,976 13,977 101,270 175,284 4,294 905 7,835 75,715 To other OECD countries million US $ 12,915 11, 137 46,482 * 60,279 12,958 8,790 68,233 129,642 2,432 687 6,661 47,962 To rest of world million US $ (excl. unspecified) 8,654 4,671 8,414 * 10,287 2,995 5, 187 33,035 44,820 1,858 218 1,070 26,815 Total export as percentage of GDP at current prices 13.6 23.8 56.1 * 24.8 27.5 28.5 17.8 25.7 11.7 30.7 46.9 21.6 Volume change of total exports from 1976 to 1981 percentage per year 1.2 5.9 3. 3 * 4.5 6.1 7.8 5.5 5.2 4.9 . . 9.1 4.6 CONSUMER PRICES Increase 1982 per cent (Dec. 81-Dec. 82) 11.0 4.7 8.1 9.3 9.0 9.0 9.7 4.6 19.1 60.3 12.3 16.4 Average annual increase 1977-1982 per cent per year 9.6 5.2 6.4 10.3 10.8 9.6 11.7 4.7 20.3 49.4 15.2 16.8 Industrial production change 1982 ( Dec. 81-Dec. 82) -10.0 -5.9 0.6 * -11.2 . . -3.1 -3.1 -4.7 -6.9 * . . -1.7 * -5 .4 INTERNATIONAL TOURISM Receipts as per cent of GDP 0.7 7.7 1.7 * 0.9 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.9 5.3 0.7 4.0 2.2 Expenditure as per cent of final private consumption 1.9 6.2 4.5 * 2.0 3.9 2.2 1.6 4.6 1.0 2.9 4.8 0.8 * BLEU: Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union. * 1975-80. * November 1981-November 1982. Mr CONNOLLY —I refer now to the question of management attitudes which must improve. A relative handful of companies carries the burden of earning the foreign exchange which we need to maintain our standard of living. For example, 140,000 people, or 12 per cent of total manufacturing employment in Australia are involved in export industries. Approximately 6 per cent of all manufacturing establishments are classified as being involved in exports. In 1979, 80 sales by designated export industries represented 14 per cent of total manufactured sales . During the 1970s, compared with the experience of the previous two decades, Australia performed relatively poorly as an exporter. Our exports increased significantly in value terms, reaching $21.7 billion in 1982, while our share of world exports declined from 1.68 per cent in 1970 to 1.26 per cent in 1982. The reasons for this export performance are variable, but all of them are significant. One is Australia's concentration on the export of goods for which world demand has grown slowly, especially agricultural commodities. Overseas trends towards protectionism and bilateralism have affected particularly our commodity exports. Many of our commodity exports have grown at less than world average rates. As an exporter, predominantly, of less processed items Australia has not secured the faster trade growth in more highly processed items found by our competitors. Australia's industry structure reflects an import substitution bias rather than an export led strategy. That has been built into our commercial and secondary industry base, at least since the 1940s, and it needs to be very seriously regarded in the context of whether we should persist with a policy of tariff protection which is quite clearly not resulting in the ultimate objective of policy, as instituted during that earlier period. Export franchise arrangements between overseas companies and their Australian licensees or affiliates have also, in many cases, restricted Australian companies' exports to a number of destinations which are open to competition from parent companies. Quite clearly, the world export environment will remain extremely competitive for the foreseeable future. Broad structural changes taking place in the world economy are resulting in major shifts in world production and consumption patterns. We have seen a rundown in industrial countries of certain basic industries such as shipbuilding, textiles and automobiles, all of which have tended to move to other economies where the costs of production, particularly labour costs, are significantly lower. There has been a growth in industrialised countries of new industries with greater long term promise, for example, the high technology industries such as computers, telecommunications, information systems and so forth. There has been a major revolution in the electronics industry which is gradually coming to play a core role in the world economy comparable to that once played by the automobile industry. We see a major growth in the service industries as employment generators, while regional changes within industrialised countries, for example, the rapid growth in the south-west of the US, have also brought with them significant changes of world and local demand. There is scope for the Government to play a stronger role in encouraging the development of Australian products and processes to meet world demands as they are and as we anticipate that they will be. These must be realistically directed to producing products with a practical and commercial application. I will refer briefly to the matter of freeing of world trade. After a quarter of a century, to 1974, of almost uninterrupted reduction in barriers to trade and capital flows, governments around the world are increasingly turning to new forms of protection. These are primarily of a non-tariff type, and the proportion of world trade conducted under all kinds of non-tariff restraint increased by at least 5 per cent over the last half of the 1970s. By 1982 it approached 50 per cent of world trade. Many countries are thus obviously applying policies, instruments, devices and procedures in an endeavour to provide an advantage for their own products over foreign competition. Today non- tariff barriers are becoming more important than tariffs in determining trade flows. Domestic policies, such as direct subsidies and industry related taxation policies, also have had a direct impact on trade competition. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade system of negotiation and regulation, which was developed when tariff barriers were high and when many of the anti-trade measures now employed did not exist, is quite clearly no longer capable of living with the world as it is, as distinct from the world's trade environment in the 1960s and early 1970s, when it was taken for granted that major economic growth was to be expected. Today we must work extremely hard for such growth. This can be achieved only if a country's domestic policies are interrelated with its foreign trade policies. It is no longer possible to identify some Australian industries and somehow try to hermetically seal them off in terms of the needs for overseas trade. It is now of fundamental importance to this country, and thus a responsibility of this Government, that in all its industrial relations policies and in all its trade expansion policies it must try to interrelate costs of production with opportunities of sale and market competitive forces. Financial incentives to industries can have a substantial effect on international trade flows. Increasingly, as I said, governments have been using such measures as part of their assistance package to encourage domestic production. In Australia's region, countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea use a range of such measures. Tax holidays for pioneer industries ranging from between five and 10 years, tax exemptions for expanding industries, concessional exchange rates for exports, and concessional tax rates for priority sectors, are just some forms of direct government assistance available in countries which are now openly competing with Australia in a part of the world which is one of the few which shows any prospects of major growth over future decades. It is plain to see that if the main markets capable of expansion, such as the Pacific Basin, continue effectively to distort the pattern of trade, finally all will suffer, leaving only complementary economies, dependent on the export of raw materials capable of maintaining markets for their products, provided they have a comparative cost advantage, as in importing , for example, iron ore from Australia rather than from Brazil. It is in that context, therefore, that the costs of production are absolutely critical. The recent decision by Japanese coal importers to reduce Australian contracts to 12 months effectively means that we must hold the competitive edge continuously in order to maintain the substantial markets which are so vital to our coal industry's future viability. Where lies our future? The evidence quite clearly suggests that Australia's trading future lies in the Pacific Basin. Much can be done, but we must have a practical approach directed at diversifying our markets, exploiting our advantages and providing our abundant resources, embracing new technology to increase productivity and, above all, we must free trade domestically and do all we can to encourage a freeing of trade internationally. As I said earlier, the major controls on trade are now both direct and indirect. GATT was principally directed at what are called the direct control mechanisms over flows of trade, tariff protection and so forth. Now the problem is much wider than that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(12.04) —The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation seeks to encourage Australia's export trade in goods and services by providing a specialised range of insurance, guarantee and financial facilities not normally available from the commercial market. The provision of finance to exporters and their customers from Australian sources is at present largely in the hands of the trading banks, the Australian Banks Export Re-Finance Corporation Ltd and, of course, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, which we are debating today. Other providers of funds include merchant banks, finance companies and confirming houses. EFIC was established in 1956 as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and is involved in the provision of export credit. Since that time EFIC has provided great assistance to Australian industries in their export of goods, including wool, wheat, meat, sugar and, of course, our great mineral resources. It has played a very important part in developing this trade which is of so much benefit to the economy of Australia. Where overseas importers of capital goods have access to subsidised finance, EFIC will match this by lending directly to the overseas buyer up to 85 per cent of the Australian content of the contract value. This is a very important feature. Funds are borrowed by EFIC from the trading banks at commercial rates of interest and lent at concessional rates. The gap between EFIC's borrowing rate and the subsidised lending rate is financed from the Budget. At 30 June 1981 EFIC had entered into loans in support of capital goods exports amounting to almost $300m. Its budget for 1981-82 was $ 9m. It must be recognised that EFIC operates in a unique market environment. The participation of EFIC may, for example, yield important economic externalities in respect of Australia's export trade performance and, more generally, world trade. EFIC's direct lending and related buyer credit guarantee facilities is confined to situations where there is a clear market gap in the financing options open to Australian exporters. These facilities are partly, if not solely, a response to the actions of other governments and can best be provided through a government- owned institution. EFIC's export payments insurance and associated operations offer protection for Australia's international trade and commerce both against political non-commercial risks and against commercial risks of default by overseas importers. EFIC fills a market gap. It can fulfil these functions more efficiently because it is owned by the Government. It has been a great source of assistance, of course, to Australian commercial business in the overseas markets . There would not appear to be a more cost effective way of securing the associated externalities or responding to the international market imperfection. It is unlikely that EFIC would prejudice viable private financial enterprises in Australia performing the same function. To the extent that EFIC seeks to provide insurance and guarantees on a fully commercial basis, these operations should be distinguished in its accounts from any business done on a non-commercial basis. The Corporation operates on commercial lines and is self-supporting, with a Commonwealth Government guarantee of last resort. It is good to look at EFIC's facilities. They fall into five main categories: Insurance to exporters against risks of non-payment by overseas buyers for a variety of commercial, economic and political risks; guarantees to Australian banks and financial institutions in respect of finance that they provide to Australian exporters; finance in special circumstances and at concessional rates of interest for Australian exports of capital goods and related services-and, of course, of those great Australian products which I mentioned earlier in my speech; insurance to Australian firms investing in enterprises in foreign countries against the risks of loss from expropriation, war damage or exchange transfer delays-a very important field in overseas trade today; and assistance to banks and insurance companies for the provision of the various types of bonding facilities which have become an increasingly important aspect of export tendering in recent years . All these facilities can directly or indirectly assist an exporter in solving his financial problems. Indeed, over many years they have been of great assistance and have proved valuable to Australian trade. While EFIC cannot provide finance for short term export business, the fact that an exporter has an EFIC policy covering the insurable risk of non-payment both in the pre-shipment and post-shipment period often makes banks and other finance houses more willing to provide finance. In effect, EFIC is a good competitor. EFIC is prepared to make arrangements for any claims under a policy to be paid directly to a policy holder if he and the banker so authorise. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated in his second reading speech that there has been increased credit competition for international trade and that Australia must be aware of this situation to keep up with its valuable exports. Interest rates and the cost of finance have become very competitive. Many overseas countries are subsidising these items to increase further their share of trade. Over the time of my membership of this Parliament, EFIC legislation has been amended on a number of occasions, always owing to different world trading conditions. It is good to know that governments in this country are prepared to keep up with these conditions because if they do not it will be of great detriment to trade generally, to our primary industries and, of course, to our great resource industries, for example, coal, copper, tin, and nickel- right across the very broad spectrum of resources. This measure is designed to boost Australia's export performance. Amendments to the EFIC Act will give it power to provide foreign currency financing and to give Australian exporters access to lower interest rate currencies for medium and long term credit. In short, EFIC is prepared to meet foreign currency dealings throughout the world with benefit to our trade. No amendment is required to enable EFIC to provide foreign currency financing but one is needed to allow it to provide subsidies to lenders giving buyer credit loans. Exporters will no longer be required to demonstrate a need to meet competition when seeking concessions. The Australian Banks Export Re-finance Corporation and EFIC, subject to understandings by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, will take the initiative in determining appropriate credit terms. The amendments introduced remove restrictions which limit EFIC's services to those not normally available from the private sector. In short, EFIC is providing great assistance to this country's overseas trade. It has my full support and that of the Party I represent. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.14) —in reply-I very much appreciate the remarks made by all speakers in support of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill. As the last speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) said, this measure is one way of further boosting trade. He made the quite valid point that we have to be very flexible in trade because conditions certainly change. I think that what has been said here today clearly indicates that it is necessary to be very alert to the need to identify the changes and where they come from. They certainly come in the method of assisting exporters, particularly in financial operations. I pay tribute to the Board of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation for its excellent work and to its former Chairman, Mr John Clarkson, who is now retired. They have devoted a lot of time and attention to try to identify these areas. I think they all agree with the Government's view that there is a need to update this legislation. Let me address my mind briefly to a couple of remarks that were made during the debate, firstly by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) who led for the Opposition. He departed from the strict measure of the legislation to express fears about what we are anxious to promote as a further boost for exports, namely, an overseas trading corporation facility. A legislative measure to establish such a facility was opposed in the Whitlam era and it never got off the ground. I think it has to be emphasised again that world trade is changing rapidly. Forty per cent takes place on a government-to- government basis. It is important that we have that facility. I note that one of our largest engineering groups, namely Transfield Pty Ltd, when giving evidence to the Senate Committee on Industry and Trade, inquiring into trade with China, expressed the view that there should be some facility which would combine government and private enterprise initiative to co-ordinate all the necessities to handle trade. I say in answer to the Leader of the National Party that I would like him to look at, for example, what the Canadian trading corporation has done, how it has assisted trade and how it has been able to make a profit-not that that need necessarily be a criterion. The important thing is that it should provide assistance. Similarly the trading corporation in Singapore not only operates in Singapore, but also has equity in 17 subsidiaries and operates offices in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Hong Kong. These are vital markets. The same facility also exists in India, as it does in Spain. I cannot understand why the view is expressed by Burns Philp and Co. Ltd and others that they can do it best . If the Australian Wheat Board is trying to sell a lot of wheat to an oil producing country and it is suggested that the Wheat Board take oil by way of payment, of course it cannot do so. I do not know why we do not look at being able to assist the private sector by providing the facility to take the goods. Let me make a point, which is worthy of comment. It was said that EFIC has certainly been able to function and has carried some of the risk. The total liability of EFIC and the Government at the end of June was $2.3 billion. One could say, 'well, that is not all government', and no, it is not. Certainly, at the end of June the national interest cover was a mere $308m. But do honourable members know that since the end of June that figure has increased enormously? It has more than doubled because of sales that had to be made on extended credit with very little deposit. It had to be so because of the world market. I am reminded that whilst the national interest cover was $308m in June, it is now approximately $1058m. Honourable members can see that it would be helpful in a number of areas to have that facility. I would like the Leader of the National Party to understand that problem. Those statistics are right up to date. Traders are rapidly realising that money is not available any more, but goods are. If we are to import those goods, let us look at how to establish the facility to do so and get the private sector involved. Another matter that has been mentioned, in a particularly thoughtful speech by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly)-and I compliment him for the research that he has done on it-is where we are heading in world trade. The answer is that we are heading downwards. We have lost our share of world trade. I am desperately trying to establish in my own Department a better understanding of where there are opportunities, particularly in the manufacturing area. Australia has the best farmers and agricultural producers in the world, but they cannot get into markets which are subsidised against them. Honourable members will see that the slowest growth has been in those areas which the honourable member for Bradfield identified. So, given our population with its talents and its expertise, we also have to look at other areas, such as the manufacturing area. A survey available from my Department clearly shows that our share of world manufactures has been very small indeed. It is very interesting that of the 1, 741 individual manufacturing groups surveyed, Australia records exports in only 941-about half. There has been a continuous growth in the value of world trade and in the value of Australia's exports. But our share in the manufacturing area has continued to decline. Despite that, we have increased our ability to trade in about 29 products. We have been very competitive. It is worthy of note that many of these products are in the high technology area, namely television and radio transmitters, telecommunications equipment parts, electro-medical equipment and accounting and data processing machines. This information provides us with an idea of what Australians can do if they are given this incentive which the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and others can give them. I come back to the question generally as to what has happened. Australia's share of world manufactures is considerably smaller than its share of total exports. Our share has weakened. Our penetration of the world markets in that area is very small indeed. Fifty-three per cent of Australian manufactured exports comprise basic manufactures. This contrasts with the composition of world manufactured exports of which only 25 per cent were basic manufactures. Basic manufactures were the slowest growing component of world manufactures between 1979 and 1981. In general terms, basic manufactures are comprised mainly of transformed manufactures, that is, metals and simple metal manufactures. In other words, we do things at the wrong end of the scale. We really have to improve our competitiveness. To do this we need all the facilities that have been mentioned in this chamber today. The honourable member for Bradfield hit a very sensitive note in talking about the exchange rate. It is very difficult to manage that rate. At the present time it is causing no end of concern to exporters. One of the problems is that the speculative inflows into our currency cause an escalation in that rate. Without saying too much, as this matter does not fall within my portfolio, I think there has to be a clear understanding of the purpose of money coming into this country . There is nothing wrong with it from the point of view of intelligent foreign investment. But, in terms of foreign investment, we should look at it in respect of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service review that I have tabled. In that report there were references to export franchises which prevented foreign investors in Australia being able to export. I think that matter has to be looked at; it is very important. That review identified about 900 companies subject to export franchises that already operate against us. It is of no value to us to have investment in this country which prevents us from exporting. Again it is important for us to appreciate that, when we are looking at the problems we are now facing in the coal industry, if investment means just opening up more coal mines, in many cases to sell the coal back to the person who has invested, certainly the price for coal will be drastically reduced. We will have a proliferation of coal mines, a proliferation of coal and no markets for it. There will be enormous problems and contests between Queensland and New South Wales as to which State will get the markets. It is counterproductive and it is not in the national interest for us to be fighting one another for those markets on a State by State basis. These are matters at which the Foreign Investment Review Board ought to have a look as well. I know that it will. Generally, the problem has been the gap in our trade. The previous current account deficit was $9 billion. It has been forecast as being $6 billion this year. Whilst we have that massive deficit there is always the necessity to cover it by capital inflow. If that capital inflow is of a highly speculative nature, with high interest rates as well, we are heading into all the areas where we will have problems with the exchange rate. These problems have been identified by the honourable member for Bradfield. Those in the private enterprise sector recognised that something has to be done to identify, if the inflow is speculative, whether it should be encouraged or even allowed as it affects the exchange rate. This is causing no end of concern to people who are anxious to increase their exports. Generally, the matters that have been identified by all speakers are: We need to be more modern in our approach to trade. We need a department that understands the problems. I assure all honourable members that I am very anxious to upgrade what might be called the flexibility of the Department of Trade's capacity. I am very anxious that we establish consultation processes between ourselves and the State governments as that is important. I do not readily approve of having seven trade commissioners, one for us and one for each of the States. I think that is quite stupid. I want to see some co-ordination in that area. A section of my Department must be able to identify and work closely with the States. I think that can happen. It is important that my Department have an input in the area of industrial relations, wage claims and other matters with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, particularly in the area of industrial relations. I give high praise to Senator Peter Cook who has been able to instigate better industrial mechanisms for the Pilbara area. If we are exporting iron ore we do not want a lot of ships held up because of an industrial dispute, often of a very small nature and often due to a personality clash. A mechanism will be developed which will enable us to have an input into that area. It is important. We are affected dramatically by industrial matters in Australia. They can affect trade. This Government will work closely with the trade union movement, in accordance with the Prices and Incomes Accord, to maintain jobs and people's standard of living. We have to realise that there will be enormous competition from a number of resource commodity areas, particularly from South Africa, the United States of America and Canada. We will also face pretty hectic competition from Brazil in the iron ore area, as has been identified. All these matters are challenging. I think Australians can well measure up to them. Australians are brilliant when it comes to being able to meet a challenge. Australians must not be so divided and so divisive on matters that perhaps are not as important as we think they are. I thank all honourable members for participating in this debate. I assure honourable members that this will not be the only innovation in a new trading concept. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate amendment- Page 4, clause 11, paragraph (a), after proposed new sub-section 14 (1), insert the following new sub-section: ' '(1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person.'.'. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(12.29) —I move: That the amendment be disagreed to. When I introduced the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 in May this year, I indicated that it was the Government's objective to remove the discrimination which existed in the Act against non-Commonwealth citizens liable for deportation because of crimes committed in Australia. This discrimination was tolerated, I am afraid, by our predecessors for many years. Section 13 of the current Act made an unacceptable distinction between immigrants, that is, permanent residents of Commonwealth origin and aliens, that is, permanent residents from other parts of the world. Broadly speaking, the Act allowed the Minister to deport an alien, irrespective of the period of residence, upon conviction and sentence to prison for a year or longer. In similar circumstances immigrants-that is Commonwealth citizens-could not be deported after five years. Section 14 of the current Act also allowed the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to order the deportation of an alien if he considered the conduct of that alien was such that he or she could not remain in Australia. Section 14 provided the same treatment for immigrants who had up to five years residence in Australia. This power under section 14 was extremely wide. It was an unacceptable power of ministerial discretion, and it is unacceptable to the Government. Section 14 also retains the severe discrimination agains immigrants and aliens which is inherent in section 13 of the current Act. When I look back upon the significant contributions made in this country by non-Commonwealth migrants I wonder why this blatant and savage discrimination has been tolerated for so long. I am pleased to note that the Opposition, both here and in the Senate, now agrees with the Government that this discrimination should now completely end. This House accepted the Government's proposal to introduce a statutory liability period of 10 years aggregate residence in Australia beyond which time a non-citizen cannot be deported except for security related crimes. The 10-year period reflects the Government's belief that if a non-citizen has arrived legally in the country and has 10 years of lawful residence that person should not be subject to the possibility of deportation except for conviction of security related crimes under the Crimes Act. Under the current Act there have been many cases of long term residents, who have no affinity whatsoever with their home country, being subject to deportation for relatively minor breaches of the law. Worse still is the possibility of the inconsistent use of ministerial discretion. It was decided by the Government that 10 years was a reasonable period to limit the operation of the Minister's discretion as it fairly balanced the need to protect the community from the criminal acts of non- citizens against the fundamental human rights of these people after a lengthy period of lawful residence in Australia. The Senate does not accept these arguments. The amendment passed by the Senate rejects the notion of immunity after 10 years lawful residence and gives to the Minister an added discretion to deport non-citizens if they are convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs or sentenced to prison for a period of five years or more, irrespective of the period of residence. The Government does not accept this amendment and proposes that the Bill be returned unamended to the Senate. The Government believes the amendment is wrong in principle, legally imprecise and discriminatory in application. The Government shares the Opposition's concern to protect the community from drug traffickers and dangerous criminals. However, deportation should not be regarded as a second punishment imposed by the Minister as it could be if the Senate's amendment were accepted. Mr Hodgman —Australian Mafia protection. Mr WEST —The honourable member should listen to the technical arguments. The criminal justice system in Australia is well equipped to handle such matters. It is not unreasonable to believe that after 10 years or more of lawful residence a non-citizen has become a constituent member of the Australian community and as such should not be subject to deportation. Mr Spender —That is not what the High Court says. Mr WEST —Let me answer the honourable member in this way. Australia is a great migration country; it has been since 1788. We are a major receiver nation of migrants. As such we should be developing a mature and tolerant attitude to migrants when they take permanent residence in Australia, short of citizenship. We take pride in advocating that we are a multicultural society. Besides the benefits there may be some disadvantages. In this situation should we expect to deport all of our undesirables regardless of how long they have been in Australia? Should a nation of origin be expected to accept that position? Does it not have some rights in the matter? I will give honourable members an example. Take a person who arrived in Australia legally as a permanent resident at the age of seven or eight years. He has been educated here; he has been moulded here; he has worked here; and his character and attitude on life has been moulded by Australian concepts and ideals. After, say, 20 or 30 years, under the Senate's amendment, he would still be liable for deportation for certain offences and convictions. Is not the nation of origin from whence he came entitled to object to this procedure? Can we have the benefits both ways? Should we say to a person from Britain, Italy, Greece or any other nation who has been absent from his country of origin and has been a migrant living in Australia for say, 20, 30 or 40 years: Because you have been convicted of some crime in Australia your country of origin should mildly and meekly take you back because after all those years we have suddenly decided that we do not want you? What sort of a migration policy is that? It is not acceptable. In my view, it is not acceptable to other countries and it is not acceptable to this labor Government. It has been claimed in the Senate that the 10-year immunity rule has been instigated out of some misplaced civil libertarian view held by me alone. The opinion has been expressed that: The Minister has always had the ability to properly weigh up the situation, take advice, hear directly the views of the person to be deported and make a judgment that takes into consideration the rights of that individual and his family. He has been able to weigh up the individual's civil liberties against the offence and make a judgment . . . I have just quoted Senator Teague. The experience of my last nine months in office tells me otherwise. Indeed, the very existence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the immigration review panel indicates that administrative decisions made privately and for undisclosed reasons are not in the best interests of an enlightened society. I do not disparage the good intentions of past Ministers but it must be accepted that the mere election to public office does not, of itself, guarantee enlightened and just decision making. The Senate proposal is also wrong in principle; it is also legally imprecise. It is a matter of record that Senator Missen, an enlightened senator of the Opposition, referred to it as a very sloppy amendment. The Opposition proposes to insert in the Act the new clause concerning deportation for security related offences. Clearly it is in the wrong place. It is proposed that it be inserted under clause 11 of the Bill which seeks to amend section 14 as I said earlier at the Committee stage when first dealing with the Bill. New section 14 deals only with security related crime and replaces the current section 14 in the Act which allows for deportation on conduct. It relates to possible security breaches and also to security matters. Let me say without being too disparaging that the Opposition in the Senate could not even place the amendment in the correct context and section of the Bill, that is, in clause 10 which relates to sections 12 and 13 of the current Act dealing with criminal deportation. It has been suggested that it be placed in the clause of the Bill relating to security deportation. That is mainly a technical matter. If there were not these other reasons I could have accepted it there and placed it in its right context. However, as I said there are other reasons. For instance, the amendment gives no indication as to what constitutes trafficking in dangerous drugs. The laws of the States vary widely on this point and it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister to impose his arbitrary view in the exercise of his discretion as to what is to constitute trafficking in dangerous drugs. Neither the Senate nor the Opposition has attempted to clarify this matter. As a consequence it would be irresponsible for this House to accede to the amendment on that ground alone. I will again quote Senator Missen. In the Senate debate he said: . . . this amendment seems to be very vague. I think there are problems with the amendment. It seems to have been drafted somewhat on the run . . . I will say it was. Neither the Senate nor the Opposition could place it in the proper context of the Bill. The amendment is also discriminatory in its application. The Senate amendment places non-citizens convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs who receive a light prison sentence or even a suspended sentence in exactly the same situation as a non-citizen convicted of, say, murder or rape, who receives a life sentence. The gravity of the crime can be determined only by a court, and it is reasonable to regard the length of sentence as being indicative of the court's view. The Government cannot accept an amendment which allows such an anomaly, for where the law creates anomalies, ministerial discretion has the potential to exacerbate those anomalies. I wish to make one other observation and then to predict what the Government intends to do with the Migration Act. The Migration Amendment Bill has been considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The comments made by that Committee deserve consideration. I assure this chamber that they will receive consideration following a further review of the Act after receipt of the Human Rights Commission report on the Act. At this stage I can only really express surprise that the Senate has not seen fit to take up any of the points raised by its own Standing Committee. For instance, I do have reason to expect that the Senate will now pass this Bill. I note, and I sincerely hope, that that is so. I note the complaints made in speeches in the Senate during the debate. I note the complaints made by Senator Martin. To an extent they had some validity. Let me explain. The sections relating to the Crimes Act, that is, sections 24, 24AA, 24AB, 24C, 25, 26, 6, 7 and 86 (1), were included as security related offences in the Bill, conviction on which would render a person always deportable. It was said: Why include all those sections of the Crimes Act and leave out sections 78 and 81 which relate to espionage offences? I simply express surprise that seeing Opposition senators had the numbers during this debate, and if they felt this matter was important, they did not send it here as an amendment. I would have been inclined to accept it if they had, but they did not; they left it out. The Opposition did not seek to amend clause 11 (2) (c) of the Bill. I am led to believe, and honourable members should listen so that they will understand perfectly when they make their contribution, that I am not now in a position to amend the Bill further. I say this: A further review of this Act will occur after the Human Rights Commission, which is currently receiving submissions in Melbourne, delivers its report to this Parliament. I will consider again clause 11 (2) and consider including espionage related crimes as grounds for permanent deportation. However, there is a further problem in relating permanent liability for deportation on security grounds to actual conviction under the Crimes Act; that is, the Crimes Act is also, in my view, in dire need of review. Indeed, it has been pointed out by members of the Opposition that many offences in the current Crimes Act are now virtually obsolete. There have never been any convictions for any offences as far as we know. So there is a problem there. I think it relates not only to our problems in relating conviction under the Crimes Act as a ground for permament liablity for deportation, which is a problem, but also there is a problem-- Mr Hodgman —Why do you not just abolish deportation completely? Mr WEST —I am telling the honourable member that I believe there is a problem with the Crimes Act because of the obsolete nature of some of the described offences. I do believe that the Migration Act can be amended on these issues, probably before and/or after any future changes to the Crimes Act. In other words, it has to be a continuing, evolving thing. There is nothing firm or concrete about law; it should respond to the conditions of the day. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —It being 12.45 p.m., the House may, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I preface it by referring to a telex from Mr Yunupingu, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, on 8 November criticising the Government's refusal to allow mining at Jabiluka and Koongarra, in which he said: . . . the Northern Land Council, acting for its Aboriginal constituents, wishes to express its deep concern at the decision of the Federal Government not to give the go ahead for the Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium deposits and stresses the responsibility of the Government to ensure that adequate compensation is paid without delay to the Aboriginal people as a result of this decision. In view of stated Australian Labor Party policy to compensate Aboriginal people who are adversely affected by the Party's uranium policy and in view of the Northern Land Council's estimate that the loss of income to the Aborigines from Jabiluka alone is $137m, which far exceeds the $36m Kakadu tourist proposal, what further action will the Government take to ensure that adequate compensation is paid? Mr HOLDING —I have seen that telex. When the details of claims for compensation are more adequately specified by the Northern Land Council, they will be considered. Mr BILNEY —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, relates to the forthcoming visits he is to make to Bangkok and to New Delhi for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I preface my question by saying that the Prime Minister is well aware that there have been unsuccessful attempts in this place to foment ill will between member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia. Does the Prime Minister expect that his forthcoming visits to Bangkok and New Delhi will lead to a better understanding between Australia and its ASEAN neighbours? Mr HAWKE —I am certainly looking forward very much to my visit to Thailand with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to my talks there with Prime Minister Prem, Foreign Minister Siddhi and other Thai leaders. Of course, I am also expecting to have very useful talks at CHOGM with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee and the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Musa Hitam. Following the talks that the Foreign Minister and I will have in Bangkok, the Foreign Minister will return via Rangoon to Jakarta, where the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, has, at very short notice, kindly agreed to see him. Obviously, I believe at this stage that further exchanges with ASEAN over Cambodia should be carried out privately in those talks and through normal diplomatic channels. I am perfectly confident that, as a result of the talks that the Foreign Minister and I will have in Bangkok, the talks that the Foreign Minister will have in Jakarta and the talks that I will have with leaders in New Delhi, there will be an understanding of the Australian position and a further improvement in our already good relations with the ASEAN countries. I should, however, observe that over recent days public opinion in this country , particularly as expressed in editorials in major newspapers, has shown a very commendable degree of maturity and understanding of Australia's need to base its foreign policy on Australian national interests as independently determined by the Australian Government. I can certainly understand the concern of Opposition members because no doubt they will have read these editorials to which I intend to refer. Recent editorials in the Age, the West Australian, the Adelaide Advertiser, the Brisbane Courier-Mail and the Australian Financial Review are compelling evidence of the great degree of support and understanding for the Government's position in this matter. Indeed, the maturity and the good sense of national self-respect and dignity shown by the Australian media in these matters stand in very strong contrast to the pathetic performance of the Opposition, particularly its leader and the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. I can understand why they are upset. Let me remind the House of the editorial in the Adelaide Advertiser of 11 November. This is what the Adelaide Advertiser had to say: . . . the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, must take the bad taste award for using this interchange as an opportunity for party politicking. In foreign affairs, especially, there is a need for consensus as Australia seeks to maintain that influence which is not only of political, cultural, commercial and strategic importance, but a matter of moral principle. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 14 November went even further when it had this to say: The Opposition in the Australian Parliament has shown an appalling lack of concern for Australia's independence and sovereignty by trying to make petty political capital out of what should be a bipartisan issue. The Australian Financial Review editorial went on to say: It is even worse that Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Foreign Minister, ought to know better. If he does not it must be taken as a reflection on the manner in which he performed his duties as Foreign Minister. The Opposition, however, should not despair. Mr Hodgman —What do they say in Pravda and Tass? Mr HAWKE —I can give the honourable member the exact equivalent. While the Opposition is rejected totally by Australian editorial opinion, it has found comfort and support for its position in another quarter. Let me quote from the reports of the Khmer Rouge Radio. I cannot give honourable members-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable gentleman has been answering this question for about five minutes. There is no reason for him to take an interminable time in his response. As you suggested yesterday, Mr Acting Speaker, questions should be brief and those who are questioned should respond in a reasonable time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —As I said, I regret that I cannot quote Pravda but I shall quote the Khmer Rouge Radio. The Khmer Rouge Radio-that is, the radio of the butchering Pol Pot regime-monitored in Bangkok, said that the Hawke Government had adopted a policy on Kampuchea which ran 'completely counter to that of all peace and justice loving countries'. According to the Pol Pot radio, 'the Government of Australia is turning from the principles of international law and becoming a rogue nation seeking a gentleman's agreement concerning Vietnam aggression in Kampuchea'. As I said, I cannot quote Pravda but I can quote the Khmer Rouge Radio. Perhaps now the Opposition, consistent with its policy, will move a motion of censure against the Government for having lost the confidence of the Pol Pot Government. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to his statement in Queensland during the recent State election campaign that he intended to introduce uniform land rights legislation in August next year. Has the Minister advised his Western Australian colleague that he will impose land rights legislation on that State before the Aboriginal Land Inquiry, conducted by Mr Seaman, QC, on behalf of the Western Australian Government, is completed? What will be the position if the Federal legislation is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Inquiry? Mr HOLDING —The term 'impose land rights legislation on the Western Australian Government' was the term used by the honourable gentleman asking the question; it is not a term that has ever been used by me. When the Seaman inquiry was first announced it was the subject of discussion between me, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Western Australia and the Premier of Western Australia. We have said that, having regard to the size of Western Australia, its Aboriginal population and the fact that it has a large geographic spread which involves a range of problems as they affect Aboriginal citizens in urban, semi-rural and original Aboriginal communities, we would regard the findings of that inquiry as being of considerable significance. We have had approaches from the Western Australian Government to consider funding in respect of that inquiry and that is being considered. I indicated that we would be seeking from the Seaman inquiry an interim report in respect of those matters which are of prime concern to us in the formulation of our land rights legislation. Mr Sinclair —Did you tell Burke about it? Did Burke agree? Mr HOLDING —We are very happy to talk to all State Premiers and we have the most cordial of relations-- Mr Sinclair —Did Burke agree with you? Mr HOLDING —I do not know what is wrong with the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I thought he was only dumb; he now seems to be deaf also. He should have realised from what I said that I have discussed this matter fully with Mr Burke and that we are currently considering a request from Western Australia for funds . I have indicated that we would want an interim report from Mr Seaman because that interim report may well help us very considerably in the preparation of our own land rights legislation. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of reports which state that migrants are being denied their rights when detained by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? Can the Minister assure the House that the fundamental human rights of those migrants detained are being safeguarded and that the concerns outlined in the Human Rights Commission Report No. 6 are being rectified? Mr WEST —I have noticed in the Age newspaper quite erroneous reports that migrants' human rights were being denied. The media reports, and for that matter I think some of the evidence given before the Human Rights Commission inquiry into the Migration Act which is currently being continued in Melbourne, do not properly distinguish between migrants-that is, permanent residents and those who acquire citizenship in Australia-and prohibited immigrants or prohibited non- citizens, as they will be termed after the Migration Amendment Bill goes through the Senate. I should say with regard to deportation that the rights of migrants are being properly protected under this Government. I have already delivered a policy statement to that effect in this House, setting out the four-point criteria under which criminal deportation of migrants can proceed. Those criteria take into account the nature of the crime, the risk of recidivism, the contributions the migrants may make to Australian society and the rights of others in Australian society. The reports say that there are inadequate appeal procedures. That is not so, in our opinion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal can hear appeals by migrants who have been subjected to the deportation procedure and the Tribunal makes recommendations to the Minister. So there is a right of appeal. Of course, we intend to give immunity from criminal deportation, except for security related convictions, after 10 years of permanent residence in Australia. We are removing the discrimination that exists in the current Acts relating to migrants and we intend to introduce a new citizenship Bill soon. With regard to prohibited non- citizens-that is, the problem area of illegal immigrants-we have a problem because there are some 50,000 or 60,000 of those people in Australia. That really cannot be tolerated at a time of recession. That number has a potential blowout of up to 10,000 people a year. I am very much concerned about the implications of leaving sections 38 and 39 of the Migration Act unamended. There are human rights problems there. But the point is that the previous Government for many years did nothing about them. When I receive the report of the Human Rights Commission, which will be available soon, we intend to address those problems. I am very concerned about a position in which prohibited immigrants can be apprehended without a warrant and held for 48 hours pending the report of a magistrate. I do not think that it is tenable. But the point is that that has been provided for in the Act for many years, and the previous Government never addressed it. We intend to address that situation after we have received the Human Rights Commission report. I say in conclusion that this Government is concerned about removing discrimination against migrants, removing discrimination between Commonwealth citizens and non- Commonwealth citizens, addressing the problem of the human rights of prohibited immigrants and at the same time retaining a balance between the rights of those who are not citizens or permanent residents in Australia and the protection that the workers of Australia are entitled to expect from this Government in regard to employment. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's Gallery this afternoon the Hon. Assimakis Fotilas, Under-Secretary of the Presidency of the Government of Greece responsible for Greeks abroad. On behalf of the House I extend to him a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PORTER —Did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ask the Northern Territory Chief Minister to postpone Northern Territory legislation providing for excisions, thereby further delaying the granting of secure living areas for Aborigines living on pastoral properties? Did the Minister in July write to the Northern Territory property owners giving them three months to negotiate terms of an excision? I ask the Minister whether he said on 4 July in Western Australia: If these negotiations are not entered into and resolved within the three months , then the Government will use its power . . . That is, to achieve that objective. As five months have passed, how many excision arrangements have been concluded? What power was the Minister referring to? Has he used it? If not, does he intend to? If so, when? Mr HOLDING —In answer to the honourable gentleman's question in respect of excisions, I say that I did ask the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory not to proceed with legislation. Mr Sinclair —Have you changed your mind? Mr HOLDING —No, I was trying to stop him from making a fool of himself. The reason was very simple. Let me deal with the history of excisions. Let me tell the honourable gentlemen opposite who have only recently discovered and, it seems, today are suddenly terribly excited about the condition of our Aboriginal citizens-I am pleased with that-of the situation that existed in respect of excisions. On pastoral properties right around Australia, as is recognised by the Northern Territory Government and as was certainly a matter of knowledge to the previous Fraser Government for some seven years, Aboriginal people were living in absolute squalor. Neither the State governments nor the Federal Government could provide even minimal housing or provide any assistance-- Mr Sinclair —Have you ever been to Hooker Creek? Do you know how they are living ? Mr HOLDING —I am reminding the right honourable gentleman of his record because he likes to forget it. They could not provide any facilities of the most minimal kind for Aboriginal people. There was no title to the land and any pastoralist, if he so chose, could put a bulldozer through the area. In some cases negotiations under the previous Administration had gone on for as long as 10 years. No result had been achieved, except that in one case an overseas company indicated that it thought it was the duty and the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to remove Aboriginal people from land which the foreign company had acquired for pastoral purposes. I have said and I repeat in this House-I hope that I will be joined by members of the Opposition-that under the Hawke Labor Government not one of our indigenous people will have fewer rights than the cattle of foreign owners. We made a very clear pronouncement. Let me say with complete candour that we have received the overwhelming co-operation of the Australian pastoral industry, something that the honourable gentlemen opposite could not produce. We indicated that we would give three months notice to pastoralists, to indicate a willingness to negotiate. Mr Porter —That is not what you said, is it? Mr HOLDING —I am sorry; the honourable gentleman ought to get his facts right. After we had initiated this and after the pastoralist organisations had indicated to us their willingness to co-operate, we received better than an 85 per cent response. At that stage the Chief Minister without consultation with the Commonwealth, although he is very keen on consultation, decided to introduce his own legislation. I asked him not to proceed because at that stage we had to provide for the bona fide pastoralists who had indicated a willingness to negotiate an arbitral mechanism in cases in which agreement could not be reached . That was referred to Mr Justice Toohey in his current examination of the land rights legislation. I said to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that he would be ill-advised to proceed with legislation in respect of this matter when the procedures laid down by Mr Justice Toohey could be at variance with his legislation. On that basis the Chief Minister agreed not to proceed. This is one initiative that has worked well. We have had an overwhelming response from pastoralists. Excisions have been granted in a number of cases. We have a very small number of cases in which there has been no response. I will gladly provide a full list of them to the honourable gentleman. I am certain that when he, as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, sees it he will be only too pleased to congratulate this Government for achieving in less than six months something which the previous Government could not even attempt in over seven years. Mr MORRISON —Will the Prime Minister define the Government's attitude to the establishment of a so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the declaration of its independence from Cyprus? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for St George for his question. The Government learned with great concern last night that the self-styled Turkish Federated State of Cyprus had passed a resolution approving the establishment of a so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and a declaration of independence. The Foreign Minister immediately brought this matter to my attention last night and issued a statement, a copy of which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CYPRUS The Australian Government is gravely concerned at reports tonight that the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus has passed a resolution approving the establishment of a so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and a declaration of independence. Australia condemns this declaration and calls for it to be withdrawn. Australia will be taking immediate steps to urge upon the Government of Turkey to use whatever influence it might have with the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus to withdraw this declaration. At the same time the Australian Government will be urging on all parties in this matter the need for restraint in the face of a potentially inflammatory situation. The Australian Government would additionally strongly support and encourage the UN Secretary- General in efforts to achieve a solution. Our greatest concern is that the civilian authorities should not be undermined or the general stability of the region be put at risk by renewed disorder. Australia's commitment to UNFICYP (United Nations Force in Cyprus) and the presence in Cyprus of the AUSTCIVPOL (Australian Civilian Police) contingent automatically involves us in international efforts to deal with the situation created by this action. The Australian Government will be carefully monitoring the situation and if AUSTCIVPOL were placed in jeopardy by an outbreak of hostilities a decision would have to be taken on whether to withdraw the contingent. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition. In that statement the Foreign Minister condemned this declaration and called for it to be withdrawn. I hope that I will be speaking for all honourable members when I say that here today I reiterate that condemnation and that call. In his statement of last night, the Foreign Minister indicated that Australia would be taking immediate steps to urge the Government of Turkey to use whatever influence it might have with the Turkish community on Cyprus to withdraw this declaration. Unfortunately we have since learned that the Government of Turkey has recognised this unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish community on Cyprus. This morning the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs called in the Turkish charge-d'affaires to express regret at this action by the Turkish Government. The establishment of this so-called republic is in violation of international law. It is in specific violation of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions to which Australia subscribes and it endangers the peace and stability of this troubled area. The division of Cyprus since 1974 has caused a great deal of human suffering which can only be worsened following this recent development. Australia's commitment to a United Nations force in Cyprus and the presence in Cyprus of the Australian civilian police contingent automatically involve us in international efforts to deal with the situation created by this irresponsible action. I am certain that I will be speaking for the whole of the House when I say that we hope that a negotiated settlement can be achieved as soon as possible which will ensure the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus and which will safeguard the legitimate interests of both communities on the island. We will strongly support international efforts to this end, including through the United Nations. We urge on all parties restraint in this dangerous situation. Finally, the Foreign Minister has met today with the High Commissioner for Cyprus and separately with the Greek Vice-Minister responsible for Greeks abroad , Mr Fotilas, who is with us today, and with the Greek Ambassador. The Foreign Minister has done that to emphasise our support for the continuing unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus and our condemnation and non- recognition of this declaration of independence. Mr PEACOCK —In contrast to our attitude to the Government's handling of matters regarding the Association of South East Asian Nations, I say in prefacing this question to the Prime Minister that I endorse wholeheartedly the Foreign Minister's statement, the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Grayndler and the Prime Minister's statement today. He has our full support in this regard. As he has referred to the endeavours with which Australia has been associated in the United Nations since 1974 and has indicated in his last answer that the Government would be prepared to support international measures, I would be pleased if he would indicate whether he will take the initiative at the opportunity which will be before him next weekend at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Cyprus being a matter of great concern to the Commonwealth, to see what can be pursued next week at Commonwealth level. Mr HAWKE —I am pleased to be able to answer briefly, constructively and positively this question from the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him for the indication of bipartisan support for the position that we have adopted. I undertake to take up this matter at the CHOGM meeting in Delhi. Mr FRY —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the serious deficiencies in news services in the Australian Capital Territory by virtue of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation having no television coverage of local news events on the weekend? I understand that this is due to the lack of any camera and crew. Is the Minister concerned about the situation? Will he request the ABC to review its resources in the national capital so that the people of Canberra do not have to rely entirely on commercial television for local weekend news? Mr DUFFY —I am aware that no local camera crews are rostered in Canberra on the weekend, and I share the honourable member's concern about the lack of television coverage in the region. However, as honourable members will appreciate, the deployment of resources is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to determine. It has, of course, to utilise those resources so as to serve many pressing priorities. However, in respect of this matter I am advised that the ABC board is conscious of the need to ensure that an adequate news service is provided and is giving consideration to the requirements of the news department so that it can meet the needs of its audience. That, of course, includes areas such as Canberra where, at present, the inadequacy indicated by the honourable member unfortunately does exist. Mr McVEIGH —I direct a question to the Treasurer in the absence overseas, permanently it seems, of the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Government agree with the National Farmers Federation estimate that agriculture will contribute almost two-thirds of the overall real growth in the economy in the coming year, notwithstanding rising costs over which that sector has no control? If so, why has the Government discriminated against the rural sector through such decisions as the 200 per cent increase in meat inspection charges, the imposition of anti-dumping measures on nitrogenous fertiliser and the imposition of a 15 per cent tariff on imported grain harvesters, decisions which the NFF says are costing farmers $60m? Will the Government reverse these policies to improve the international competitiveness of our agricultural industries and act on the NFF's four proposals, which are aimed specifically at redressing the decline in our international competitiveness? Mr KEATING —I would have believed, from the comments of the Director of the National Farmers Federation in recent times, that relations between the Government and primary industry were at an all-time high. I see no basis for the complaint underlying the honourable gentleman's question. He refers to the component of growth to come this year from the farm sector. I am pleased to report that there will be a very strong fillip to growth generally from the farm sector and that, if anything, farm growth will be even higher than we may have thought it would be at the time the Budget numbers were put together. As the farm sector represents about 7 per cent of gross domestic product, any substantial increase in farm output would, in the totality of the growth picture for this year, be diminished by the relative size of the farm sector versus the non-farm sector of the economy. As far as the budgetary treatment by the Government of the farm sector is concerned, the Budget Papers record the generous treatment afforded that sector this year. The thing that any Commonwealth Government can do for the farm sector , in terms of the restoration and maintenance of international competitiveness, is to deal with the underlying problems which threaten competitiveness. Of course, over recent years there has been the runaway inflation which occurred under the previous Government. However, one sees the decline already in evidence in the rate of inflation, and the prospect for inflation, which the Government has forecast at 7 1/2 per cent, yearly average, for 1983-84. That will have an effect upon interest rates, which have been falling. The farm sector will require, of course, more capital for carry-on finance and will be advantaged very much by the fact that interest rates have been declining. Also, its international competitiveness will be enhanced by the decline in the rate of inflation which is in prospect for this year. Finally, the other element that the honourable gentleman alludes to on the question of competitiveness is the exchange rate management problem. I simply indicate that in that respect-- Mr McVeigh —I wish to raise a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 145 which states that an answer needs to be relevant to the question asked. The Treasurer is not answering the question, and under this Prime Minister Question Time has become a farce. It is questions without answers. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I regard that point of order as frivolous and strongly recommend to the honourable member that he cease indulging in that practice. Mr KEATING —He is more to be pitied than despised, Mr Acting Speaker. I was referring to an aspect that was very relevant to that element of the honourable gentleman's question relating to competitiveness. He alluded to remarks made in recent days about the exchange rate. I simply add to the remarks that I have already made about that by saying that indeed the Australian dollar has moved up to a level that at the moment is just a little over what it was in terms of the trade weighted index in March but there still has been a substantial decline from the peak of 18 months ago, as our competitiveness has been eroded by inflation. Indeed, the problems facing Australian competitiveness, whether in the primary export sector or any other, will not be changed by adopting any simple notion that we hold the exchange rate and cop a poultice of capital inflow or take the other options available to try to mop it up, with the attendant effect on interest rates and, of course, the likelihood that this would then be followed by more capital inflow. If that is the argument that the honourable gentleman is alluding to, it is one that I do not think holds water. Mr SIMMONS —My bipartisan question is directed to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. Is he aware of the continuing concern by rural producers in south-eastern Australia about the infestation of Paterson's curse? Will the Minister inform the House about the progress of complementary legislation that is being drawn up for the biological control of Paterson's curse in order to relieve the distress being caused not only to farmers but also to allergy sufferers? Mr HURFORD —If I were not otherwise aware of the problem of Paterson's curse I would have learnt about it from the notice of motion given by the honourable member this morning. I compliment him on reminding the House of a very grave problem in a great part of Australia. Of course, it has been brought about by the drought breaking rains. I would mention that although the Prime Minister was responsible for the drought breaking, in no way is he responsible for the spread of Paterson's curse. I have that on the very best authority. Recent legal proceedings have successfully restrained the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation from continuing a program of biological control of Paterson's curse. I make no comment about that other than to say that at the Australian Agricultural Council there have been deliberations about the problem. At its August meeting the Council endorsed the preparation of complementary Commonwealth-State legislation relating to future biological control programs. The honourable member asked how soon we might be able to introduce this legislation. I am informed that it will provide for the nomination and advertising of target species, and for public inquiry and appeal processes. It will provide authority to release control agents and establish a method of Commonwealth-State agreement on proposals through the Australian Agricultural Council. Because the proposed course of action involves control over these agents, it has been agreed that the Department of Health's Quarantine Division will be responsible for preparing the necessary legislation. The legislation is in the course of preparation but cannot be introduced to the House until the autumn session. I assure the House that the Government is giving top priority to instituting a proper method of biological control. I assure the House that the legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible time. I also assure the House that we look upon it as being absolutely essential that effective control programs be implemented. We are in the course of doing just that. Mr O'Keefe —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to let the House know that Paterson's curse has no relation to me whatsoever. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The point of order is upheld. Many honourable members needed that assurance. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the recent letter from the Prime Minister to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly strongly pushing the case for a casino in Canberra, the text of the letter having been published in the Canberra Times of 15 November. Why has the Prime Minister personally involved himself so heavily in promoting a casino and placed such extraordinary and unprecedented pressure on the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly members, most especially in view of the overwhelming case against casinos presented by the exhaustive Connor inquiry in Victoria earlier this year? Mr HAWKE —I would like to preface my answer to the person who has just asked that question by inviting him to display a minimum of courage by repeating outside this House the contemptibly untrue statements he made under the privilege of this House earlier in its proceedings. I already know what the answer will be because the courage of this member is minuscule and matches his absolute lack of morality. Mr Aldred —Who is pushing for the casino? Tell us about your discussions with Federal Hotels. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce has asked his question . I will not tolerate his interjecting while the answer is being given. Mr HAWKE —Until such time as he exhibits that courage he will be treated by me and everyone else on this side of the House with the contempt that he so thoroughly deserves. Mr Peacock —What references are you referring to? What do you want him to say outside the House? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —I would like to know what he wants repeated outside the House. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —In regard to the substance of the question about the support of this Government for the building of a casino-- Mr Aldred —Why are you so personally pushing it? Mr HAWKE —I have made my challenge and I now come to the substance of the question. Mr Peacock —Are they remarks relating to you or to other people? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has no right to interject incessantly. I require him to extend-- Mr Peacock —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will first resume his seat. Mr Scholes —No one loves you, Andrew. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Chair needs no assistance from the Minister for Defence. Mr Peacock —The point of order is that the Prime Minister has spoken in terms of contempt about my colleague on this side of the House. Is that in relation to allegations he has made against the Prime Minister? I would like to know. If it is, what are the allegations that he wants repeated outside the House? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —We have come to realise that there is almost no limit to the ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is a simple point of order. The Prime Minister yesterday relied on the National Times to put forward certain views about attitudes to taxation that we were exploring. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr Peacock —My friend behind me referred to matters that were in the National Times relating to this man. I want to know why he wants them repeated outside the House, because they have already been said outside the House. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It is time that the Leader of the Opposition understood what a point of order means. He must know that that is not a relevant point of order, and I so rule. Mr HAWKE —Let me be quite direct about the support which I and the Government have put forward for the incorporation of a casino into an international standard hotel convention centre and additional office accommodation in this Territory. The reasons are clear and straightforward. I assume that they are in line with the recommendation in 1981 of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly which recommended that a casino be provided as part of a convention centre complex. Mr Aldred —Tell us about your discussions with Federal Hotels. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce has been told for the last time to cease interjecting. I warn the honourable member for Bruce. Mr HAWKE —I have no doubt that the reasons which activated the House of Assembly in 1981 are the same reasons which activate the Government and me in putting forward this proposal. They are simple, straightforward and compelling. As a result of the disastrous economic policies of the previous Government this country suffers, and this Territory suffers with the rest of the country, at this stage a significantly high level of unemployment. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! A question has been asked by a member of the Opposition. I take it that honourable members are interested in hearing the answer. The House is asked to extend courtesy to the Prime Minister when answering this question. Mr HAWKE —No section of the Australian people is suffering more from unemployment than young women. It is without question and beyond the possibility of argument that if a casino were established in the Australian Capital Territory it would provide, in its construction, employment for a considerable number of people and, in its operation, large levels of employment for people and particularly for young women who otherwise would not be able to get employment. Mr Aldred —Read Connor and find out something about it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I have already warned one honourable member. I will be taking action if there are any more interrruptions from that source. Mr HAWKE —At the outset of the discussions I had with the relevant Minister I indicated to him that it would be the intention of the Government that any revenue to this Government which became available as a result of the operation of the casino would be specifically earmarked to top up the payments for and provision of social security and welfare services for the underprivileged in the Australian Capital Territory. In other words, the only reasons why I support the building of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory are for employment purposes in relation to its construction and operation, and in terms of revenue for the allocation to the underprivileged in the Australian Capital Territory of funds that would not be otherwise available. Mr Anthony —Why don't you let your Minister for Territories and Local Government deal with it? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Those two entirely honourable reasons-the provision of employment and the provision of funds and facilities to the underprivileged in the Australian Capital Territory-are the only reasons why I support so strongly the building of this casino. It is an indication of the contemptible and despicable levels to which this Opposition has descended that it is not prepared to accept the integrity of my position and of this Government as to why we wish to proceed in this matter. It seeks-- Mr Anthony —Mr Wran. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will come to order. Mr Sinclair —He is pretty right, though. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —And the Deputy Leader of the National Party will come to order. Both right honourable gentlemen are senior members of this Parliament and should set an example. I ask the House to come to order. Mr HAWKE —I intend to take this matter to its conclusion. The reasons that I have given are the reasons which move me to feel strongly about this issue. They are the reasons which move the Cabinet to feel strongly about this issue. There are no other reasons. But I say this: What we have witnessed in this-- Mr Aldred interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I name the honourable member for Bruce. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the honourable member for Bruce be suspended from the service of the House . The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Hurford, C. J.Bilney, G. N. Jacobi, R.Blanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. (Teller)Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.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. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hawke, R. J. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian 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. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McCGroom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Mountford, J. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Jones, Barry Ruddock, P. M.Cunningham, B. T. Wilson, I. B. C.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C.Kelly, R. J. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Bruce thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister to complete his answer to the question. Mr HAWKE —I was giving my reasons for the support of the casino. Two reasons motivated me. Of course, there are also the considerations that have been indicated by the Minister-that the actual economics of the operation without the casino are a relevant consideration. I was conveying to the House the two basic considerations which impelled and motivated me in this matter. I think it is a matter of very considerable regret that the collection of people opposite have descended to such despicable depths that, by way of allegation and innuendo under privilege in this House, they are imputing other motives to me. The honourable member who has just been suspended followed this practice in regard to a Minister in another Parliament-the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in Victoria. He made totally unfounded allegations that impugned the integrity of Mr Mathews, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in Victoria. He did that under privilege in this House. He was then challenged to repeat those statements outside this House so that the processes of the law-- Mr Sinclair —Are you not man enough to do it while he is in the House? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —The person who has been suspended, of course, because he is totally lacking in morality and integrity, declined to repeat outside the House the allegations he made against the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw those remarks. Mr HAWKE —Which ones? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —'Totally lacking in morality and integrity'. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw the remark that he is totally lacking in integrity and say that he is totally lacking in courage. Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that the Prime Minister withdraw the implication about morality. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Do I understand that the honourable gentleman has withdrawn unreservedly? Mr HAWKE —Yes. I say to the person who has been suspended from the service of this House that he should-- Mr Sinclair —Honourable, to you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Mr Peacock —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister has waited until the honourable member has been suspended from the service of the House to start detailing criticism of him, thus preventing the honourable member from making a personal explanation today and responding to it. If courage is being called into question, honourable members should have a look at the man at the dispatch box opposite. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The House is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister the answer to the question. There is no point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I make the point that in the question asked by the person who has been suspended-- Mr Carlton —The honourable member. Mr HAWKE —The person, as far as I am concerned. He has, by way of his question, repeated the same tactics in which he engaged before. I simply say, in respect of the honourable member, that, if he is imputing other motives to me in the vein that he has followed in his attacks on the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services and upon me, I challenge him, I request him, to make those statements and allegations and to say whatever he will outside this House. If he has the courage to do that, I will invoke the full processes of the law, which is the only way-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —Are you going to try to gaol him as well? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —This man tried to gaol him-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —It is ludicrous; he cannot take it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the honourable gentleman to come to order. Mr Peacock —If he is so worried, why does he not take action against the newspapers that have already reported it beforehand? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is asked again to come to order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I repeat that, while this honourable member continues to use the privilege of the House not only against me but also against the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services for making allegations and innuendoes which are baseless and which he knows, if made outside this House, would be the subject of action, then he continues to deserve-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I think you should alert the Prime Minister to the fact that under sessional orders there is an opportunity for a Minister to respond in the 10 minutes after the adjournment debate. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I conclude by saying that, until such time as the honourable member for Bruce has the courage to take that course of action, courage which he did not exhibit in regard to Mr Mathews, and courage which he has not exhibited in respect of me, he will continue to have what he has, I would think, not only on this side of the House but also in substantial measure on the other side- complete and utter contempt. Mr Gear proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The question is not one for which the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility. The question is out of order. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1983 International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill 1983. Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1983. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon the Hon. John Richard Johnson, President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales. On behalf of the House I extend to him a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The attempts of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to sabotage his own Government's Prices and Incomes Accord. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.09) —This matter of public importance arises out of a quite extraordinary response given by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in the House yesterday to a question from the Leader Opposition (Mr Peacock), regarding the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the building industry agreement. That answer of the Minister was the culmination of some quite extraordinary behaviour on his behalf towards the maintenance of the Government's prices and incomes accord. During the past few months the Minister has behaved in an erratic, inconsistent and hyprocritical manner towards the Government's prices and incomes accord. I think everyone in this House and everyone in the broader community would agree that the absolute cornerstone of this Government's economic policy is its prices and incomes accord. This Government-the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is the Minister responsible for labour matters in the Hawke Government-has chosen the prices and incomes accord as the foundation, the plank and the fundamental basis of its economic policy. This Government, not the members of the Opposition, has opted to support a centralised wage fixation system. This Government has built its Budget strategy and its economic strategy on the maintenance of a prices and incomes accord. Therefore it is a simple proposition that this Government has a responsibility through its Ministers, having chosen to adopt a prices and incomes policy, to maintain the integrity of that policy. One would have thought that, above all other Ministers, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is seated at the table, would have defended the integrity of the prices and incomes accord. But over recent months he has followed a pattern of conduct which is designed not to support that prices and incomes accord but to sabotage it. He has given government support to the building agreement before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yesterday, in the face of the Arbitration Commission's absolutely correct and courageous disallowance of that building agreement, instead of publicly calling upon all parties to support the umpire's decision to abide by what the Arbitration Commission had said-which, after all, is to implement the prices and incomes accord-quite extraordinarily the Minister started casting around for another way in which to dodge the decision of the Arbitration Commission. One would imagine that he is trying to father some kind of arbitration avoidance industry. He said: 'They have not approved it so what will we do? Perhaps if we have a look at the superannuation arrangements we will be able to find a way around this agreement'. I think that is an extraordinary piece of conduct by the Minister. He is inciting the parties to undermine the authority of the Arbitration Commission. That is an extraordinary piece of conduct from a Minister who has a long background in the industrial relations area, who knows the rules of the game, who so frequently upholds the arbitration system as being the answer to all our problems, in respect of which a number of people, including myself, have a few serious doubts. He, above everybody else, could be expected to have supported the decision of the Arbitration Commission. Instead, he is going around looking for an excuse to dodge the implications of that decision. He finds himself in the company of Mr Pat Clancy of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia in finding some kind of device to dodge the particular decision of the Arbitration Commission. The Minister, in doing this, has behaved in a very contradictory and very hypocritical manner. I will take the House back to what the Minister said on an AM interview on 28 April 1983 when he has talking about sectional claims at the National Economic Summit Conference. I think it is worth recalling what the Minister said because many Ministers in this Government have said a lot of things over recent months that are now coming back to haunt them. The Minister said: I said that in the Government's view there was scope for some renegotiation of allowances, given the fact that they had been frozen since 1981 and would, after adjustment at this time, be frozen for another two years. This is the relevant part: But I also made it quite clear, in saying that, that I was not in any way giving a nudge or a wink to the unions to go off and organise a wage claim in the form of an allowance and in no way should I be taken by the employers or the unions as in any way suggesting that. Those were the brave words of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 28 April. He said: 'I am not giving a nudge or a wink to the unions to go off and organise a sham application. I am not asking them to go away and dress up a salary increase as some kind of allowance'. Those were his words; those were his protestations on 28 April. Let us examine precisely what happened. Everybody knows that the agreement that was put up to the Arbitration Commission was a disguised wage increase of almost $20. That has been apparent for months. It has not been denied; it has been recognised. Above everything else it was recognised by the Arbitration Commission itself. I quote from what Mr Justice Ludeke said on only 14 November 1983: We consider that against the test of history, the submission that the circumstances of the agreement are of a special and isolated nature cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it would be strange indeed to describe the achievement as special and extraordinary. But who supported this agreement? It was supported by the Government. The Minister, in the name of the Government, went to the Arbitration Commission and said: 'You ought to support this agreement'. But the Arbitration Commission saw through the sham. It saw that, if it were to approve this, it would flow on to other sections of industry. It had heard what Mr Dolan had said. It had heard other union leaders say that, if they got this increase, analagous workers in other groups in the community also would want the same increase. But despite the fact that this was patently outside the principles of the prices and incomes accord and despite the fact that it was clear to everybody in the community including many employers, including the employers federations of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, the Master Builders Association of Western Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry in Western Australia-despite the fact that those groups of employers in the community saw that if this increase were granted it would be a major breach of the Government' s own prices and incomes accord-the Minister's representative goes before the Arbitration Commission and says: 'You ought to support this agreement'. This House has to ask the fundamental question: Why does the Minister behave in this very erratic, inconsistent and puzzling way? Above everybody else, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is supposed to believe, as an article of faith, in a centralised wage fixation system. His Government has built all its economic strategy on a prices and incomes accord. Why is it that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the former Australian Council of Trade Unions advocate in national wage cases, should behave in such a strange and erratic fashion? Why is it that, after the Arbitration Commission has handed down its decision, he does not appeal to the building unions to call a halt, to go back to work? Why does he not say to them: 'You have had your day in court. You put your package forward. According to the rules of the game that we have now adopted, it is outside the ambit of the prices and incomes accord. You all know that, unless we pull together and make this accord work, we will all be in a great deal of trouble'. That is not my rhetoric; that is the Minister's rhetoric. That is the rhetoric of his Government and has been the rhetoric of his Government ever since it was elected. I do not believe in a prices and incomes accord. I have very fundamental doubts and scepticism about a centralised wage fixation system. But the Minister and his Government believe in a prices and incomes accord. They believe in a centralised wage fixation system. Why do they not have the courage to support it ? Why do they leave it to the Arbitration Commission to save them from their own folly? If it had not been for the good sense of Mr Justice Ludeke the Government 's submission, its attitude and the behaviour of this Minister may well have triumphed. This agreement, if it had been approved and had gone ahead, would have done very great damage to the building industry and would have been emulated in other sections of the Australian community. I think the answer lies somewhere in the attitude of this Minister towards the trade union movement in this country. After all, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations came into this Parliament last week and admitted that he had authorised the payment of $10,000 of Australian taxpayers' money to pay the legal costs of the Transport Workers Union that had been dragged before the Trade Practices Commission for threatening the livelihood of small business people in Australia. This is what this Minister has done. He came into the House and in the same breath said that, as far as he was concerned, he would take section 45D out of the Trade Practices Act. Section 45D is the only protection that small business in Australia has against the anti-competitive conduct of trade unions. That is what this Minister stands for. He stands for a situation where trade unions in this country are above the law. The reason why the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is prepared to sabotage and to torpedo the very foundation of his Government's economic policy is that he is prepared, whatever the circumstances, whatever the situation and whatever the consequences, to do the bidding of the trade union movement in this country. He is the trade unions' man in the Hawke Government. Everybody knows that he is the pawn of the trade union movement in the Hawke Government; everybody knows the legislation he has introduced into this Parliament is bit by bit dismantling the protections written into the law by the former Government for the ordinary trade unionists in Australia and the ordinary small business person in Australia. He is not interested in equality before the law; he is interested in creating a situation in which the trade unions of this country are given privileges that other sections of the Australian community are not given. How else can one explain his commitment to abolish section 45D of the Trade Practices Act? No doubt he will give us some mumbo jumbo about putting that power in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Everybody knows that it would be a toothless tiger in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Is he seriously telling us that a Labor Government is going to put penal sanctions into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Of course the Government is not. We will have a situation in which unions will be able to drive people out of business and behave in an uncompetitive manner, yet if a business does that it will face a fine of $250,000. That is the sort of double standard that this Minister is going to re-introduce into the competition laws of this country, and that is the real explanation for his extraordinary conduct. He is a person who, above everybody else, is supposed to maintain the prices and incomes accord. One could go on for half an hour quoting speeches that the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and everybody else on the Government side have made about how fundamental the prices and incomes accord is . It is the cornerstone, the article of faith, the declaration of belief as far as the Labor Government is concerned. Yet extraordinarily, when it comes to the first crucial test, in whose corner does one find the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations? One does not find him in the corner of the accord; one does not find him in the corner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; one finds him in the corner of the trade unions of Australia. What corner of the trade unions does one find him in? One finds him in the corner of the great thugs of the Australian trade union movement-the building unions of Australia. Everybody knows that they represent some of the most militant, disreputable and criminal elements of an otherwise decent trade union movement in Australia. On this first real test one finds an extraordinary situation. The person who, above everybody else, should be the keeper of the accord is undermining it. Instead of calling upon everybody as he ought to have done to abide by Mr Justice Ludeke's decision, instead of saying 'go back to work; you have had your day in court; you have failed, but according to the new rules of the game in the new era of peace and light under the accord everybody has to abide by the umpire 's decision' he is rummaging around. He is saying; 'Let us have a look at superannuation'. Everybody knows that if one gives the unions a special superannuation deal that will add to unit labour costs. It will make it more expensive for people to be employed in the building industry, it will send up the cost of houses for Australians and building and construction costs in the Australian community. Everybody knows that a superannuation deal would be just the sort of sham that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recognised in the agreement that it threw out. We have the quite extraordinary position that at the first real test of the viability of the accord we have the Arbitration Commission saving the Government from its own stupidity. We have the person who should be the keeper of the accord, the defender of the arbitration system in Australia, doing his level best to undermine and sabotage an accord that he believes in, but we do not, and which has become the article of faith and the cornerstone of the Government's economic policy. The Minister stands condemned for his extraordinary conduct. His conduct has been erratic and bewildering and he owes the House an explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.25) — We have just heard a quarter of an hour rave from the pseudo-Opposition spokesman for employment and industrial relations. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) really fancies himself in this area. He thinks he has the alley. He thinks he knows all about it, and as distinct from the-(Quorum formed) As I was saying, we have just listened to a quarter of an hour rave from the Opposition pseudo-spokesman on employment and industrial relations. Mr Hodgman —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a serious point of order. Is it in order for members to immediately walk out of the chamber after a quorum has been formed? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WILLIS —Perhaps I will be allowed to proceed this time, Mr Acting Speaker. As I was saying, we have just listened to the Opposition pseudo-spokesman for employment and industrial relations launch a quarter of an hour attack on me personally. I think he should have had the guts to move a substantive motion judging from the way that he put the whole matter of public importance. I regard the accusations that he has made as a personal attack on me and on my integrity as a Minister, and I repudiate them totally and completely. Let me say firstly that this matter of public importance is an exercise in absurdity and cynicism by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is basically absurd to suggest that I , amongst all honourable members on the Government side, would be seeking to undermine the accord. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous to make any such suggestion. In the three years prior to the Australian Labor Party coming to government I spent a lot of time putting together a prices and incomes accord, and we regard that accord as being absolutely crucial and central to the economic policies of this Government and to the ability of this Government to deliver on most fronts. That puts it in very high esteem indeed. It is an extremely important part of our policies and one which I personally regard as being absolutely crucial. The Government as a whole regards it as being crucial. Rather than undermining it, I have been spending my whole time as a Minister, as has the Government as a whole , actively pursuing the process of building that accord, cementing it and making sure that it was in good shape. That is the sheer fact of what has happened during the Government's period in office. It has been a period of our putting together the accord and providing the basis upon which this country can have a sustained economic recovery, a recovery which will give us growth in employment and a chance of getting unemployment down, a chance which would not be available to us if the previous Government were still in office pursuing its disastrous policies which, in its last year in government, added a quarter of a million to the lists of unemployed. We regard the accord as crucially central to our policy . It is absurd and ridiculous and shows how gullible the Opposition regards the people of this nation if it suspects that we would undermine our own accord or that I, as the Minister most responsible, would be seeking to do anything which would undermine it. The opposite is the case. We are using our every endeavour to build that accord. Of course, in the period that we have been in office we have achieved a tremendous amount in that regard. Only today in the Melbourne Age the Director of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Bryan Noakes, was saying what a tremendous amount had been done to put together the prices and incomes accord. He is a person who has integrity in this matter, unlike the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and he appreciates what was done by this Government to put together the prices and incomes accord. I believe that the people of this nation and this Parliament should take much more notice of what he has to say about that matter than of the ravings and the personal attacks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In putting together the prices and incomes accord we have had to develop the wages policy which, of course, is a central part of the prices and incomes accord. It is not the only part; there is a vest array of supporting policies; there are consultative mechanisms; but the central part is the wages policy. We have established that wages policy. We are very pleased that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has adopted the policy which we said it should adopt; that is, a policy which provides half-yearly adjustment to wages in accordance with movements in the level of prices and which will eventually provide for some increase in real wages. We believe that system is thoroughly responsible economically and is conducive to the recovery of the economy, both on the employment front and in regard to reducing the level of inflation. All the present movements in the economy are helpful in that regard; they show that the prices and incomes accord is working. We do have employment recovering quite strongly; we have inflation and interest rates falling. All of these developments are a disaster for the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is appalled by these happenings which are so good for the Australian nation. He wants to see them all reversed; he wants to see the economy crumble; he wants to see the whole thing fall down. He has no wish to see the prices and incomes accord be successful. What a hypocritical matter of public importance this is. One would think that he would have some support for the prices and incomes accord, but of course he has not any support for it whatever. (Quorum formed) Before about the fifth interruption by Opposition members who are clearly concerned not to let me reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's quarter of an hour of vituperation, I was saying that in looking at the matter of public importance which they have put forward today, one would think they had some concern to see the prices and incomes accord maintained. Of course they have no concern for that at all; they would sabotage it themselves at every opportunity. They of course have no concern to see it be successful. What they want to see is a wages policy in this country which would ruin the prospects of recovery under the Labor Government and which would bring about the fall of this Government. So let us not have any hypocritical statements from members of the Opposition about any concern they might have about how the prices and incomes accord is going. We know they do not give a damn about the prices and incomes accord. It is our policy and we do not need honourable members opposite to tell us how to operate it. Mr Howard —What about the building agreement? Mr WILLIS —I will come to the building agreement. If honourable members had given me about another five minutes I would have had more time to talk about it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his quarter of an hour of vituperative remarks, talked about the building industry. He seemed to think that he had struck something particularly special there to show how heinous my activity as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been. Let me say to him that we inherited a situation in the building industry which was extraordinarily difficult. Under the previous Government the building industry had been a total and complete disaster, a disaster area in regard to industrial relations. There had been massive amounts of industrial disputation and an extraordinary shambles on the industrial relations front. All honourable members opposite did was to rush in and attack through de-registration proceedings. They had no alternative approach to put forward which might bring about rationality in the industrial relations area. All they knew was how to kick union heads. In the building industry we have tried to bring about a long term position where we could get rational industrial relations procedures. When we came into office the parties were already in a situation where they had to re-negotiate a two-year agreement. That was coming on anyway. We said to those parties: 'Now is the time to try to negotiate something which has an industrial relations content , not just something which is going to re-establish conditions of employment but something which goes to the whole process of industrial relations'. We have gone through various processes, which time does not permit me to go into, to try to bring about that situation. As a result there was a very prolonged period of negotiations which came up with an industrial relations package backed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to which the ACTU would be a signatory. This , therefore, brought the chance of survival of that agreement into a much higher possibilities realm than was the case otherwise. With the ACTU as a signatory to the agreement we have a much greater assurance that the industrial relations procedures established would be adhered to by the parties. In this process we had the difficulty created by the fact that the parties believed that there should be a package in regard to allowances, which included adjustment of cost related allowances, non-cost related allowances and a special allowance in regard to that agreement. That matter has been to the Arbitration Commission, as we all know. In the anomalies conference we said to the Commission that we would support the agreement, so long as there was no flow-on beyond the building and construction industry. That was the complete condition of our support for it, because we were not going to open the door to something which would lead to the breakdown in our own prices and incomes accord. We were seeking to protect that accord. The Commission found that there was no assurance that it would not flow beyond the prices and incomes accord and the building and construction industry. So it rejected that matter. In that situation all that I have said, which apparently has sparked off this quarter of an hour of vituperation from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was that the superannuation element was part of the agreement . The parties agreed that they would, in about a year's time, begin to negotiate a superannuation package; they would bring that forward as a means of trying to reach an agreement which would satisfy all parties. That seems to me to be a sensible suggestion in the circumstances. So the months of negotiation to try to establish a long term industrial relations package which gave the real prospect of industrial peace in this industry could be maintained in a way which would not damage the prices and incomes accord, which this Government fully supports. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.38) —If I have ever seen anybody trailing his coat, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has trailed his today. He has offered every opportunity for the whole union movement to take up the opportunities he has offered. By working hard enough, long enough and offering enough problems the union movement can get what it wants. The Minister is like a bookmaker. He is standing on a street corner offering $19.80 to nothing for anybody who wants to pick it up provided that person is inventive enough and works at it hard enough. He is really wagering away Australia's future and the prospect of economic recovery. The superannuation alternative that the Minister is supporting offers opportunities to the union movement. He has encouraged the building unions and others will follow suit. The claims that we are dealing with today, the claims that started this process, were first noted by the Government on 28 September when at a Cabinet meeting in Perth it was agreed that the Government would go forward to the anomalies conference in support of the union movement. The Minister supported that position before the Government went to the anomalies conference and he is supporting it now. Mr Dolan said at the National Economic Summit Conference: We recognise, in advocating a centralised system that if the essential conditions of such a system are met in practice, then there should be no extra claims unless special and extraordinary circumstances exist. That is the basis of the prices and incomes accord. That is the basis of the Government's policy. It has been shot down in flames over the last 24 hours. The Government has agreed by this decision that there are special and extraordinary circumstances. What are those circumstances? The Minister said that one of those special circumstances was that: 'the agreement, brought about through the efforts of the parties over such a long period in trying to put together a package which would provide the prospect of industrial peace, should not be allowed to dissipate'. That is another special and extraordinary condition that the Government will now agree to. If a party tries hard enough and long enough it should not be disappointed. That is one of the new conditions applying to the prices and incomes accord. Another special and extraordinary condition, I believe, is the fact that the Builders Labourers Federation is at the heart of this process. The Government has already said that in exchange for industrial peace it will set aside deregistration processes. It has offered one carrot to the Builders Labourers Federation and it will back it up with a further offer of $19.80-the money and the box. The report of the Winneke Royal Commission into the activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation stated: It is difficult to resist the conclusion that, so far as the B.L.F. is concerned, a blatant denial of the existence in other persons and organizations of a right to enlist the due processes of the law does pay, and pay very handsomely indeed. It has paid off with the current Federal Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has trailed his coat through this chamber and said: 'We will encourage the BLF and the building unions to make any settlement as long as they get their $19.80 increase'. The Minister, of course, is aware of the allowance under the building industry recovery procedures-the BIRP agreement. There seems to be a lot of flatulence about and there are some nasty smells connected with the agreement which the Minister is endorsing. The Minister said that there will not be flow-ons. That is another extraordinary condition which he has set. In the House yesterday the Minister said: Our support for the agreement was specifically on the basis that it would not flow on to other industries. I said after the Commission made its decision that we would ask the parties to reconsider ways in which they might still hold this package together. That is another condition that has been applied. Provided the decision will not flow on the Government will say that the circumstances, in the words of Mr Dolan , are special and extraordinary. The Government has agreed to three special and extraordinary circumstances. The first is that the parties must have tried hard and long; the second is the fact that the Government cannot cope with the problems of the building industry; and the third is that the increase must not and will not flow on. The Minister knows that already in the metal industries there are claims for a flow-on. He knows that a claim has already been lodged by the electrical trade unions to take up the advantage that the building industries will gain. He knows that the iron workers cannot accept the Builders Labourers Federation having some advantage over them and so they must immediately challenge their conditions . The Minister also knows that the National Labour Consultative Council has agreed that there must be a flow-on to workers in the air-conditioning industry, lift workers and sprinkler fitters. For goodness sake, how many people must the increase flow on to before the Minister accepts that it will flow on? The Minister has set new criteria for the whole of the wage claim area. He has set the three criteria I have enunciated-trying hard and long, the speciality of a particular union and the demonstration that flow-on procedures will not occur. The prices and incomes accord has been changed dramatically over the last few weeks, starting six weeks ago with the decision in Perth by the Cabinet that the Government would support the Minister before the anomalies conference. Employers , the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and employees have accepted the accord. They have agreed to it and have acted as if the accord is a real document, a real basis which the Government honestly and sincerely supports. It is the very key to the Government's policy in labour relations and the wages area. It comprises a centralised wage fixation process together with full indexation of wages. It cannot be supported in the terms of its original establishment if there are any movements outside, unless they are made in special and extraordinary circumstances. The Minister has changed that process. He is still taking all the side bets he can get by paying $10,000 to the Transport Workers Union and giving a special deal to the builders labourers and building unions and, coming along behind them, the metal trades industry, the electrical trades, the iron workers and other building related industries. Let us follow the process that the Government has gone through. Firstly, it could not support any change to the prices and incomes accord. Originally it said: 'We will not be party to the change of process proposed by the NLCC and the building unions'. That was the Government's original position. When the heat came on up went the Cabinet submission in Perth. The Government said: 'We will have a change in our attitude and we will go to the anomalies conference in support of the claim of the building unions'. The Minister was supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government in varying the prices and incomes accord in Perth. The Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission quite properly said: 'We will endorse the Government's policy. There will be no variation in this case. We will not take up the proposal of the building industry unions. We will not allow any movement outside the prices and incomes policy. We will maintain completely the Government's central policy'. The Minister said: 'We must find a way around it. The Commission is agreeing with our policy, and we cannot agree with it'. This situation is extreme and incredible. The Government has started to wink, wink, nod, nod, and nudge, nudge to the unions on ways in which they can avoid its policy, which policy has properly been upheld by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Government has started a brand new industry-the arbitration avoidance industry. It has given the nod, the wink and the nudge to hundreds of union officials to commence the process of avoidance of conciliation and arbitration. The Government has denied and destroyed its own policy. The effect will flow through the Australian economy. The Minister is so sensitive today because he knows the ramifications of the deals he has done, the side bets he has taken and the accommodating attitude he has towards the unions. If they make the bid, he will take the offer. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.49) —I think it is amazing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who was the architect, the designer, the implementer and the overseer of the disastrous economic policies of the previous Government, should take this opportunity to attempt to misrepresent, malign, criticise and condemn probably the most informed, responsible, competent and enlightened Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that Australia has ever had. ( Quorum formed) The attitude of the miserable grubs who sit on the Opposition side is very well reflected by the approach they adopted towards this debate. They arranged for the discussion of a matter of public importance so that they could launch an attack on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations ( Mr Willis). The man of funeral director fame, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), then called a quorum to make it impossible for the Minister to defend himself. Then the person of colour television fame called quorums on two occasions, first to make it impossible for the Minister to defend himself and, secondly, to make it impossible for me to respond in the debate. The extent to which Opposition members are satisfied with the basis upon which they launched this matter of public importance today is very clearly indicated by the miserable tactics they adopted. I am surprised that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) should have gone to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) for support. It is obvious that he hawked this matter around members of the Opposition. The only person he could get to support him was the renowned, pre-eminent union basher from Mitchell. The only trade unions that that fellow supports or endorses are the trade unions in Poland. Of course, his record as far as the trade union movement is concerned is well known. Let me assure the honourable member that his record is well known by those trade unionists in his own electorate; that is, the people who organise themselves into trade unions in order to protect themselves against the sort of people that he and his Deputy Leader represent in this House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer, said that he gave no personal support to the prices and incomes accord. That means, of course, that if he were still the architect of the economic policies being adopted by this Government he would adopt precisely those economic measures for which he was responsible, often against the advice of his own Treasury advisers, and which, economically, brought this nation to its knees. Of course, if he feels that the decision of the Australian people on 5 March was an aberration, he should wait until he feels their venom at the next election. Opposition members sitting on those decimated benches on the other side will have to use binoculars to see whether there are any other Opposition members left. I have already referred to the fact that the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations not only has a wealth of background and experience in this area but also was very largely responsible-almost individually responsible- for negotiating the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement. That prices and incomes accord not only was negotiated by the present Minister, who now has the opportunity to implement it, but also was quite obviously endorsed as a suitable, appropriate and better alternative to those economic policies of seven disastrous years of Fraser Government. Not only does the Opposition's matter of public importance have insufficient substance; it also has been very free with its misrepresentations in relation to the Minister's position regarding this question and some of its implications. I refer particularly to the claim that the Minister had completely rejected the position of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I do not know whether the two Opposition spokesmen have taken the opportunity to examine all the documentation associated with the matter. I know one thing; the honourable member for Mitchell does not understand the prices and incomes accord and has probably never read it. I do not know who is responsible for feeding him the sort of nonsense he spouted in this House. It may well have been some adviser to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. His contribution was little better than the contribution made by the honourable member for Mitchell. The deliberate misrepresentation was made that the-- Mr Howard —Hey, what about the subject matter of the debate, Bob? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell was heard in silence. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to extend the same courtesy to the honourable member for Hunter. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It was claimed by two Opposition spokesmen that the Minister had completely rejected the Commission's position. I shall quote from a news release issued by the Minister on 14 November. The second paragraph of that news release states: . . . the Government endorses the Commission's concern to maintain the viability of the new national wage fixing principles and notes in particular their concern-- that is, the Commission's concern- that allowance increases contained in this agreement would be likely to flow beyond the building and construction industry. If members of the Opposition had been aware of the terms of the prices and incomes accord they would have realised that included in the wages and working conditions agreement is the provision that both parties recognise that if the essential conditions of the centralised system are met-they have been met-there shall be no extra claims except when special and extraordinary circumstances exist. If it is the belief of people in the Opposition that special and extraordinary circumstances do not exist within the building industry, it is obvious that they simply have no comprehension not only of the mechanics of industrial relations in Australia at present but also the present reality of them. Their claims were baseless. I refer their attention to a statement put out in September 1983 called 'Prices and Incomes Policy, a Progress Report on Government Initiatives'. I congratulate the Minister at the table and all the other Ministers for achieving the implementation of that policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(4.00) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was saying that the Government intended to conduct a further review of the Migration Act prior to introducing further amending legislation after we received the report of the Human Rights Commission, which is currently conducting hearings into various aspects of the Act, and that at that time we could address certain matters relating to the convictions under the Crimes Act which render a person always liable to deportation. I said that there may be a need to review even the Crimes Act itself and that certain changes to the Migration Act in that regard could occur before, in conjunction with, or even after any possible changes to the Crimes Act itself. During this further review, we can consider also, firstly, possible breaches of basic human rights, which I am certain are still inherent in the current Crimes Act, with particular regard to the apprehension of prohibited non -citizens under sections 38 and 39 of the Migration Act. I am sure that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is trying to interject, would think these provisions quite outrageous. Section 38 states: An officer may, without warrant, arrest a person whom he reasonably supposes to be a prohibited immigrant, and a person so arrested may, subject to this section , be kept in the custody of any officer or in such other custody as the Minister or an authorized officer directs. That means an officer can walk in anywhere and say: 'We think you are a prohibited immigrant. We will pick you up and you must prove otherwise'. The officer must take that person before a magistrate within 48 hours. That also relates under section 39 to a person suspected of having a deportation order in effect against him. I do not believe that this is exactly in accordance with what a Federal Australian Labor Party government would want in regard to civil liberties. We will address that problem-we give that pledge to the Committee-but I must wait firstly for the Human Rights Commission report. There could be a need to reassess the Act further in regard to review processes covering criminal deportation procedures, for example with respect to whether the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ought to be determinative or recommendatory, as they are now. That problem needs to be addressed. The review procedures with regard to section 14, relating to security deportation procedures, can be looked at too. Currently, if the person affected requests a review it is conducted by a commissioner who is appointed by and reports back to the Minister. Obvious avenues exist there for examination and we will look into them. In conclusion, I trust that this Bill, with its long-awaited reforms and its removal of discrimination between immigrants and aliens, will now be passed in the Senate. I appeal to all members of the Senate, including the Australian Democrats, not to frustrate these much-needed reforms and ideals. In return I know they will all be very interested in what I have just said and in our intention to address any affronts to human rights and civil liberties remaining in the Migration Act. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.05) —Today, shamefully, the Hawke socialist Government has abdicated its solemn responsibility to protect the Australian community against gangsters, murderers, drug runners and other criminals and predators who threaten the Australian way of life. I do not know why the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has not gone the whole hog and abolished criminal deportation altogether. I suggest that the Minister has now created a situation in which he will not deport one single criminal from Australia during his term as Minister. I go further and say that I doubt very much whether he will have a single deportation on security grounds. The Minister made before the suspension of the sitting for lunch what would have to be the admission of the century. It related to the matters raised in August by me and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), an eminent Queen's Counsel, in relation to section 78 of the Crimes Act, which deals with espionage-that is, spying-and section 81 of the Crimes Act, which deals with the harbouring of spies. The penny has finally dropped and the Minister realises that what we said was correct. I give him full marks for saying in this Parliament today: 'Yes, the matters raised about section 78 and section 81 were correct but unfortunately it is now too late for us to do anything about them'. The Minister should not have disregarded the views expressed in relation to section 78 and section 81 of the Crimes Act. I felt sufficiently strongly about this matter on 25 August to give the following notice of motion: That this House reprimands the Prime Minister for his failure to maintain national security in not demanding that Section 78 of the Crimes Act, Espionage . . . and Section 81 of the Crimes Act, Harbouring Spies, be included in the new section 14(2) of the Migration Act, thereby preventing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from acting under section 14(2) to deport a non- citizen who spies for the Soviet Union or a non-citizen who harbours a Soviet spy . . . It is a great pity that these proceedings are not being broadcast. I wonder what the people of Australia would think if they knew that, with the law as it will stand as a result of these amendments, the Government does not have the power to deport a Soviet spy if that Soviet spy is a non-citizen who has been in Australia for 10 years. Is this not marvellous! The Government does not have the power under the new legislation brought in by this Hawke socialist Government to deport a Soviet spy if that person is a non-citizen who has been in Australia for 10 years. Secondly, the Government does not have the power to deport a non- citizen who has been in this country for 10 years and who harbours a Soviet spy. Let us just put this scenario to the people of Australia. I wish we were on air. Mr Keogh —There would not be anyone listening anyway. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member should not worry about that. Let us just say that Mr Ivanov got a tip-off that he was about to be expelled from Australia, that he shot through to Sydney and that he was harboured in Sydney by a non- citizen who had been in this country for 10 years. Mr Porter —He did get a tip-off. Mr HODGMAN —He did indeed get a tip-off, but he did not get to Sydney. Let us say that he got to Sydney, was harboured for six months by a non-citizen who had been in Australia for 10 years and that the authorities then caught Mr Ivanov. Under this law, the Government could not deport the person who harboured Mr Ivanov for six months. Is this the way in which the Government looks after the national security of Australia? Is this the way in which it protects the people of Australia? Mr West —Why didn't you do it in your amendment? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for North Sydney, one of the top Queen's Counsel in Australia, drew this to the Minister's attention. I drew it to the Minister's attention. He chose to ignore it. Let us see exactly what else the Minister has done. It is unbelievable that this should happen despite all the warnings that we gave the Minister. The Minister has said: 'We will take action to deport under sections 24, 24AA, 24AB, 24C, 24D and 25 of the Crimes Act'; but he will not take action under section 28. Section 28 of the Crimes Act deals with interfering with political liberty. It states: Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation- we know what that word means- of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence. Yes, he will be guilty of an offence but the Government will not be able to deport him. So if people who remain in this country for 10 years as non-citizens interfere with political liberty, breaching section 28 of the Crimes Act, the Government cannot bullet them out of the country. But it gets worse. The Crimes Act refers to a person who destroys or damages Commonwealth property. A person who blew up the Anglesea barracks in Hobart could not be deported. As the honourable member for North Sydney correctly said, this is the mafia protection Act. I just do not know why the Minister has not gone the whole hog and abolished deportation completely. I repeat: The Minister will not get too many deportation cases under the law as it is now. He raised the case of somebody who came to Australia when he was three years old and then at the age of 30 was convicted in relation to drugs. He said that these terrible people in the Opposition were saying that that person had to be deported. That is not so. We are saying that the Minister can deport if he thinks it appropriate but that he does not have to do so. That is the tragedy of this legislation. It is a great pity that you, Madam Deputy Chairman, are not participating in this debate because you would pick up these points. They have limited the Minister's discretion to such an extent that it will be virtually impossible for him to deport anybody. I will leave it to my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney to develop this further. I congratulate Senator Kathy Martin and those fine Australian Democrats for supporting our amendment in the Senate. I hope that the amendment will be maintained, but I must say that all on our side of politics and indeed the Democrats covered themselves with some degree of credit and honour in the way in which they dealt with the amendment in the Senate. Let us look at other offences for which people cannot be deported. This is unbelievable. Section 30 of the Crimes Act refers to seizing goods in Commonwealth custody. I could be a non- citizen of 10 years standing, get into the Mint in Canberra and seize Commonwealth property, but the Government could not get rid of me. The Government could not bullet me out of Australia. Mr Keogh —We can't get rid of you now. Mr HODGMAN —It will take a long time to do that. I am grateful to my very good friend who interjected. I want to give him the latest public opinion poll figures in Tasmania. He will be pleased to know that in Denison the Labor Party' s vote was 34.9 per cent and the Liberal Party vote 51.3 per cent. It will be a long time before Tasmanians get rid of me. Mr Scott —Madam Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. This is clearly an abuse of Standing Orders. The debate is on the Bill, not on figures in Tasmania. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. Now we come to espionage. I like the present honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), but I wish the former member for Hindmarsh was here. What would the Hon. Clyde Cameron say about this? Somebody who is convicted of espionage cannot be deported. This is unbelievable. Section 78 of the Crimes Act refers to a person convicted of espionage. Section 78 has four sub-sections. It gives power to imprison for seven years. It gives power, under the conspiracy provisions, to imprison for life. But the Government will not be able to deport such people. What a magnificent bonanza for the spies ! The Government does this in the middle of the Ivanov-Combe affair. Honestly, I just cannot believe this. I wish we were on television. I wish the people of Australia could see my friend the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He has given a bonanza to spies, to drug runners, to murderers and to drug traffickers. Let me get to the basic point. The Opposition supports the Government's legislation to eliminate the distinction between British and non-British or alien non-citizens, as they are now to be called. We agree with that. We commend the Government for that. So far, so good. But the Government has been delinquent , has abdicated its responsibilities and has refused to listen to sheer logic and reason from me, from the honourable member for North Sydney and from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). We warned the Minister that this would happen. Please, even at this late hour, do not be so stupid and pigheaded to reject the intelligent, wise and, if I might say so, sagacious amendments accepted by the Senate. The Minister's reasons are frankly not worth the paper they are written on. It is absolute gobbledegook. To tell this Parliament that there is no definition of trafficking in dangerous drugs is an absolute nonsense . There are men and women all over Australia in prison at the moment who have been convicted-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.15) —This Bill has admitted deficiencies and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has really recognised that it has deficiencies. The Minister has said that section 81 of the Crimes Act was drawn to the Senate's attention. As we know, that section of the Crimes Act deals with harbouring spies. Why was that section not drawn to the Minister's attention when the Bill was being drafted? It has, after all, been redrafted twice. The first draft came in in May and the second draft came in in August. One would have thought that the minds which were directing the Minister or which were advising the Minister, which may amount to the same thing, would have drawn his attention to matters of like kind to treason, treachery and inciting mutiny. As I said last time, it is a while since Captain Bligh was around here, but the Minister at least was aware of the situation. We have therefore an admitted deficiency. The Minister has said that because of technical reasons it is not possible to amend the Bill here. Let us accept that. In that event, why do we not have a very brief third Bill which could deal with the kinds of problems that have been raised? It is absurd in a Bill such as this not only to include treason, treachery and inciting to mutiny but also to exclude the harbouring of spies. Surely this could be dealt with by an amending Bill which could be introduced quickly. Mr West —You have been all over it before. I have told you that that will be done. Mr SPENDER —The Minister says it is going to be done. But in the meantime a Bill is coming through the House which one might say is the union corse Bill. Mr West —Why don't you address some of the other major problems? You are not worried about them. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will not talk across the table. Mr SPENDER —He is a chatty little fellow and at times cannot help himself. This Bill will be welcomed by the crime syndicates of Australia because it means that so long as someone is undetected for 10 years he has an open go. The Minister has said in justification today that after 10 years, as I understand him, one is a constituent member of our society. What about those persons whose only desire is to profit from crime against Australians? Are they constituent members of our society after 10, 15 or 20 years if they do not take out citizenship, an option which is open to them or which, for good reasons, is not open to them? It is inconceivable, for example, that the Minister can justify this kind of legislation on the basis that he put to this House last time. I was reading what he had to say in Committee on the previous occasion. Part of what he said just astonishes one that it is put forward as any form of argument. He said: If we cannot make up our minds whether anybody is a threat on security grounds after 10 years the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation must be a lot more incompetent than even I thought it was. Does he really imagine that those who are a threat to our society advertise in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age? Does he believe that they insert classified advertisements to say: 'I am a threat to society but ASIO is not onto me yet. Would you please make sure that ASIO gets onto me so the Minister will be adequately supported in his view that ASIO is somehow all- knowing, all-seeing and all-perceiving and will get onto anyone who constitutes a threat to our society'? Mr Hand —Get rid of ASIO. Mr SPENDER —We know what the Left would do. It would get rid of ASIO and all the security organisations of this country and not worry too much about security or spy organisations of other countries like the KGB, which is always present in this country and always a threat to it. No one in this House suggests that the Bill cannot be improved. The Minister does not, so surely the sensible thing would be to attack these kinds of problems now. Do we not really believe that there should be a right to expel people who do not want to be a part of our society, people whose sole desire is to profit from crime, people who do not become citizens and thereby attract the obligations of citizenship? If the Minister says that that right may be exercised arbitrarily, that is quite a different matter. We are looking not at the question whether the power to expel should exist but at how that power should be exercised. There is no reason why the Minister cannot address that question and set up procedures that he believes will protect people who find themselves at the receiving end of a deportation order if, after some months in his portfolio, he is dissatisfied with the existing procedures in his department. If he is not satisfied, as apparently he is not, why have we not heard from him? Why is it that we do not have from him a proposal to change those procedures? It is no answer to put up straw men and ask : 'Have not these people some rights after 10 years?' After 10 years of no detection, why should they have rights? What sort of society do we want? What sort of country do we want? It is inadequate nonsense to say that this is a multicultural society and to believe that that answers all the questions. Of course it is a multicultural society, but that does not answer the questions. We do not want in our society people whose aim it is to destroy that society or to use it for purposes of organised crime. All of the good people who have come to this country since the end of the last world war and whose efforts have built it into the kind of country that it is, would be revolted at the suggestion that others who have come here for the wrong purposes should be allowed to stay despite their actions, despite their lack of allegiance, despite the fact that they have no interest in the country at all and that their only desire is to destroy, to profit from crime. I do not suggest that there would be great numbers of such people. There may not be, but we all know that they exist and will continue to exist. We cannot avoid that fact by simply saying: 'After 10 years it is fair enough'. Reference has been made to the rights of other countries. That is what the Minister appears to have in mind and that was what was said in another place, but whose rights are we concerned about? I do not care if an undesirable who is profiting from organised crime is sent back to his country of birth after 15 or 20 years in Australia and then becomes a problem for that country. I am sorry; I would not want him to be a problem for that country but I would a damn sight rather that he were a problem for the country in which he was born than for this country. Mr West —The country which created him. Suppose he had been here from an early age? Mr SPENDER —The Minister says: 'The country which created him'. The Minister provides the most heart-rending of examples. He would say: 'It is heart-rending; you could not possibly do it'. The answer lies in the fact that an order has to be made and such considerations can be taken into account when that order is made. To sum up, let us have the power because that is essential to protect our society, the kind of society that we would like to see prevail. Mr West —You want discretion so you can play favours, as you did in the past. Mr SPENDER —Under no circumstances. I would not play favours; the Minister might . If the Minister is concerned about the way in which the power is exercised, let him put in place the appropriate procedures. He has the power to do it. He can put the safeguards there and they can operate to secure the rights of those whose rights should be secured. Mr West —Ministerial discretion is a plaything for Liberal Ministers. Mr SPENDER —There would be no talk about ministerial discretion because the safeguards would be there. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(4.25) —It seems to be my lot in life in this House to follow in debate the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I consider that somewhat of an honour because he is such an older member and I appreciate his experience. It is a pity, as he suggests, that we are not on the air, because it is important that the people of Australia hear some of the more rabid rhetoric that takes place in this House, especially from the mouth of this older member. I can understand the disgust felt by members of the Opposition in general towards traffickers in dangerous drugs, but what it gets down to is that we have been talking all the time about some of the most extreme cases; but for that sort of thing to come from extremists is understandable. All we have heard through this debate from the Opposition is 007 stuff. Those who commit crimes which physically and psychologically injure people are pretty low. Drug traffickers fall into two categories. Firstly, there is the entrepreneurial type, who does not become personally involved or use the hard stuff himself. He goes around selling the drugs solely for profit and greed. This type is the most anti-social and repulsive of all. Another type of drug trafficker, one that is not really addressed by the amendment, is the one who gets hooked on drugs, often as a result of the efforts of these entrepreneurs and who must then go around supporting himself by selling drugs to others. These people have a limited control over their lives. The amendment does not make any distinction in this regard. Apart from that, I fail to see why drug traffickers should be singled out as a class liable to deportation when there are anti- social criminals who would not be affected by the amendment. There are plenty of other anti-social criminal types and crimes that do not attract, in reality, a sentence of five years or more; yet those crimes affect directly the lives of their victims, just as drug traffickers affect the lives of their victims. There are plenty of white collar criminals, those who rip off the trust funds, the con men, the corporate criminals and the tax evaders. I share the Opposition's reaction to drug trafficking, but liability to deportation of drug traffickers does not really address the problem of drugs in this country. When a person is convicted of such a crime two things can happen. Firstly, he may be deported after his sentence has been served. That is a second punishment, and I do not think it is the role of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to give that punishment. That is clearly a job for the court. The court sentences a person and its sentence is carried out. The other example I suggest is that of a parole board which is aware of the possibility that a deportation of a convicted person is pending. It would be likely to take the view that the easy way out would be to grant parole and hope that the person would be deported and would not be a worry to the system any more; and the convicted person is released earlier. That really does not serve justice at all. I wish to refer now to the second part of the amendment, which refers to a person: . . . convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person. Clearly, that does not recognise the fact that there are great differences between proscription and, more particularly, sentencing in various States and Territory laws. That is not taken into account in the amendment, but the variation does exist. It exists most markedly in relation to the two to 10-year sentencing period. That is an inherent inequality in sentencing and the amendment would serve only to compound the unfairness. I am sure that we would not want this provision to interfere in any way with the sentencing of a convicted person. We have to be aware of these risks when we make these laws. Further, the amendment would take from the Minister a degree of freedom to make proper decisions affecting his responsibilities. All citizens and all non- citizens should be treated equally under the law. I do not believe the Opposition really had discrimination in mind in this amendment, but discrimination will result if this amendment is passed. For this reason I really fail to understand why the amendment was put forward, apart from those extreme 007-type operations. The Migration Amendment Bill introduced by this Government has gone a long way in removing discrimination. This amendment does nothing to advance this progress at all. It does not address the real problem of serious crime, drug trafficking, or, indeed, drug use. I believe that the Committee should reject this amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.31) —I want to ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) one brief question, an answer to which I do not expect him to provide immediately. Have his departmental advisers directed their minds to the question of whether a non-citizen can be guilty, for example, of the offence of treason under section 24? Are they relying on the British decision of the House of Lords in Joyce v. the Director of Public Prosecutions? May it not be the case-I would be glad if some thought could be given to this question-that some or all of the offences which go beyond the 10-year period, so to speak, cannot apply to non-citizens? Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(4.32) —The matter the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has raised can be clarified and perhaps, if there is any substance in what he alleges, it can be addressed during the further review I have promised after the Human Rights Commission report is brought down. I do not wish to take up further time in summing up except to say that I hope the members of the Opposition in this place and in the Senate will look very closely at what we have done with regard to amended sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Migration Act, which relate, of course, to criminal deportation procedures and deportation on security grounds. We have removed the discrimination between immigrants and aliens and removed the positive discrimination in favour of immigrants whereby they were not deportable after five years. That is the weakness in the Opposition's argument. Although the Opposition deplores the fact that people will not be deportable after 10 years, unless convicted of certain security related crimes, it has failed totally to address the fact that the previous Government let endure for many years a situation in which immigrants could not be deported after five years. We have altered that situation. We have taken out the tremendous anomaly in section 14 which allowed the Minister to deport virtually anyone whose conduct he considered rendered him unfit to remain in Australia. We have given form and clarity to security provisions, with one exception. As I have said, if the Senate were very concerned, it should have sent back an amendment dealing with espionage grounds and we would have considered it. We can consider such an amendment in the future; I cannot consider it now. Finally, we have created under proposed new sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act quite clear guidelines for deportation without discrimination. Firstly, we deal with deportation of those who have been convicted for one year or more on criminal charges. After 10 years, of course, they are not liable to deportation. We have proposed another clear section-there are no grey areas as there were before-dealing with the Minister's discretion to deport someone on general security grounds under 10 years. After 10 years a person is free from deportaton unless convicted under the Crimes Act. If there are further discrepancies in that convictions for certain offences always render a person deportable, a lot of the fault, as I have explained, lies in the Crimes Act. In my opinion that Act is clearly in need of review. As I have said, it is an ongoing thing. We will be addressing the civil libertarian aspects of the Bill once they are identified by the Human Rights Commission and I have had a chance to examine them. Question put: That the amendment be disagreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. (Teller)Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M .J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald 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.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. 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) Brown, John Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Mountford, J. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Jones, Barry Wilson, I. B. C.Cunningham, B. T. Millar, P. C.Theophanous, A. C. Cameron, IanKelly, R. J. Goodluck, B. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That Mr Staples, Mr Ronald Edwards and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(4.45) —On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- (1) it is contrary to Government policy which is to create a statutory residential liability period beyond which non-citizens would not be deported unless convicted of security offences; (2) it creates 2 new sub-classes of non-citizens liable to criminal deportation regardless of the length of their residence and unrelated to convictions on security grounds; (3) it is badly worded, in that there is no definition of ''trafficking in dangerous drugs'', and (4) the differences in proscription and sentencing amongst the State and Territory laws, particularly for serious offences, would make the application of the proposed provision inequitable, inconsistent and uneven in operation. Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I draw the attention of honourable members to standing orders 52 to 58 in chapter VII on page 13 of the Standing Orders. I suggest to all honourable members that they take the opportunity to read them. Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.48) —On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate, with regard to this omnibus Bill, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No . 2) 1983, that we support the majority of the provisions, but there are a number with which we disagree. As a consequence, we will not oppose the Bill at the second reading stage, but will be moving some amendments at the Committee stage. Those amendments are now being circulated to honourable members. The Opposition supports the complementary legislation which is contained in this Bill-for example, regarding joint sittings by single members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a State tribunal, the expansion of the powers of local industrial boards and the exercise, by agreement, of State jurisdiction of members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They were, of course, measures which were introduced and passed by this House during the life of the previous Government, when I was the Minister, but they had not been passed by the Senate prior to the calling of the early election. We obviously support those measures, and the further reasons in support of them may be found in my speech of 21 October 1982 as recorded on pages 2378 to 2380 of Hansard. The importance of co-ordination and co-operation between the Federal and State tribunals is well known to anyone experienced in industrial relations, from the point of view not only of helping to prevent and settle industrial disputes, but also of the impact which the deliberations of those tribunals have on the state of our economy. We also support the proposal for the extension of the term of office for reasons which are set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Indeed, it seems that that provision is identical to clause 11 of the Bill introduced by Mr Viner when he was the Minister for Industrial Relations, which was called the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982. I refer honourable members to page 1476 of the Hansard of 25 March 1982. We also support the extension of the common rule within a Territory in respect of the variation of awards. That, again, is consistent with Mr Viner's Bill of 1982. I refer honourable members to clause 8 of that Bill. We also support the casual vacancy provision for reasons similar to those for our support of the extension of the term of office. Again, I refer honourable members to clause 12 of Mr Viner's legislation which is essentially the same provision. The Opposition was committed to the vesting of jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Clear support for that, of course, is found in legislation which I introduced on 10 November 1982, as reported at pages 2997 and 2998 of Hansard. We believe that the Government has a responsibility to the public to ensure a continuity of efficient service to the public by Commonwealth employees. We stand by the two qualifications which we sought to impose in the Conciliation and Arbitration ( Government Service) Amendment Bill 1982. We, therefore, oppose the restoration of the full scope of the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the scope of orders which may be made by the Commission. We do so for reasons explained by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) when he was the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in 1978. I refer honourable members to the Hansard of 10 May 1978, pages 2138 to 2140. I quote what the then Minister said and endorse his remarks in opposing the extension of jurisdiction and scope of order-making by the Commission in respect of public sector employees. The Minister stated: It is of paramount importance that the efficiency and standards of the Public Service be safeguarded. In order to achieve these objectives, the Parliament has enacted the Public Service Act in which are laid down the principles which govern the personnel policies of the Public Service, and has vested the principal responsibility for administering the Act in the Public Service Board which in turn delegates a number of its powers to the management of departmental authorities. The Parliament has clearly intended that the area of vital importance to the standing of the Service, recruitment, selection and promotion procedures, should be a matter of management decision. There is nothing unusual about this-it is the same principle which applies in the private sector where employers have the right to recruit the employees whom they choose. But in the Public Service there is a special need that it be the Parliament and the Board exercising the powers vested in it by Parliament which determines principles and procedures governing recruitment, selection and promotion. A duality of authority over these principles and procedures, namely, the Board on the one hand and the Arbitrator on the other, can lead only to a situation where the Board is in the intolerable position of being legislatively responsible for the efficiency of the Public Service and the maintenance of a career service, but is unable fully to achieve those objectives because of constraints imposed by an industrial tribunal. The issue is not simply one of management prerogatives, though that is important. It is whether the efficiency of the Service might be allowed to be placed in jeopardy. The Government believes it has the responsibility to the public to state clearly and unambiguously that the responsibility for determining the procedures relating to recruitment, selection and promotion in the Public Service shall remain with the Public Service Board and the management of Commonwealth departments and authorities. That remains the view of the Opposition. We will therefore seek, through committees, to remove two of the clauses which, in fact, confer greater power on the Commission than was formerly held by the Public Service Arbitrator as a result of the legislation to which I have just referred. We oppose clause 22 of the Bill which, and I quote from the Minister's second reading speech: . . . 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 the 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 have quoted from the Minister's second reading speech to indicate what he says is the intention of these provisions. I now wish to ask him a series of questions. I hope that he will convey full answers to those questions to the House. In putting these questions, I wish to remind the Minister of a speech which I made when he introduced the legislation to abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau. That was on 18 May this year. I refer in particular to pages 672, 673 and 674 of Hansard. I quote from those pages before putting questions to the Minister because the Opposition sees this as being a very important issue. On page 672 I stated: . . . I refer in particular to the plight of independent contractors. Shortly before losing office I had discussions with the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau regarding the inadequacies of section 132A. The Bureau drew attention to that in its last report, presented to the Parliament in October 1982. At page 25 thereof it observed: One hundred and fifty-four complaints and enquiries were dealt with by the Bureau in 1981-82 from persons who either claimed that they were not employees but were being coerced into joining an employee organization or who wished to know the protection afforded to them by the Act. Section 132A purports to provide a measure of protection, against discriminatory action by employee organizations, for independent contractors who meet the definition of and, who do not belong to an employee organization. The difficulties and limitations associated with its application were commented on in some detail in the Bureau's 1979-80 Annual Report. Although the Bureau continued to be able to secure relief for some complainants , especially sub-contractors who could demonstrate that they were themselves employers of labour, the Bureau's experience in 1981-82 was of continuing difficulty in obtaining a resolution of problems brought to it that satisfied complainants and enquirers. The Director of the Bureau made a similar observation in the previous year at page 17 of his annual report: From information tendered and enquiries made it is apparent to the Bureau that the incidence of dissatisfaction amongst 'independent contractors' or 'self- employed' persons concerning unions enrolment overtures is very much higher than is reflected in the number of individuals who have approached the Bureau directly. In the view of the Opposition, it is wrong to sanction the continued membership of a trade union by persons who, since 1977, have been ineligible to be members. In most cases their continued membership is the result of coercion. I ask the Minister to have the tripartite committee which he has established give priority attention to this matter. If there is another reason other than that advanced by the Minister in his second reading speech, the House ought to hear it. I remind the Minister of what I said on 18 May. I refer to page 673 of Hansard. I asked the Minister to request the tripartite committee that he established: . . . to give high priority to this matter and to recommend legislation prior to the completion of the examination of the whole Act. I do not believe that the public interest should be imperilled in this regard by waiting for the completion of a review which might well take another 18 months or two years. The problem is urgent. All independent contractors, owner-drivers and other self-employed persons are entitled to have their position clarified and protected from the coercion to which they are so often exposed by union organisers to join unions even when they are not strictly eligible to do so. That matter remains uncommented upon by the Minister. He might take the opportunity in reply to say what he has done with regard to that request. I quote two more excerpts from that speech in order to show the concern which the Opposition has about the legislation now before us. At page 674 of the Hansard I said: So, as a matter of public interest, the Act ought to be amended in order to ensure that first, independent contractors are given protection from action taken against them by anyone on the basis that they are not members of a registered organisation. In theory, this should apply to both unions and employer organisations but I doubt that employer organisations pursue them in this fashion, and so in practice it is likely to apply only to unions. Secondly, independent contractors who are not employees should be precluded from membership of employee organisations but be able to join employer organisations where the rules so provide; and, thirdly, independent contractors who are actually deemed eligible to join an employee organisation by virtue of section 132 (4) should have the same rights as other employees regarding conscientious objection to union membership under section 144A. A little later, on the same page, I said: Section 132 (4) of the Act enables employee organisations with branches in any or all of the States of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, whose rules make appropriate provision, to recruit to their membership persons deemed employees for the purposes of those respective State industrial codes. The entitlements can differ from State to State and, in some instances, would include persons entitled to join an employer organisation under section 132 (1) (a) or section 132 (2) of the Act. . . . . It is not a major issue in industrial relations, but it is a major irritant to people affected by it. If State governments sanction coercion even more than they now do, how far is Federal legislation to accommodate that even for the restricted purpose of validating elections which can be conducted by Federal registered unions and branches of those unions which happen to be registered with State jurisdictions? We certainly understand and respect the importance of achieving the most stable industrial relations environment via secret ballots for the election of officials. We do not wish to complicate those procedures or jeopardise their effectiveness from an industrial relations point of view. But we do feel so strongly about the issue of coercion in respect of those persons who, for all practical terms, are self-employed, that we feel it inappropriate to sanction in any way a recognition of persons who are still members of a federally registered union when, since 1970, they have been ineligible to be members. We do not see the point of their maintaining any membership of a federally registered union regardless of what State law says about their eligiblity to belong to a State registered organisation which is related to the Federal body. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to consider suspending that part of the Bill at least until the tripartite committee has reported. The next matter to which I wish to refer is the amendments to Part VIIIAA of the Act regarding accounts and audits. These are very sensible amendments and are in the spirit of what the previous Government said when introducing changes to this Part of the Act in 1980. We support those amendments. With regard to the amendments to those parts of the Act introduced by myself in the Conciliation and Arbitration (Management of Organizations) Act 1982 we support clause 23 (b) and (c) of the present Bill. We oppose clause 23 (a). We support clauses 23 (b) and (c) for the reasons set out by the Minister in his second reading speech. But we oppose clause 23 (a) for the reasons set out in my second reading speech introducing section 132F on 26 October 1982. I shall come more fully to my speech on that occasion shortly. But I refer honourable members to pages 2539 to 2541 of the Hansard. We cannot understand how the Government could argue that offences of the kind contained in the sections mentioned by the Minister could now be removed as barriers to persons holding office in registered unions or registered organisations because they cover employer bodies as well. At the very least the Government should not make amendments of this character before the tripartite committee of inquiry has reported. This is especially true as the National Labour Consultative Council does not recommend the course of action which the Government is taking. I would like to draw to the attention of the House the way in which the Minister introduced this matter in his second reading speech. He said: 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 amended section 132F of the Act by reducing the range of offences set out in paragraph 132F (l) (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) (B) 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. I have quoted that statement because I believe that what the Minister is doing by these amendments is much more extensive than his second reading speech conveys. First of all, let me refer the House to the offences which are being removed. They are offences under this Act but they are being removed as barriers to persons holding office in registered organisations. Section 132G refers to a failure to comply with an order of the Federal Court of Australia under the prescribed offences section. Section 141 refers to a failure to comply with the direction of the Federal Court on matters concerning the Industrial Relations Bureau; for example, secret ballots. That is probably now a matter for the Industrial Registrar but it concerns secret ballots. Section 143 refers to a failure to comply with the direction of the Federal Court of Australia on the observance of rules of organisations. Section 153A refers to a failure to lodge with the Registrar details of money held by organisations. Section 153B refers to a failure to lodge with the Registrar details of loans or donations of over $1,000. Then sections 158, 158AE, 158AF, 158AG, 158AH and 158AL deal with failures in relation to financial accounts and auditors. Section 185 relates to false representation, under this Act, as a member of an organisation. This is the only one of those offences that carries a penalty of imprisonment. I recognise that the maximum fines imposed under the other sections generally are not large. I would not have thought that that of itself justified it being called a relatively minor offence. Surely what is important is the nature of the offence. Is it not a major offence in relation to the carrying out of the duties of an office holder of a registered organisation that the person concerned is found guilty of failing to comply with a Federal Court order? Is that a minor offence? Are the matters concerning the funds of the union minor? I would have thought that the community was very concerned about the sorts of things revealed in particular by the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. Those matters relate to the funds of the union. Do they not relate directly to the capacity of a person to perform the duties of an office holder of a union or an employer organisation? I would have thought that they did. I would have thought that this was the very sort of provision that would render a person ineligible. Why has the Government obfuscated these amendments by lumping them together with technical matters such as driving offences? I have already indicated that the Opposition agrees with the elimination of the notion of recklessness from the section dealing with intentional violence or damage to property. These other matters directly relate to the performance of duties, whereas a technical assault or driving offence can happen to any citizen and do not of themselves relate to the way in which one conducts one's responsiblities as a professional office holder. The Minister owes the House an explanation as to why the Government seeks to amend the Act in this way and why the Government wishes to do so now. Why not wait for the tripartite inquiry, expecially as the Minister indicated in his second reading speech that the provisions that relate to the conduct of secret ballots are to remain? Section 141 most clearly does relate to that. I think the Minister owes an explanation about that. One wonders whether the Government is suggesting that the conduct of the average leader of our trade unions or employer organisations is so close to the wind that a hasty repeal of the legislation of just a few months ago is essential to prevent him from being debarred from office. If so, the Minister has an obligation to inform the Parliament. If not, he has an obligation to tell us why he cannot wait for the tripartite inquiry to report. In my speech on 26 October of last year introducing these provisions, I made it clear that they were being introduced after findings of both the Winneke Royal Commission into the Builders Labourers Federation and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. As reported at page 2539 of Hansard of that date I said: Both of these recommendations highlight the need for the honest administration of registered organisations. These bodies play a vital role in Australian society. It is plainly against the interests of the community and the members of registered organisations if their administration is not competent and honest. The Government does not doubt that by far the majority of registered organisations are honestly run . . . . . . . The Attorney-General . . . has directed his Department to ensure that when the public comments on the exposure draft are being examined, consideration is given to the question whether the companies provisions need any amendment so that, as far as possible, they cover the same range of offences as those set out in proposed sub-section 132 (F) (1) contained in this Bill and to the question whether any other adjustments would be desirable to the companies legislation to bring it into line with the relevant provisions of this Bill. At that time an exposure draft was being prepared by the Attorneys-General and it was the Government's view that the clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Management of Organizations) Amendment Bill 1982 ought to have mirrored as far as possible the relevant sections in the Companies Act. Some of the people involved in the so-called $2 companies had been accused of behaving in an unscrupulous manner, as had a very small minority of office holders of the registered organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Without quoting my entire speech, I refer honourable members to page 2540 of that Hansard. It is quite clear that the origin of these provisions was in the Companies Act and that we were adapting them to the situation of registered organisations in a practical and sensible way which was certainly in the public interest. However, it is also important to observe this, and I quote from page 2540 of that Hansard: . . . The Bill provides an office holder or a candidate for election or appointment to any office who has been convicted of one of the classes of offence I have referred to with the right to seek leave from the Federal Court of Australia to continue to hold office or to be eligible for election or appointment. If the Court grants the application, the applicant will not be disqualified under the legislation. Where the Court refuses the application, the disqualification will continue to operate but it may, if the Court thinks fit, be reduced to a period less than five years. No-one is inconvenienced or treated unjustly and there is no need for these provisions to be repealed. As I said at page 2541 of that Hansard, it was responsible and reasonable legislation. It is legislation which I believe the community expects. It is legislation which any self-respecting organisation will welcome. Organisations run competently and honestly have nothing to fear from it . It will protect a high standard of administration in organisations. I emphasise that the legislation does not single out the trade union movement for attention. The Bill applies equally to organisations of employers registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is unfortunate to say the least that the behaviour of some notorious trade union officials may have done a grave disservice to the reputations of honest administration enjoyed by so many other officials of organisations in this country. However, the members of organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are entitled to have protection against untoward activities that might be engaged in by officials. At the same time, as I have pointed out to the House, there are safeguards in the Bill to protect the individual officials of organisations. The Bill is certainly not intended as a reflection on the probity of the great majority of hard-working officials of employer or union bodies in this country. Such officials should not see it as an adverse reflection upon them any more than the great majority of company directors should see similar provisions applying to them as reflecting upon their integrity. The Opposition feels that the Government owes explanations. At the Committee stage I will move amendments which are aimed at rectifying the matters to which I have referred and at restoring the Bill to what we believe is a publicly acceptable form. It is a complex Bill, with some 43 amendments covering a range of matters. I repeat that we support the majority of the amendments. We certainly support those remaining technical amendments to which I have not referred. However, we are concerned and we will move constructively at the Committee stage a number of amendments. I hope that the Minister will take heed of what I have said and will answer the questions which I have asked. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.16) —Before I comment in detail on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) I would like to address a few remarks to the first page of the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). In his second paragraph he said: 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 Australian Council of Trade Unions . . . In view of the matter of public importance raised today and the outrageous attack by the Opposition on the Minister about his involvement in the accord, I think it is worth mentioning that the accord is an historic document agreed to by the union movement and this Government. The policies laid down in the accord aim to ensure that the living standards of wage and salary earners and the non- income earning sectors of the population are maintained over time with movements in national productivity. The accord goes into great detail. It mentions a whole range of issues as well as economic questions. It refers to the industrial relations legislation, amendments to previous government decisions, industrial development and technology changes, immigration, social security, occupational health and safety, education, health and Australian Government employment. I point out to the House that in September of this year the Minister distributed to honourable members and organisations involved in this area a progress report on government initiatives on the prices and incomes policy. That document lists a total of 65 decisions or announcements of inquiries and investigations being undertaken by this Government in the areas governed by the accord. I place on record my congratulations to the Minister for his role in the implementation of the accord. Of course, everything in the accord has not been introduced at this point and we on this side of the House look forward to honouring, before the completion of our three-year term, the whole of the accord as agreed to with the trade union movement prior to the election. I for one will be supporting the Minister, even though he is frustrated from time to time by the Opposition, and will assist him in implementing the accord. This Bill covers a range of industrial matters which have been discussed for some years. Some were introduced by the previous Government, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), at the time of the double dissolution, but others bring the law into line with Australian Labor Party industrial policy and represent a distinct break with the philosophy of the previous Government. The areas I would like to talk specifically about are those concerning the term of office of union officials, the filling of casual vacancies in unions, the common rules and joint proceedings provisions and those changes to the prescribed offences section of the Act. The terms of office changes go to a problem which has worried unions and union officials for several years. As officials grow older they are often faced with the problem of running for office for a four-year term knowing they must retire in 12 months or so. Under existing legislation they are either forced to run and then force the union into a second election shortly after the first election or they are forced to retire prematurely. This causes great problems for them as people and causes the unions great expense. It is a difficult choice for people to make and the present Bill overcomes it in a practical and sensible manner. It allows for union officials in this position to stand for election and for the period of office to be extended for up to 12 months if the person is to reach the retirement age in that period. An important clause of the Bill also stipulates that in the event of a candidate retiring within 12 months and seeking an extension that fact must be included in the ballot paper. I think that overcomes any problem that the Opposition or the community may have with this proposal. The provision relating to casual vacancies will also benefit unions and remove an anomaly which forces people to elections and unnecesary expense. At present casual vacancies are filled by an election irrespective of the time left in the relevant term of office. Under this legislation a casual vacancy will be allowed to be filled without an election for the full term of the previous officer's term if that period does not exceed 12 months. Where the period does exceed 12 months the vacancy may still be filled casually for a period not exceeding three -quarters of the original period. This will overcome a particularly cumbersome and often burdensome section of the Act, which places unnecessary costs on the union resources. It is a sensible move allowing for a far simpler and more reasonable solution to this problem. The common rules and joint proceedings provisions also overcome problems which have plagued unions for many years. The differences between Federal and State legislation and jurisdiction in industrial matters often create confusion and delays. They can mean that workers in one or other area do not receive conditions and benefits at the same time as workers in another area who are doing similar work. Very simply, this legislation attempts to eliminate these problems. Over a period these provisions will benefit many workers, and remove many anomalies currently in existence. The prescribed offences sections were designed by conservative governments to attack certain sections of the trade union movement and certain officials in those sections. We are rationalising these sections, ensuring that people are barred from holding union positions only if their offences relate to matters specifically involved in union elections or to serious offences of violence or robbery. The sections dealing with offences involving union elections may well remove from the right to hold office many friends of the Opposition who specialise in ballot rigging and deception. I congratulate the Minister on ensuring that these sections are not designed to attack certain militant areas of the union movement, although I believe we should maintain a vigilance over the provisions and ascertain their effects in practice to ensure the remaining sections are not too restrictive and do not debar good, hard-working unionists from holding office. It must, at all times, be the responsibility of this Government to assist the trade union movement in its struggle against the class enemies who would destroy the effectiveness of trade unionism. Those enemies include our opponents on the Opposition benches. We heard some of those people during the debate on the matter of public importance earlier today. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) at every opportunity attacks the trade union movement and individuals in it. I deplore those sorts of attacks and comments that he and other members of the Opposition make. Although the provisions of this legislation cover a broad range of areas, each perhaps seeming minor, as a package they represent a major step forward for the union movement and will assist that movement in avoiding unnecessary costs, in efficiency and in performance. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(5.25) —The Opposition in large part supports the amendments that have been brought forward in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) . These amendments have been discussed by the National Labour Consultative Council and agreed to by that body. However, there are one of two notable exceptions to that general statement. I will mention those later. Quite a number of the provisions were agreed to or proposed by the previous Government. Certainly on that basis we would have no dispute with the Minister, and we give our support to those provisions. Having made those general comments and given my approval to the main thrust of the amendments that the Minister is bringing forward, I would like to make one or two comments about them. I note, firstly, that the Minister is trying to make better provisions for the joint sitting of State and Federal tribunals. I certainly give the Minister my full support in that objective. One of the matters that has bedevilled industrial relations in this country over many years is the duplication of awards and tribunals at State and Federal levels. That is not something for which the present Minister can be blamed; it dates back to Federation. I believe the Minister's objective is to work progressively towards greater understanding and greater co-operation between State and Federal tribunals. Certainly he would have my support in trying to achieve that objective. We on this side of the chamber understand the difficulties in trying to secure that co -operation because of the federalist system that we work under in this country. We understand the difficulty of trying to get agreements on these matters between all the States, but anything that the Minister can do to help bring about better co-operation in the areas of industrial tribunals and the commonality of award provisions will certainly have my support and the support of members of this side of the chamber. In the same vein, the Minister is seeking to rationalise the Public Service award fixing provisions and to repeal the Public Service Arbitration Act. That again is the same as trying to have joint sittings between State and Federal tribunals to bring about a rationalisation of these award fixing bodies. In the main, I agree with the Minister. Certainly it was the thrust of the previous Government to have the Public Service tribunal brought within the ambit of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We support the thrust of the Ministers' amendments in seeking to achieve that objective. However, one matter that comes to my attention in giving broad acquiescence to what the Minister is doing, is that he appears to be repealing the provisions of Bills that were passed in 1978 that prevented the Public Service tribunal from involving itself in the selection and the promotion of people within the ranks of the Public Service. In reapplying those provisions and giving that authority to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-I do not know what the Government has in mind-it allows the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, through these amendments, to involve itself in the selection of people for appointment to the Public Service and people for promotion within the Public Service. I would have thought that with the moves that the Government is making within the Public Service Board, particularly with the appointment of Dr Wilenski to head that body, it would have fixed its own arrangement within the Public Service Board. I am not sure whether this move is an admission by the Government that in fact it has little confidence in Dr Wilenski. The Government has given power to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to involve itself in appointments to the Public Service. I would have thought that Dr Wilenski, in taking up that new position, would be somewhat concerned that his authority is being undermined before he has started in the job. It may have been an oversight by the Minister. Perhaps he will address himself to the matter. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has already addressed himself to the appointment of public servants. Proposed new section 70J relates to the conditions of stand-down for public servants. The honourable member for Balaclava in his contribution said that we on this side of the House support the concept that the same provisions should apply to private employees as apply to government employees. But the removal of certain provisions of proposed new section 70J does not give the Commission the capacity to treat Public Service employees in the same way that it treats private employees. It is not able, within the stand-down provisions, to take into account the same matters that would be taken into account if a stand-down order for private employees were being considered. I understand that the honourable member for Balaclava will move amendments at the Committee stage to seek to tidy up that matter but I urge the Minister, if he is seeking to have unanimity between government employees and private employees in the eyes of the Commission, to give very serious consideration to the amendments that will be put forward by the honourable member for Balaclava. I remind the Minister that in looking at the conditions of employment for government employees we can never lose sight of the fact that-I reminded him of this only last week in an earlier debate-government employees do not have the same conditions of employment as private employees. In fact, their conditions of employment are far better, particularly in relation to permanency of employment, superannuation and the other benefits that public servants have. We on this side of the House would be quite happy for conditions of employment, as well as the conditions that are applied by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to be exactly the same. If the Minister feels that government employees should be treated in the eyes of the Commission in the same way as it treats private employees, government employees should share the conditions of employment of private employees. My short and simple proposition is that government employees should, firstly, be prepared to give away permanency if they want to be treated as equals with private employees and, secondly, be prepared to accept the same superannuation provisions as are accepted by private employees. If I see any evidence that government employees are prepared to accept those conditions I will be very happy to see the same conditions of concilitation and arbitration applied to them as are applied to private employees but I must admit that at this stage I see no evidence coming forward. Another matter I address myself briefly to is the provisions that have been mentioned by the honourable member for Balaclava relating to the registration of organisations, particularly as they apply to private contractors and independently employed people. As I understand it, the amendments moved by the Minister seek to give validation to people who may be members of a union that is registered both at the Federal level and at the State level. I understand that he is trying to justify or validate a position that has come about over a number of years, perhaps through oversight at the Federal level within our own legislation. As the Minister is well aware, legislation has been passed which, within certain award provisions, prevents non-wage employees, in other words private contractors, from being members of unions. Historically some people, while being non-wage employees and working as contractors within their own businesses have, perhaps, maintained membership of their unions. But, as the Minister is well aware, under earlier legislation that is outside the conditions of their award and, in fact, it is illegal. I understand that the Minister is trying to legitimise a practice that has grown up over the years. I can only say that if that is the objective of the Minister, without repealing the earlier legislation if people are ineligible to be members of a union under the law they must remain ineligible. I strongly caution against any action that may give rise to particular unions being given the impression that they may go back to the old practice of coercion of private contractors into joining unions. I assure the Minister that some contractors, particularly electrical contractors, owner-drivers and other contractors who work on building and industrial sites, have grave fears that they will be the targets of unions which will use blackmail tactics and threaten them that they either join a union or they will not be permitted to work. Those contractors have great fears and I hope that this legislation, or any other action that the Minister might take, will not encourage unions to make non-wage contractors the victims of union coercion. Another matter to which I give my attention has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Balaclava. The Minister is removing from the legislation offences that would debar a person from holding office within a registered organisation. The honourable member for Balaclava has already highlighted some of the offences that are being removed from the legislation. I will go over some of those again because I think this is terribly important and probably the most serious aspect of the Bill. I do not think it can be repeated too often how serious this matter is. Offences which I would consider to be absolutely central to a person's suitability to hold office within a registered organisation are purposely and deliberately being removed from the Act. Obviously, this will open the way for people whom the community at large would consider to be unsuitable to hold office. They will now be permitted to hold office. I remind the House that section 132G of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations provides for people to be ineligible because of their failure to comply with an order of the Federal Court under the prescribed offences section. Section 141 relates to failure to comply with an order of the Federal Court on the observance of organisation rules in respect of secret ballots. That is terribly important. What effectively the Minister is saying is that a person can rig a ballot and be proven to have rigged it within the Federal Court but still be eligible to hold office within a registered organisation. I would have thought that community standards would immediately render a person who has been found guilty in the Federal Court of rigging ballots totally ineligible to hold office within a registered organisation. Section 143 relates to failure to comply with directions of the Federal Court on observance of the rules of an organisation. I can only repeat the comments I have just made. If an office bearer within a union or employer organisation fails to comply with the rules of the organisation surely that person is ineligible to hold office? Section 153A refers to the failure to lodge with the Industrial Registrar details of money held by an organisation. Perhaps the Minister had in mind the O'Shea case of 1968 when seeking to remove that provision from the legislation. Section 153B relates to the failure to lodge with the Registrar details of loans or donations over $1,000. I should have thought that in view of some of the disclosures by the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation the Minister would be keen to retain that provision because it gives rise to all sorts of suspicions as to what might happen within particular unions and between the Government and particular unions . The honourable member for Balaclava mentioned section 158 which relates to offences concerning the unauthorised collection of money and failures in relation to financial accounts and auditors. Section 185 concerns falsely purporting, in an application under the Act, to be a member of an organisation. These are extremely serious offences. I think any standards of decency within the community would surely dictate that people who have been convicted in the Federal Court of those offences are ineligible to hold office within organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I do not wish to throw suspicion on the Minister, but, looking at those offences that are being removed from the Act, I cannot take my mind from the motions passed by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide in July 1979. Perhaps I should remind the Minister, although I am sure I do not have to, of one resolution passed by that Conference. It was in these terms: An ALP Government would recognise 'the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from Government and judicial interference . . . ' Those last few words are crucial- . . . free from government and judicial interference. The Minister is complying with the resolution passed by his Party's Adelaide conference in 1979. He said that it does not matter that people have been convicted of serious offences relating to balloting and the conduct of accounts and financial matters within unions and that those matters can be subject to conviction, but those persons still remain eligible to be office bearers within an organisation. This measure effectively goes part of the way to placing the unions above the law of the land. I again remind the Minister of the resolution at that 1979 conference. If a person is found guilty of those offences, surely under the companies Acts of the various States that person would be ineligible to remain a director of a company. If that applies at the company director level , the same rules should apply within organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I hope that the Government is not opening the way for unions to be elevated above the law of the land, but certainly I have suspicions and I hope the Minister can allay them for me. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.44) —I was quite amazed for a moment; I thought the remarks of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) would be quite different from those of his colleagues on that side of the House and would be rather positive. However, being part of the National-Liberal conglomeration he had to conclude his remarks with the usual diatribe attacking unions. Of course, his remarks were only rubbish, and I am sure the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will answer them later. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is designed to streamline the efficiency of the operations of trade unions. I particularly want to devote most of my time to the complementary industrial relations system. I am sure both the workers and employers of the industrial cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla within the huge electorate of Grey which I represent, will welcome this constructive legislation. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, this legislation represents a further step by this Government towards the implementation of its industrial relations platform and is in accordance with the accord reached between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As a person who has had a long involvement in the trade union movement I am well aware of the problems that have occurred over the years with the difference between Federal and State awards and hence between Commonwealth and State industrial systems. Therefore, the proposals in this Bill for greater co- ordination between the Commonwealth and State industrial systems are very welcome. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation will benefit the iron triangle cities within my electorate, as the workers in these cities are covered by Federal or State awards. Over the years these awards have caused many problems and headaches for both the employer and the employee. I must commend trade union officials such as Mr Douglas Elkins, organiser of the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union and also Secretary of the Whyalla Trades and Labor Council, who has diligently kept his members informed of their correct entitlements and kept industrial disputation to a minimum, although working in very trying conditions and, at times, against very hostile employers. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations pointed out, this Bill provides for improved co-ordination in the work of the Commonwealth and State industrial tribunals through the reintroduction in identical terms of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Bill 1983. The new legislation provides for joint sittings of single members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and State tribunals; 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 Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. These are very positive steps and will be extremely beneficial in the resolution of disputes which in the past have been most difficult to settle because they have involved Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. In the past, particularly during the term of the Fraser Government, industrial harmony was non-existent as the Liberal-National Party Federal Government attempted to take the proverbial big stick to the unions. I think the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the former shadow Minister for employment and industrial relations, was most appropriate. On 22 April 1982, referring to the then Liberal -National Party Government, he said: In summary, looking at this track record of the legislation which has been introduced and the approach which has been adopted, we find that the Fraser Government, in its approach to industrial relations, has been nothing short of disastrous for this country. The preoccupation with confrontationist policies has led to a deterioration in industrial relations and has meant that opportunities to improve our industrial relations system through constructive reforms have been forgone. Mrs Darling —He did a lot of damage. Mr O'NEIL —As my colleague the honourable member for Lilley said, he did a lot of damage. The present Prime Minister went on to state: In those circumstances it is no wonder that there is disillusionment in the business community with the Government's performance. The loss of confidence reflects a growing awareness in that area that not merely are the policies of this Government not working but, worse than that, they are making the industrial relations scene in this country worse than it would otherwise be. That is the record of the Fraser Government. I shall point out the difference between the Fraser Government and this Government by reading to the House some headlines from leading papers published at the time when the Fraser Government was in office. They are: 'Fraser wants to fight claims Dolan'; 'Thousands in stand-downs'; 'Commission approves airline stand-downs'; 'Fraser supports Qantas for use of staff labour'; 'Cabinet's toughest weapon is drawn on Telecom'; 'Senior Telecom staff ordered to break union bans'; 'Telecom: all set for battle'; 'Canberra roads blockaded in TWU attack'; 'Qantas enrages the ACTU'; 'Telecom members shatter restrictive wage guidelines'; 'Telecom threatens to use rare penal clauses'; 'Government backs off in Telecom clash'; and, finally, 'Labor favoured to curb strikes'. The difference between the former Liberal Federal Government and our Government is that we believe in consultation, not confrontation, as was pointed out by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in his dialogue with the unions in which he informed the unions of the steel industry package. After consultation and dialogue the unions come away more than happy. In the Pilbara we have had serious strikes over the years but now the Federal Government is having dialogue with the unions in that area and industrial disputation is non-existent. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is continually having discussions with the maritime unions, as he is with the railway unions. I commend the Minister for Transport particularly in this area. The railway unions have had a long history of disputation through no fault of their own, simply because they could not get to see the former Minister for Industrial Relations to have dialogue. The present Minister has certainly changed that. Mrs Darling —He is a good Minister. Mr O'NEIL —That is certainly so. I should just like to speak briefly on the rationalisation of industry tribunals. This Bill repeals the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920, and, most importantly, vests the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with jurisdiction over employment by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory or authorities of either by the insertion of a new Division 1A. The Commission will have a positive role to play in heading off disputes or bringing disputes to an end. The Commission, apart from intervening in disputes, can in certain circumstances affect awards and conditions of employment. The whole Bill is very effective in simplifying procedures. It spells out the roles of officers and organisations clearly and, most importantly , it expands the powers of the Deputy Industrial Registrar. We on this side of the House believe that this legislation is long overdue. It is certainly very progressive and I have much pleasure in commending it to the House. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.53) — in reply-I commend the Opposition for its general support of this legislation. In view of the time constraints which are upon us I think any comments I have to make will be best left to the Committee stage. I think it would be best if we now moved to that stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.54) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 14, page 10, line 10, at the end of the definition of ''industrial matter'' add ''but does not include any matter or question relating to, or to the selection or procedures for the selection of persons for, appointment, re- appointment, employment or promotion in public service''. (2) Clause 14, page 15, lines 25-27, proposed section 70J, omit sub-section (2) , substitute the following sub-sections: ''(2) The orders that may be made under sub-section (1) are- (a) orders relating to conditions of employment of employees (whether members of an organisation or not) who are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial action; (b) orders directing the cessation of conduct by employees that constitutes, or encourages the continuation of, the industrial action or prohibiting conduct by employees that would constitute or bring about the industrial action; or (c) orders authorizing the standing down of employees (whether members of an organization or not) who are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial action. ''(3) Where an employee has been stood down under an order made under sub- section (2), he is not entitled, in respect of the stand-down period, to- (a) any salary, wages or other remuneration; (b) any allowances of a kind that are to be included in salary for the purposes of, or of any provision of, the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976; or (c) any other allowances of a prescribed kind. ''(4) Where an employee has been stood down, under an order made under sub- section (2), from his employment in a qualifying service, within the meaning of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, then, for the purposes of that Act, the continuity of that employment of the employee shall be deemed not to be, or to have been, broken by that stand-down period but the employee shall be deemed not to be, or to have been, employed in that service during that stand-down period. ''(5) Where an employee has been stood down under an order made under sub- section (2)- (a) any recreation leave credit or sick leave credit that is a relevant credit in relation to the stand-down period; or (b) where that credit is required to be reduced in accordance with any other law-that credit as so reduced, shall be reduced, or further reduced, by a period equal to- (c) where the employee was an employee for the whole of the relevant period in relation to that credit- (i) the prescribed fraction of the period of that credit; or (ii) where that credit is required to be re- duced in accordance with any other law the prescribed fraction of the period of that credit before it is so reduced ; or (d) in any other case the prescribed fraction of the period that that credit would have been if the employee had been an employee for the whole of the relevant period in relation to that credit and that credit was not required to be reduced in accordance with any other law, for each working day, or part of a working day, in the stand-down period ( excluding any part of that period that is not included in the relevant period in relation to that credit). ''(6) For the purposes of the application of sub-section (5) in relation to an employee who has been stood down as mentioned in that sub-section- (a) each of the following recreation leave credits or sick leave credits is a relevant credit in relation to the stand-down period: (i) any recreation leave credit or sick leave credit that, but for sub-section (5), would accrue to the employee concerned during (but not on the first day of) the stand-down period; (ii) the first recreation leave credit and the first sick leave credit that, but for sub-section (5), would accrue to the employee concerned after the expiration of the stand-down period; (b) the relevant period, in relation to a recreation leave credit or a sick leave credit, is the period of 12 months ending on the day immediately before the day of accrual of that credit; and (c) the prescribed fraction, in relation to an employee, is- (i) where the employee works a five-day week 1 ; or 261 1 (ii) in any other case 313 ''(7) An order made under sub-section (2) authorizing the standing down of employees may include directions not inconsistent with sub-section (3), (4) or ( 5) that, for any purpose relating to their conditions of employment as employees that is specified in the order, the stand-down period is not to be taken into account, or is to be taken into account as provided in the order, and any directions so given, unless varied or revoked by another order, have effect notwithstanding any law, or any award, that is inconsistent with the directions. ''(8) The powers conferred on the Commission by this section are in addition to , and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the Commission by any other provision of this Act''. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said, we are under time constraints, so I will not speak to these amendments, having already covered them in my lengthy speech during the second reading debate. The provisions of proposed new section 70J were part of legislation introduced by me into this chamber last year. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.55) —I wish to speak in support of these amendments. The Bill is part of a total package of proposals that the Government introduced in relation to the Public Service generally when it amended the Public Service Act through the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. When I spoke on those Bills I outlined the Opposition's reasons for objecting to them. In doing so, I mentioned a significant number of matters that related generally to the operation of the Public Service and why we believed that it was important that the Government have in its own hands the capacity to deal with the substantial matters relating to the employment of its staff. The purpose of the amendments in this case is to maintain in the Government's hands questions relating to the employment of its staff, and it is to ensure consistency in relation to the approach that we took in the previous legislation that these amendments are being proposed to the legislation before us today. As to the attitude and industrial relations policy of the Government in relation to the Public Service, I simply draw attention to an editorial in the Canberra Times which related to the broad discussion of principles involved in the Act that we are amending and in relation to the three other Acts that we discussed previously. The editorial was headed: 'Anything for a quiet life'. I simply note that the editorial writer, in commenting on the discussion that took place on the three Bills that I previously mentioned, said: In this newspaper's opinion, the arguments for rejecting the Bills, put by the Opposition spokesman for the ACT, Mr Ruddock, in the House on November 1, were more practical and principled, and preferable, to Mr Willis's arguments for adopting them. The editorial writer was alluding to the way in which the Government, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory where its own employees are concerned, was bringing in amendments designed to appease its own employees in the hope of a quieter life on the industrial relations front. I can only say that if I thought that there were a real prospect of such arrangements working and assisting the Government in maintaining a reasonable economic policy under which wages did not grow excessively and our economy was likely to be significantly aided those proposals would have my support as well. Honourable members who spoke in the second reading debate endeavoured to create the impression that the Opposition was desirous of conflict, of promoting disputes. Nothing could be further from the truth, but we beleive that the Government in its armoury needs to have available to it a capacity to deal, very often only in the last resort, with difficulties that arise in the Public Service area. It is important in the areas that are involved in this legislation and for the employment conditions of public servants generally that rather than abdicate responsibility the Government have the capacity to make decisions as to the basis on which its employees will be employed and to put those arrangements properly in place. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.00) — We believe the Opposition misunderstands the point at issue in the first of these two amendments to clause 14. We are not intending that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should get involved in promotions or reappointments but that the Commission should have the capacity to solve industrial disputes related to those areas. That is the whole point of our allowing in this legislation for the Commission to have jurisdiction in this area. Concern has been expressed that the appeal provisions existing in the Public Service are not extended so that one goes through an appeal process with regard to promotion and then someone appeals to the Arbitration Commission. Of course, that is not what is intended. In normal circumstances if that were to occur we would certainly argue before the Commission that it should not exercise its jurisdiction in that area. I imagine that the Public Service Board would also most certainly argue that before the Commission. We are concerned that, should an industrial dispute develop in relation to these matters-it could happen, but we expect it to be a fairly rare occasion-we need to have a capacity to solve the industrial dispute. The arbitral authority concerned with public employees would need to have the jurisdiction to solve that industrial dispute. Were we to accept this amendment the Arbitration Commission would have no capacity to settle a dispute which arose over those issues. That is a good argument against the amendment, which will simply leave a dispute of that kind in limbo so that its resolution cannot in any way be assisted by the arbitral authority which covers Commonwealth employees. I believe it quite important that there be a capacity for disputes of that kind to go before the appropriate authority. That is why we have provided for jurisdiction for the Commission in this case. I am aware of the arguments alluded to by the honourable member for Balaclava ( Mr Macphee) about managerial prerogatives and the efficiency of the service. We do not intend the provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) which give the Commission jurisdiction in this area to interfere with that in any way; rather, we are simply giving the Commission a capacity to assist in a dispute which arises in relation to these matters. I believe the Opposition has also completely misunderstood the issue in regard to the second amendment before us. The Opposition is seeking to put back into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, by this new Division 1A which we are here establishing, the provisions which exist in the Public Service Arbitration Act. We believe that is simply unnecessary. The detailed provisions laid out in the amendment exist at present in the Public Service Arbitration Act, but those kinds of provisions are not needed when transferring jurisdiction to the Commission. We have it on the authority of the Attorney-General's Department that the provisions of the Bill, under new Division 1A, will fully enable the Commission to exercise all the powers in relation to stand-downs and associated matters which it is able to exercise in relation to the general provisions of the Act. So, there will be no difference. The provisions which will apply to public sector employees in this area will be exactly the same as those which apply to private sector employees. The argument used by two or three speakers on the other side has been that there needs to be this commonality of approach. We agree with that. That is why, by putting new Division 1A into the Bill, we are establishing a capacity for the Commission to exercise all the powers it can exercise in relation to stand-downs and associated matters in relation to public employees. It is simply not necessary to pick up and transfer all these provisions to the Act proper. In both these amendments the Opposition is simply providing quite inappropriate provisions which should be opposed by the Committee. The first amendment is inappropriate in that it would not allow us the provision to solve industrial disputes related to these matters. The second is simply totally unnecessary. All those matters are covered by the Bill as it stands. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.06) —I must respond briefly to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I ask the Minister to think about this and to respond. In relation to the first amendment, because it is a career service and jobs are advertised outside the career structure, a person in the career service could feel aggrieved at what is now called lateral recruitment whereby somebody comes in at a much higher level than has often been the practice in the Public Service. The person in the service could get the support of his Public Service union against the person recruited from outside the service. The result is that an industrial dispute arises. Instead of the matter being resolved by the public sector appeals mechanism and, therefore, by a management process, it could be resolved, as I understand the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2), by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is in that sense, and only in that sense, that it seems to the Opposition that the Commission could end up resolving a dispute by interfering with the appointment or promotion of someone within the career structure. I ask the Minister to consider that matter. In respect of the second amendment to clause 14, I concede that sub-clause (2) which I seek to have inserted is not necessary for the reason the Minister has stated. It was originally inserted into the Public Service Arbitration Act because of a High Court of Australia decision which cast doubt on the power of the Public Service Arbitrator to make the stand-down orders or the orders referred to in sub-section (2) which I seek to have inserted. Proposed new sub- sections (3) to (8) relate to the nature of the orders which follow a stand-down order. They seek to limit the power of the Commission in the way in which it makes an order. That was done, I am informed, at the request of the Public Service Board. The Minister might like to inform the Committee whether the Board has changed its mind, but I am informed that these provisions were sought at the request of the Board because it thought they helped it in the implementation of its responsibilities under its own legislation. I do not doubt that the Cabinet of the day also thought that these provisions were useful as a means of putting pressure on the public sector to perform its obligations better in the career structure so that people recognised what they might lose by way of entitlements if an order for stand-down were made and that these provisions would assist in the early resolution of the matter, at least in terms of any direct industrial acton. It is not that we misunderstood the position. It is just that, in the view of the Opposition, the Government has not given adequate reasons for not including those two provisions which have characterised this part of the jurisdiction. Otherwise, we would ordinarily embrace the principle that what applies to the public sector ought also apply to the private sector. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.10) —When I was a young solicitor in practice my master solicitor used to say to me: 'When you are considering drafting something of this sort you ought to act on the basis of more abundant precaution'. I suspect that all too often one of the reasons we see parliamentary counsel coming back with a fresh batch of amendments after a considerable time is that there has been an assumption that matters have been covered in sufficient detail in the way in which a particular resolution or a particular clause has been drafted, only to find at a later date that the drafting has to be rectified. So far as the drafting of these provisions is concerned, I do not see why the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), even if stand-down provisions are already adequately covered by the Act, ought not to be prepared to accept an amendment which, to my way of thinking, simply deals with the matter by way of more abundant precaution and lends greater certainty to it. It needs to be understood that the amendment proposed to the definition of ' industrial matter', is proposed in the light of some of the changes that have been foreshadowed in relation to the Public Service generally. We have had the appointment of a new Chairman of the Public Service Board, a gentleman who has written quite frequently on his ideas for reform, as he would call it, of the Public Service generally and his desire to initiate a considerable number of lateral recruitments in what he calls the senior service, particularly at levels 1 and 2. I suspect that, given the changes that are envisaged, there will be a great many more difficulties than there have been in the past in relation to the selection and recruitment of people, employment, promotion and the like within the Public Service. I have not had a great deal of experience with people aggrieved over promotions in the Public Service but have had some. That experience leads me to believe that people may be involved in a situation in which somebody has been promoted over them or, as has happened, their position has been abolished and a new position created so that someone could be promoted into it. That happened in a matter with which I am familiar concerning the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. A great deal of concern can arise in the mind of the staff person who is aggrieved, who might not accept the situation willingly. As was the case in the situation that I have in mind, that person could well, take appeals to not only appeals boards but later the Federal Court of Australia. The possibility of legislative action also arose out of the way in which staff members were treated on that occasion. I think there was threat of an action in relation to conspiracy against the public servants who had been involved in some of the changes that had occurred in relation to the particular positions in question. All these possible remedies were looked at. Actions were commenced and every possibility that occurred to the minds of those who were advising the particular public servant was exhausted. I assure the Minister that if he makes available an opportunity for somebody to raise an industrial question in relation to selection procedures, re-appointment, employment and promotion within the Public Service there will be people who will avail themselves of that opportunity. I started my remarks by saying that I thought in this case the Minister ought to have in mind the injunction of my former master solicitor that one should act with more abundant precaution and ensure that the difficulties that I foreshadow and my colleague has foreshadowed will not arise. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.15) — Briefly, let me say in regard to the first of the proposed amendments that I do not believe the points which have been raised by members of the Opposition since I last spoke have advanced us any further. The fact still remains that, although obviously there will be some point at which an appeal procedure might become an action in which unions would be concerned, one must ask members of the Opposition what they would do in the absence of any ability on the part of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to become involved in a situation, if in fact it led to a substantial industrial dispute. What would they do about it? Would they simply sit back powerless, with no capacity to have the matter addressed by the Commission under Division 1A? There would be no capacity to deal with that matter obviously, it is important that we not have individuals appealing to the Arbitration Commission. We respect the appeal procedures and believe that their maintenance is important, but if appeal procedures or other appointment procedures ever produce conflict between employees collectively and the Public Service Board, there must be a capacity for us to resolve that dispute. In the end what the Opposition is saying is that this should be solely a managerial prerogative; that in the end employees should have no right to a say in something like that; that if they do not like the appeal procedures it is just too bad. If it does get to the point where the procedures themselves become an issue which leads to an industrial dispute of some severity it may well be that a third party will be needed to prevail, to decide the appropriate set of procedures to apply in those circumstances. It seems to me that what the government is proposing in the Bill is plain common sense; that it would be absurd for us to have one area of disputation which could not go before the arbitral authorities. With regard to the point made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) in regard to his proposed new sub-sections (3) to (8), in new section 70J, which he said were desired by the Public Service Board, what we are doing is abolishing the previously separate jurisdiction for the Public Service and moving to an integrated system in which the Public Serveice is being brought within the general jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commission. In that situation , I believe there has to be some general uniformity of provisions and that there is less need for the special provisions which may have had some relevance in respect of the Public Service Arbitration Act in a situation in which we are trying to deal uniformly with all parties. I see no reason why we should make special provision for the public sector. The important point-it was denied by the Opposition in previous comments-is that there is a capacity on the part of the Commission to make stand-down and associated orders in relation to the public sector. It would be absurd if that were not the case. It is in no way our intention that it should be otherwise and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is just as much at sea in that respect as is the editorial writer of the Canberra Times. We are fully providing for stand-down provisions. There is to be no weakening under the legislation of the Government's ability to apply such provisions and associated measures to public servants in appropriate circumstances. That is the basic point. It was the point that was raised in the first place. It is the reason for the amendment. The amendment has no basis once it is pointed out that full capacity exists. I say again that the Committee should reject both amendments completely. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chyonweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Tuckey, C. W. Brown, JohnNewman, K. E. Kerin, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Mountford, J. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Jones, BarryMillar, P. C. Cunningham, B. T.Cameron, Ian Theophanous, A. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 to 21-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 22 (Registration of organisations). Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.29) —I move: (3) Clause 22, page 17, lines 1-30, omit sub-clauses (1) and (2). At this stage I have nothing to add to the remarks I made in respect of this matter in my speech in the second reading debate. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.30) — The Government does not accept the amendment. I believe that the Opposition again does not fully understand what is before the Committee. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) raised in the second reading debate various concerns, in relation to independent contractors, which go beyond the matter which is now before us. I do not intend at this stage to go into those matters. But I am aware of his concern in this area and I assure him that the Government will, in the not too distant future-next year-make some amendments in relation to the area of independent contractors. In regard to the matters now directly before us, all that we are seeking to do is to validate the membership of non-employees who were legitimately members of the union in the period between 1974 and 1977 when the Conciliation and Arbitration Act encompassed their membership and who, after 1977, were in a more dubious state as to their ability to remain members. The situation simply is that there is a lack of clarity about that area. We wish to make it quite clear that such members who continue as members, and who were members prior to the 1977 amendments, have the clear right to remain members of the union. I believe it is important that that is done. If that does not prevail, we have a situation where they have participated in all sorts of activities of the union. Those people are not in any way being coerced. They are people who are voluntarily members of the union and who have participated in actions of the union in various ways. If their membership is not validated, it could be that the activities of the union could be said in some respects to be invalid. It will certainly be one hell of a mess to unscramble the omlette which would have been created after 1977. The whole point is simply therefore to ensure that there is valid membership by such people who joined when there was no doubt under the Act that they had a right to join and whose validity of membership now is not entirely clear. That is all that is before us. I believe it is a very sensible amendment, one which is desirable if we are to have clarity-which is important in respect of the organisations involved-about the position of these people. I cannot see any real reason why the Opposition will not accept it. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.33) —I must offer a couple of comments to make clear what is the Opposition's concern. I am delighted with the statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that he hopes to bring forward amendments early next year to cure the problems to which I referred at length during the second reading debate and also in my speech concerning the Industrial Relations Bureau. In spite of what the Minister said, we are concerned that people were coerced. There is abundant evidence from the reports of the Director of Industrial Relations Bureau and from things simply told to Opposition members that many persons in the owner-driver sub-contractor category have been coerced into joining organisations of employees when, under provisions passed by this Parliament, they would not have been eligible to join. It seems strange that people who are being invited to rejoin annually, as it were, or continue their membership annually, and who are not now subject to Federal awards, are entitled, by virtue of their membership of those registered organisations, to belong to them for the purpose of voting or otherwise participating in the internal affairs of the organisation. While I know that the Minister was at pains to stress that it only applies to those who have had a continuous membership-it does not apply to people who have left the union and rejoined-at the same time it seems incongruous to the Opposition that persons, who, if they were to seek to join now or rejoin after having left would be ineligible to join, have a right to renew their subscription annually, merely because they belonged before 1977. This is something that we find difficult to accept. Bearing in mind the belief on the part of a number of Opposition members that many of them remain members only because of coercion, we feel that this position is anomalous and therefore ought to be amended. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.35) —I also wish to make some comments regarding some aspects of the clause that is before the Committee. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) talked about the status of members in regard to the amendment. I put the proposition to him that in many areas members who continued their membership from 1977 were in fact members by coercion and those who stayed on were really expressing their concern that their livelihood might be interfered with. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the areas in which the main disputation and discontent occurred were in the building and transport industries. The activities of the Building Workers Industrial Union and the Transport Workers Union work very much against the private individual. The Minister must be aware-the Committee is aware-of landscape gardeners, floor and wall tilers, private excavators and people in plumbing connected industries who own plant and who are operators in the building industry being forced to become members of the BWIU or the Builders Labourers Federation. It is of great concern to me that the Commonwealth legislation says that these people are not deemed to be employees. We have a conflict with State legislation, particularly the State of New South Wales. The Moore v. Doyle case further complicates the whole process. I believe it is the responsibility of this Parliament to sort out that area. I do not think this Bill helps to do so. It endorses the process in some instances of standover tactics and inability to work unless one is a member of the union. I thoroughly reject the activities of all large organisations, be they large businesses or large unions. I do not think they have a right to stand over individuals. In the trucking industry in particular, both sides-the large freight forwarding organisations as well as the large unions-tend to work against the self-employed individual very much to his detriment and, I believe, to the detriment of the national ethos and productivity of Australia. It is our responsibility, on behalf of this Parliament, to try to sort out that matter in a spirit of co-operation and good will. I know the unions that I have spoken about are very militant. They are difficult to deal with and we discussed earlier today some of the difficulties that arise from those types of unions. But I do not believe that because they have muscle, they have right on their side. Until we, as a nation, cope with those groups or those union leaders, I do not think that we will fulfil our responsibilities. The Minister would be aware that, in the trucking industry, individuals' trucks cannot be loaded because of the relationship between the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia and the Transport Workers Union. Individuals will not get a load in any yard unless they show their union ticket . They might own $100,000 worth of equipment. They are dependent on their wives to take orders; they submit prices for the work that they do; yet they are forced into a union. Mr Justice Coldham in his decision said: 'They shall not belong'. Yet in many ways through this legislation the Government is reversing that concept by saying: 'Yes, they may belong', we will legitimatise their membership'. I do not think that that is a constructive approach. Therefore, I join with my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who is the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in opposing this particular provision. As the shadow Minister said, the Industrial Relations Bureau in this area did some very constructive and farsighted work. I think one of the real benefits of having that organisation was having it move in and apply the law as it stood and if the unions claimed that they represented self-employed individuals, having them change their rules so that there was no doubt that they did not represent those groups. But that process has gone and nothing has been put in its place. I also warn the Committee about the situation that we witnessed at Razorback, where self-employed individuals, who were thoroughly sick and tired of large organisations-large freight forwarding companies and large unions-said: 'We have had enough and we will blockade the highway'. That could happen again. I believe that we have been very close to it over the last few years. I would not like to see the Minister faced with a situation like that. I know that when we were in government-whilst we were only indirectly involved because of the nature of Commonwealth legislation and Commonwealth powers-we had to face situations where there were blockades between States around Australia. Let us move with a true spirit of consensus to try to solve this problem, because it is vexed. The various powers are difficult. The various levels of responsibility are complex. If the Minister is sincere in his statements about doing something in this area, I believe that rather than bringing in a marginal amendment of the type that he is bringing in which contributes nothing and which does not in any way seek to overcome the problem that I am talking about but rather confuses it, if we were to act with the spirit of consensus we could achieve something on behalf of the nation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.42) —I identify with and support the comments of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), the shadow Minister for employment and industrial relations, and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who has just spoken. I particularly point out to the House and to the nation the problem that self-employed truck drivers and their sub-contractors face in this area and that is that coercion by unions is still going on. That is a sad state of affairs in this nation. The self-employed truck drivers, owners and contractors should not be coerced. The comments of the honourable member for Mitchell about Razorback are real. I invite the Government to take notice of his comments. I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Balaclava. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.43) —I believe that the Opposition has still not given us good arguments for deleting sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (2) of clause 22, which is what the amendment asks us to do. I think we should understand that in regard to sub-clause (1) this amendment is, in fact, technical and is absolutely necessary to give effect to the intention of the Fraser Government's law in 1977. Since that time there has been a change in the New South Wales legislation which makes the format of the present law inappropriate and requires us to make a charge of the kind which is encompassed in sub-clause (1) in order for the effect of that earlier provision to continue to apply. Employees who under New South Wales law are deemed not to be employees able to be members of State unions under that State's legislation can be members under Federal law. That was the original concept. Without going into the technicalities of it, that change in the New South Wales law in 1979 now requires us to have a technical amendment in order to continue to give effect to the concept which the previous Government established when bringing in these provisions in 1977. So, the Opposition is destroying its own concept, firstly, in sub-clause (1). In regard to sub-clause (2), I agree that the broader issues of independent contractors are complicated and difficult. There is a desire on the part of Opposition members to say that anything done in this area which makes any concession at all is a disaster. Let me say that I think at this stage we should be not thinking in terms of the broader issues. This is a very narrow amendment. It is designed simply to ensure that we clean up the situation which has been left to us from the past and enable people who have validly joined the union and who were non-employees until the amendments were introduced in 1977, and who have continued since then to be members to be deemed to be eligible members. Without that amendment we would have the situation, as I mentioned previously, where some organisations could be in difficulty. One could, for instance, have a challenge to an election which would reveal a series of technical invalidities as a result of such people perhaps not being-this is unclear, but it could be decided in this way-valid members of the organisation. That would mean that the whole electoral process in that organisation in the past may have been invalid. That would throw doubt on the whole administration of an organisation. That is obviously undesirable. That situation could have been cleared up one way or the other by the previous Government. It did not do so. A situation of doubt exists. It is highly desirable that we make the situation quite clear. We believe that it should be made clear that people who have been members of an organisation prior to 1977 and who have continued since that time to be members of that organisation are valid members of the organisation. We should simply clear up all doubts as to their situation. Once we do that we will avoid the potential difficulties to which I referred and which could arise in the future. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Anthony, J. D. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. D.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, D. M. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.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. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Brown, JohnNewman, K. E. Kerin, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Mountford, J. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Jones, BarryMillar, P. C. Cunningham, B. T.Cameron, Ian Theophanous, A. C.Andrew, J. N. Kelly, R. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 23 (Prescribed offences). Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.57) —I move: (4) Clause 23, page 18, lines 3-7, omit paragraph (a). I seek to omit paragraph (a) for the reasons given in my speech during the second reading debate. I merely say to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that the Opposition feels very strongly in respect of this amendment. I ask him to answer the questions which I raised in my speech during the second reading debate. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.58) — The Government does not accept this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to leave the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as it stands. This means that there would be a range of offences which could bring about disqualification from office which we believe is far too extensive and inappropriately extensive. We could have a situation under the Act as it stands where persons convicted of an offence which carries, as a maximum, a $20 fine. It would seem to me to be an absurdity to suggest in any way that a person convicted of an offence carrying a $20 fine could then be liable to disqualification from office. Yet that is the situation which we have under the Act as it now stands. We believe that the Act, as it now stands, encompasses an array of offences, all of which carry a penalty of some kind. The previous Government believed in the initial stages that those penalties were appropriate to the offences, but it sought to supplement those penalties with the additional penalty of disqualification from office. I believe that this is a very important point. I share the concern of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) about this matter; I think it is important. We believe that it is important to distinguish between minor offences and the more serious offences if we are going to say that someone should be disqualified from office. As I have said in my second reading speech, we believe that this whole section raises a lot of difficult issues which should be properly considered by the tripartite committee of review which I have established. In the interim it would be quite inappropriate for us to leave the law in its present state and allow to continue the situation in which persons who are convicted of relatively minor offences could face not only a fine but also disqualification from office and having to go to the Federal Court of Australia and argue that after all they are fit and proper persons to remain in office or to stand for office. It is absurd not to distinguish between minor and serious offences. We have tried to find, as an interim arrangement, a way in which we can make such a distinction. What we have done in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) is to delete those offences for which there is imposed no sentence of imprisonment but rather just a fine. That is true in all cases except two, and I will come to those in a moment. Leaving those two cases aside, we say that the other offences which do not draw a potential sentence of imprisonment are less serious and therefore should not attract the additional penalty of disqualification from office, which is a very serious additional penalty. It is not some minor thing that is being imposed; it is a serious additional penalty. It is utterly absurd that a person who faces a $20 fine should be forced to explain to the Federal Court that he is a fit and proper person to continue in office. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) said that he was concerned that the deletion of section 141 as an offence which could attract disqualification from office could result in a person who was found to have rigged a ballot being able to remain in office. Such a person would be subject to section 171, which would lead to disqualification of office because that section will remain in the legislation after the Bill has amended it. So a person who had been engaged in the rigging of a ballot and found guilty under section 171 would face potential disqualification from office and have to justify to the Federal Court why that should not occur. I believe that the honourable member's concern about that matter is quite wrongly based. I mentioned that we are deleting two offences, sections 143 (3DK) and 185, both of which impose a sentence of imprisonment. These sections are being deleted because we believe it is inappropriate for them to remain in the legislation as offences which would draw that penalty. Section 143 (3DK) concerns failure to comply with a Federal Court order in relation to certain alternatives to deregistration or order of the Governor-General relating to deregistration on community safety, health or welfare grounds. In view of the fact that, in relation to these matters, the Court and the Governor-General have power under these specific sections to suspend the privileges or capacities of any of the members of an organisation, it is redundant to retain section 143 (3DK) as a prescribed offence. In regard to section 185, which provides for a sentence of six months imprisonment upon conviction for giving false representation as to membership of an organisation, this offence would be caught under paragraph (a) of section 132F (1), dealing with offences of dishonesty. That is not being touched in this Bill. With the exception of those two sections to which I have referred and to which a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, all the offences are clearly minor offences for which imprisonment does not apply. In those circumstances we think it is highly appropriate that they should be deleted from the legislation, because currently they can result in an additional penalty of disqualification from office. I pick up the point that was made by, I think, the honourable member for Wilmot that we were putting trade unions above the law. Of course, that is an absurd accusation. Anyone found guilty of any of these offences faces a penalty under the Act and nothing that we are doing here changes that. The original penalties of a fine or imprisonment provided under the law still apply. We are simply saying that the additional penalty in relation to disqualification from office which the amendments to the Act last year imposed should not apply to persons convicted of a relatively minor offence. That is not to say that their action is not undesirable or not regarded with distaste. It is an action which is relatively minor compared with other actions and therefore, in those circumstances, we believe that we need to make that distinction. The easiest way to make that distinction is, as I have said, to say that imprisonment is the more serious penalty and the one which ought to apply in this interim stage until the whole matter is considered by the committee of review. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Anthony, J. D. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. D.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, D. M. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fife, W. C. Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.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. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Brown, JohnNewman, K. E. Kerin, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Mountford, J. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Jones, BarryMillar, P. C. Cunningham, B. T.Cameron, Ian Theophanous, A. C.Andrew, J. N. Kelly, R. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report -by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL 1983 ] Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(7.15) — Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated matters. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the four measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(7.17) —The Opposition will not be opposing the States Grants ( Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No . 2), the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill now before the House, but that does not mean to say that it will concur with a lot of the items that have been raised. The first Bill relates to the freight subsidisation on petroleum products in Australia, an item which was introduced by the previous Government and which brought about a series of difficulties within the administration in relation to the level of subsidisation and the method in which it was paid. The amending legislation has been introduced to try to correct some of those difficulties. The overall impression I have, looking at the items in this area, brings me to the conclusion that while we sprinted down the track to rectify the problems that occurred in terms of some abuse of the subsidy, we took some time to recognise the real problems. All honourable members will no doubt have read of the considerable problems that were created in the fishing industry and in the rural sector by this particular move. I think very few would not have some sympathy for the problems in the fishing industry which is very dependent on getting fuel at reasonable prices and having access to it from a port facility. The original proposition in the Budget eliminated all the safe anchorage provisions that were previously in the Bill and wiped out the 24 safe anchorages. This was because a series of problems were associated with it. To show the flexibility in this matter, on 1 November the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made the following statement. Following representations from the fishing industry about the Budget decision which, among other things, excluded safe anchorage locations from freight subsidy schedules, I have taken the matter up with my colleagues in the strongest possible terms in view of the financial difficulties confronting prawn fishermen. Following a comprehensive review of the impact of the decision on safe anchorage locations the Government has decided that it must maintain the Budget decision. Now comes the dawn of the embargo to midnight on 15 November. That happens to have an amazing ring of coincidence with the announcement of the Northern Territory election. It happened purely by chance. I know the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) would not deny that for a moment. This was brought out after the announcement and just fitted into the area where all those safe anchorages used to be. People opposite always look for any port in a storm. This looks like one of them. In a statement, brought out for the benefit of the Northern Territory election, we find that the Federal Government is to extend until the end of next year the freight subsidy on fuel for the fishing industry. This will be done by maintaining safe anchorages under the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme until December 1984, or until after the Labor Party loses the Northern Territory election. That is the real effect of that little bit of expertise in handling things. We heard all the righteous indignation about this matter the other day. Someone said this morning at Question Time that there must be an election on and some people have not heard of it. The person making the statement had not heard of it-not much! The statement was marked 'embargoed until 0001 AEDT, Wed Nov 16'. That is too coincidental for words. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) would probably find that difficult to understand himself. I move on from that remarkable bit of jigsaw puzzle and how that matter worked out. I now press on to one or two other fascinating areas in this Bill. One is the removal of the power kerosene subsidy. That is an easy one for the bush. The Government thought that it could knock that one off. It cost $180,000-odd last year and, after all, who uses it? All those people in the countryside use it. I am surprised that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) did not apply a 15 November midnight embargo on that matter to try to meet the same circumstance. In addition to that, in the same amending Bill, there is a move to enforce delivery by the tankers that make themselves available for the freight subsidy. I think that is a highly commendable step. Undoubtedly, a number of people were abusing the system. At the same time, a fascinating detail in the Bill provides that this must occur in an area which has no retail site. I can remember the enormous difficulties in definition in this area. Once again, this Bill does not come up with a definition of retail site. I would be fascinated to hear from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) who is Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he responds, as to how we will remove from the Schedule those places where there is no retail site when there is no definition of a retail site within the Bill. I do not think from memory that there was such a definition in the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act or the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. I will press on to the other three Bills which do not involve an enormous amount of controversy. However, on behalf of the Opposition, I must express some surprise at the indexation of excise duties. It has always been my belief that governments of the day ought to set the rates for personal tax and semi- government charges or excises and live by them. If this legislation is passed no longer will increases in excises be referred to Parliament. They will become a matter of fact twice a year in line with increases in the consumer price index. On 1 August and 1 February we will get a little kick along to the CPI and a little kick along to all the costs. It will be no trouble at all. After today there will be no reference to Parliament. Even the honourable member for Hunter must think that is not bad. He would like to have a cut of that himself. He would like to have his salary kicked along in the same way without reference to Parliament or to anybody else. Automatic indexation of excises does nothing for industry. As far as I can see, it does very little for the economy and it adds substantial direct costs to the users, particularly in industry and the primary sector. I add to that another fascinating bit of mathematics which the honourable member for Hunter might appreciate. If we put an excise on an item and index it upwards that means-it did when I went to school-that we are putting a tax on a tax. I am sure that honourable members will reflect on that logic. I think it is an extraordinary decision which I would like the Liberal and National parties to review on their return to government. I can see no point in governments not taking a position and standing by it. Other aspects of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) relate to the oil levy. Some use of production figures has been made in this area and the scale that has been brought forward this time is an attempt to adjust the way in which the imposition falls so that producers do not necessarily have enormous gyrations in the impact of the levy on their production. Without going into all the figures, certain levels of production attracted a levy at a far higher rate than a slight reduction in production would have attracted. Naturally, I guess that management would ensure that those figures were seen to at the appropriate times. The Bill also relates to a series of excise charges. The poor old beer drinkers and the people who live in the electorate of Hunter who enjoy their beer will pay an extra couple of cents for the courtesy of the honourable member's representation. That is neither here nor there to the honourable member for Hunter but I am quite sure that those in his electorate would be aghast at the increase in fortified wines. The proposed increase was $2.61 but the Government had second thoughts. A fourpenny dark went down the hatch and the figure was brought down to $1.50. In the course of the fourpenny dark going down the Government recognised the extraordinary cost to producers of fortified wines of putting the stock aside, keeping it for the length of time required by the connoisseur, such as the honourable member for Griffith, and having it marketed. Mr Robert Brown —We are not inflexible. Mr MOORE —I am sure that Government members are not inflexible. They could not be inflexible and have those safe anchorages brought back like that in 14 days. No one would accuse them of inflexibility. Mr Humphreys —At least I drink it in the open. I am not a wardrobe drinker like your boys. Mr MOORE —No one in my office is in the wardrobe drinking fortified wines at the moment but I have heard reference to people doing that in Queensland. Some of the excises reflect very significantly on the wine producing areas. I know the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and others who will participate in this debate will put the case very solidly in their representations. The honourable member for Indi, in particular, has a very keen interest in that area and he is a fine judge of fortified wines. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill do nothing more than contrive some of the excise proposals. The only other feature of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill is that it continues to weigh fairly heavily on the rural and industrial sectors in some of the areas which have been given encouragement in the past which encouragement has been withdrawn or reduced. I think that people in those areas ought to pay attention to what the Labor Government is doing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question : That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL 1983 ] Debate resumed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(7.30) —We are dealing with a package of Bills concerning excise tariffs and Customs duties. I suppose it would be appropriate in a debate of this kind for honourable members to give some consideration to the equity of indirect taxes. I know there is considerable concern among members of the Government in relation to questions of this kind, but most provisions concern amendments to what have essentially become elements of the total tax structure in Australia. It is certainly necessary for adjustments and modifications to be built into those arrangements from time to time. I should indicate the considerable degree of personal reservation which I have about the nature, the equity, the impact and the incidence of indirect taxes, but most of these are simply revenue measures. Until there is a substantial attempt to bring about a major, comprehensive restructuring of the total taxation system which we inherited, taxes of this kind are effective revenue raisers and, presumably, will be with us for some time. The four Bills we are considering are the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983. Each of these Bills provides enabling legislation for Budget provisions which were announced at the time of the Budget and in many cases were also part of the May economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The first of the Bills, the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill, was introduced by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in his capacity as Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 3 November. This Bill will amend the 1965 Act to provide for changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, as indicated by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), and which were announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. These proposals simply result from a review of the scheme instituted by the previous Government. I know that a number of provisions in these Bills will be the cause of concern on the part of members of the Opposition. Undoubtedly, Opposition members will take advantage of the opportunity to suggest that, were they in government, their approach would be different. With provisions of this kind which, as I have said, are essentially revenue provisions, the approach and attitude of both the Opposition and the Government would not be significantly different. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme subsidises the cost of tranporting certain petroleum products so that consumers in non-metropolitan areas pay no more than a predetermined amount per litre of the freight cost. Of course, this has been of significant value and benefit to people in isolated areas where the freight cost component represents a substantial proportion of the total cost of petroleum products. The amount at present is 1.1 cents per litre. That scheme has operated since 1 July 1978 and it covered, until the introduction of these provisions, motor spirit, power kerosene, automotive distillate, aviation gas and aviation turbine fuel. One purpose of these amendments is to exclude power kerosene from that freight subsidy arrangement. The reason is quite simple; the extent to which power kerosene is now being used is very limited, and the impact of that change will not be of very much significance. The collective purpose of those changes is to strengthen the scheme. I hope that the effect of the Bill has not been lost to members of the Opposition who may participate in this debate. The essential purpose of the changes to the legislation is to strengthen the scheme and to make its continued operation more secure than it might otherwise be. The changes are also designed to reduce the complexity of the present operation of the scheme and the administrative difficulties which have been associated with it. The final objective of these changes-this is fundamental if schemes of this kind are to continue-is to remove the opportunities for abuse of the scheme. Everyone would have to admit, particularly those people who are aware of the way in which the scheme has operated, that it has been subject to abuse. If concessional arrangements of this kind are to be abused the continuation of those schemes must be placed in jeopardy. Anything which reduces the extent to which these quite legitimate concessional schemes are abused should be applauded and welcomed, even if there happens to be some temporary disability or disadvantage associated with them. This package of amending legislation indicates that the Government recognises the importance of the concessional arrangements that have been built into the scheme. One provision of this Bill seeks to cease the payment of freight subsidy on power kerosene, as I have indicated, because of its very much reduced use. It will also require that eligible petroleum products should actually be delivered to the place in respect of which the subsidy is claimed. Again, that provision is in part designed to overcome previous abuses of the scheme. It will also provide authority to pay the subsidy on the freight of eligible products to places not specified in the schedule, and it will place the Northern Territory on the same basis as the States. The second piece of legislation is the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. One main provision of that Bill is to provide for the automatic indexing of certain traditional excise rates at six-monthly intervals. The honourable member for Ryan indicated that those adjustments would take place each February and August. I said earlier that the chief purpose of these Customs and excise duties is to raise revenue. It really does not make very much sense, if that is their chief purpose, if the real values of the revenue obtained from them is allowed to erode as a result of inflation. It is a very sensible and proper proposition that the real value of taxes which are imposed simply for revenue should be maintained. It surprises me that measures of this kind were not adopted in the past. In real terms there will be no increase, although the honourable member for Ryan suggested that as a result of these automatic increases the automatic indexation will represent a continuing twice-yearly increase in the rate of tax. It is not correct to say that there will be an increase in the burden or the incidence of these duties. This Bill will also provide for a revised excise system for crude oil produced from fields discovered before 18 September 1975. The first provision concerning automatic indexation was designed to maintain the real value of the revenue obtained from those duties. I emphasise at the same time that while that twice- yearly indexation provision is included, it does not in any way preclude the Government from exercising the normal degree of discretion which can be applied by governments in relation to duties of this kind. It is hoped, of course, that there will be less need for the Government to exercise its discretion in adjusting those rates, but having twice-yearly indexation of the rates as is proposed will certainly be less disruptive than those discretionary changes have been in the past. It will be more certain. People will be able to anticipate when the changes will take place and the extent of those changes. They will be able more easily to plan for the changes and, as a result, more easily absorb them into their total cost structure. I think it is significant that the Minister said in his second reading speech that in real terms the revenue from these traditional excises fell from $4.3 billion to $3.3 billion, a loss in real terms of $1,000m, in the 10 years between 1973-74 and 1982-83. As I have said, it is just unreasonable for revenue items of that kind to be allowed to create such burdens on public revenue. The second provision concerning the revised excise system for crude oil produced from fields discovered before 18 September 1975 provides for increases in the excise rates as the annual production from the field increases. There is nothing spectacular about this provision either. It represents the application of the normal pay as you earn progressive tax scales to the production of crude oil. The present anomalous situation is such that as a result of the operation of the present scheme returns to some producers in some circumstances can actually be decreasing as their production increases and, in other circumstances , returns to producers can increase while the import parity price is falling. It is quite obvious that anomalies of that kind need to be adjusted or corrected and this legislation is intended to do that. The ultimate solution, of course, to problems of that kind is the introduction of a consistent profit related resource rent tax. I know that people often throw up their hands in horror at the suggestion, but increasingly people are coming to understand the rationale behind that concept, behind the proposal. As people understand it, the support for the concept and for the implementation of a resource rent tax will increase. I do not want to continue for much longer because I know that we are all operating under major time constraints in the consideration of this group of Bills. In conclusion I emphasise the importance of the attitude of members of the Opposition. I suppose this appeal will fall on deaf ears, but it is important for members of the Opposition, while it is quite legitimate for them to attempt to make political capital out of the types of provisions which have been built into this legislation, at least to attempt some degree of objectivity in their assessment not only of the nature of the changes but also of the purposes for them. I am sure that if they do that with a reasonable degree of honesty and objectivity the changes which are proposed in these Bills will not be too unfavourably received. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(7.45) —I wish to address my remarks to clause 6 of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and in particular to those parts of the clause which refer to extending excise to including fortifying spirit. My remarks will mainly revolve around the effects this excise will have on wineries in north-eastern Victoria and will offer some alternative ideas to the Government. The wineries of north-eastern Victoria are predominantly family owned, speciality producers of fine wine, with particular emphasis on the production of well-aged and outstanding fortified wines. These have long been celebrated as Australia's only unique wine style, and one of the great wine styles of the world, equated in stature with the traditional sauternes of France , the sherries of Spain and the ports of Portugal. For more than 50 years the deserved international recognition, hard-earned by producers of premium north-eastern Victorian fortifieds, has carried much of Australia's reputation as a quality wine producer. Latterly, particularly in the last 20 years, the long-standing awareness and appreciation overseas of these classic fortified styles have been rightly used by the Australian wine industry to spearhead export initiatives. The great fortified wines of north-eastern Victoria are sought by connoisseurs all over the world, and their market position is a major promotional advantage to Australian table wine exporters. They are connoisseurs wines because they are special. They cannot be produced in bulk, they are invariably well-aged and their extraordinary quality reflects the expense of making and maturing them. I believe that with the implementation of the fortified excise tax at the point of production, these wine styles will be largely eliminated, with considerable loss of prestige to the Australian wine industry, significant economic loss to the region and severe financial damage to the individuals concerned. The proposed fortified wine tax involves the payment of $1.50 per litre of alcohol at the time of production of fortified wine. The $1.50 is due and payable within seven days of use by the winery. This will usually take place during the months of February, March and April each year and will require the winemaker to pay up to 28c per litre of wine at the time of production. These wines would normally be aged for upwards of five to 10 years, in some cases for as long as 20 years, before being sold. During the maturation process, a portion of the wine evaporates at a rate of 3 to 5 per cent per annum and hence the volume of wine available for sale after a 10-year period is considerably less than that produced. I believe that there is no precedent for an excise tax being charged on a product years before the finished product is sold. It could be expected that the proprietor of a typical small winery in this area would, over a 10-year period, have to find in excess of $250,000 in prepaid tax if he elected to stay in fortified wine production. This would not be a viable option for most vignerons. Production of fortified wines will not prosper and for many will no longer be a possibility. The winemakers of the Rutherglen region depend on their traditional market. Of their total production, 46 per cent is in premium fortified wines. The fortified tax is therefore especially iniquitous to those producers. Over 50 years of effort, skill and investment in developing this wine style, and the vineyards to produce suitable fruit for it, are now to be swept away. The raw material-the winery equipment and the technology of this wine production-cannot be easily turned to the production of table wine. In any event, diversion of this production into an already oversupplied table wine market would be suicide for these wineries. The discriminatory effect of the tax on one sector of the industry seems grossly unfair, particularly as such a large proportion of the producer's livelihood is threatened. Fortified wine consumption in 1968 represented 53 per cent of Australia's wine consumption, but by 1982 it had fallen to 18 per cent. Premium fortified wines have enjoyed increasing demand because of their speciality quality and the nature of the product. The ambitions of the region's winemakers to develop and specialise in what this area does best are now jeopardised by this taxation measure. As a host to tourism, the Victorian wine industry ranks second only to the State's snow skiing resorts. But unlike the snow slopes, it is a year-round source of revenue, playing a vital part in the economic infrastructure of communities in the wine regions. This is particularly so in the north-east Victorian wine region centred on the Rutherglen, Milawa and Glenrowan areas. In 1981-82 the number of visitors to north-east Victoria was the fourth highest in the State, with 3,271,000 visitor nights being recorded. That figure did not include visitors overnighting on the New South Wales side of the border because of Rutherglen's limited accommodation, nor is there any measure of the considerable flow of traffic which diverts through Rutherglen en route between Sydney and Melbourne. The unique nature of the fine fortified wines and the attractive old traditions of their production are an important and acknowledged tourism drawcard in this area, for both interstate and overseas visitors. Through its regular and seasonal work, as well as its major contribution to the multitude of local businesses benefiting from tourism, the industry's vineyards and wineries are significant factors in regional employment. As of 1 July 1983 the number of persons registered as unemployed in the Rutherglen Shire totalled 102, representing 6.4 per cent of the shire's population, considerably below the national average of 9.8 per cent. It is an established fact of life in the wine industry that price rises bring immediate sales reductions. This is borne out by the finding of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that a retail wine price rise of 10 per cent will evidence a 13.5 per cent sales decline. Price rises also produce an immediate downturn in visitors to wineries and cellar door sales. In this region, which is heavily dependent on cellar door sales for much of its trade and which has devoted considerable effort and money over the years to promoting visitor traffic, such a downturn can have a catastrophic effect. The burden of finding the money to pay the fortified wine tax is beyond the resources of the smaller wineries of this region. The tax not only has far-reaching ramifications in itself but also is applied at the time of the year when wineries experience their greatest liquidity problems, that is to say, at harvest, when the annual raw material of the winery is being brought in for production. Unlike other liquor industries, the wine industry is inherently a primary production process, specifically acknowledged in the Australian Labor Party's rural policy statement . With all the raw materials being taken into stock at one time of the year only , the cost of harvest and the cost of fruit purchased from other growers annually places a huge strain on wineries each vintage time. This, combined with the excise tax, makes the financial demands horrific. Further recent changes by the Taxation Office in its demand to treat the wine industry as a manufacturing industry for stock valuation purposes will further worsen the strain of carrying wine stocks. The wine industry is also inherently capital intensive. To maintain top quality, annual capital investment is necessary. With all these factors combined, the viability of the small independent winery relying on premium fortified wine production would seem doubtful. Aspirations to build on quality and the carefully nurtured policy of aging wine for many years prior to its release and to maintain the traditional qualities of this area would now seem to be neither possible in the short term nor economic in the long term. Like the very best wines of Europe, north-eastern Victorian fortified wines are made only in very small quantities. But if these wines are used as a flagship of quality for Australian wine makers, as they are, they represent a major benefit to the whole industry. Leading United Kingdom and United States wine writers regard north-east Victorian premium liqueur muscat and tokay in particular as among the few truly unique wines of the world. In the international market-place these traditional Australian classics are held in the highest esteem, standing on their own. Although it is possible to claim a rebate of the value of the new tax on wine exported, the abiding problem is not overcome. Wine made to meet the new criteria of being the best in the world will be matured for upward of 10 years before release for sale. But the wine maker will have already paid the excise duty at the time of production. The refund of the value of the duty 10 years later will seem of no significance at all. Financing the wine from the time of production threatens not only the integrity but also the very existence of these great wine styles. Because the fortified wine tax is a tax on the production process rather than a tax on the finished product itself, imported wines are able to come into Australia without attracting this penalty. Contrary to Australian regulations, overseas producers of fortified wines can also use fortifying spirit not derived from grapes and derived at very little cost-for example, spirit produced from dairy whey in New Zealand. Imports of fortified wines from Cyprus, Spain and Portugal will certainly place a further strain on the Australian industry, particularly the grape growing sector, where surpluses are already at dangerous levels. The wine producers of this area believe that if it is essential to gain extra revenue from the Australian wine industry it should be done on an equitable basis, embracing all wine producers and all types of wine. They make this recommendation while clearly understanding that there is a very large overproduction of fruit in Australia, that the industry is currently in a very difficult growth situation and that any form of additional impost on the industry will have a detrimental effect on overall supply demand. They believe, however, that a long term indexed tax, perhaps in the vicinity of 5c a litre, across all wine produced in Australia, would gain relatively more revenue than the discriminatory fortified wine tax and could be applied without destroying a section of the industry. This alternative, if combined with the review of the basis of stock valuations as proposed in the Australian Labor Party's policy statement on the wine industry, would give the industry every opportunity to overcome the current problems of overproduction. It should also allow wine makers to engage in long term planning without further short term government disruption which has inflicted continuing damage on the industry. The nature of the industry is such that it must operate in a long term planning environment. Given the established conventions for other primary industries to value stock, I believe the wine industry, given the same options, would be in a position to balance the highs and lows of grape production. Such circumstances would also allow all types of premium wines to be properly aged, thus improving the general quality of the Australian product, enhancing export potential and fostering a strong domestic market in competition against subsidised imported wines. This would greatly assist wine makers in dealing with the difficult cash flow problem inherent within this unique industry which holds a huge proportion of its stock over many years. The current taxation approach to the valuation of wine stocks is an approach that might be taken to a manufacturing industry with full absorption costing. It is causing considerable strain on smaller, quality producers who have limited financial resources, thus forcing more of them into the hands of the multinational corporations and away from quality production. This is already a disturbing trend in the Australian wine industry and can only be accelerated by the new excise tax. The imposition of the excise on fortifying spirit is directly against the intention and the letter of the Australian Labor Party's election pledges to the wine industry. However, the method of implementation of the tax is now of major concern. The excise on fortifying spirit to be collected within seven days of use by a winery should be regarded by the Government as a debt incurred, to be paid by instalment over a period of, say, 12 months to two years. This would enable many small wineries who are involved in this specialised industry to remain economically viable. The Australian wine industry has potential to contribute a great deal to Australia's culture, exports and tourism and is a primary industry that seeks no government handouts. The future of the industry can be destroyed by short term, ill-conceived government action. But the industry can develop and flourish while contributing to the nation's revenues if long term and carefully planned strategies are developed in consultation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.00) —I support my colleague, the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), and compliment him on the very appropriate and apt thumbnail sketch he has given of the dilemma facing the wine industry. I also pay a tribute to my colleague, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), for the very supportive way in which he has assisted the honourable member for Indi and me to alert the Government to the dilemma it is forcing on the Australian fortified wine industry. I am speaking to Bills that would normally be accepted by the Opposition and passed as budgetary measures but tonight I must protest about the attack on rural Australia that comes as part and parcel of these measures. The first attack comes from the decision of the Government that from now on rural Australia will pay excise on distillate. That is quite unprecedented in the history of rural Australia. The second, as has been outlined by the honourable member for Indi, is the fortified wine tax that is now to be levied against the industries in the electorates that he, the honourable member for Riverina, and I represent. I hope that all honourable members are familiar with the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 20 February of this year in Griffith made the following statement: Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. What does the Prime Minister suppose we make fortified wine from-bananas? What he did, effectively, in the Budget statement that was handed down in August was run counter to his pre-election promise and impose a tax on the wine industry. Why does he show so little regard for the grape growers of Australia? Is he not aware that they are primary producers who must face all of the supply variations that go with climatic conditions-with drought, flood, fire, frost and hail? Does he not know that in a year of surplus a grape grower has but three choices? First, he can make brandy. Secondly, he can instruct his wine maker to make '2J' grape spirit for use in fortifying wine. Thirdly, he can produce dried fruit. If we consider those options we see what the fortified wine impost is doing to Australia's grape growers. Alternative No. 3, the production of dried fruit is no longer an option. To begin with, it applies only to dual purpose grapes. Also , the excess of subsidised dried fruit in the European Economic Community has spoilt much of Australia's export market. The first option was that of making brandy. Rather, it was an option until we last elected a Labor government. The Whitlam Government very successfully ensured that there would be no future Australian brandy industry; so that option has gone. Do honourable members realise that during the years 1973 to 1983, principally as a result of the Whitlam Government's impost, the proportion of total domestic brandy consumption supplied by the Australian brandy industry fell to 20 per cent? Again, the proportion of imported whisky rose to 70 per cent of total consumption. That is a reflection of what the Whitlam Government did to the brandy industry in the years 1972 to 1975. It has never recovered; so the first option open to wine grape growers has gone. With the brandy industry went at least 17,000 tonnes of surplus grape production per year. At least we must compliment the Government on being consistent. It has levelled precisely the same attack against the '2J' spirit industry, the one industry that is left to soak up surpluses when there are too many grapes and drain them off when there are too few. Much of the $13m that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said he planned to collect from this impost on fortified wine he will collect from '2J' spirit that was laid down in 1983 for use as fortification. Effectively, of course, it will be retrospective taxation. I have news for the Treasurer. It is that the Australian fortified wine industry has at least three years stock in hand. What that industry is saying right now is: 'Why bother to crush at all; why bother to produce fortifying spirit at all, why bother to produce fortifying wine at all when we can sell the existing untaxed stock that we have on hand or import cheaper fortified wines from overseas?' The threat of imports is a very real one . Let me quote from yesterday's Adelaide Advertiser the remarks of Mr Allan Preece, the Chairman of the South Australian Wine Grape Growers' Council. Mr Preece is reported to have said: When I was over in Griffith in N.S.W. recently, I was told by one of the big winemakers that he could buy fortified wine cheaper than he could make it or pay for the spirit at this present moment. Mr Preece went on to say that he felt more major wine makers in South Austraia and in the Riverina district would import fortified wines from Portugal, Spain and Cyprus, which offered inexpensive subsidised wines. He added: The actual tax on one winery in the Riverland in one vintage could be as high as $900,000 to $1m . . . The reaction to the tax has only just started. The result of the impost being debated by the House tonight, the result even of the move from a tax of $2.61 per litre of alcohol to $1.50 per litre, will be that there will be no home for the surplus grapes in the electorates of Wakefield, Riverina and Indi; that the fortified wine makers will responsibly choose not to crush this year. So grapes will be left hanging on the vines. There will be no pickers. There will be bankrupt growers and there will be unemployment. Worse than this, if we want to be kind to the government, there will be no revenue, because nothing will be crushed. What then will the Treasury get out of this fortified wine impost? Honourable members will recall my earlier illustration of making wine from bananas. The Treasury will get two-thirds of four-fifths of one banana. If I have not spelt out clearly enough for the Government the dilemma that the fortified wine impost will place on the industry, let me put it in simple terms. Let me say to those on the other side who have principally been employees rather than employers during their lives that it is just the same as saying to the employees of Australia, the pay as you earn taxpayers, 'Pay the tax today and get paid in five years' time'. That is what the Government is saying to the fortified wine industry of this nation. The industry, which has enormous lead times which must invest five years in advance, is being faced with an impost that it simply cannot meet, an impost that will soak up what little cash flow is left in the industry. Some have said: 'The impost is small; we have dropped it from $2.61 to $1.50. Compare it to brandy at $16.69'. I prefer not to compare it to brandy. Look at what has happened to the brandy industry. I say to those who allege that it is a small impost that they should remember, first, that it has to be paid within seven days of blending, which might be eight years from point of sale. Secondly, it has to be paid on spirit, including spirit lost during bottling, during handling, or by evaporation during maturation. The loss could be as high as 15 per cent. All that the Opposition has done in the fortified wine debate is alert the Government to the perilous state in which Australia is placing an essential industry. Mr Ewen Cameron —They do not want to hear. Mr ANDREW —There has been no effort to play politics-simply a plea for an act of responsibility but, as my colleague says, no one wants to hear. Where was the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), where was the Treasurer, where was the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), where was the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) when this decision was taken? It was a decision that effectively changed the protection given Australian fortified wine against the threat of imports. I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Trade why this change in protection was not referred to the Industries Assistance Commission? They will have ensured the death knell of an essential Australian industry unless they are prepared to change direction. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(8.10) —The purpose of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) is to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to introduce new provisions into the Act which will have the effect of automatically indexing certain traditional excise duty rates at six-monthly intervals. The first of the increases took effect on Budget night and reflected the 4.3 per cent increase in the consumer price index during the March and June quarters of this year. A number of matters have been raised in regard to the excise increase and, more particularly, the indexing of that excise which can only add to Australia's inflation problem by building in a contribution to that inflation. Another matter I am concerned about is the increase of excise duty on avgas and avtur by 2c a litre. The aviation industry, particularly in the smaller commuter aircraft area, is presently struggling, not to mention those charter and private operators of light aircraft. Many Australians depend on aerial transport to carry out their everyday work and if rural Australia is expected to lead in Australia's economic recovery this type of impost is unreasonable. I particularly draw honourable members' attention to clause 6 which refers to a number of items. The one to which I would like to refer especially is the excise in respect of fortifying spirit which has been reduced from $2.61 a litre-as first announced on Budget night-to $1.50 a litre. I certainly do not oppose this move to reduce the excise but I regard it as a token gesture only. Although I have previously condemned the Government both inside this House and in other places for its action in imposing the $2.61 excise, I am now modifying my language because I believe, on good authority, that the Government has realised its mistake and is trying to find a way out of the mess it has created. The Government has, I hope, realised that if it continues on its present path it will destroy Australia's fortified wine industry. Not only will we see the demise of an industry that produces some of the best fortified wines in the world but also the effect on the livelihood of wine grape growers and their families will be devastating. It may be timely to remind members of this House of the events of the past 10 months in relation to this matter. On 20 February, the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), pledged to a capacity meeting in Griffith and, of course, to all those employed in the wine industry of Australia, that no tax or excise would be placed on wine. I am not referring to a speech to an Australian Labor Party branch meeting or any other small lunchtime gathering. I am referring to the Labor Party's rural policy speech that was unveiled to the Australian people in Griffith on that fateful day. I believe that the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was in attendance, as were Labor senators and a number of State Labor Ministers who, by the fact that they were present, were co-sponsors of that pledge. The honourable member for Wills, in his Griffith speech, said that he realised that the wine industry was faced with the need to make bold decisions. Unfortunately, the person who made the bold decisions was the honourable member for Wills after he was elected Prime Minister. The main bold decision was to place a $2.50 a litre indexed excise on grape spirit. After the announcement in the Budget of the imposition of the excise, a number of Labor Party politicians in both State governments and the Federal Government praised the fact that the Government had not placed a tax on wine, obviously not understanding what the Government had done. This is what leads me to believe that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had received bad advice and was not aware of the potential damage that the excise would cause. Since the Budget announcement, wine grape growers, winery representatives, the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), the honourable member for Wakefield ( Mr Andrew), Senator Messner and I have been writing and presenting submissions and generally wearing out the carpet leading to the various Ministers' offices. As a result, the excise has been reduced in this Bill before the House. However, as I said before, this is a minimum token gesture and does not make the future of the industry look any brighter. One of the main difficulties of this excise is that the impost has to be paid within seven days of the mixing of the spirit with the wine. This means that the excise must be financed for the duration of the maturation period. For some fortified wines this may be as little as 12 months. However, for a premium port or sherry the maturation period can range from four to 15 years and sometimes longer. Those honourable members who were fortunate enough to attend the protest wine tasting in Parliament House last week, which was hosted by the honourable member for Indi, the honourable member for Mallee, the honourable member for Wakefield, Senator Messner and me, would have had the opportunity to sample ports up to 17 years of age. Imagine paying a tax on a product from which one was not to obtain any income for 17 years. Apart from the initial tax, maturation and other losses by fortified wines on which duty has been paid must also be taken into account. Racking and fining may account for 11 per cent to 15 per cent while maturation alone may account for 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent a year. The reason originally given for the introduction of this excise was to lessen avoidance possibilities, simplify administration and yield revenue. No member of the Government has yet been able to give any example of people or companies in the industry which have been avoiding taxation. The strangest remark was that of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Press statement of 21 September in which he said that alternative methods of collection of the excise canvassed in discussions with the industry were found to involve considerable administrative problems. Could any reasonable person accept this as a reason for destroying an industry? Surely if a difficulty exists in collecting revenue this difficulty should be overcome not by beheading the goose that lays the golden egg but by making it comfortable for the goose to lay the egg. I could go back to a Press release of the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Werriwa, dated 7 July 1982. In this release, the honourable member for Werriwa said: Growing rumours of the anti-rural Fraser Government introducing a wine tax in the Budget are causing alarm and dismay in Australian wine grape growing areas. The Australian Labor Party is opposed to either a sales tax or excise on wine. Mr McGauran —It is dishonest. Mr HICKS —That is right. I tell honourable members that this is the part that riles me: Such a tax would particularly cripple the Riverland in South Australia, and the Murrumbidgee irrigation area in New South Wales, where most independent small growers operate. The Minister said this and then attended the meeting at Griffith. I think the responsibility is fully on the shoulders of the Minister for Primary Industry to convince his colleagues in the Labor Party and also the Treasury that this excise should be lifted. That is particularly so as he went on to say: If the Liberal and National parties decide to attack the wine industry in the Budget they will be spelling disaster for hundreds of farm families throughout Australia. Mr Groom —What hypocrisy. Mr HICKS —That is right. Mr McGauran —He does not care. Mr HICKS —He could not care less. Mr Groom —No one has fought harder than you on this issue. Mr HICKS —Thank you very much. In a Press release dated 14 February 1983, the honourable member for Werriwa said: The industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. The industry is obviously in strife. A Federal Labor government will assist it over the problem period, with an eye to measures that will give it a long term, stable future. These are the words of the honourable member for Werriwa. I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Werriwa and Minister for Primary Industry in his absence on his elevation to the Cabinet, a move that should have been made in March of this year. Those engaged in the wine industry no doubt will be interested in this move and they will now be looking for some favourable action from the Government due to this promotion. Mr McGauran —Can they expect any? Mr HICKS —Let us hope so. Mr Groom —Where is he now? Mr HICKS —He is overseas, I believe. Never mind; let us hope that they are not disappointed. Another effect of this excise will be to encourage the substitution of lower priced imported fortified bulk wine for bottling in Australia. Several wine makers are already investigating the availability of Portuguese, Spanish, South African and New Zealand sherries in bulk which, given the oversupply in Europe and elsewhere, should be available at very competitive prices. In present circumstances, therefore, it is unlikely that many Australian wine makers will continue to produce ports, sherries and other fortified wines if they can satisfy the market more profitably with imported wines. If this occurs, the financial effect on wine makers will be negligible. On the other hand, it could well mean the loss of all grapes presently grown for making fortified wines. The imposition of the excise on grape spirit will place a burden on all grape growers, and the dried vine fruit growers are no exception. This industry will tend to be the recipient of many grapes diverted from the production of fortified wines. The dried vine fruit industry is already experiencing a severe recession and any extra pressures on the industry cannot be tolerated. All of us in this House have had experience of people who do not wish to pay fair and just taxes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that people in the fortified wine industry are not in that category. I am one who considers that the Labor Party, having pledged that there would be no tax or excise on wine and now being in government, should stick to that promise. Mr McGauran —It is hurting good people. Mr HICKS —It certainly is. If the promise, as with many others, were only a means towards the end of getting into office and the Government feels it can now tax the wine industry, for goodness sake, let it do it in a way that will not destroy the industry. I and other members know on a personal basis many of the wine grape growers we represent. They are men like Charlie Belardo and Ray Pagano-- Mr McGauran —A well-known good man. Mr HICKS —He truly is. They came here last week to put their case. Those people, and others like them, may of whom came from overseas and have built an industry from nothing but guts and determination, now see the possibility of all they have worked for disappearing before them, through no fault of their own. As proud Australians they want to work for the prosperity of their families and for the regions which they and their parents have developed. I ask the Government to give those families a chance. I ask it to look at the unfair excise it has imposed. It if feels that it cannot bring itself to withdraw the excise, as by all moral standards it should, at least it should modify the excise so that the families of those people in the wine industry will be able to accommodate that tax and still have the opportunity to obtain fair reward for their investment and toil. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.21) —I do not intend to talk about the wine industry, but I compliment the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) for an excellent speech on it. I direct my attention to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill. The Bill proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products ) Act 1965 to enact legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. The freight subsidy scheme will be the subject of my short address. Last time this item was debated I voted by myself. I did not vote with the Australian Labor Party, which opposed the measure. I sat in the corner and said: 'I vote by myself'. I did so for one specific purpose, because the legislation provided that the price of petrol in country areas would be 1.1c a litre above the relevant city price. The oil industry is a tough and vicious industry. Mr McGauran —Ruthless. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, ruthless. Mr Groom —You know it. Mr GOODLUCK —I do know it. I am sad that I have such a small audience tonight, with very few Tasmanians able to hear my speech and very few Australians able to hear my speech. But my good colleagues are in the House and I hope they understand the point which I am driving at. Of course, members of the Press are here, and it is good to see them. The question I asked was: What is the relevant city price? The Petroleum Products Pricing Authority fixes a maximum wholesale price in every capital city in Australia. Unfortunately, the oil companies had a great ability to be able to move their prices up and down within the maximum wholesale price. As a consequence, at the time of debate, there were various retail prices in every capital city. Therefore, there was no relevant city price because it varied from State to State and from city to city. I refer by way of example to this statement by the oil industry: 'Shell leads industry move to cut petrol discounting'. Of course, the two major markets in Australia are in Melbourne and Sydney, and that is where the oil companies make most of their dollars. I do not disagree that they should make a profit. They need profits in order to develop alternatives to petrol, such as liquefied petroleum gas and other fuels that are so necessary. Unfortunately, they take a lot of good people who are involved in that industry to the cleaners when they decide to vary the price of petrol. People cannot compete. There may be one service station on one corner and on another street there may be another service station selling petrol below the price for which the other poor fellow has bought it. So it is a difficult industry to control. Mr Groom —Chaos. Mr GOODLUCK —It is chaos, and it has always been chaos. My first speech in this House was on the petroleum industry. I said it was a difficult industry to control. On one side, the oil companies say that they are over-regulated and on the other side the consumers say: 'Look, we don't know what the price of petrol is in Australia because it varies so dramatically from city to city and from State to State'. Mr Groom —What is the answer? Mr GOODLUCK —Now we come to it. First of all I will talk about the provisions in this Bill which relate to the freight subsidy scheme. I will use Tasmania as an example. Petrol is sold for 1.1c a litre above the relevant city price. The price of petrol in Hobart at the moment will astound honourable members from other States. The retail price in Hobart at the moment is 52.8c a litre. Mr McGauran —That is not possible. Mr GOODLUCK —That is a fact. We are talking about a price which is about 10c a litre above the price of petrol in every other capital city. Let me say that in politics we argue about people having $5 in their pockets every week. In Canberra, for example, the price of petrol is about 47c a litre, which is a difference of about 6c a litre. If we analyse those figures, every week the motorist in Tasmania is paying 6c a litre more for petrol, which is another $5 a week out of his pocket each week if he has to travel to work by motor vehicle. That is the fundamental point. The freight subsidy scheme is funded by the taxpayers. It is really a component of freight that is given to a person who lives in a country area. One would say that if petrol is 52c a litre in Hobart, the poor country fellow out of Hobart should pay 53.9c a litre. Of course, that does not occur. In fact some country people are paying 60c a litre. It just does not work. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Government had decided to amend the scheme. He said that over the years the scheme had become complex-I agree with that; it is extremely complex-and difficult to administer. I agree with that; it is not administered correctly because the people who are involved in the administration do not understand the intrigue in the oil industry. They do not understand the ability of oil companies to drop the price of petrol at the whim of their marketing strategy; they do not understand what is involved with the freight components and, as a consequence, the whole thing is a sham. In fact, I should vote against this legislation tonight, but no one would second the motion . Of course, the Labor Party will support the legislation, and the Opposition has promised to support the Bill. But I will not vote on it. I will walk outside . I am not against the principle of the Bill. I believe that the country people of Australia should get a fair go in regard to the price of petrol because they need it more than the city people need it. The city people can use buses and trains, but country people depend on petrol. Mr Uren —Will I open the door for you? Mr GOODLUCK —No. The Minister should not open the door because I will talk about him. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) is involved in this matter because he is worried about the price of petrol in Canberra. He knows that in Sydney-is it only 100 miles away? It feels like it. Mr Hicks —It is a suburb of Canberra. Mr GOODLUCK —It is a suburb of Canberra. It is not very far away. But the price of petrol in Sydney has been regulated. There is a freeze on the wholesale price and on the retail price. Yet people in Canberra have been paying 4c and 5c a litre more than is paid for it in Sydney. Petrol is a precious commodity. We need it. It is like the water we drink and the air that we breathe. I notice that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) has entered the chamber. He is another ex-service station proprietor. He is a good member. Like me, he knows the intrigues of the oil industry. He knows what it is all about. I return to this fundamental point: Why should petrol cost 5c a litre more in Canberra? Why should there be a 5c a litre difference in price? Sometimes the difference is even greater. As a matter of fact, in Sydney not so long ago a discount war occurred and petrol was about 33c a litre. There is something wrong with the industry. It is prostituted in such a way that it needs reform. I do not know how that reform can occur because the oil companies are powerful. They pull the strings and they know how to manipulate-if that is the word-the market to suit their own whim and fancy. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Treasurer, who is responsible for the pricing of petrol, to consider this matter , because we are responsible for the PPPA. We are accountable for that organisation, which recommends to the Government what it should do about the price of petrol. I would say that the petroleum market in Australia is one of the poorest markets in the world. We have not been able to reform it in the interests of the consumers and of all people in Australia, and I believe that that should be done. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(8.28) —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Mr Ewen Cameron —He knows about petrol, too. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes. All of the leading vignerons in the country are in the electorate of Paterson, so I suppose that one should say something about the wine industry. But being involved in the petroleum industry, like the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who has just resumed his seat, my comments will be in that field. I wish to speak to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983. This Bill seeks to amend the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, as proposed in the Budget Speech, to remove power kerosene from the scheme, alter the Northern Territory provisions following self-government and vary payment and price calculation methods. Effective from 1 January 1984 the Bill proposes the removal of power kerosene from subsidy eligibility. With the introduction of diesel tractors and machinery, sales of power kerosene have gradually failed. In the 1930s there was a big market for power kerosene, but after the Second World War diesel engines became popular. Very few power kerosene tractors operate in Australia today. They are nearly all diesel-powered . The sales of power kerosene are very small indeed. There is possibly only one company and one refinery in Australia making this fuel. It is a very limited field and ultimately could disappear altogether. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme subsidises the cost of transporting certain petroleum products so that consumers in country areas currently pay no more than 1.1c per litre of the freight costs. People living in remote country areas in Australia certainly have problems with the cost of fuel; it is an important part of their production costs. So this 1.1c subsidy is a help in a small way. The Opposition wishes that it were more. Power kerosene will be eliminated from the subsidy scheme as from 1 January 1984. Its withdrawal, as has been mentioned, will not effect a great saving and will hardly be noticed by users or the Government. Motor spirit, automotive distillate and aviation fuels will still be eligible for subsidy. The Act provides for the inclusion of the Northern Territory on the same basis as a normal State in Australia. Prior to this provision, the Northern Territory operated on separate Northern Territory legislation. This Bill will apply to all States. Sales of petroleum products in Australia are dropping dramatically. Severe competition is being experienced in the industry. My colleague indicated in no uncertain manner the problems that face people who are employed in industry, with the price cutting and the unstable market at present. Companies are offering attractive concessions to maintain their share of the depleting market and so keep up their percentage of crude oil from Bass Strait. The rate of growth in automative gasolene consumption in Australia has been significantly reduced. A marked downward trend has become evident in the consumption of fuel oil, industrial and marine diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosenes other than aviation turbine fuel. Over the period 1960-61 to 1969-70 petroleum product demand grew in Australia at an average annual rate of 8.9 per cent. Over the period 1970-71 to 1979-80 the rate fell to 2.7 per cent. In regard to forecast demand for petroleum products in the 1980s, the Department of National Development and Energy and the Australian Institute of Petroleum indicate a growth rate in volume terms of about 0.7 per cent to 0.8 per cent per annum. This compares with an average annual growth rate of about 5. 9 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s. So it can be seen that the market in Australia has shrunk considerably. Mid-way through 1983 Australia was suddenly faced with an apparent inability to absorb all the oil it was capable of producing from its own indigenous fields, that is, of course, from Bass Strait, Barrow Island and, to a lesser extent, from the Cooper-Eromanga Basin. Production is actually being reduced because the home market cannot use it all. This is the first time that production of our indigenous crude is ahead of demand. Indications are that this trend is likely to continue until at least the end of the decade. It was not until April and May of this year a lasting downturn in demand for petroleum products in Australia was confirmed. Coal and natural gas have also assisted in the downturn of the fuel oil market by something like 25 per cent. That is a big inroad into the petroleum market in this country. By the end of May this year demand for distillate was down on that of the previous year by 8.8 per cent; motor spirit was down 3.7 per cent; aviation gasolene was down by 11 per cent and aviation fuel was down by 4.6 per cent. However, there has been an increase in demand for liquefied petroleum gas. Demand for LPG has risen by 4.7 per cent. This signals a gradual inroad into transport fuel markets. During the first five months of this year there was a 6 per cent decline in demand for all products. Predictions by oil companies are that there will be a levelling out in 1983 volumes or, at best, a one per cent a year increase in demand for the rest of the decade. The point is that demand for the products produced from Australia's indigeneous crude is likely to be very flat over the next seven or eight years, at a time when the ability to maintain and even to increase production is very strong. Aggravating this situation is the need to import crude from overseas to supply the heavy products market with lube oil and bitumen, which cannot be made from crudes found in Australia so far. Our crude oils are unsuitable for the production of lubricating oils and for bitumen. We have to look to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East for the supplies of crude oil that will assist us with these products. The trouble is that these imported crudes also contain a light fraction which is in competition with the indigeneous crude as feedstock in our refineries. Demand for crude oil in Australia is now running at between 560,000 and 570,000 barrels a day. Bass Strait produces between 350,000 and 360,000 barrels a day. The rest of the country produces something like 30,000 to 40,000 barrels a day. One estimate of important needs to satisfy the heavy end of the market is 150, 000 barrels a day, based on the assumption that one barrel of lubricating oil can be produced from 12 barrels of imported crude and that one barrel of bitumen comes from 5 barrels of imported crude. This will create a situation in the oil industry which will be difficult to handle. Some refineries are taking more overseas imports than they need, partly taking advantage of the cheaper prices on the world market and partly because their parent companies are trying to grapple with the problems of placing contract amounts of crude in a declining world market. It is interesting to note the decline in automotive gasolene and total petroleum products over the past several years. In 1981-82, automotive gasolene consumption in Australia was 15,208 megalitres. In 1982-83 it was 14,983 megalitres. Consumption of total petroleum products in 1981-82 was 34,364 megalitres. In 1982-83 it as 32,388 megalitres. So, from an Australian point of view, this industry certainly has problems. They will take a lot of solving because the oil companies are at present at one another's throats in a very fierce and severely competitive field. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.38) —in reply-On 15 November the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) announced the decision of the Government to extend until the end of next year the freight subsidy on fuel for the fishing industry. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), in his contribution tonight, related this decision to the elections in the Northern Territory. That is a somewhat cynical view. It should be noted that of the 24 safe anchorages referred to in the decision announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce only eight are located in the Northern Territory. The Press release from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in which the decision of the Government was announced stated: . . . the extension was to enable a full review of the scheme to take place. He said the Government remained concerned at abuses which had forced the Government, in the Budget, to tighten up the system. This extension was not in any way related to the Northern Territory elections. It was made for the reasons stated by the Minister at the time. Further, the Minister's Press release indicated: . . . one of the reasons for the extension had been the effect of the change on fishermen who had been greatly affected by the downturn in prawn prices. It would also give the Government, in consultation with the fishing industry and, if necessary, the Queensland Government, time to implement a system which would not be susceptible to abuse. I think it is necessary to indicate the reasons for those changes. The decision was not related to the matter raised by the honourable member for Ryan. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) ranged across various matters related to the legislation before the House. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) raised matters which in no way relate to what is before us tonight . The excise on fortified spirit and the related measures are budgetary measures. The purpose of the reintroduction of the excise was to lessen excise avoidance possibilities, simplify administration and yield revenue. Members of the industry directly involved in the production of fortified wine made representations to the Government to the effect that the excise rate imposed and its method of imposition would cause serious disruption to the industry. As a result of those discussions and representations made by those people, for whom concern was genuinely expressed by honourable members tonight, the Government decided to reduce the excise to $1.50 per litre without changing the method of imposition originally announced. Alternative methods of collection of the excise , canvassed in discussions with the industry, were found to involve considerable administrative problems. That was a matter adverted to by the honourable member for Riverina. An administrative problem is involved in the alternative method of collection. That is why the Government found it necessary to impose the excise at the time of production. Other matters referred to included the diesel fuel rebate scheme. That, it was said, again by some honourable members opposite, was some sort of an attack on the rural community. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in his Budget Speech that the amount of rebate payable would be fixed at 7.155c per litre, that the increase in the excise on diesel fuel to 9.027c per litre would mean that, after receiving the rebate, eligible users would pay a net 1.872c per litre. This duty now equates with the rate of duty applying to fuel oil, heating oil, and power and lighting kerosenes. The same situation applies to all such increases. Primary producers have retained the rebate. Listening to honourable members opposite speaking tonight, one would think that the rebate had not been retained . In fact, the rebate still applies. Their argument was about paying any excise at all. No consideration was given in their speeches to diesel fuel used in industries which receive no rebate. The honourable member for Riverina referred to the aviation fuel increases of 2c per litre. It should be noted by the House that during 1983-84 the rate of excise on avgas and avtur was increased by 2c a litre from 1 July in lieu of an increase in air navigation charges. This will ameliorate the sharp deterioration in the rate of recovery of costs incurred by the Government in the provision of aviation services. The honourable member for Paterson addressed his remarks to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, amongst other things. I think it is necessary to point out some facts about that matter to enlighten the honourable member for Paterson on the history relating to it. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme was first introduced in 1965 and reintroduced in 1978 to assist country consumers of certain petroleum products by subsidising the transport costs of those products. Over the years the scheme has become more complex, more difficult to administer and, as a consequence, more open to abuse. For this reason the previous Government-that is, the Fraser Government-instituted a review of the scheme. On the basis of that review this Government has decided to amend the scheme. As I stressed in my second reading speech, the Government is not seeking to reduce the benefits of the scheme. Rather, it is improving its administration and limiting the scope for abuse. The amendments are estimated to save about only $2m in 1983-84 or $4m in a full year. The scheme will still cost the Government over $100m a year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House of Representatives approves the following proposals contained in the reports of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 22 September 1983 and 11 October 1983, respectively, namely: Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue extension to the new Parliament House and the construction of pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.51) —The motion has the support of the Opposition. The Commonwealth Avenue bridge extension, in particular, is not without some element of controversy because of the intrusive nature of its design. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has personally taken an interest in this matter. I know members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House as well as members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory were very concerned that the design of that bridge should be less intrusive than was previously proposed. Our acceptance of this motion is, of course, in the expectation that the design will be less intrusive. The construction of the pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue bridge is very important. In the evidence given to the Committee on the new Parliament House it was quite clear that the bridge could be at risk if a very large motor vehicle hit the piers and brought it down. I regard that as a very important matter. The Minister and I are both aware of an incident in Sydney which led to very considerable concern about bridge designs. For that reason there is some urgency attaching to the work on Commonwealth Avenue bridge. It has the full support of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.53 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for and in relation to the furthering of participation and equity in and in connection with schools and technical and further education institutions, and to other matters. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for and in relation to schools, and other matters. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981, 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-construction of the Telecom State Head Office Building, Adelaide, South Australia. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Australian frigate project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria. 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: Construction of the Australia Telescope, New South Wales The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 November 1983: Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 235 Commonwealth Teaching Service Act- Determination-1983-No. 9 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271 Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 264 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 262 Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 263 National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 267 Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 266 Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 265 Public Service Act-Determinations-1983-Nos 20, 21 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1983-No. 54-City Area Leases (Amendment) Regulations-1983-No. 22-(Health Commission Ordinance) Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 16 November 1983 Treaties-Text of- To which Australia has become a party by signature- (1) Interim Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources concerning privileges and immunities of the Commission, signed at Canberra on 15 August 1983. The Agreement entered into force on that date. (2) Exchange of Notes signed at Wellington on 18 and 23 August 1983 constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of New Zealand relating to Air Services, signed at Wellington on 25 July 1961 and amended by an exchange of notes of 18 February and 18 June 1982. The Agreement entered into force on 23 August 1983. (3) Agreement Terminating the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement 1973, drawn up at Nicosia on 19 November 1982. The Agreement was signed in London on 1 September 1983 and entered into force, in accordance with Article 4, on 1 April 1983. (4) Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement, 1983, drawn up at Nicosia on 19 November 1982. The Agreement was signed in London on 1 September 1983 and entered into force, in accordance with Article 17 on 1 April 1983. (5) Exchange of Notes signed at Washington on 8 and 19 September 1983 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America regarding the importation of meat into the United States of America during 1983. The Agreement entered into force on 19 September 1983. (6) Charter of the Asian and Pacific Development Centre, done at Bangkok on 1 September 1982. The Agreement was signed in New York on 11 October 1983 and entered into force for Australia on 10 November 1983. (7) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan Concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing, signed at Canberra on 31 October 1983. The Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1983. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (8) Protocol to Amend the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, which Protocol was drawn up at Paris on 3 December 1982, acceded to by Australia on 12 August 1983. The Protocol has not yet entered into force. (9) Amendment to Article 11, paragraph 2 (a) of the Constitution of the Asia- Pacific Telecommunity, adopted on 27 March 1976, which amendment was adopted at Bangkok on 13 November 1981. The Amendment was accepted by Australia on 16 August 1983 and has not yet entered into force. (10) International Coffee Agreement 1983, adopted at London on 16 September 1982, acceded to by Australia on 30 September 1983. The Agreement entered into force, in accordance with Article 61, on 10 October 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 164 Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: Will the Attorney-General bring up to date the information given in answer to my question No. 241, parts (2) and (4), (Hansard, 12 April 1973, page 1461), concerning the authorisation of telephone tappings currently and during the last 10 years. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised that the reply to Dr Klugman in April 1973 was given by the then Attorney-General on the basis that it was appropriate to show publicly the general extent to which the provisions of the Act had been used, but that there would be no policy of automatically stating the number of current authorisations whenever asked. In accordance with this approach, I advise that the average number of authorisations per year ending 31 March for the ten years from 1974 to 1983 was 85.6. This compares with an average of 90.9 per annum in the ten years from 1964 to 1973. It should be appreciated that a high proportion of the authorisations in any year represent renewals of warrants previously authorised. The number of warrants presently authorised is of an order of magnitude consistent with the annual averages cited. The Government will give further consideration to the detailed information it may be appropriate to make publicly available in the light of the recommendations, when received, of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Question No. 564 Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) Will established voluntary organisations, such as the Sports Medicine Foundation, receive the same percentage level of assistance they have received in past years following the establishment of the Sports Commission. (2) Is a National Sports Research Institute planned. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As the honourable member would be aware, an Interim Committee has been formed to advise the Government on the establishment of an Australian Sports Commission. It is envisaged that, in its report, the Interim Committee will examine the possible role of the Commission in establishing guidelines for the allocation of funds for sport and recreation. It is not possible at this stage to provide any guarantees that the current distribution of funds between sporting bodies will necessarily be maintained. However, I am confident that, due to the substantial increase in funds allocated for sport in the Budget, sporting bodies will generally be better off than they have been. The honourable member may be aware that this year the Australian Sports Medicine Federation has been granted an increased allocation of $50,000 compared with $31,500 in 1982-83 . (2) At this stage there are no specific plans to establish a National Sports Research Institute. The Government is aware of the importance of co-ordinating the sports research effort in Australia. To this end, in 1982-83, it commenced assistance for a Sports Research Co-ordinator located with the Confederation of Australian Sport. The honourable member will also be aware that the Australian Institute of Sport has an important sports research function. I would expect that the report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Sports Commission will examine the potential role of the Commission in developing a co-ordinated approach to sports research in Australia.