Wednesday, 30 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cowan,Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Dr Everingham,Mr Hawker and Mrs Kelly. 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 Mrs Darling and Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, we, being residents of Queensland, strongly condemn the situation that exists where the Federal Government allows all pensioners to earn a certain amount a week or in an ''Earnings concession year'' to supplement their pension without affecting their entitlement to a full pension . . . then the Queensland State Government takes the money back as increased rent for Queensland Housing Commission rental houses and units. And your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament accept that the money earned by pensioners and unemployed tenants of the Q.H.C. should not be taken away from them in increased rents as the meagre supplementary income they are allowed is needed by people already living on incomes below the poverty line . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principle mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provisions of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illness. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 working in government schools . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that- 1. Any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Ukrainian nation has suffered a genocidal act at the hands of the Kremlin when 7 million Ukrainians perished of starvation in 1932-33 in a deliberately planned famine. Ukrainian Australians deplore the fact that the Kremlin has never been called upon by the free world to give a public account of this tragic event. Russian Great Power Chauvinism which caused this famine survives to this day. The Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, in the forefront of the opposition to the Russification and Ukrainian cultural destruction has been ruthlessly eliminated and protests by the West on its behalf ignored. As the only founding member of the United Nations with no western diplomatic presence, Ukraine's political isolation allows Moscow to move unimpeded towards its goal of the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government denounce the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as a genocidal act by the Kremlin against the Ukrainian nation. 2. The tragic events of the Ukrainian famine holocaust be highlighted during a day set aside by the Australian Government to honour victims of genocidal acts and imperialistic aggression. 3. The Australian Government immediately implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to convene a Standing Committee to monitor the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of all signatories, in particular, the USSR. 4. The Australian Government immediately take steps to expand official government representation to include all member states of the United Nations. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Mr Adermann,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Drummond,Mr Hawker,Mr McGauran and Mr O'Keefe. 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 parent's club bank accounts by way of the bank account debit tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs set up by Government Regulation 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 Brumby,Mr Lloyd,Mr Milton and Mr Peacock. The honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resources base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Mr O'Keefe and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: (a) Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads (b) Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths (c) Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol (d) Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers , indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. 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 to keep access to the present Emergency Staff levels and procedures. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Memorandum dated 30th September 1983 sent to all school principals and school councils from Norman C. Curry, Director-General of Education be rescinded . The previous emergency teacher program be reinstated. The cuts in education funding be reversed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate Governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the North-West region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government, and in particular the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, for their shameful and disgraceful actions in negotiating with Moscow to establish a joint Soviet fishing venture in Tasmanian waters behind the back of the Tasmanian State Government and the people of Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House accuses the Government of moral cowardice and gutlessness in refusing to call on for debate, General Business notice of motion No. 261 to refer to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee for inquiry and report, serious allegations of threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation and actual blackmail against, and of, Australian Labor Party Members of Parliament, and also because of the recent and sinister allegation of bludgeoning in Caucus, made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh and others. Mr Cunningham-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. That notice of motion is a reflection on members of the House. As such I think it is totally out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is a notice of a substantive motion. Because the honourable member continued with his notice of motion while a point of order was being raised I regret that I did not hear the latter part of the notice of motion. It will be examined to see whether it is in order. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, it is notice of a substantive motion. Can I speak to the point of order? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. There is no point of order, so the honourable member cannot speak to it. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the condition of country roads throughout Australia, particularly in northern Australia, where thousands of unsealed kilometres and dangerous sections are in need of urgent attention; (2) notes that an extra $492m is to be raised through the indexing of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development fuel levy over the next 6 years, the total of which is to be paid into the Government's general revenue fund; (3) is concerned because these funds should have been allocated to roads; and (4) calls on the Government to immediately introduce legislation to rectify this situation so that the $492m can be spent where it is most urgently needed in the road system of Australia, or to introduce legislation to exclude ABRD levy from the indexation arrangements. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(10.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As honourable members will know, following repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down its decision in the national wage case. The Commission enunciated principles of wage determination which provide for a 4.3 per cent national wage adjustment and, in the future, the adjustment of wages on a six-monthly basis in line with movements in the consumer price index, unless the Commission is persuaded to the contrary. In relation to offices which are subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act, the Government took the view that it would be appropriate to apply the 4.3 per cent salary adjustment to those offices. Accordingly, I made a submission to the Tribunal on behalf of the Government and on 11 November the Tribunal reported upon and determined new rates of remuneration and cost-related travelling allowances for offices within its jurisdiction. Details of the new rates are included in the Tribunal's report which I presented to the House on Thursday, 17 November. Where the Tribunal has determined new rates of remuneration those rates are immediately payable, with effect from 6 October. In the case of members of the judiciary, however, the Constitution provides that they shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix. Clause 6 of this Bill therefore amends Schedule 3 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act to prescribe increased rates of remuneration contained in the Tribunal's report No. 2. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Clause 8 of the Bill increases that annual sum having regard to the ministerial salaries contained in the Tribunal's report No. 1. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Where a new office is created the Act as it now stands prevents the Tribunal making a determination in respect of the remuneration of that office until a person is appointed to it. The proposed amendment will enable the Tribunal to make such a determination after an office is created but before an appointment is made to it . I am sure that honourable members will agree that this is a sensible amendment which will enable potential appointees to an office to know the level of remuneration it will carry. Further information on the clauses of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) 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)(10.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 11 August 1983, that a Steel Industry Authority be established to monitor and facilitate implementation of the steel industry plan. The steel industry plan reflects the Government's commitment to the maintenance of a viable and efficient steel industry in Australia. This industry is strategically and economically important to the Australian economy. Output of the steel industry was valued at more than $5 billion in 1981-82 representing 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product. It is based on the processing of Australia's extensive reserves of iron ore and coal. The products which it makes are the basic material inputs into a large part of Australia's manufacturing industry. The industry is of major significance to the economies of the regional steel making centres. Employment in the industry accounts for approximately one-half of the work force in Whyalla, one-third in Wollongong and about one-eighth in the Newcastle region. Apart from being an important direct employer of labour within these regions, the industry supports employment and economic activity in a wide range of other industries which are suppliers of goods and services directly and indirectly to the iron and steel industry. The Australian steel industry, like many others throughout the world, has been in recession for some time. Production, sales, profits and employment in the industry have all fallen dramatically below the levels recorded during the 1970s . Steel production has fallen to approximately 25 per cent below that of recent years and steel employment by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is 27 per cent below the May 1982 level, representing a loss of around 10,000 jobs. The severe deterioration in the industry's competitive position resulted in BHP's steel division incurring heavy losses in both 1981-82 and 1982-83. A number of factors can be identified as contributing to the deterioration in the industry's international competitiveness. Falling domestic demand for steel associated with the economic recession resulted in marked production cut-backs and rising unit production costs. In 1982-83 demand fell to around 5.4 million tonnes compared with around seven million tonnes in 1980-81. Demand has fluctuated in the past, reaching a peak of 7.3 million tonnes in 1973-74, but declining to around five million tonnes in 1977-78. The domestic demand situation was exacerbated by an excess in world steel making capacity leading to a significant increase in import competition and strong price competition which, in turn, placed further pressures on profitability. Whereas in the past the Australian industry offset the decline in domestic demand by exporting, the severely depressed world market and excess capacity inhibited such exports over the last year or two. Other factors contributing to the industry's loss of competitiveness included a marked decline in labour productivity, sharply increased labour costs and problems with over-manning in the industry. Labour productivity declined significantly between 1980-81 and 1981-82, reversing the trend toward higher productivity during the early to late 1970s. In recent months there have been signs of a gradual improvement in the industry's situation. Production has picked up from the very low levels recorded in 1982 and early 1983. In fact BHP' s steel division operated at a small profit in the first quarter of 1983-84. Employment has stabilised, although it is still well down on levels of previous years. These signs of recovery are encouraging but do not remove the need for the kind of support which is to be provided under the plan. An assessment of the industry overseas indicates the likelihood of continuing overcapacity and low demand in the world steel industry, and hence continuing strong competition among steel producers to dispose of their excess output on the world market. Against this background, the provision of no additional long term assistance, as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission, would have led to a run down in the local industry's activity, resulting in further severe social and economic disruption in the steel regions of Wollongong, Newcastle and Whyalla. The plan is seen by the Government, the industry and the union movement as being essential to reverse the decline in the industry's fortunes and represents a new approach to industry policy in Australia. It is scheduled to commence on 1 January 1984 and will run for an initial period of five years. Its objective is to restore the long term viability of the Australian steel industry and to provide job security for its employees, while also providing inputs into a wide range of metal and engineering industries at internationally competitive prices. The key factors in achieving these aims will be cost reductions and quality improvements through new investment in the upgrading of steel making facilities, tighter management, improved productivity, improved work practices, and containment of labour costs and State charges. The plan has been developed as a co-operative effort involving undertakings from all parties with an interest in the development of the industry, including the steel producers, the steel unions and the Commonwealth Government. The relevant State governments have also been asked to contribute. In deciding upon its contribution to the plan, the Government had the benefit of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the iron and steel industry and the report of the Steel Industry Advisory Council. The plan seeks to overcome the underlying problems confronting the industry and its success will depend upon the various undertakings being adhered to. The major assistance provided by the Commonwealth Government under the plan is the payment of bounties of up to $71.6m per annum on the production and domestic sale of certain steel products. Following the introduction of this Bill I will be introducing two Bills to provide for payment of the bounties. Bounty assistance has the advantage over alternative assistance measures such as tariff quotas as it avoids an adverse price impact on downstream user industries. The bounties will operate on a sliding scale providing for maximum assistance at low production levels and will scale down as production reaches higher levels. In this way the industry will receive assistance when it needs it most. Conversely the Government is not committed to large outlays in times when market conditions are buoyant. The bounties will be complemented by a safety mechanism to which I shall refer later. An effective import watch system and a 'fast track' anti-dumping mechanism for steel products will also be introduced as part of the Commonwealth 's contribution to the plan. In addition, imports from developing countries at preferential rates of duty will be subject to quota restrictions, limiting such imports to the average of steel imports from those sources over the five years ending 30 June 1983. The industry has undertaken to provide job security for its work force at the three major regional steel centres and to introduce an investment program involving expenditure of up to $800m over a four-year period directed at upgrading facilities, reducing production costs, improving productivity, product quality and customer service. The unions' undertakings are in the areas of wages , productivity improvements and dispute settlements. They are contained in an agreement between BHP and the Australian Council of Trade Unions acting on behalf of the steel unions. The unions agreed that wages for the industry's work force will be contained within prevailing community standards, consistent with the prices and incomes accord. They undertook not to use the assistance provided under the plan to seek improved wages or conditions. The unions and BHP also agreed to improve productivity with the initial target being to re-establish a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the major steelworks. Initial levels of productivity at other steel industry centres will be established, consistent with their best performance in the past. During the course of the assistance program, progressive increases in productivity will be sought by the company and the unions with the objective being for those increases to be higher than the trend rates in national productivity. Agreement has also been reached to adhere strictly to established grievance settlement procedures and for consultation to be held on changing work modes. All parties agreed that the contributions to the plan and the progress of the plan should be closely monitored. This Bill provides for the establishment of a Steel Industry Authority. The Authority will be an independent body whose main functions will be to monitor and analyse steel industry matters and, where appropriate, conduct inquiries, report and make recommendations to the Minister on such matters. The matters which the Authority will cover include the level of steel industry investment, local production, imports, employment levels, productivity changes, wage settlements, steel prices, standards of product quality and customer service, levels of State government taxes and charges, assistance provided and to be provided to the steel industry and any other matters relating to the Australian steel industry which may be referred to it by the Minister. The establishment of the Authority will allow the Government to receive timely but comprehensive reports on a regular basis on all aspects of the industry's operations and on the success of the plan in achieving the Government's policy objectives for the industry. The Bill allows the Authority to inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit. The Government's intention is that the Authority be in a position to react quickly to changing circumstances to provide advice to the Government, pursuant to the safety mechanism provisions of the plan. The safety mechanism provides for a review of the assistance arrangements whenever the local industry's market share in any of eight designated product categories falls below 80 per cent or rises above 90 per cent over any period of three months. The Bill further provides that the Authority continuously monitor imports and, in the event of a sustained increase in any of the areas not covered by the designated safety mechanism categories, report to the Minister on the need for changes in assistance or other appropriate action. In this connection the Bill provides that for the duration of the plan the Government will be able to vary assistance to the steel industry following a report by the Authority. I point out, however, that the sending of references to the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission on the steel industry or particular steel products during the period of operation of the plan is not precluded by the provisions of this Bill. The Authority will develop and maintain links with all parties involved with the steel industry, including local producers, unions, importers and users. It will develop a data file on the industry. These links will afford each of the parties ample opportunity to present information and views to the Authority. Similarly the Authority will be able to check out the various claims put to it with other interested parties. Thus the Authority will be well placed to identify changing circumstances, to analyse their significance and to react promptly. This prompt reaction is an essential feature of the safety mechanisms included in the plan. In many instances the Authority will need do no more than seek comments from the parties as it will already be in possession of the relevant facts. However, over the period of the steel industry plan, matters may arise which properly should be the subject of public inquiry. Accordingly, the Bill empowers the Authority to conduct public inquiries and contains the appropriate provisions for the conduct of such inquiries. The Bill provides that the Authority report regularly to the Minister on its operations. Where those reports contain recommendations on the respective contributions to the plan those reports will be publicly released at the time that the Government's decision on those matters is announced. The Authority will also be required to present an annual report to the Minister who will be required to present the report to the Parliament. It is proposed that the Authority consist of three part-time members, each appointed by the Governor-General, with one member to be appointed as chairman. A secretariat located within the Department of Industry and Commerce will service the Authority. The cost of the operations of the Authority, including remuneration of members and salaries for secretariat staff, is estimated at $188 ,000 in 1983-84 and $293,000 in each of the two succeeding years. Although no direct revenue will result from the operation of the Authority, the Government believes that the real benefit will be the improvement in the long term viability of the Australian steel industry. The Steel Industry Authority is considered by the Government to be essential to the effective implementation of the steel industry plan and its overall successful operations. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) 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)(10.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the second of three Bills designed to give effect to the Government 's decision, announced on 11 August 1983, to provide an assistance program for the Australian steel industry under the steel industry plan. The Government's policy for the steel industry and details of the steel industry plan were outlined in my second reading speech introducing the Steel Industry Authority Bill 1983. This Bill forms part of the bounty package to be provided under the plan. The bounties in the Bill are intended to assist the production of certain quenched and tempered steel plate, certain steel pipe and tube, and certain cold rolled steel sheet products. Bounty payments will be made to the producers of these products on the basis of a percentage of the sales value of prescribed hot rolled steel strip and plate used as inputs in bountiable production. The bounties will operate on a sliding scale providing for maximum assistance to be given at low production levels. This will provide assistance when producers most need it, and avoid large government outlays in times of buoyant market conditions. The bounties will assist the Australian industry in those areas which have recently been most vulnerable to import competition and the benefits will also flow back to Australian producers of the prescribed types of hot rolled steel strip and plate. Bounty will be paid on quenched and tempered steel plate as a percentage of the value of the prescribed plate feed used during a quarter in production of those products. The maximum bounty rate of 20 per cent will be paid where the annualised industry use of the prescribed plate feed, calculated for a quarter, is 5,000 tonnes or less. The bounty rate will be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry use during a quarter is in excess of 8,800 tonnes. Bounty will also be payable on steel pipe and tube as a percentage of the value of the prescribed plate and strip used during a quarter in production of the products. The maximum bounty rate of 17 per cent will be paid where the annualised industry tonnage of the prescribed plate and strip, calculated for the quarter, is 350,000 tonnes or less. This bounty will be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry use during a quarter is in excess of 500,000 tonnes. Finally, bounty will be payable on cold rolled steel sheet as a percentage of the value of the prescribed strip used during a quarter in production of the products. The maximum bounty rate will be paid where the annualised industry tonnage of the prescribed strip, calculated for a quarter, is 700,000 tonnes or less. This bounty will also be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry use during a quarter is in excess of 900,000 tonnes. The applicable bounty rates are set out in the Schedules to the Bill. The bounty schemes under the steel industry plan will commence on 1 January 1984 and will run for a period of five years. It is proposed that at the end of the fourth year a review will be undertaken and a decision made on whether the plan should be extended. The amount of bounty is to be limited in the first year of the steel industry plan to $600,000 in respect of quenched and tempered plate, $22m in respect of pipe and tube and $40m in respect of cold rolled sheet. These limits will be adjusted in later years in accordance with movements in domestic steel prices under the plan. However, the actual amount of bounty payable in any year will depend upon the level of activity in the domestic industry. In view of recent increases in efficiency and activity in the industry, it is likely that the maximum available amount of bounty will not be utilised in the first year of its operation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) 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)(11.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the third of three Bills designed to give effect to the Government' s decision announced on 11 August 1983 to provide an assistance program for the Australian steel industry under the steel industry plan. The Bounty (Steel Products) Act 1983 currently provides for bounty assistance on a range of high alloy bar products and stainless steel flat products during the period 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983. This assistance has taken the form of a bounty of 5 per cent of the price paid or payable for bountiable products produced and sold in Australia, to a maximum limit of bounty payments of $3m. This Bill will provide for the continuation of the payment of bounty on these products from 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1988, but on a sliding scale with the bounty rate varying according to the industry annual rate of domestic sales of eligible product. The bounty rate will be set according to the annualised industry volume of sales for the quarter during which the product is sold for use in Australia. A maximum bounty rate of 20 per cent will be payable where the annualised rate of sales of the products is less than 20,000 tonnes. The bounty rate will then be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry sales are in excess of 39,000 tonnes. The applicable bounty rates are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. The sliding scale arrangement for bounty payments proposed by this Bill provides for maximum assistance to be given at low production levels when producers most need it, while avoiding large government outlays in times of buoyant market conditions. The maximum cost of the bounty as proposed by this Bill is expected to be $9m in 1984. This annual ceiling will be adjusted in later years in accordance with movements in domestic steel prices under the plan . I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.04) — When debate on this legislation concluded last night it concluded on a tone of some high emotion from both sides of the House. Companies and securities legislation can rarely be expected to evoke such emotions. Nevertheless, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 which is before the House, and which the Opposition does not oppose-although there are a number of reservations which I wish to express on it-is of great commercial importance. The Bill runs to some 151 clauses. As has been pointed out by Senator Durack in another place, because of the Bill's very nature it is almost impossible to examine it in this chamber or in the other chamber. The matters contained in the Bill are detailed, complex and technical. The ramifications of what is proposed would, in many cases, be understood only by those who specialise in companies and securities law, an area in which I practised very largely when I was a member of the practising bar. It is of fundamental importance that laws should be assessable and that laws should be comprehensible so that citizens can know their rights and their duties . In a technical sense it may be said that the companies and securities laws of this country are assessable in that they are written down in the statute books and one can go to those books and read them. But that is in a technical sense only. Their comprehensibility is another question. The underlying approach to the present legislation-this legislation goes back, of course, to the previous Government's time-appears to be the same kind of approach as has been taken in the field of tax; that is, to seek to cover all possible contingencies, all combinations and permutations of human and commercial conduct. How this has happened and the development of the over-regulatory approach to securities and companies laws can well be illustrated by looking at the development in the field of takeovers. When I was reporting for the New South Wales Attorney-General into the affairs of Gollin Holdings Ltd, as special investigator appointed by the Attorney- General to examine the affairs of that company, I wrote a number of reports. Thankfully, on 22 March 1979 I put in my eighth and final report. In it I noted the developments that had taken place up to that time regarding takeovers. In 1961 the position was that for the first time certain provisions were introduced into what was called the Uniform Companies Code to regulate the conduct of takeovers. There were two provisions only. One was section 184 of that code and the other was section 185 which had an ancillary operation. Those provisions were replaced in 1971 by a far more detailed code of 25 sections. At the time that I wrote my report of April 1979, those provisions were under review and the draft which was then proposed contained some 59 sections. When the Companies ( Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 was enacted it contained 64 sections. Since then , it has been amended by Act No. 2 of 1981 which contains nine pages of amendments, by Act No. 94 of 1981 which contains another nine pages of amendments and by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) of 1982 which contains three pages of amendments and by the present Bill which, by clauses 3 to 19, presents us with another nine pages of amendments. The history of the takeover code since 1961 therefore raises very directly the question of the direction in which we are proceeding in this area and in other areas where it is thought that the public interest requires regulation. My view is that very clearly we have gone, and we are going, towards overregulation. We have certainly arrived at that point and we are going further down that track. We are going down that track by instituting systems which, as I say, seek to cover all possible situations, as does the Income Tax Assessment Act. We do that in preference to seeking to establish simpler and more flexible systems, particularly in areas of law which apply to commercial dealings and commercial transactions. I will quote from what I said in my final report to the New South Wales Attorney-General on this subject, as I think what I said has been borne out by events and is as good a criticism of the system as it now stands as I can make. I said: There are some general comments I think worth making on the subject of takeovers. Without entering into a detailed discussion of how well a code modelled on the lines of, or taking its inspiration from, the London code, would work in Australia, the London code does have two obvious virtues which a statutory code lacks; speed and flexibility of operation. Conversely, a court- administered code has three major deficiencies. First, a court-administered code is, by its very nature, fairly inflexible in operation. To take but one important instance: it is not possible under a court- administered code, as it is under the London code, to get within twenty-four hours a definitive answer as to whether a proposed course of conduct is permissible. And, whereas it is a requirement of the London code that both ''the spirit as well as the precise wording'' of the code be observed, a court- administered code is far more constrained in the way in which it operates. Courts deal in laws, not in abstract concepts of what is right or wrong or whether a particular kind of conduct infringes the ''spirit'' of an Act of Parliament, and a litigant who seeks a Court's assistance must establish that he has some legal interest recognised by the law and which the law protects. Secondly- this was my second criticism of court administered codes- and consequently, a court-administered takeover code is bound to be more technical than a code such as operates in London. Takeovers are highly important commercial transactions and often involve large sums of money. Participants in takeovers seek the best of advice, including the best legal advice. In a free society a lawyer's task is to advise his client, not to moralise or to try to discern the ''spirit'' of a particular set of laws and to ensure that his client acts in accordance with the ''spirit''. Experience shows that as laws regulating takeovers are altered to give effect to changing social attitudes or to defeat practices which the legislature, whether rightly or wrongly, considers unfair or contrary to the public interest, so do lawyers change their advice and their clients change their tactics. Amendments are introduced to meet these changed tactics, fresh advice is taken and new tactics worked out, and another set of amendments becomes necessary. The present code comprises twenty-five sections- I was speaking in 1979- and I would be surprised if any amendments to it result in its becoming any shorter. I think it much more probable that if we persist with the court- administered statutory code we will end up with a set of rules which in technicality, complexity and obscurity will rival some of the more arcane provisions of the Income Tax Act. I interpolate that that day most certainly appears to have arrived. My report continued: Thirdly- this was the third criticism that I made of court administered codes in my final report on the Gollin inquiry- there is the consideration of speed. In a takeover, events can move swiftly and one of the benefits the London code has demonstrated is the speed with which definitive answers on urgent and important questions can be obtained. While, in urgent cases, courts can certainly move swiftly, I have no doubt that the structure, the rules, and the procedures of courts are such that in answering questions that arise in takeovers they would be unable to match the speed that could reasonably be expected under an efficiently administered code that was similar in essential respects to the London code. I was referring to the City of London Takeover Code which in substantial respects stands now, I believe, as it was then. It is perhaps dangerous to make predictions as to the course that legislation is going to take in the future but the prediction that I made, that we would end up with a set of rules which in technicality, complexity and obscurity will rival some of the more arcane provisions of the Income Tax Act, has certainly been borne out by events. Whilst it is dangerous to make predictions, predictions based on the inherent propensity of the Public Service to regulate and the corresponding propensity of governments and responsible Ministers to accede to bureaucratic advice, especially in complex fields and in specialist fields, may make the task of predicting the future a somewhat easier one. In passing I make two incidental references to the Gollin investigation. So far as I can see it had two concrete results. In the first case two men went to gaol for lengthy periods-the managing director and the financial director of the Gollin group. I believe one has now been allowed out. Secondly, I made a number of criticisms of provisions which then existed in what was called paragraph 23 of the Fifth Schedule of the Companies Act. The provisions of that paragraph concern reports which directors had to make for the purposes of, amongst other things, takeover offers. I am glad to say that those criticisms seem to have had some effect since they have ultimately been met by regulations that have been introduced in the present code. All one can say of that observation is that work does not always go in vain. I do not claim for a moment to be the only person who is critical of those provisions. I presume others were also critical. I turn now to the major issue that this Bill throws up. As I have indicated, the issue that it throws up or puts sharply into focus, which is one of major importance, is the stifling tendency to overregulate and the need to search for fresh solutions. I say this fully conscious of the fact that the Bill which is before the House is no more than the progeny of what was put in place under the previous Government and under a system of co-operation with the States. There are two solutions that I would tentatively propose. Where possible provisions in Acts of Parliament should be stated in the form of general propositions or rules . We should seek to avoid the all pervasive tendency to encompass within an Act of Parliament all possible contingencies because events demonstrate that that is quite impossible and the history of the Income Tax Assessment Act is eloquent, if tedious, testimony to that fact. If where possible we adopted the approach of stating the provisions of Acts of Parliament in the form of general propositions or rules, the interpretation of those propositions or rules could then be left to the courts. This would provide for very much greater flexibility and adaptability of rules, of general statements, to the infinite variety of circumstances which come before courts. It has been the genius of the Anglo-Australian system of common law to be able to adapt general rules and the relief which can be granted under general rules to fresh situations. An outstanding example of that can be witnessed in the development of the doctrine of reasonable care, just as the contrary may be exemplified by attempts to produce a statutory code of defamation laws which encompassed everything that was needed to be encompassed and which satisfied everyone. I believe that recent events have satisfied the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that the proposals he was going to put forward were simply not practicable. So, where possible, we should state the law generally and leave the interpretation to the judges. The second proposition that I put as a tentative solution to the morass in which we find ourselves is this: In commercial areas we must look for extra- judicial procedures aimed at providing quick, cheap and flexible answers, and the field of takeovers is an example of such a field. I do not wish it to be thought that I do not think that the Bill contains desirable reforms; it certainly does. However, change, mass and detail do not necessarily equal reform . Let me touch upon two reforms in the Bill which are certainly of great value although in respect of one I have some reservations. First of all, in clause 34 of the Bill it is provided, in effect, that subject to the Act a company is to have the rights of a natural person, although a company can, as it were, determine to restrict the powers that it should have. Now companies are to have the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person. That is an exceedingly sensible reform. The law regarding object clauses goes back to the nineteenth century when it was assumed in the case of limited companies that those who dealt with limited companies might go to the object clauses of that company for the purposes of finding out whether the dealing was within the powers of the company. This indicates that judges do not always have a close understanding of what takes place when people are dealing with each other in the market-place. The second reform that I will touch on is that which is introduced in relation to cases where the affairs of a company are being managed in a way which is oppressive of a member of that company. It is pointed out in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill that the law, as it presently exists, is too limited. In effect it is necessary to show a continuing course of oppressive conduct in order to be granted relief; that is, if one is a shareholder who has been oppressed. That is a very real difficulty which one encounters, as I did when I was a practising barrister, when advising clients. One would be presented with a case where it was apparent that the powers of a company were being used in a way which was oppressive of an individual member of the company. That member did not wish to apply to have the company wound up because of the consequences that would have on his investment and, therefore, he sought other relief. It was always an anxious question as to whether or not the facts demonstrated what I could describe as a continuing course of conduct so as to form a sufficient basis for grounding a petition to claim relief. Generally I commend what appears in the Bill to seek to overcome the deficiencies in the present law. But I would query the extent to which the Bill goes in defining the ambit of the various situations which can now attract the jurisdiction of the court in oppression cases. I echo, without repeating, the criticisms made by Senator Hill in another place of the extent to which the Bill goes in that area. But subject to the criticism that I think the Bill goes too far in that area and that I think it goes into too much detail, in principle, that is a reform which I would welcome. There are other areas of the Bill, however, which are far more questionable. Let me take two. First of all, we have provision now for an Accounting Standards Review Board which is to be given legislative backing for the purposes of setting standards for financial reporting. The standards set by the Board, as I understand it, are only to be disallowable by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities which has been set up under the co-operative arrangements between the States and the Federal Government. Effectively, therefore, those provisions are put beyond Parliament's examination. I fully understand that the co-operative arrangements were made during the period of the Fraser Government, but that does not relieve me from anxiety in that area. I believe that, if we are setting standards which have to be observed in financial reporting, it is the parliament of the country which should set the standards, no matter how difficult it may be in a technical sense for us to examine those standards. These standards should not be set up by some other group in a manner which is effectively beyond Parliament's review. The second questionable area amongst a few, but I shall only touch upon one other, relates to the powers which are given to the National Companies and Securities Commission by clause 17 of the Bill to: . . . declare acquisition of shares or other conduct to be unacceptable. I quoted from the headnote to what will be section 60 of the Act when the Bill is passed. This is a power which the Commission can exercise when it is satisfied that an acquisition of shares took place in certain circumstances. It may act within 90 days after that acquisition. Provision is made for testing of the decision in the courts. But I raise two questions: First of all, the desirability of vesting this kind of power in the Commission and, secondly, the desirability of having a power which may be exercised up to 90 days after the acquisition in question has taken place. A lot can happen in 90 days. If the Commission is going to act it should act with great speed. This illustrates, I think, the problem of over-regulation and illustrates again the need to look for alternative and more flexible solutions. I should like to conclude by saying something about the financial impact statement and the whole question of overregulation. We have before us a financial impact statement. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech said: Finally, I should make some references to the financial impact that this Bill will have on Government revenues. He sets out some of the consequences which appear to be very minor. But what was put to this House on 7 September 1983 by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) went further than that. Not only was the Government going to state the impact on the revenue but also, and I quote from Hansard of 7 September 1983: Ministers will include a brief explanation of the circumstances in their second reading speeches and outline in broad terms the expected financial impact of the legislation. Ministers will also attempt to assess the impact on industry and other sections of the community when formulating legislation. While such effects are often indirect and not easily quantifiable, Ministers will endeavour to include this information wherever possible. No such attempt has been made in this legislation. Of one thing we can be perfectly confident and that is that the cost of the regulations which are being brought in will be high. It will be a cost which will be borne by the commercial community but ultimately by every Australian because costs borne by one major section of the community are always felt by others. Lastly, on the subject of over-regulation, I would like to quote very briefly from what was said by Mr John Elliott in his James Kirby Paper of 1983: The Confederation of Australian Industry has compiled statistics that bear witness to this country's regulation build-up. In the last 20 years, 16,631 new Acts have been passed in Federal Parliament and 32,551 Statutory Regulations. In a 10-year comparison of the '70s and '60s the number of Acts passed rose by 40% . . . We are and we have become over-regulated. This is a burden to the community. The costs are stifling and vast. They are a burden not only on the community at large but also to enterprise, to commercial growth, to commercial life and to the future prosperity of this country. It is time that we looked again very rigorously at the whole case for regulation and questioned the need in each case to regulate in what is always said to be the public interest. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(11.29) —I suppose that the critical test in dealing with the Companies and Securities legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is whether it is effective or whether it is efficient. On 30 August, the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) made a speech dealing with the future of a limited liability. He dealt with the complexities of company law and he said: . . . notable activist is Senator Peter Rae who made his mark as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. The influential 1974 report recommended the establishment of a national Securities and Exchange Commission in preference to the joint Commonwealth-State scheme now in operation . Labor is committed: in the short term, to retaining the co-operative scheme while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims . . . in the longer term, to a national system of companies and securities regulation administered by the national parliament. Just when the short term becomes the long term is a question of some interest to the Government as a whole, not only in the company law area. I am, however, increasingly impressed by the strength of the calls from the business and legal sectors for national legislation, and increasingly convinced that a ministerial meeting every few months, at which any number of significant policy and administrative decisions may be made in a single day, is no way to run a national regulatory system. Dealing with the Law Review Committee, he said: It will provide the first opportunity in Australia's history for an examination of some of the fundamental issues in this area of the law: The theory of legitimate use of the corporate form; the relationship between limited liability and public disclosure; the rights and obligations of shareholders, directors, employees and creditors; the objectives and methods of takeover regulation; the power of the courts to 'lift the corporate veil'. I put it to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender): In dealing with the question of costs, not just the question of regulation, who pays the cost of corporate fraud, white collar fraud, white collar crime, corporate crime, corporate taxation evasion, and bank fraud? It is the consumer who ultimately pays the penalty, not the corporate sector. One article states: Ron Brierley, the Chief executive of Industrial Equity and long-time critic and adversary of takeover legislation, supports the latest move. 'It (central control from Canberra) is very desirable,' Brierley says. 'If you started from scratch, the current system is not the one you would come up with'. In my view this co-operative legislation is a clear abrogation of national responsibility. I suggest that if shareholders, small investors, the business community, and particularly the community as a whole, are to gain any sense of stability, comfort, or long term security from this piece of legislation and the complementary legislation we dealt with some two years ago, they will be seriously disillusioned. Effective regulation of the security market involves the capacity of the administrative body to react quickly to market developments. I should have thought that that would have been the critically important test of any Federal Act or co-operative uniform law. That test does not operate in this case. The co -operative system has failed utterly to address the critical issues, despite the fact that such provisions have been embodied in European and Canadian law and, in large measure, United States law for well over two decades. For instance, we have not really addressed the problems of minimum paid up capital, non-cash consideration for share issues, funds available for payment, payment of dividends out of profits, special procedures following a serious loss of capital , or the pre-emptive right of members to new share issues. For well over three years I have bombarded the Notice Paper with a series of questions, and they are all set out in Question No. 319. Regrettably, to this time the Ministerial Council has refused even to consider rectifying clear drafting errors in the existing legislation, including, amongst other issues, the class rights provisions. This matter is an utter shambles, and I make no apology for saying so. The sooner the Government grasps the nettle and brings in a national Act the better for the corporate sector. I wish to address three issues that urgently need review. First, there is an old common law rule to the effect that unanimous resolution of a company's members will bind the company as to all matters except those that are ultra vires the company's objects. Thus shareholders may sell property to a company at a grossly inflated value and, provided other members acquiesce in the transaction, nothing can be done by future shareholders or liquidators to challenge the unfair deal. The same would be true if the company loaned funds to its members on terms advantageous to them but highly prejudicial to the company' s creditors or future members. The common law has a fraud-on-the-minority concept which allows minority members to challenge unreasonable majority actions , but this concept by its very nature is inapplicable if there was no minority at the relevant time; that is, if all members or shareholders were implicated in the unfair conduct. In order to protect future members and the company's creditors, some courts have declared such conduct to be ultra vires the company. This means that not even a unanimous resolution of the members could affirm or validate such action. The reasoning in many of these cases is conceptually unsatisfactory and, in any event, since an amendment in this Bill makes the adoption of an objects clause optional, the ultra vires doctrine is clearly on the way to oblivion. This underscores the need for a rule that a resolution or agreement of a company's members can be declared invalid if no reasonable person could consider it to be in the company's interests as distinct from the interests of its members at the time. The interests of current members may and often will be quite different from those of its creditors and future members. Why should a person who becomes a shareholder of a company today not be able to complain that yesterday all of the company's members had voted themselves excessive or commercially unreasonable benefits? If those benefits cannot be challenged the company's creditors as well as the new members may well materially suffer. There have been recent indications that at least some members of the English Court of Appeal have perceived the problem. There are a number of cases to support that contention. It may be that the common law will create a fraud on the company concept to replace the existing fraud on the minority concept, but this may be a slow process. The legislature ought to step in clearly to circumscribe the powers of company members acting unanimously. The need is all the greater because of the weakening of the ultra vires concept involved in this Bill. If no action is forthcoming the position of future company shareholders, and particularly creditors, will be invidious. The second point I wish to raise is that an urgent review of the existing laws and procedures relating to companies in financial difficulties is required. It is long overdue. The review should seek to ensure that companies are not unnecessarily sent to the wall and that if liquidation is inevitable all interested parties are treated rationally and equitably in the legislation. In the United Kingdom the Cork Committee recently presented a lucid analysis of the important area of commercial law and practice. Many of that Committee's criticisms and recommendations are equally applicable here. Australia should follow the lead. Among the Committee's suggestions were firstly, that the parent company of an insolvent subsidiary should sometimes be responsible for the debts of the subsidiary, a position that already applies in New Zealand; and, secondly , that a percentage of an insolvent company's assets should always be available to the company's unsecured creditors. The secured creditors should not be allowed to take all the assets. There reforms are long overdue, particularly in the insurance field. My third point is this: When will the Companies Act adequately define the limits of the fund which a company may use for the purpose of paying dividends to shareholders? The current legislation merely states that dividends must be paid out of profits, yet nowhere is the word 'profits' defined. I have raised this matter for five consecutive years and still have not received an answer. It has generally been thought that the English decisions of nineteenth century judges to the effect that dividends cannot be paid out of a company's share capital are directly relevant to our rule that dividends must be paid out of profits. The English decisions are permissive and allow, for example, dividends to be paid out of the current year's trading profits without regard to trading losses or losses of share capital in the preceding year. Yet there is a strong argument that the English decisions are largely irrelevant to the Australian rules which are, firstly, that dividends must not be paid out of capital and, secondly, that dividends are payable only out of profits and are quite different and cannot be seen merely as the two sides of a single coin. Given that most of the Australian literature on the topic is probably misconceived, it is particularly important that the legislature spells out in detail what the word ' profit' means. This was done in the United Kingdom three years ago. By the time the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities gets around to doing it another decade will pass. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) because we have had a long struggle to establish an Accounting Standards Review Board. We raised this matter, from memory, four or five years ago. At long last it is to be put in place. The old Ministerial Council acts like a geriatric slug suffering from arthritis. It takes an enormously long time to reach a decision. I raise some pertinent points. One can only hope that the people who constitute the Board will be extremely competent in two particular areas, that is, accountancy and business administration and not necessarily the law because we are not likely to get any radical reforms or procedures from lawyers. The second matter I would be interested in is whether the penalties for non-conformity with the approved standards and the criteria fixed by the Board will be large enough to enforce and not merely encourage compliance. I suppose the third important critical element will be whether the Board has the confidence of the accounting profession and the business community as a whole. That will be critically important. The fourth matter is that the Board make decisions speedily. The last matter-I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will take this up with his colleague-is that the Board be adequately staffed and that Board members receive adequate remuneration to ensure that the Board attracts the people with the best credentials. In my view, if the co-operative system is going to continue-I hope it is abolished as quickly as possible-the two critical areas will be the Law Review Board, whose recommendations ought to be brought back to this Parliament for scrutiny and debate, and the Accounting Standards Review Board. In the Adelaide Advertiser of Friday, 25 March, there is an article headed 'NCSC crackdown on property trusts'. I quote from that article: The National Companies and Securities Commission is planning a crackdown on property trusts to reduce the scope for trustees and management companies to act in conflict with the interest of unitholders. The article goes on: Mr Greenwood-- he is on the Commission- Was critical of the covenant in existing legislation requiring management companies to use their best endeavours to conduct the business in an efficient and proper manner. If a management company was only required to use its best endeavours, it could be lawful for an incompetent company to act against the interests of the unitholders, he said. The NCSC is considering a proposal that the covenant require management companies to exercise in the interests of unitholders a degree of care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in relation to his own business. With all due deference, I would have thought that when we set off to embody provisions in a companies and securities law as important as this legislation is to the corporate sector, one of the important initial pieces of incorporation would be the fact that directors would be obliged to act with the maximum degree of care, diligence and skill. Not only that, there ought to be adequate and proper provision in the Companies Act to ensure the directors and company directors are fit and proper persons. I will enter into debate later on today on insurance companies provisions. If ever there were a need for a fit and proper persons provision it is in the Insurance Act. This provision was put in the British Act as far back as 1973. My good friend from Royal Insurance Australia Ltd in Melbourne made an address to the Law Society of New South Wales in Sydney a month ago and clearly indicated that if the fit and proper persons provision had been inserted in the Insurance Act after 1973, Stathis could never have become a director of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd. It is an appalling indictment of the ministerial system that we have to wait until there is a scandal in the trust area before these sorts of provisions are put into the Act. Finally-and I make no apology at all for this-I again commend the Deputy Prime Minister who brought in a national Act when we were in opposition. The corporate sector in this country deserves better than it is getting. The corporate sector is over-regulated. There ought to be a single national Act and it ought to be in two sections. There ought to be an Act to cover the large corporations and there ought to be a separate division, if you like, for small business. The sooner we apply our minds to that the better it will be for the corporate sector as a whole. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.50) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) for their contributions. We are debating a Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which we cannot even alter because of what has happened. It is quite ridiculous really. We have become virtually a rubber stamp of a well-meaning and a very intelligent group called a Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. But it does make the Parliament a bit redundant to think that we have a piece of legislation in which very forthright and worthwhile views are put which we cannot implement because if we were to do so our counterparts in the State would say 'We do not agree with that', or 'We cannot necessarily do it at this time'. So in that context I can well understand the problems raised by all speakers. Turning to what is called Schedule 2 of the Bill, honourable members will see the number of amendments already to this collection of Acts: The Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act, the Companies Act, the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Act and the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and so it goes on. I notice that 17 separate Bills have had to be introduced in a relatively short space of time. We wonder how long this can go on. If we go back to the thrust of what we were about when the Senate took unto itself the right to have a look at the securities law-at that stage we in the House of Representatives did not agree with any committees; I think that was a defect of this House-we see that the Senate did a worthwhile job because it established the fact that there was a need to do something. But the interesting thing about that is that the Senate established the fact that there was only one market in Australia for corporate transactions, shareholdings, et cetera, and not six or seven different markets. At the same time it suggested that there ought to be some national approach to this matter. I understand, though, that Senator Peter Rae did not agree with that in the final analysis. As the honourable member for Hawker said, we tried both in government and in opposition to introduce a national Bill, but that was defeated and we now have a Bill which is grappling with some of the problems that have been addressed here today. We understand the background of what we now have to look at. The interesting thing is that there is some co-operation. It is unfortunate to think that we cannot get co-operation without having to look at it in the terms of having to deal with seven parliaments. The honourable member for North Sydney is entitled to say with some validity that there is over-regulation. The biggest problem in this whole structure, I think, if we look back at the history of law is that law naturally follows the commercial habit, transactions or customs. If we look at mercantile law we see that it has developed through the process of traders themselves having established certain ideas which then needed regulation. But we are now becoming bedevilled by the plethora of Acts, regulations and interpretations, which I think is probably counterproductive from the point of view of assisting business . One of the great problems I find-I speak personally-is that the equity of a company shareholder is related not to a person having one brain and one pair of hands but to the amount of money that a person might have. If a person is large enough to have a lot of money he will have a lot of votes. One person can control a whole group simply because he has a great number of shares and uses them as equity. It is interesting to note, without delaying the House, that that was not the case or was not very likely to be the case with partnerships. A partner had personal liability and personal accountability. Over history corporate structures have been able to cloak many frauds. They have been able to cheat and deceive people through corporate theft and the inability to face up to liability. There is no real mystique about corporations. They have just become an effective mechanism to allow a multiple number of people to obtain an indentity. But we must always ask ourselves: Can we not get a better law that will meet the obligations of society from the point of view of accountability, honesty and integrity? What the honourable member for Hawker said is perfectly true. If directors have a very poor record of not meeting their liabilities, of continual liquidation, why should they be allowed to continue to incorporate companies and to become directors? They have as bad a record as any criminal who keeps going to goal on the basis of his lack of credibility. I shall now deal with the specific matters that were raised. There is a problem with over-regulation. It leads to a great deal of litigation. Every technical point is taken, and this is a problem. But I am reminded that clause 132 of the Bill provides for the courts to interpret this legislation having regard to the provision now in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act; in other words, to interpret this legislation having regard to its purpose. If the courts are able to adopt a commercial approach it may be possible to get legislation in more general terms and then, as the honourable member for North Sydney suggested, leave it to the courts' interpretation. The takeover power was raised by the honourable member for North Sydney. Again, apparently this was considered by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. It is suggested that we do not seem to have a body of status and influence comparable to that of the Bank of England. I do not suppose we will ever have that. It is also suggested that the capital market-I think this is more to the point-is geographically diversified with rival financial centres. I still think there is a great deal of merit in what the honourable member for North Sydney said. The London panel was considered by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, the Rae Committee, which concluded that it would not be effective. The disallowance of accounting standards was the subject of amendments moved by Senator Durack in the Senate. I return to what I said at the outset: It is impossible to disallow any of those standards. We would have to get the enabling legislation through every parliament in Australia. The legislation would have to go through seven parliaments in 15 sitting days. One can imagine the commercial uncertainty that that would lead to, yet there is a great deal of merit in the proposal. There is a problem here, with which I think the Ministerial Council has grappled as best it can, but the disallowance procedure would be a real problem. The Government indicated in its business regulation policy that the scheme is not in the hands of any single responsible body so that no single parliament or government is accountable. It is ironic that the Opposition concerns itself with accountability when the Ministerial Council has already provided adequate safeguards. The Opposition apparently sees no difficulty in business accountability and the listing of rules of stock exchanges as being merely subject to ministerial council disallowance even though the legislation obliges companies whose shares are listed to be accountable. All these comments have been made in answer to what has been suggested but the overriding factor is that, as the honourable member for Hawker said, we need to have boards that can effectively deliver the goods in terms of what we are about. These boards need to be well equipped, as the honourable member said. They need to have the appropriate criteria, the confidence and the staff. I have noticed some criticism of some aspects recently-apparently an individual 's criticism. I am told that this piece of legislation virtually was introduced by the previous Government and allowed to lay on the table, and that a number of submissions-some 120 or 130 in all-were made about it. Those submissions basically have been taken up and adopted. Some of the people making the submissions, of course, would have represented the various corporate security areas in the States. Majority and minority views would have been held in those areas but the majority view was the only one that was put forward, so it is not appropriate to have individuals criticising the issue in the terms that have been used. The problem we face is that a ministerial council naturally deals with those submissions that are made. Clause 17 was referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney. He said he thought a 90-day period was too long in the case of objectionable or unacceptable conduct. What is reasonable is a matter of degree. A period of 90 days might be too long but it might be thought that 30 days is too short. We get this sort of judgment. It is thought that the amendment is necessary to enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to deal with such conduct but that a period is needed in order to assess the conduct. That is the judgment that has been mentioned. I say no more than that we are grateful for the contributions made. I hope those made by the honourable member for Hawker in terms of what we can achieve will be noted. Quite frankly this Government looks forward to the day when, with the co-operation to the States, we can bring in a national piece of legislation that will assist everybody, will not be over-regulatory, will provide for the States' participation and will guarantee a better process than we have at present. I thank honourable members. 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. [COGNATE BILL: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Consequential Amendments) Bill as they are related measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is it the wish to the House to have a general debate covering both those measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.05) — The purpose of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill is to establish the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to give to that office and to the Director certain functions and certain powers in the conduct of prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth. The functions of the office are set out in clause 6 of the Bill. Broadly, they are to institute prosecutions for offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, be they prosecutions on indictment or prosecutions for summary offences, and to recover certain penalties, the details of which are also set out in clause 6. It is provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions whose office is established under the Bill shall, where requested to do so, consult with the Attorney- General and that in the performance of his functions and in the exercise of his powers he is to be subject to such directions or guidelines as the Attorney- General, after consulting with the Director, gives to him. Effectively, therefore, the Director remains subject to the Attorney-General. That is no doubt as it should be, although I think a matter we should consider for the future is the extent to which the Director may act quite independently of the Attorney-General. I express no view on the question; I simply put it as a question that needs to be considered in the future. The Bill provides for the publication of guidelines or directions given by the Attorney-General to the Director. That is a very sensible provision, as indeed generally the Bill is sensible. I think it is a step forward in the administration of justice. I beieve that the office of Director of Public Prosecutions is needed for the Federal system and I am glad to see that this Government has taken the action that it has. The Bill does, however, raise one very significant question. This goes back to the whole basis on which prosecutions are brought. It could be said that some of us believe that the State is infallible or that, if it is not infallible, it is wiser than individuals and that it is best left to make decisions on prosecutions or to take over prosecutions where instituted by individuals. Those who belong to that school accept or believe that the machinery of justice is put into motion only after judicious consideration of the issues by the Attorney-General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the decisions made are uninfluenced by personal or political considerations, that they are fair and that those who make them sit above the ordinary human conflicts. There are those who take that point of view and there are others who believe that all human institutions are fallible and need to be subject to some checks. This brings me to the basis on which prosecutions are brought. As we all know, originally prosecutions brought in England, from where we have derived most of our laws, could be brought by individuals. They could be brought by individuals not only for damage done to the particular individual but also for any other crime. The rationale was very well put by an eminent writer, Mr I. J. Stephen, in his publication entitled A History of the Criminal Law of England when he said this: No stronger or effectual guarantee can be provided for the due observance of the law of the land by all persons under all circumstances than is given by the power conceded to everyone by the English system of testing the legality of any conduct of which he disapproves either on private or public grounds, by a criminal prosecution. The reason for that is self-evident. If we believe that the State is corrupt, if we believe that an office which should impartially administer laws is not doing so, and if we believe that there is someone who needs to be brought to justice but against whom no action has been taken, we should be open to take that action with all the consequences as to costs that may follow. That approach has been criticised. It has been said that it can lead to vexatious litigation and to one criminal prosecuting another criminal in such a manner as to secure the other criminal's acquittal so that the other criminal would then have a good defence to any competent prosecution brought by the Crown. Undoubtedly it is a right that can be gravely misused. It is pointed out in the 1977 report of the Law Reform Commission that the rights in relation to the bringing of criminal prosecutions in Australia are fairly wide. I quote: In Australia the right of private prosecution for a summary offence is unfettered, save in some cases where there is special statutory provision. As in the case where a prosecution can be brought only with the consent of the Attorney-General. To continue: In the case of an indictable offence it would appear that a private prosecutor may proceed with the matter until the conclusion of committal proceedings. If the accused is committed for trial then responsibility for termination or further conduct of the matter rests with the Crown. Rights of private prosecution in Australia are unusually generous. Of course, our system is somewhat different from the English system because it grew out of different circumstances. In the early days of the colony persons were appointed to the task of prosecuting for offences. For those who are interested in the history of the early offices that history is to be found in an article in volume 32 of the Australian Law Journal at page 148 by a man called R . R. Kidston, whom I recall well as Senior Crown Prosecutor and whom I saw appear in a number of murder cases on behalf of the Crown. Of course, one of the reasons why our development was somewhat different from the development in England was that Australia had effectively been established as a penal colony. There were some difficulties in conceding the full rights of prosecution that may have existed in England. I do not want to get involved in the interesting if somewhat arcane history of the distinctions between England and Australia. The position certainly does obtain, as I understand it, and as was pointed out, that under the general law the Crown could not intervene until the question arose as to whether or not a person who was charged with an offence triable before a jury should go to trial. The Crown could not interfere with summary private prosecutions. In the case of prosecutions which first had committal proceedings, if the magistrate held that there was a prima facie case, they would go to trial, but it was a question for the Crown to decide whether a bill of indictment or an information should be filed. The power of the Crown in that respect was vividly illustrated to me years ago when I came to the Bar. I was told a story of an early Chief Justice of New South Wales who was out shooting with the then Attorney-General. They were trying some criminal cases in the country. I believe-so the story goes-that they were shooting on a Sunday and they were also trespassing. The local policeman arrested them and was quite unmoved by the fact that they held high offices in New South Wales. Since it would have been somewhat embarrassing for them both to have been on criminal charges that might have led to their being brought before a jury, after all persuasion had failed the Chief Justice turned to the Attorney -General and said: 'What do I do now'? The Attorney-General, so the story goes, turned to the Chief Justice and said: 'Well, if you shoot him I promise not to file a bill'. That illustrates the distinction between an indictable offence and summary proceedings. I trust the story is apocryphal but in the rough and tumble days of early New South Wales all things are possible. However, the present Bill does make specific provision in clause 9 (5) for the prosecution of proceedings for summary conviction to be taken over. That means, of course, that the law has been altered. That means that the right of a private citizen summarily to prosecute another person and to proceed to conviction, if there is a good case, is to be abrogated. For my part, I acknowledge that that is a right which could be greatly misused. But it is also a right which is of fundamental importance. I wonder whether we could not arrive at some middle ground which would preserve that right in all essential respects, save in cases that have been prosecuted in a vexatious, malicious or frivolous manner. I believe this matter needs to be looked at. I know some wounds may be felt amongst some members of this House because of a case that took place some years ago, but I do not think that case should necessarily influence the decision we should reach upon such an important question. That having been said, we therefore must acknowledge that what we are looking at is a change in the law. It is a change about which I have reservations because, whilst not in any way reflecting on whoever may hold this office or his successors in title, we all know that public servants, like all other people, are subject to the same influences, fallibilities and pressures to which other human beings are subject. Therefore, I would like that matter to be reconsidered to see whether a middle ground could be reached. I should like to touch very briefly upon some specific points which seem to me to have considerable merit. In clause 13 of this Bill specific power is vested in the Director where he is considering instituting, carrying on or otherwise discharging his functions, and he is of the opinion that a matter connected with or arising out of the offence in question requires further investigation, to obtain the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. In clause 28 there is to be found a specific power to engage outside consultants to perform services for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think that is an excellent idea for the very good reason that if this office is to be as effective as we all hope it will be, it will need to have the best possible staff. In the area of practising law it is frequently the outside practitioners who will provide the best possible staff. After all, we are dealing not with academic law. We are not talking about writing laws. We are talking about the prosecution of laws. The practitioners in the courts who earn a living from prosecuting, defending or appearing in civil cases on a day to day basis are the best qualified persons to carry out those kinds of functions-to prepare cases and to advise. In saying that I do not in any way derogate from the very considerable expertise which is to be found within the Commonwealth Crown. I think the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor's Office would be the first to acknowledge the accuracy of what I have said. The last specific provision to which I will refer is the provision to be found in clause 33 providing for an annual report. I think that is a very sound proposal because it should enable us to monitor the efficiency of the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We still have a vast distance to move to improve the adequacy of our system of law enforcement. I am glad to see that it has been acknowledged that the actions of the previous Government-I refer in particular to the appointment of a Special Prosecutor-constitute one of the improvements we need in this country. No dramatic changes can be made which will bring us into any kind of a brave new world. In the nature of things, improvements in the law are usually of an incremental nature. One moves ahead bit by bit. Certainly, I think that is true in the case of the prosecution of criminal cases. As I have said, the Opposition supports this Bill. Whilst I had reservations about the previous legislation on companies and securities, save for the very important question of the position of the private individual who seeks to prosecute a case which is triable summarily and who may have that taken away from him for reasons which cannot be sustained, I think the Bill is a commendable attempt to improve the operation of the Federal and criminal laws. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(12.24) —I will certainly keep my comments brief because I think there is a chance that this part of today's business may be concluded before the suspension of the sitting for lunch. On that basis I will try to keep my comments as brief and as succinct as possible. I would like to say at the outset that I had some experience, albeit limited, in drawing up the Victorian Labor Party policy relating to the then proposed establishment of a Director of Public Prosecutions in that jurisdiction. Perhaps I should just outline some of the aspects and, I think, some of the more successful results of that legislation as one reason why this Parliament ought to endorse fully like proposals at a Federal level. One of the reasons given for the Victorian legislation was the inadequate staff levels and facilities that were found in the Victorian Crown Solicitor's Office and the consequent difficulty it had coping with the volume and complexity of the various matters brought before it. Certainly that problem is mirrored in the Commonwealth position, as adequately outlined in a number of reports that have been presented to the Government. It was felt at the Victorian level that the model of the DPP, based to a significant extent on the situation applying in the United Kingdom, ought to have been embraced. That did happen, albeit with some differences that were established to adapt the model to the Victorian context. The principal reason for the desire to establish the DPP was a feeling that one ought to distance the State Attorney-General from politically sensitive prosecutions such as those that might arise from royal commissions, et cetera. The Victorian legislation provided for the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions, whose functions are to prepare, institute and conduct criminal proceedings in the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court and the County Court. The DPP was able to co-ordinate general prosecution policy and procedures by issuing guidelines to crown prosecutors, police and others. The Attorney- General in Victoria still retains the power to decline to proceed in a case commenced by the DPP. This power-a very old one-is inherent in the office of the Attorney-General and is expressly preserved in the Victorian legislation. Of course, traditionally it has been sparingly used, and that ought to remain the case with respect to similar provisions in the Federal legislation. In Victoria, the DPP under John Phillips QC has been able to reduce the backlog of cases awaiting trial from 900, when he was appointed, to a figure currently between 620 and 720. Further reductions are likely to occur next year. Of course , the mere fact of setting up a DPP is not of itself sufficient. One needs to address the other factors impinging on the sorts of court delays that have been a significant feature of our legal system in recent years. They relate to the necessity for increased allocation of funding. That has been addressed in Victoria, with a fairly significant increase in the Budget allocation this year. The present staffing level in Victoria-I think it is worth pointing out that it is not a bureaucratic nightmare-is in the vicinity of 100. When one takes account of the significant savings in manpower resources in the police force, et cetera, it is a fairly efficiently run organisation, although it is only yet in its infancy. The reduction in court backlogs is part of the overall strategy that was addressed in addition by the appointment of extra County Court and Supreme Court judges. I make those latter comments because I think it is important that the DPP of itself is not seen to be a panacea. The relationship between the DPP and some of the other pioneering legislation that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has brought before this Parliament, such as the National Crimes Commission Bill, again cannot be seen in a vacuum. One has to integrate the concept with a whole series of other reforms. An editorial in the Canberra Times on 18 April 1983 set out the current position with respect to the Commonwealth. I shall not quote that editorial but it did indicate that prosecutions were dealt with by officers of the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office, and often they were briefed out to private practitioners. The present system resulted from reforms by the then Attorney-General, Senator, now Mr Justice Murphy, who in 1973 took over the conduct of prosecutions from the police prosecutors. In the exercise of that function prosecutors, whether government lawyers or policemen, were expected to apply an almost judicial detachment from the outcome of a particular case, their function being not so much to win as to ensure that all the facts were put before the court. They have performed reasonably well in this role, within the limitations of the powers under which they act. They were not allowed to take into account outside considerations in the conduct of their cases. They were fairly significantly constrained in a number of aspects in the conduct of legal proceedings. The real difficulty that was adverted to in that editorial was that they were public servants. Of course, public servants are usually impartial and independent, but there is always the possibility that they may be subject to ministerial direction or other political interference. When one is talking about the judicial process, that is something that ought not to be countenanced. The editorial adverted to the 'rumour mill' in Canberra-I think that was the term used-whereby if anyone was perceived to have received, or there was a possibility of somebody having received, favourable treatment through the judicial process, it made it very difficult to refute the implication that some political pressure had been brought to bear. Once again that is a position that ought not to be countenanced. The fact that the Department has maintained its normal bureaucratic involvement again is something that has been addressed in terms of the DPP. Of course, the Attorney-General cannot and certainly should not, in our Westminster system, abdicate his role in all cases in terms of his ability, for example to enter a nolle prosequi or whatever. The Attorney-General, as the First Law Officer, has always borne the ultimate responsibility for prosecution decisions. The legislation should not and does not change that position, although under these proposals reasons must be published where the Attorney-General removes himself from the general tenor of the legislation and involves himself in that way. It would be very unusual indeed for the Attorney-General, under this legislation, to give a direction in a particular case. However, the possibility must be borne in mind because the Attorney-General must discharge his ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to the people for the conduct of the prosecution process. The other aspects of the Bill have been adverted to in some detail by previous speakers, so I shall not waste the time of the House repeating some of the more mechanical matters. Suffice it to say that the problems that have been evidenced in terms of the involvement or potential involvement of the political process in decisions as to whether particular matters ought to proceed or ought not to proceed are self-evident. I think the people are looking for a detachment of the political process, particularly having regard to a number of royal commissions and other relatively recent developments in the law that really bring to the fore the possibility of political involvement in these matters. Certainly, for my part, I would not like to be in a position as a politician where it could be perceived that I had a role in influencing decisions as to whether particular matters ought to be proceeded with. A couple of matters are currently before the Victorian Government which really bring into very sharp focus indeed the need to detach oneself from that process. One need only comment that recent proceedings relating to the Builders Labourers Federation have caused some controversy in Victoria. Certainly there are many people in the trade union movement who doubt the genuineness of the setting up of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation and who believe very strongly that the Royal Commission was established and continues as a political weapon. Of course, now that there has been a change of government that argument, while not one that I would embrace, is one that finds many receptive ears. It is most essential in the Victorian context that the Attorney-General not be seen to be involved directly in decisions relating to potential prosecutions. The detachment that the DPP in Victoria provides is a classic example of preventing the sort of innuendo and rumour-mongering that may have taken place, regardless of which way the Victorian Attorney-General might have gone in terms of the recommendations put forward by the Royal Commissioner. I will not take up any more time. As I said, I think the matters have been adverted to in some detail. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(12.37) —Because of the obvious constraints of time, I will reduce my remarks to a few points. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has outlined very well the history of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. If one looks at that history, one sees that the reasons, traditionally, for establishing the Office in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have really been twofold: Firstly, as a matter of efficiency, in endeavouring to provide an efficient system of prosecutions; and, secondly, to try to remove the system of prosecuting from the political processes. The matter that concerns me about the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill is that I do not believe it adequately removes the system of prosecutions from the political processes of this country. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be very much subject to the directions of the Attorney-General. I take the point that it is a matter of degree and the Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Crown, must bear ultimate responsibility for prosecutions. So a delicate decision must be made to determine how far one should go. But I do not believe that the Director under this legislation will be as independent as he might be. I do not believe he will be as independent as is the Director in Victoria-that has been made very clear in the experiences under the Victorian legislation-nor do I believe he will be as independent as is the Director in the United Kingdom. I recognise that regulations have been made in the United Kingdom which make the Director subject to the directions of the Attorney-General. But in practice the Director in the United Kingdom says that the decisions he makes are his own. Conventions have developed since the office was first established in 1879 by the Disraeli Government. Clause 7 of the Bill provides for consultation. The Director is required to consult with the Attorney-General, if he is requested to do so by the Attorney. Under clause 8 the Director is subject to the directions of the Attorney-General in the performance of his functions and in the exercise of his powers. But clause 20, which is titled 'Leave of absence', states: The Attorney-General may grant to the Director leave of absence . . . on such terms and conditions . . . as the Attorney-General determines. Again, this tends to limit the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Clause 22 provides another limitation on his independence. It states: The Director shall not- (a) engage in practice as a legal practitioner outside the duties of his office ; or (b) without the consent of the Attorney-General, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office. This clause places the Director very much at the direction of the Attorney- General. Clause 23 (1) gives provisions relating to the termination of his appointment. It states: The Governor-General-- in effect, that is the Government- may terminate the appointment of the Director for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. I recognise the fact that 'misbehaviour' is a term that is used in legislation creating many appointments of this kind. But I question whether it is appropriate to use that phrase in this particular Bill. What is misbehaviour? It is not defined in the Bill. Of course, there are decisions of the courts which give us some idea of what that phrase means. But it is not a precise term. It may be that it provides an opportunity for an Attorney-General to interfere in the conduct of the affairs of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Attorney-General is not happy with the way the Director of Public Prosecutions is behaving, he might take action to remove him at some future time for what he sees subjectively as misbehaviour. I believe that that sort of terminology is not appropriate in a Bill of this kind. That is my main reservation about the Bill. I had intended to talk about some related matters, particularly the question of legal aid as it relates to the administration of prosecutions in this country. I believe that legal aid is having an adverse effect. Although it appears to create a more just system for some individuals, it also creates a more unjust system for other individuals. For example, a lawyer might take every possible point of law in a prosecution because he knows his bill will be paid because his client is legally aided. At the same time, some poor fellow may be in gaol on remand awaiting trial. Maybe he has a job, a house and some savings so he cannot get legal aid. But he may sit in gaol for a month or so waiting for his trial to proceed while a smart lawyer takes every possible point of law in the book, simply because his client is legally aided. I think the impact of that kind of system needs to be reviewed and carefully considered. Time is of the essence so I will not proceed any further. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.43) —in reply-I thank honourable members. Only two minutes remain in which the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill can proceed through all its stages, so I will make a quick reply. I understand what the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) has said. I draw his attention to the fact that the British Director of Public Prosecutions is subject to direction by the Attorney-General. It is thought in this case that there is adequate provision in clause 8 of the Bill in that directions by the Attorney-General will be published and will also be laid before the Parliament. So I guarantee that the Attorney-General will be accountable. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) raised the question of the ability of the Director to take over a private prosecution. I am advised that a similar power is contained in the English legislation. It is exercised very rarely. Clause 14 provides that the power must be exercised in a public fashion. I am reminded that it has been exercised only once in England in a case in which a witness was indemnified by the Crown. But the defendant in the case brought a prosecution against a witness and the Director of Public Prosecutions took over the case and terminated it. I can understand why. I thank honourable members for their assistance. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.44) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, lines 18 and 19, omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of law of the Commonwealth, substitute the following paragraphs: '(a) the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978; (b) the Norfolk Island Act 1979; or (c) a law made under, or continued in force by, an Act referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);'. The purpose of the amendment is to exclude laws of Norfolk Island from the definition of the law of the Commonwealth in clause 3 of the Bill, thus ensuring that the Administration of the Territory will retain its existing responsibility for prosecution of offences under the local criminal law of Norfolk Island. The result would be that the Administrator of that island would present indictments for Territory offences and the Director of Public Prosecutions would present indictments for Commonwealth offences. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Attorney-General's intention to introduce legislation to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act in order to enable crucial evidence to be forwarded to the New South Wales Government Special Commission of Inquiry and remind him that the Special Minister of State and, indeed, by implication, the Prime Minister-not quite as explicitly as the Special Minister of State-have indicated in the House the desirability for such amendments. Why is the Government now not prepared to introduce the amendment? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government is quite prepared to introduce the amendment. What might be concerning the Opposition are the Press reports that there has been some discussion about the extent to which the amendment would allow access to all incidental telephone conversations being admitted in any other jurisdiction. The question of privacy is involved. It has been suggested that there ought to be a better balance. In other words, I think anybody in the House would agree that whilst members of the Australian Federal Police have a warrant for a specific purpose to intercept a telephone conversation, if, during the course of that conversation, they then decide to listen to a lot of other extraneous material, it would then become a question of judgment as to whether the warrant entitles that material then to be introduced into any other jurisdiction. Mr Cadman —Why should the Caucus decide that issue? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As a matter of interest the Caucus happens to comprise people elected to this Parliament, not people outside it. We happen to be a democratic Party. Everybody is entitled to make representations. I assure the honourable gentleman that there is no problem about the nub of what he is saying. Where a warrant is issued for a specific purpose it is felt, in a reasonable fashion, that its use ought to be related to that purpose. If, in the course of the use of the warrant, every conversation, every name or accusation is then on tape and can be admitted or produced anywhere else, that is outside the terms of the warrant. The Parliament only allows telephone intercepts under certain circumstances. A warrant has to be issued and the purpose has to be nominated. If, in the process of the intercept, a whole lot of other material comes within the knowledge of the police authorities, then it is a matter of judgment as to what one would allow to be admitted to some other group, tribunal or whatever. In this case it is a matter of practice that the Federal Police make available to their State counterparts information that they have. But the question in this case is what sort of material can be put before a commission, an inquiry, or what have you, and sought by another instrumentality such as a State. Should the material be confined to material directly related to the purposes of the warrant , or should it be all embracing and include any material which could affect anybody's private rights and his or her rights to privacy? That is the reason we asked for this legislation to be looked at again. Anything on tape, whether or not it is relevant, or whether it is related to that matter or any other matter, could just be introduced because of a request-- Mr Peacock —So the Attorney is redrafting the proposed amendment? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not certain whether the Attorney-General is redrafting it but he was asked to look at it in terms of whether it was too wide. Mr Peacock —I assume that there must be an intention to do something about it after looking at it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is no problem about it. The matter is coming back for discussion at the Party meeting, probably next week. Mr BEDDALL —Can the Minister for Health inform the House whether the recent statements by the Premier of Queensland and the Queensland Minister for Health concerning Queensland's share of Medicare funding are a true and accurate reflection of what Queensland will receive under Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —Those rumblings by the Premier of Queensland and his turncoat Minister for Health have been brought to my notice. The most interesting fact about them all is that they never once refer to the interests of Queenslanders. They are simply about the concerns of the Queensland Government. Let us put the record straight about the benefits of Medicare to Queenslanders. Queenslanders will contribute $212m to the Medicare program in terms of the levy, in terms of money forgone through the taxation health rebate and, through their contribution , the reduced reinsurance pool. Under Medicare they will get back $220m in extra benefits relating both to their hospital system and to their medical system. Let us just-- Mr Lusher —Which State is the loser? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the interjection, all States gain marginally under Medicare. Let us look at the benefits to Queenslanders. First of all, at the moment, only about 42 per cent of Queenslanders are covered by medical insurance . Under Medicare all will have that cover and all will be able to go to doctors and specialists of their own choice outside hospitals rather than having to wait and queue for the present outpatient services in Queensland public hospitals. Secondly, let us look at the benefits to the Queensland public hospital system. In the first full year of Medicare the Queensland hospital system will get $80m more than it would have got if the Fraser system had continued. Of that, $35m is a special grant to Queensland which no other State receives. I am not concerned at all, therefore, about the noises that the Queensland Premier is making about taking this matter to the High Court of Australia. The only thing that that will do is cost Queensland taxpayers more money. Yet the Queensland Premier claims to be concerned for the taxpayers. There is no doubt that the Court would in no way contemplate overturning so generous an arrangement for the State of Queensland. But there is something that does concern me about the remarks made by the Queensland Premier. The Queensland Premier is getting some $80m more for Queensland's hospital system, yet the Queensland Premier talks about the possibility of cutting health services. Let me make it quite clear that we will protect the interests of the Queensland population against that kind of cheap politicking. If need be we will make those grants specific purpose grants to see that they are spent on the health needs of the people of Queensland. Mr SHIPTON —Is the Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that an Italian film unit, Rai- Radio Television, engaged in making a documentary film on Australia for the world market, is now at Ayers Rock unable to film Australia's most notable landmark because permission has not been received from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, notwithstanding an application to do so on 17 November? Is the Minister aware that recently Paul Hogan and an Australian Tourist Commission film crew were unable to get a permit from the National Parks and Wildlife Service to film Ayers Rock until the intervention of the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism? Does a directive from the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service prohibit the taking of photographs by overseas and Australian tourists at Ayers Rock? Will the Minister give details of this hitherto secret and cumbersome permit system requiring permission for photographs to be taken of the Rock? Assuming the immense administrative difficulties in getting such permits, does the Minister believe this to be conducive to the development of tourism? Mr COHEN —I am not aware of the Italian film crew that the honourable member mentioned. There was a problem some months ago when a film crew that requested permission had not bothered to go through the appropriate channels. It is courteous to seek the permission of the Aborigines for filming-that practice has gone on for some time-by approaching the National Parks and Wildlife Service for permission to film because there are certain sacred sites and certain ceremonies and so on that are vital to the Aborigines. I received a panic-stricken call from a film crew asking whether I could facilitate the matter. Through a series of telexes and vocadexes it was done in about an hour and a half and the filming went on. Mr Steele Hall —What about a private photographer? Mr COHEN —Of course there is no problem with any private photographer, but with a film crew it is quite a different proposition. Mr Anthony —Why? Mr COHEN —Because they are often involved in filming sacred sites and often go up on to the Rock. Usually it is a much larger crew and a commercial operation. I think we all know quite well that the thousands of visitors to Ayers Rock take photographs and there is never any suggestion that they should not do. The situation, as I have explained, is that if any film crew wishes to conduct a major operation in that area it should approach the National Parks and Wildlife Service. As far as I know permission has never been refused. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon the Hon. Halulu Mai, MP, Minister for Conservation and Environment in the Government of Papua New Guinea, and the Hon. N. Makibu, a member of the national Parliament of Papua New Guinea. On behalf of the House I extend to the visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CAMPBELL —Is the Minister for Defence aware that a prototype boat designated the P150 is being demonstrated to countries in the South Pacific as a contender for the patrol boat program for these nations, as announced by the Government? Does this promotional tour, organised by Mr Kailis from Perth, have any Government support? Is it true that after careful consideration the specifications for these boats were for steel hulled vessels? Does this mean that Mr Kailis's P150 is not eligible on the ground that it is made of fibreglass or does the Government intend to vary the terms of this contract? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware of the tour of the Pacific by the P150. It is engaged in commercial activity designed to market the vessel in that area. I have, incidentally, visited the ship builders at the request of the local member, the Minister for Finance. The specifications for the Pacific patrol boat required that the boat be simple to maintain so that recipient countries may undertake the necessary maintenance work. These specifications were drawn up in consultation with Pacific nations which have indicated an interest. There is, of course, no limit on the number of companies which may seek to obtain these contracts. In fact, some 25 or 26 companies have indicated interest, and competitive tendering is currently under way. With regard to whether the P150 is eligible for consideration, it would be necessary, with a hull other than a steel hull, for it to be demonstrated that the technology required for maintenance is readily available in those areas where the vessels will be expected to operate and that a change in the structure of the vessel would not disadvantage the recipient nations. It is our intention under this program, in co-operation with those nations which expressed an interest, to ensure that the vessel which is chosen will be acceptable to the recipients who will own and operate it. Mr MacKELLAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I refer him to newspaper reports of interviews that he gave following his recent return from a trip to South East Asia. The Minister is reported as saying: There won't be any solution unless some arrangement is put in place which ensures that Pol Pot and his henchmen are disarmed. The Minister was talking about the Vietnamese withdrawal from Kampuchea. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is it his view that this disarmament is a necessary precondition before Vietnam will remove its forces from Kampuchea? Secondly, what are the arrangements which must be put in place before Vietnam will remove its forces from Laos? Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! A good question. Mr HAYDEN —I do not think it is so good. First of all, there are no problems about the Vietnamese troops being in Laos. There is no dispute that I am aware of in any part of the region in connection with that. Mr Anthony —No problems? Mr HAYDEN —They are there by invitation of the Government of Laos. The honourable member is introducing a new dimension. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —I am sorry, I was distracted looking at the people opposite me. The troops are there by invitation of the Government of Laos. That is accepted by the governments of the region. If it is the policy of members of the Opposition to initiate this novelty that the Opposition in government, in the future, alone in the region, intends to confront the Government of Laos. That is their right. All they have to do is declare it publicly in detail and then to undertake the exercise of obtaining support. We leave them to have a monopoly on that little fiction. In relation to the matter of the disarmament of the Pol Pot forces, I said that Pol Pot and his henchmen would have to be disarmed and there would have to be guarantees that they could not make an incursion into Kampuchea before there is any chance of the Vietnamese forces withdrawing. I should have thought that that is common sense. That view is shared by our Association of South East Asian Nation partners. It is a precondition, certainly, but it is not the exclusive precondition for a settlement of the situation in Kampuchea. If the honourable member wants to rewrite history or the principles of the situation there, that is his entitlement. I think it will go to the humour pages of the Bulletin rather than the serious pages. Mr GRIFFITHS —Has the Treasurer noted the substantial decline in interest rates confirmed by yesterday's bond tender and the record level of the all ordinaries index reached yesterday on the Australian share market? Will the Treasurer inform the House of the underlying reasons for these obviously important developments? Mr KEATING —The Government is very pleased with the trend in interest rates which we saw in yesterday's bond tender flowing from the operation of the Government's bond selling program and also, particularly, the reaction of the stock exchanges and the record set yesterday in the stock exchange. Again it says a lot about the doom-saying of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who preach doom and gloom right at the very time the stock exchange is booming and interest rates are falling. Yields from yesterday's bond tender range from 11.4 per cent for the short stock to 1987 stock and 13.3 per cent for the long stock. These were the lowest yields since the beginning of the bond tender system. Indeed a drop of 3.4 per cent has been achieved at the short end since the beginning of the financial year, 1 July. A drop of 2.5 per cent on the long end also was achieved since 1 July. This trend in interest rates has been confirmed in a number of tenders which the Government finds very attractive. The all ordinaries index peaked yesterday at 749.5, a record which was set in November 1980. Again, it indicates that the basic reason is consumer and investor confidence in the Government's economic policies and prospects for the economy. In a survey conducted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research a couple of days ago we saw that consumer confidence was also high, and rising. Need I say that in our recent bond raisings abroad that local confidence of investors and consumers is also being reflected in international markets by international investors. In fact there is a very firm basis for both trends. The fact is that the Government has stopped the freefall of the economy which was occurring under the previous Government's policies, and inflation is winding down at the same time. Honourable members will recall the 1.6 per cent increase in the September quarter, which was the lowest quarterly increase for five years and is on track with the Government's inflation forecast through the year for the consumer price index of 5 1/2 per cent on June. It is essential that that inflation fall be there in respect of interest rates. This has certainly helped the downward trend in interest rates and, in turn, that is helping recovery in terms particularly of building. We have seen a decline in housing interest rates effect a pick-up in building approvals. The increased profitability of companies this year will be occasioned by their better performance, and that will be reflected in share prices. I believe that, essentially, the confidence financial markets have in the Government's policies, in its bond selling program and its general economic policy, and particularly the confidence of investors in profitability and the future of the economy, is reflected in stock exchanges and, together with the interest rate downturn, is a resounding vote of confidence in the Government's policies all round. Mr BURR —I refer the Treasurer to the Government's announced intention to allocate $1.25m to promote the Yes case at the forthcoming referenda. Will the Government allocate a matching amount to promote the No case or, alternatively, will the Government split the announced allocation of $1.25m to be used equally to promote the Yes and the No cases? Mr BEAZLEY —On recollection, I think the honourable gentleman's figures are roughly correct in connection with the funds available to promote the Yes case. I will check that out and make absolutely certain that those funds will be spent on promoting it. It is not the Government's intention to provide an equal amount for the promotion of the No case in this referendum campaign. We will not be giving further consideration to that matter. The referendum campaign enjoys very wide support in this House on a bipartisan basis. The decisions will stand to benefit the Australian community considerably in reduction of the cost of election campaigns by reducing that element of instability which has come to exist in our political system. They are very desirable for the general public. It is necessary that the general public has the information placed before it, and that will require a campaign. If the honourable member looks at the normal costs of election campaigns, the amounts that are being suggested to be spent on the Yes case in this referendum campaign are very modest indeed and will provide a minimal capacity to get across that point of view. In the main, the success of the campaign will rise and fall on honourable members' willingness to campaign for it from both sides of the House. I can assure the honourable gentleman that from my own point of view and from the point of view of the Government there will be an extensive campaign. We have been encouraged by statements to that effect from his own Party leaders. The campaign, as far as it impacts upon the public purse, is minimal. There will be no further impact on it by provision of an equal amount for the No case, which is so badly supported in this place. Mr SCOTT —Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advise the House whether the Yulara tourist development has suffered any financial difficulties as a consequence of the proposed transfer of title to Uluru National Park to the Aboriginal people, as was predicted by the Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, earlier this month? Mr HOLDING —Honourable members will be aware that Mr Everingham suggested, only a matter of days after the Government had announced its intention to transfer Uluru back to the Aboriginal people, that the whole financial basis of Yulara was threatened as a result of that government action. Honourable members will recall that Mr Everingham, in support of that proposition, produced a telex from an officer in Citibank in Brisbane suggesting that there would be some difficulties in concluding the necessary financial arrangements involved in the $70m loan. Honourable members will also recall that the Prime Minister was able to expose that particular piece of correspondence for what it was by producing a statement from the Chairman of Citicorp Australia Ltd, Mr Richard Jackson, in which he reassured the people of the Northern Territory and Mr Everingham that there would be no change in the underlying security arrangements relating to the proposed facility at Yulara. I am now happy to advise honourable members that the Yulara development company concluded its financing agreement involving the $70m loan with major international institutions, including Citicorp, in Hong Kong on 24 November, as scheduled. In other words, there has been absolutely no change to the development proposals or to any financial arrangements supporting the Yulara project as a consequence of the proposed transfer of title to the Aboriginal people. The satisfactory conclusion of those arrangements exposes the statements of Mr Everingham for the cheap, mendacious political exercise that they were, and which unfortunately received some support in this House. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. The Treasurer may recall that, despite the artificiality of the Budget's consumer price index forecast for 1983-84 due to the effect of Medicare, the Treasurer refused to allow any other measure of the underlying rate of inflation to be included in the Budget, such as the non-farm gross domestic product implicit price deflator which had always been included on earlier occasions. I ask the Treasurer whether the implicit price deflator in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's suppressed September update of the scenario from the National Economic Summit Conference is the same figure that was suppressed by him from the Budget? Does the Treasurer agree with the Prime Minister and Cabinet projection for 1983-84- which incidentally he says is generally wrong, although it appears to be based on his own Budget figuring-that the non-farm GDP implicit price deflator of 8 per cent is correct? Mr KEATING —I have on a number of occasions indicated that as part of the Government's strategy for 1983-84 it was very important to have the Medicare effects operating on the consumer price index. Indeed, that has been part of the strategy of the accord with the trade union movement. In respect of the broader deflators, I have said on a number of occasions both inside and outside the House that something of the order of the figure the honourable gentleman mentioned is appropriate for 1983-84. Mr Howard —Why did you suppress it? Mr KEATING —I did not suppress it at all. I said it on a number of occasions. Mr WELLS —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs report what progress has been made towards economic and political co-operation and integration among the nations of such regional organisations as the European Economic Community and the Association of South East Asian Nations? Can he inform the House of the impact of these developments on the South Pacific area, particularly as they bear on the need for developments of a similar kind between Australia and New Zealand? Mr Lusher —About 24 hours notice, Bill. Mr HAYDEN —I certainly did not help formulate the question, but I may need 24 hours to deliberate fully on it because it raises a vast range of quite profound implications. The political and economic implications of the European Common Market, for instance, are quite extensive in their ramifications. I will summarily say that the economic implications are apparent. They create disadvantages for this country and it is my conclusion that they are creating serious economic distortions within the European Community with consequences which will show up in the medium to longer term as a result of the severe distortion of the use of economic resources. That matter is already being addressed by the European Community, albeit somewhat tardily as far as we are concerned. I feel that there is fairly much a bipartisan attitude of concern about those sorts of policies. That, in turn, leads to the political implications of the Community because as I understand it the commissioners of the European Community would wish to move faster than developments are moving at present. The obstructions in the Community's way arise very much from the nation state members of the European Community who have been pursuing particular self- interests or national interests which are at divergence with the objectives which are being enunciated by some of the commissioners. Let me stop at the European Community because I really think that to go further would take too much time. ASEAN at this point is an association reflecting very much shared political concerns and shared commercial concerns but it is certainly vastly different from the Community in economic aspect. It is certainly not a Customs union, for instance, and is a long way from achieving that end. For all that, from our point of view it is a very important development. There are many reasons why we find it important but there is the very important reason that countries are sharing common concerns and resolving them through consultation. One of the most important aspects of that is that there are no disputes over borders, waterways or sea lanes, for instance. That is very important for stability in our region. Finally, what lessons are there in this for any potential relationship between Australia and New Zealand? I note that the Leader of the Opposition is already smiling in anticipation. I suspect that he hopes that I will jump into a bear pit and impale myself. Let me tell him that I did that in 1974 when I visited New Zealand. I rather recklessly suggested that if it was the wish of New Zealanders to join Australia as an extension of the Commonwealth they would be very welcome. I left New Zealand served up on a platter, as it were, because New Zealanders have very strong views about their role. They would be prepared to accept Australia as an extension of New Zealand, but New Zealand as an extension of Australia is unmentionable, and if mentioned, unforgiveable. So I do not intend to go through that again. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Treasurer agree with the suppressed Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet updates of the favoured National Economic Summit Conference scenarios that the underlying rate of inflation as measured by the non-farm gross domestic product implicit price deflator for 1984-85 and 1985-86 will be significantly higher in all cases than in Summit scenario A? Does this difference in 1985-86 between scenario A's 6.9 per cent, projection one's 8.5 per cent and projection two's 12.6 per cent represent the inevitable consequences of the Government's wages policy which is squandering the benefits now being received from the previous Government's wages pause? As these projections show the disastrous employment consequences of changing, in the Treasurer's own words, 'such a key economic parameter as inflation', does the Treasurer agree with these worsening inflation assumptions which provide the basic cause for the gloomy employment outlook in the projections? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition asserts yet again the suppression by the Government of projection one. Mr Howard —They were suppressed. Mr KEATING —The projections were not suppressed by the Government. Mr Howard —You lied about it. Mr KEATING —The minutes quoted yesterday revealed the honourable member to be the liar, so let us make that clear. Let me just make the point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the previous question asked by him said that I had also suppressed the non-farm GDP deflator figure. I have with me a copy of my own Press statement of 30 August 1983, an extract from an address by me to the Institute of Directors just a couple of days after the Budget. It says: For example, the forecast year-on-year increase in the non-farm GDP deflator for 1983-84 is around 8 per cent. So I suggest that honourable members opposite read that document. We have had two charges of suppression. The first charge is that we suppressed the projection, which is untrue. The second charge is that we have suppressed the non-farm GDP deflator figure, which is again demonstrably untrue. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is the kind of question that would more appropriately be put on notice but let me just make this point: Projection one is, in its general effects, worse than projection A or scenario A presented to the Summit for the very simple reason, as I indicated yesterday, that scenario A was based on the December 1982 national accounts when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in charge and projection one was based on the June 1983 accounts. The economy deteriorated in the course of 1982-83 as a result of the policies of the former Government and projection one showed up that deterioration. All of those projections-projections A, B and C at the Summit and the projections since , including the wage breakout projection of projection 2 and projection 3 which has been offered to the Economic Planning Advisory Council-reveal, as they did at the Summit, that with higher wage effects there will be a diminution of growth, higher inflation and of course, a longer return in wiping out unemployment. They all reveal that, but I will take the implications of the honourable gentleman's question on board and furnish him with a reply. Mrs CHILD —Can the Minister for Health explain to the House what the Government is planning to assist chronic diabetics? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the issue referred to by the honourable member for Henty; that is, the pledge of the Australian Labor Party Opposition to extend pharmaceutical benefits to people with diabetes. As she will also recall, at election time we decided we would need to broaden that commitment because there was a range of chronic complaints with heavy medication costs. People were seriously disadvantaged by this and at election time we pledged a pharmaceutical scheme which would take account of this. However, on coming to power we discovered, as in so many areas of the health field, that the whole pharmaceutical area was a mess. We had inherited a mess, first of all in relation to the pricing policies in the pharmaceutical area which have been a continuing problem and cause of controversy. Secondly, we inherited a complicated three-tiered system of payments and free services in the pharmaceutical area. It was quite clear that this Government had to do something about the whole pharmaceutical area. All that the previous Government had done in seven years with all of those problems was to raise the patient contribution once a year, virtually every year. We faced these problems and it was decided that instead of dealing with the specific problem mentioned by the honourable member for Henty we had to come up with proposals for the whole pharmaceutical industry. We have had very detailed negotiations with the pharmaceutical manufacturers. They have submitted detailed submissions about the reforms and changes in the pricing system. A commentary on the pricing policy is also coming in from the Pharmacy Guild. We have also had detailed discussions on providing medication for the chronically ill. In the autumn session I hope to make a full statement of this Government's plans in the pharmaceutical area. Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Treasurer anticipate that the money supply target of between 9 per cent and 11 per cent for 1983-84 will still be met, in light of the latest official M3 figures for the 12 months to October which, he will recall, show a rise of 13.1 per cent? He will recall that in the 12-month period to last February, the last 12 months under the previous Government, the M3 figure was within the target range established in the preceeding Budget. Has his Government been deliberately running a loose money supply policy well outside its targets in an attempt to influence interest rates while at the same time meeting its huge public sector borrowing requirement? Is there any occasion on which a blowout of this magnitude in the 12 months to October has been followed by the money supply target being met in the year to June? Mr KEATING —That is a question from one of the great overshooters in monetary targets, a member of a government which rarely, if ever, met its monetary targets. I find it very strange that such a question should come from the other side of the House when the Government has made it so clear, in the sheer size and frequency of the bond tenders, that it is determined to reach its monetary target. I just make this point: Already the Government has raised about $6.1 billion in treasury bonds. Mr Sinclair —Thirteen point one per cent. Mr KEATING —Just wait for it. And about $1.6 billion in Australian savings bonds . The 9 per cent to 11 per cent target range would already have been met but for the capital inflow problem which we faced. I observe and I assert that the Government believes it will reach its monetary target. After all, we have until 30 June. In the four months to October the rate of growth in monetary aggregates of M3 was about 3.6 per cent, or 10.8 per cent annually. The range, of course, is 9 per cent to 11 per cent. On that basis, and extrapolating across the year, that figure could be met. I simply observe that one of the problems with the 13 per cent figure at the moment is that it has a lot of history from the period of the former Government. Indeed, the period of greatest- Mr Howard —It was 10.6 when you came to government. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, do we get any protection from the brain damaged Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Treasurer to take his seat for the moment. Honourable members on my left, because of their positions, are given a degree of tolerance. I think they are reaching the limit of that tolerance, and I will have to take action. I call the Treasurer. Mr Peacock —We have been very severely provoked by the Treasurer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not help by answering back under such circumstances. I can only believe that he wants to follow the example of his illustrious predecessor. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The 'twelve months to' figure of 13 per cent includes all of the last 12 months. The period of greatest monetary growth was in March of this year -about 3.6 per cent, from memory-at a time when no bond tenders were let because the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition thought that a jump in interest rates would react poorly against him in the course of the election campaign. The ballooning in monetary growth in March and April and the capital inflow we received after that time have blown the 13 per cent figure upwards. As time moves on and we get nearer to the end of the financial year, and as we get beyond March 1983 and drop off the figure for the 12 months from March 1982, that figure will start to get nearer to the Government's range of 9 per cent to 11 per cent. Given the fact that in the four months to October the annualised rate is about 10.8 per cent, the Government has every confidence that we will reach our monetary target. We said in the Budget that we would be reviewing the monetary target in the course of the year. That is a review of both prices and output. In the formation of the monetary target we are working on a nominal output of 14 per cent which, on the broader deflater, is again 8 per cent for prices and 6 per cent for growth. The figure for growth may be a little higher because of the pick up in the farm sector. We will also make some attempt to consider the velocity question. At the moment we are looking at a velocity of 4 per cent, which brings us back to the mid-range figure of about 9 per cent to 11 per cent. If the Opposition really wants to understand how a monetary target is put together, we have made compensations in that velocity figure for the structural changes which have taken place in savings banks deposits and the effect that those changes have had upon M3. We have every expectation that the Government's monetary target can be and will be met as it is running at about 10.8 per cent. When we drop off the period of laxity of the former Treasurer, we will come back within range by 30 June. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in reference to the Treasurer's answer. I wonder whether we can have an interpreter service in future when he speaks. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade aware of today's newspaper reports in which Mr Arthur Dunkel, Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, is reported as having rejected present Australian trade policies and claiming that Australia is 'labouring under one of the highest tariffs in the world' and that unilateral reductions- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Burke will come to his question. Dr THEOPHANOUS —That unilateral reductions in tariff protection will necessarily speed up domestic economic recovery? What is the Government's response to Mr Dunkel's intervention? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for the question. I must apologise to Mr Dunkel for not being able to see him today because of legislation in the House. I would be anxious to discuss with him the merits of GATT's so-called allegiance to tariffs as against the enormous protective devices which have now developed in the world. I do not think he would have any real answer. As an Australian, I want to go on record as saying that we are not the most protected country in the world. We fare very well indeed. We are probably in the 'least protected' category, even though we adopt tariffs as a method of protection. That was the GATT mechanism of protection in 1947. I think it went out of practice in 1948. As soon as it was brought in as a transparent method of protection, everybody decided to go to something not quite so transparent, namely, non-tariff mechanisms. We have discussed this at length. I invite Mr Dunkel to address his mind to a couple of matters such as the agricultural subsidies of the European Economic Community and the voluntary restraint programs between the EEC and others and between the United States and Japan. He should also consider the licensing system. I have in front of me a cable from an exporter who is unable to export certain products to the EEC because it has given them a classification which nobody else in the world would give them. I would be very anxious for Australian coal to be allowed into the EEC. It is not so allowed. I said the other day that trade should be free and fair. It is neither, and it will not be because of what are called political considerations. There is no doubt that the nation states of the EEC are very anxious to maintain the votes of the farmers and, therefore, heavily subsidise their agricultural products. By the same token, the West German Government is anxious to maintain its majority by getting the votes of the miners. Accordingly , it has to pay over $100 a tonne for coal whereas we could supply it for about one-third of that price. In Japan we have enormous problems in getting access, particularly for fruit and vegetables because of alleged quarantine preservation . The point we want to emphasise is that we as Australians ought to have as much loyalty as the Japanese have to their Government. We do not have that in Australia. Mr Dunkel is fully entitled to be making observations about what he thinks are the problems of world trade. One of the most significant problems of world trade at the moment is the enormous debt of developing countries and their inability to service that debt. That, in fact, amounts to a contraction in trade . We urgently need another discussion about whether GATT is relevant. I suggest to Mr Dunkel that the matter will be irrelevant until such time as nations get together on the multilateral proposition of being able to reduce all methods of protection, tariff as well as non-tariff mechanisms. Mr LUSHER —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of his frequent assurances that as private sector activity recovers there will be an offsetting winding back of public sector activity and, particularly, of the public sector borrowing requirement, which is currently the highest for a quarter of a century, in order to prevent crowding out and the grave economic consequences warned of in Budget Statement No. 2. In view of the Treasurer's claims yesterday about the extent of private sector economic recovery so far this financial year, will the Treasurer now reveal in what areas and to what extent public sector activity will be curbed? Mr KEATING —I wonder who wrote this question for the honourable gentleman. I doubt whether he understands even one rudimentary fact, like most of his colleagues on the front bench of the Opposition. When it comes to talking about the structural Budget deficit, honourable members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition are the people who are running around suggesting that we ought to scrap the assets test, scrap the changes to superannuation, scrap the indexation of excises and do all of the very things the honourable gentleman has implied in his question. There would be no attempts to rein in the size of the structural component of the Budget deficit at a time when the economy is starting to pick up. That is the basic fiscal inconsistency in the ratbaggery which is now being trumpeted by the Leader of the Opposition as a substitute for policy. So, in terms of fiscal policy simply, this Government has made a judgment about the time when we will see a sufficient uptake of private sector investment. Our judgment is that it is not inconsistent with our monetary policy and our capacity to fund the Budget deficit in 1983-84. On that basis, as yesterday's bond tender revealed, we are seeing a fall in interest rates with the financing of a substantial public sector deficit. We will be looking with interest at the Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and the other new converts to economic rationalism on the other side of the House to see how they believe they would bring in the Budget deficit, how they would constrain the structural components of the Budget deficit and how they would run an economy in which they saw a pick -up in private sector investment, which this Government will have. When we believe it is appropriate we will pull back the size of the public sector to make sure that, indeed, we will see that pick-up in private investment. Mr Peacock —It is not appropriate. Mr KEATING —No, it is not appropriate now because in 1983-84 we have seen that we have lifted public sector activity to make up for the fall in private sector investment because of the collapse of the economy occasioned by the policies of the previous Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Special Minister of State has sought my indulgence to add to an answer given to the honourable member for Wilmot. I give that indulgence. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the course of my remarks in answer to the honourable member for Wilmot's points I should have pointed out that, in fact, one aspect of the referenda campaign which is part of our statutory obligations as a government is to produce a booklet containing both the Yes and No cases. That will be done. The estimated cost for this joint project is $4.77m, made up as follows: Postage $2.7m; a 40-page pamphlet production, about $1.7m; and miscellaneous, about $100,000. There will be some assistance in that form to the No case. What I said about the rest of the Government's campaign in that regard stands. Mr SPEAKER —The Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has also indicated that he seeks indulgence to add to an answer to a question by the honourable member for Higgins. I grant that indulgence. Mr COHEN —The honourable member for Higgins asked a question about an Italian film crew filming at Ayers Rock. Other film crews were mentioned in the question . We have to realise that in the case of these film crews we are often talking about what are major film productions. There were two examples recently. One crew wanted to land a car from a helicopter on the top of the Rock for an advertising film. That proposition was rejected. Another crew wanted us to keep all visitors away from the Rock for two days while a marathon was run up and down the Rock and filmed. When commercial crews want to make films on the Rock or in the vicinity they must make application to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That is then cleared with the Pitjantjatjara Council or the Central Land Council and the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. Once in the park the crew must inform the chief ranger who, interestingly enough, is part of the Northern Territory's Conservation Commission, and take out insurance for injuries to third parties. If an Aborigine is to be filmed or if filming is to be in a private house permission must be sought. Italian film crews are frequent visitors. This year there have been some 20 to 30 applications for film crews from different countries to make major documentaries or films on the Rock. The present crew is going through normal application procedures. The film crew mentioned by the honourable member for Higgins gave only very short notice and the Aboriginal people have not yet cleared it for filming at Ayers Rock. However, the crew has permission to film at Kakadu and it is envisaged that the crew will stop at Ayers Rock on the way back. Let me make the point that the present Government is following to the letter the procedures laid down by the previous Government. The honourable member for Darling Downs nods his head. This is exactly the procedure his Government brought in and we are following its magnificent example. Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and I thank the Minister- Mr SPEAKER —No, you raised a point of order. I want to know what the point of order is. Mr Shipton —My point of order is that the Minister has not answered my question. Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Australian Meat Research Committee. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present an agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, I present the Australian Atomic Energy Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr Hodgman —What about tabling today's Bulletin, too? Mr BARRY JONES —The pictures were quite good. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the Uranium Advisory Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Aussat Pty Ltd for 1983. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission reports on the Australian tobacco industry and canning fruit. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain sealed motor type compressors. Ministerial Statement Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —by leave-Honourable members will recall that, on 15 November 1983, I announced the Government's commitment to implement the supplementary licence scheme. Let me remind honourable members that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, providing for the introduction of supplementary broadcasting and television licences, received royal assent on 31 December 1982. The legislation is framed in such a way, however, as to require a date to be proclaimed by the Minister for Communications before supplementary licence applications can be received. The major purpose of the supplementary licence scheme is to provide a greater degree of commercial programming choice to people living in areas outside the mainland State capital cities and which could not support an additional independent commercial radio or television service without threatening the commercial viability or existing services in the area. Under the scheme, an eligible commercial licensee may apply for one supplementary broadcasting or television licence to provide an additional service in the same medium and, as far as practicable, to substantially the same area as the existing station. A supplementary licence will not be granted, however, if a thorough investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal determines that an extra independent commercial service, the first and preferred option, is both commercially viable and in the public interest. Independent Commercial Services This Government supports the fundamental proposition that people living outside the more populous capital cities ought to be able to benefit from an increasing range of commercial radio and television programming. But just as the Government is committed to the proposition that the greatest possible diversity of programming ought to be available to audiences wherever they live in Australia, so are we committed to the equally fundamental proposition that, in any area, programming diversity ought to be provided by as wide a range of competitively and independently owned media outlets as possible. The Government, when in opposition, supported the broad thrust of the supplementary licence scheme. However, at the time concern was expressed that the scheme had the potential to exacerbate concentration of media ownership in a number of regional areas. For example, one company in an area could own or be deemed to control the sole commercial radio and the sole commercial television station and, in some instances, the local newspaper. There are two ways that I propose to meet this concern. The first is to authorise my Department to give priority to the processing of applications for supplementary licences to serve areas that are also the subject of expressions of interest for independent commercial services. The second is to seek an early amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to make explicit the need for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take concentration of media ownership in an area into account when deciding whether it should grant a supplementary licence or recommend to me that I should invite an application for an independent commercial licence. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, existing licensees would have an opportunity to comment on, and, if they feel it is appropriate, to oppose the grant of a licence for a new independent commercial service. The Application Process As from 1 December this year, I will receive formal applications for supplementary broadcasting or television licences from any eligibile licensee. The application process will involve two stages-an expression of interest followed by a formal application. Expressions of interest should be lodged by 1 March 1984 and formal applications should be submitted within six months of the lodgement date of the related expression of interest. This does not mean that applications cannot be submitted after that time. However, licensees should be aware that as soon as practicable after 1 March 1984, my Department will publish a list of areas that are the subject of an expression of interest for a supplementary licence. In areas where an expression of interest has not been received, or an expression of interest is not followed within six months by a formal application, I will instruct my Department to write to those groups who have previously expressed interest in an independent commercial service in that area, inviting them to lodge a planning proposal for the area. The Government has decided that absolute priority will be given to processing supplementary licence applications for areas where firstly, formal expressions of interest from potential independent commercial licensees have been received; and secondly, substantial concentration of media ownership and control already exists. Secondly, priority will be given to processing supplementary applications for areas where there is also an expression of interest for an independent commercial service. The remaining priority will be given to processing supplementary applications in accordance with the date they are accepted by my Department. All applications and expressions of interest must be submitted on 'pro-formas' that can be obtained from my Department. The forms seek information that is vital to the planning process and a full assessment of the technically related features of the proposed service. In keeping with the planning guidelines adopted by my Department in respect of other licensed services, it will be up to the applicant to provide both the technical and non-technical details required. Copies of technical planning guidelines will be available to assist in preparing the necessary information. Eligibility Criteria Any commercial radio or television licensee providing a service to an area outside the five mainland State capital cities may apply for a supplementary licence. Under the provisions of the enabling legislation, each eligible licensee can apply for only one supplementary licence. In areas where two or more licensees, providing a similar service, deem it to be in their mutual interest, they may form a consortium to apply for a single supplementary licence . For example, two AM radio licensees serving the same area may combine to apply for a supplementary licence for an FM radio station to serve that area. An application will be rejected if it seeks to provide a service to an area that is not substantially co-extensive with the service area of the 'related' station. Equally, it will be rejected if it is received from a consortium whose members do not serve the same area, or are not providing the same kind of service. Because the supplementary licence scheme is intended to benefit listeners and viewers in areas that do not have a diversity of choice in commercial radio and television programs, there are clear prohibitions on applications for supplementary licences to serve areas where diversity of choice is available. Specifically, applications will be rejected where the proposed television service will substantially overlap a mainland metropolitan television area or the proposed FM radio service will substantially overlap the determined service area of any mainland State capital city commercial FM radio station. Honourable members should be aware that, in addition to these specific grounds for rejecting an application for a supplementary licence, the Minister for Communications is empowered to 'dismiss an application for a reason relating to technical matters or to the planning or development of broadcasting and television services'. These reasons can vary from something as fundamental as the availability of a suitable frequency to a determination that the diversity of services available within an area, or proposed for an area, is judged to be sufficient to meet community needs. In the event that an application is rejected , the applicant will be advised in writing within 21 days of the decision and of the reasons for the rejection. Applications that I, as Minister consider satisfy eligibility, planning and technical requirements will be referred to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Service Based Planning The supplementary licence scheme introduces service-based legislation to the Australian broadcasting system. Under this legislation, a licensee will be authorised to provide a service to a community or a number of communities in a specified area, rather than each transmitting facility being licensed separately . The concept of the service area is crucial to this approach, as it defines the area in which the licensee is obliged to provide an adequate and comprehensive service to communities. In determining the service area of a supplementary broadcasting or television station, I shall be ensuring that it is, as far as practicable, substantially co-extensive with the service area determined for the related commercial station. It will therefore be necessary as a matter of priority to determine service areas for existing stations, especially those that will be applying for a supplementary licence. Indeed, the technical and planning assessment of a supplementary licence application cannot be completed unless a service area has been defined and formally determined for the related commercial station. Guidelines for the definition of service areas have been developed by my Department, in consultation with the broadcasting industry, and formal negotiations are now under way with individual stations for the purpose of determining their respective service areas. Interference Limited Planning Closely linked with the service area concept is the interference limited approach to planning. This relies on the allocation of frequencies and power levels in such a way as to tailor the coverage of a broadcasting or television signal to the station's service area, while ensuring adequate protection of the station's signal from interference from other broadcasting services. Technical Guidelines The technical conditions applying to each supplementary licence will be determined in accordance with the current technical planning guidelines issued by my Department, as varied from time to time. For reasons of spectrum efficiency, all supplementary television licensees will be allocated a UHF channel for the main transmitter where it is not possible to provide a VHF channel. Associated translators will be allocated UHF channels. Of course, supplementary radio services will be broadcast in the VHF-FM mode. Where appropriate, licensees will be encouraged to establish several medium or low- powered transmission facilities, rather than attempting to provide total coverage from a single high-powered facility. Programming Licensees will have some specific obligations concerning the programs to be broadcast by their supplementary stations. In addition to the following provisions, supplementary licences will be subject to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's programming and advertising standards in the same way as these apply to independent commercial licences. Regular broadcasts of programs on the supplementary broadcasting station from the related commercial station are not permitted unless with the approval of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Supplementary television stations wishing to telecast regularly the programs of the related commercial station, another commercial station, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Special Broadcasting Service, or a public station, must seek the agreement of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Supplementary television stations will be required to encourage, as far as practicable, local advertising and an element of local programming. Licence Fees In relation to licence fees, the Government has decided to introduce legislation as soon as possible which will direct that the revenues earned by a person or organisation holding both a commercial and a supplementary licence- whether for television or radio-be aggregated for the purpose of determining the total licence fee(s) payable to the Commonwealth. The Role of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal As soon as practicable after I have referred an application for a supplementary licence to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Tribunal is required to publish particulars of the application and invite interested persons to lodge with it, generally within 21 days, a written submission relating to the grant of the licence. This process will provide an opportunity for anyone opposed to the grant of the supplementary licence, especially persons wishing to establish an independent commercial service in the area, to lodge a submission objecting to the grant of the supplementary licence. The Tribunal is required to hold a public inquiry into the grant of a supplementary licence unless it decides, in the absence of any substantial submissions objecting to the contrary, that a public inquiry is not necessary. It can then proceed to issue the licence without a hearing. It is the Tribunal's primary responsibility to determine at the outset whether or not an independent commercial service, serving the same area as a potential supplementary licence, is reasonably likely to be viable within the period a supplementary licence would be in force. If it so determines, it must then decide whether it would be in the public interest to recommend that applications be called for an independent commercial service. In the event that both determinations are positive, it will recommend to me that I call applications for an independent commercial station to serve the area that would have been served by a supplementary licence. I will be predisposed to accept this recommendation. As I stated earlier, concern has been expressed that the scheme has the potential to exacerbate concentration of media ownership already evident in a number of areas throughout Australia. The Government's intention is to ensure that concentration of media ownership is taken into account by the Tribunal when it is considering whether to grant a supplementary licence in an area or recommend to me that I invite an application for an independent commercial licence to serve the area. To this end, I will introduce enabling legislation during the Budget session of Parliament. Provision has been made in the enabling legislation for the Tribunal to recommend to me, as a result of a supplementary licence renewal hearing eight years after the initial licence grant, that I invite applications for an independent commercial service on the grounds of viability and public interest. If I accept this recommendation, I shall advise the licensee of my decision. The company holding the supplementary licence will then have three years, or less if elected, to divest itself of one of the licences. It will be up to the licensee to select which licence should be transferred or let lapse. Regardless of which licence is divested, the supplementary broadcasting or television licence will become a full commercial licence. Conclusion It has been necessary to provide a significant amount of detail in this statement in order to outline clearly just what will be involved in implementing the supplementary licence scheme. For the benefit of honourable members, and for the convenience of those radio and television stations preparing an application for a supplementary licence, I table a paper entitled 'Guidelines for Planning Supplementary Broadcasting and Television Services'. I present the following paper: Supplementary Licence Scheme-Guidelines for planning supplementary broadcasting and television services-Ministerial Statement, 30 November 1983. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(3.15) —I welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the fact that he has provided details of the scheme so soon after the basic statement he made two weeks ago on the development of satellite-related broadcasting services and ownership of the satellite system. In other words, what he said today activates the legislation which was passed by this House 12 months ago under the previous Government. It is just as well that the statement has been made so early because, following the statement of a couple of weeks ago, there has been tremendous anticipation, uncertainty, confusion and concern in the regional areas as to what it will all mean, how it will be implemented, and so forth. Obviously, the regional operators of both commercial radio and television stations in this country are concerned about their long term viability and the question of networking and direct broadcasting which is part of this whole concept. They were also concerned by the departure of this Government from the policy of the previous Government by its particular references to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal having to take note of media concentration at the regional level. Of particular concern to them at present-I think today's statement will not ease their concern on this point-is the time sequence that is entailed. The Minister in his statement today referred to a number of procedural and legislative changes which could delay for some time the actual implementation of the supplementary licence concept. The Minister has made it clear that expressions of interest will be accepted from 1 December and formal applications within six months of that date. That sort of procedure is reasonably clear. The Minister kept referring, as I said earlier, to concern about concentration of media ownership at the regional level. He said that he wanted to ensure that the Broadcasting Tribunal takes that into account when considering whether an independent or supplementary licence should be issued; and that the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 would be amended to this effect. There could be a considerable delay before the actual amendments to the Act are passed by Parliament and before, I presume, the ABT can really make determinations on whether there should be independent licences or supplementary licences for particular service or market areas. The Minister in his statement said that enabling legislation would be introduced in the Budget session. The important point is which Budget session? It is my understanding that about one week remains of the present Budget session . If he does not mean this Budget session, he must mean the next Budget session, which does not commence until August next year. As the Minister referred to 'the Budget session', I think everybody who has an interest in this matter will be very concerned to know which Budget session we are referring to. If it is this Budget session, will the procedure be that the legislation will be introduced quickly next week and passed by this House and, hopefully, by the Senate before both Houses rise for the Christmas break; or does it mean that everybody, including the ABT, will have to wait almost 12 months-certainly, at least nine months-before anything can really happen? I believe that the Minister should clarify this point. In the accompanying Press releases and documentation which was provided with the Minister's earlier statement of two weeks ago he made reference to considering the possibility of two supplementary licences at some stage. He referred to the point that discussions were under way on this subject. I will refer to that subject again later because it also becomes a very important point in the calculations by the regional stations as to the correct paths to follow. The Minister also referred in his statement to the fact that amending legislation will be necessary so that there can be aggregation of the original and the supplementary licence fees. That is an important point also for any potential licence applicant because there would be some uncertainty as to what would be the level of that aggregate licence fee. This could influence their planning process. I believe the Minister should clarify this point as well. First of all, he should give some idea of what the total level of these aggregate fees will be and when amending legislation will be introduced into the House so that all people can be completely clear on what they are subjecting themselves to if they make an application. There is another area of possible delay before anything is really achieved and that is the definition of a service area or a market that the commercial radio or television station is required to service. The Minister referred to this in his statement and there is more detail in the supplementary guidelines about the discussions about to get under way between the Department of Communications and potential licensees on defining what is a service area. If they cannot reach agreement, my understanding from quickly reading the statement, is that the Minister can intervene to determine what that area will be. This is a very important point for any potential applicant in relation to not just what the service area will be but also any flexibility that that applicant will have as to when he may be required to cover geographically that complete service area with the additional cost of translator stations, et cetera. I ask the Minister: Will any time limit be applied to these negotiations so that once again there can be some certainty in the planning process of calculating the delay before anything really happens, until the ABT determines whether or not an independent or a supplementary licence should be provided in each market? The next point concerns the vexed question of the concentration of ownership. It certainly does cause concern in regional areas because people are pointing out, I believe with justification, that a double standard is being applied by the Government. The metropolitan networks-the metropolitan radio and television stations-will have the ability, through the legislation, that is, through two television licences and, I think a maximum of six radio licences, for huge markets in the Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane capital city areas. But the same regulations apply in regional and small markets as apply to anybody else. In reality, when one talks about concentration of media ownership the real concentration is not in regional areas but with the metropolitan arrangements. The Government in the statement of two weeks ago has entrenched that media concentration by allowing the networks to operate on the national beam, on the 30 watt transponders, throughout Australia. If that is not concentration of media control of the most significant and important form of media presentation in this country, I do not know what is. Also what about the concentration of media ownership in not just that market but other markets? Is that to be taken into account as well? From the regional stations point of view there is no complete definition or to me equitable definition on what is concentration of ownership. This brings with it the point of a defensive application by a regional commercial holder. In smaller markets, whether they be television or radio and whether it be, say, in Mount Isa, Loxton or Kalgoorlie or some other area with a radio station-I will not go into details but there is quite a number, particularly those running at a loss-there is no viability or even potential viability for a second licence, a supplementary licence, let alone an independent licence. Such stations feel that they will have to make a defensive application for a supplementary licence to protect their position. The next question I ask the Minister is: Is there the flexibility in the guidelines to the ABT to ensure that if it is not sensibly viable to create or permit any second licence whatsoever, supplementary or independent, the viability of the existing licence holder will be protected? The next question that arises is one about the consortium. I accept the point that this is more applicable to radio than to television because it is probably only in the commercial radio areas outside the capital cities where we have competing licences in the same area. I think Canberra is a very good example of this. The Minister made the point in his statement that a consortium approach will be allowed; that is, the two existing licence holders or whatever number there are, will be allowed to combine to apply for a supplementary licence to cover that area. I acknowledge the point that this will add flexibility to the ABT but I think it brings with it a potential contradiction. Obviously it is only in those markets that are big enough, such as Canberra where there are two commercial radio stations, that it appears that the argument for an independent licence is stronger than it is in those market areas where there is only one licence. Therefore, if one provides a supplementary licence one is really creating more concentration of media ownership and more restriction than in the ordinary regional areas. One is really saying that one will allow, say, three radio stations to be under this combined control rather than just in the ordinary regional market where there are two radio stations. I believe that matter requires further explanation. The next point concerns the licence or service area. The Minister has made the point that on this very vexed and difficult question negotiations are already under way. He has also made the point that the supplementary licence for radio will be in FM and for television it will be in VHF or, where that is not possible, in UHF. If it is UHF for television and FM for radio, one's transmission reception area is more limited than it is under the present AM radio and VHF television. Therefore if one is going to cover the same geographic area with these new frequency arrangements one will need translators as well as the basic transmitter to cover that same area. I raise the point that if one has a mix of VHF and UHF, which the Minister implied in his statement, this adds to the complications and problems for the applicant station. This also raises the question that it may not be viable for the licensee to go to the additional cost of the translators to cover the same geographic area as the original AM or VHF transmission because on the fringes of the market the population is not there to cover the additional cost. This is a very important point that I think requires further clarification. There should at least be some allowance of a phasing arrangement or perhaps a requirement not to have to provide the same geographic area in the first licence period-the first eight years. I believe that flexibility is very important, particularly as the Minister does make the point in his statement that total coverage does not have to be provided just from a single high-powered transmitter; it can be provided from lower powered translaters as well. I do raise the very important point that in many market areas, the service areas, the viability will not immediately be there to justify this additional cost. There is the question of the continuing problem of frequency allocation which has bedevilled governments for some time. As I have mentioned already there will be potential delays if we are waiting for amending legislation which may be introduced in the next Budget session rather than in this Budget session. There are the hearings and the other legislation on aggregation of licence fees. But there is then the question of if one goes through all of this what happens if there is not a frequency available for the licence applicant? That is a critical point. I believe it will be very important for all potential licence applicants, all of those radio and television station people in regional Australia, to know exactly what reassurances they have from the Minister on this, on some sort of time-table. When will band two of the VHF spectrum be cleared to allow FM radio? The difference in the statements of the Minister is that at one time all of the supplementary television stations had to be on VHF frequency and he is now saying that they can be on VHF if there is room. I certainly commend the Minister for greater flexibility about that. But I do recommend to him that he consider allowing the potential licence applicant to declare that he has a frequency rather than waiting for the Department of Communications in its time to declare that a frequency is available, using the United States of America deregulated approach and saying: 'We have a frequency and if nobody challenges it will be allowed to proceed'. There are other important points too concerning the second supplementary licence. However, I draw the Minister's attention to those outstanding questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's attack on thrift in its proposed assets test. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.30) —Yesterday the Australian Labor Party Caucus approved the Government's assets test and yet again confirmed that it is not a party of compassion, yet again confirmed that it is a party not interested in thrift and yet again confirmed that it is a party not genuinely interested in consultation. The Caucus approval again confirmed that the majority of members of the Australian Labor Party are not seriously worried about their proposed legislation being either discriminatory or full of anomalies. This is the very same assets test which has been labelled by the Labor Party's own national President, the Premier of New South Wales, as ' discriminatory', as 'full of anomalies', and as something which is 'not achieving its purpose'. This is the very same assets test which is opposed by the largest pensioner organisation in Australia and which is opposed by the Australian Council of Social Service because it discriminates against the elderly. It is the same assets test referred to by Canon Peter Hollingworth, the Executive Director of our most highly regarded social organisation, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, when he said: The Government's assets test on pensions attacks those least able to bear the burden. Mr O'Neil —Rubbish! Mr PEACOCK —Who said 'Rubbish'? Mr O'Neil —I did. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for Grey said 'Rubbish', did he? I ask him to stand up in this Parliament and justify this assets test. Mr O'Neil —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman cannot take a point of order when he is out of his seat. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for Grey and the other members opposite were the ones who claimed that they were voted into government because, in their view , they had a commitment to caring and to consultation. What a tragedy that has turned out to be-a tragedy which hits the elderly, the most vulunerable group in the community and the group least able to adjust its affairs. Yet the honourable member for Grey stands up and defends an iniquitous test such as this. No wonder people are going to meetings in their droves not only trying to sort our the confusion but also condemning all honourable members opposite for their harshness and sheer hypocrisy. The imposition of an assets test has created only alarm and confusion. Is this what the honourable member for Grey or the Australian Labor Party calls caring? Is this what the Labor Party calls compassion? What about its claim of consultation? Why will the Labor Party not agree to lay the legislation on the table of the Parliament? Why does it insist on its being passed at this stage? Did it insist on the same thing for the new lump sum superannuation tax? Of course it did not. Did it insist on that legislation being introduced before consultation? Not at all, because the Government was then confronted by organisations with industrial muscle, such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Of course the Labor Party had an accord with the ACTU-an accord which extended privileges to the strongest unions. As the Opposition said at the time, on that tax there was no accord with the elderly Australians and they would inevitably be penalised. Penalised they have been. It has been sadly justified. The Opposition and Australians generally are sick and tired of this Government lamenting that it has not had time to introduce measures to achieve its solemn commitment of 500,000 new jobs. It certainly has had the time to attack the elderly. As I have said, it has taken the time to hit the most vulnerable group in the community. It claims to have done this in the name of fairness and equity for the purpose of spreading the burden. One would certainly need a twisted mind to understand how Labor's assets test will increase equity. Let me give honourable members some examples of how Labor's test will work. People will not lose their pensions if they own a Rolls Royce, but they may lose their pensions if they are contributing to this country's development by putting some money into a local company. People will not lose their pensions if they own diamond rings, but they may lose their pensions if they put aside some money in a savings bank. People will not lose their pensions if they own hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of antiques, but, irony of ironies, they may lose their pensions if they are part-owners of an antique ship. People will not lose their pensions if they blow their money on overseas trips, but they may lose their pensions if they want to pass something on to their kids. People will not lose their pensions if they own their own homes, but they may lose their pensions if they rent homes. The list goes on and on. All the inequities are there and all the confusion is there. Let us not forget that it is individual elderly people who are to be hit. Let me give just one example which was put to me by a large group of retired persons who came to see me. I give the example of a lady-let us call her Mrs F- one of the many ordinary Australians who are being hit by the Labor Government. She is an aged pensioner living with her 25-year-old son. Her son receives an invalid pension. This lady is immobile due to a very bad leg condition. Both her husband and her daughter died recently. The funeral costs absorbed the small amount of savings that she had acquired. She owns a unit in Sydney worth $60,000 in which both she and her son live. Due to the maintenance costs she will now have to sell the unit and she will have no other cash or assets. Should she sell her unit she will be forced to rent on the private market. Cash from the sale of that unit for $60,000, if deemed to be earning 10 per cent per annum interest, will mean that this lady will be deemed to be receiving $115.38 income per week. This alleged weekly income will cut her fringe benefits completely and will reduce her weekly pension from $85.90 to approximately $43. Is there any member on the other side of the Parliament who is prepared to face this lady and tell her that her pension will be cut off like that? Of course there is not. If honourable members opposite are not prepared to face these people, why are they going ahead with the assets test? Is this another of those ideas that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has put forward? Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —Honourable members opposite are noisy now. They would not answer the question whether they would see this woman and explain the inequities to her. Of course, they were silent then. They are gutless, hiding behind an iniquitous test which we will repeal. I assume that this is just another of the ideas that they will toss out at their branch meetings-an idea that the Prime Minister put forward and they all had to support. They are just some of the collective little rubber stamps adding to the numbers in this Parliament, supporting a Prime Minister who is heaping inequity upon inequity. On 5 March-honourable members opposite should bear in mind the example that I have just given them, which reduced them to silence-the Prime Minister said that the only people who would be affected by the assets test were the following: Pensioners with substantial assets, who are artificially avoiding the current income test for pensions. What a lie. It is known to be a lie out in the community. This Government will suffer the consequences. Worse still, people will suffer the consequences of this iniquitous measure that will be brought into this Parliament during this financial year. How can anyone in this Parliament claim that the lady I referred to would fit into the category referred to by the Prime Minister? He, in his obsession to justify the unjustifiable, has misled the elderly. No wonder the National President of the Labor Party, Mr Wran, said: There are too many inequities and anomalies in the assets test . . . I think they've got to start all over again . . . I could go on with the distressing stories that I referred to earlier. It is almost beyond belief that a Government which says it is compassionate and which it says believes in social justice and fairness could impose such hardship and uncertainty on our pensioners. What is even more disgusting is that the Government is doing the opposite of what it said it would do before the election . I shall quote from a letter from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) which he wrote on 6 January 1982 when he was the shadow Minister. He stated: What we need is consistent treatment of the disadvantaged. If people plan for their retirement, they should be able to do so in the expectation that policies will be continued and be consistent. This consistency the ALP can promise you. What consistency is there in introducing an assets test of which not a whisper was heard before 5 March? What consistency is there in introducing an assets test which penalises those who try to look after themselves? Mr Braithwaite —They have no mandate for that. Mr PEACOCK —What consistency is there in introducing an assets test which treats people with similar savings in quite different ways? Someone mentioned a mandate . The Government has absolutely no mandate. Can we imagine what would have happened if Government members had said in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Bourke or Poddy-Pom-Pom: 'We will income test over 70s pensions; we will lift the tax on superannuation from 5 per cent to 30 per cent; we will bring in an assets test; we will abolish the independent schools'? Government members would not be where they are now. They are a bunch of hypocrites and they will face the consequences. Now we learn that the assets test on pensions is a stop gap measure. I see the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) in the chamber. I saw a Press statement which she put out after the Caucus meeting. It is interesting to reflect on the Press statement. We now learn that the assets test on pensions is a stop gap measure until Labor hopes to implement its national superannuation scheme. It is now clear that Labor has no idea of what consistency is about, yet this is what Senator Grimes referred to. The Government has no comprehensive retirement policy; it has not got further than establishing committees to examine the issue. In the meantime the most vulnerable groups in our community are suffering. Mr Chynoweth —What happened to the #46,000 you ripped off? Mr Tuckey —What about the money Dawkins ripped off the pensioners? Mr PEACOCK —The reality is that Labor's assets test makes so many Australians feel that they have been penalised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting and the honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr PEACOCK —I do not object to the honourable member for Flinders interjecting because there will be so few opportunities in future for him to play any role in the Parliament after the next election. He knows what I know only too well; that many people in his electorate of Flinders feel that they have been penalised because they have been thrifty during their working lives. They will take it out on him and on many others on the other side. They feel they have been penalised because they put away a nest egg to avoid being dependent in their retirement on the State and on their families. Mr Keating —He sold his racehorses. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member who interjected has one of the finest antique collections in Australia. He deliberately wrote the antiques provision into the assets test. Not only is his colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) a tax evader, but he will get around the assets test because of his antiques. Mr Keating —I have made this point before. On a point of personal explanation- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of personal explanation. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Why does the honourable member not declare the value of his antiques ? He should tell us all about it. Is it a prerequisite to introducing an assets test that excludes antiques to have one of the best collections in Australia? It shows how two-faced the honourable member is. He wants to exclude his assets and include other people's assets. Labor is planning to tax these pensioners as though they are wealthy. The harsh reality is that this assets test is full of anomalies and injustices. We know it can only cause further alarm and anxiety. If I had to rely on my racehorses to keep me in my retirement, I would be drawing the pension. If the Government proceeds with the assets test and if it tries to have the proposed legislation passed during this session of parliament there is no way it can claim to be a Government which cares, a Government which has any genuine compassion or any genuine desire to consult. The Government is trying to ram the legislation through before it has consulted with groups it said it would consult. We will stop the passage of this legislation until the Government consults those groups. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(3.46) —I am really appalled at the mental poverty of Opposition members. If, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, the Opposition were appalled by the assets test I would find it easier to accept its spurious arguments, but the Opposition could not give two figs. It is cynically using a situation to try to block the progressive policies of a Government that is willing to look at the situation which exists and is willing to work out how to meet the needs of two very diverse groups of aged people in Australia. Opposition members are very excitable because they have no basis for what they say. They are highly politicised and they do not have the intelligence to look at a situation which exists in Australia today and work out precisely what they would do about it. They stick to old-fashioned concepts. They see money equating with worth. In the terms of the argument put forward by the Opposition the Government is attacked for penalising thrift in its proposed assets test. That shows that the Opposition is absolutely unaware that two and a half million people in Australia live on or below the poverty line because of its policies when it was in Government. It shows that the Opposition is unaware that there are thousands of families who, having worked their entire lives and having been very thrifty, cannot meet accelerating costs. There are people-Government members would never have met them, but I have met them and have been very close to them-who work and save. They are family people who work and save during their entire lives, and when they reach the stage of retirement they still do not have money apart from the pension. Opposition members are not aware of the thousands of people in Australia in this position. They need a government which will honestly look at the situation and honestly try to do something. If Labor had not come to government when it did we would be in the midst of a full scale depression at the moment. It would not be a matter of who gets the pension and who eventually goes on to superannuation. It would be a matter of who would be able to survive at all. ( Quorum formed) I would like it placed on record for Peter Hollingworth and all the other people whose names have been abused by members of the Opposition by being quoted out of context, that when the Government tried to answer the question which they put forward and which they claim is of such concern to them, they resorted to calling a quorum to cut into the time of that Government speaker. I thank them for that. I point out that Peter Hollingworth has done a superb amount of work for the really poor in Victoria. I know he will be concerned for the 2.5 million people who are under the poverty line. He has welcomed the welfare measures that have been brought in by this Government and is personally known to many members of this Government. He has based his concern on a misapprehension: Firstly, a lack of understanding has been fostered by members of the Opposition trying to blur precisely what we are doing. Secondly, there is a concern for those more comfortable members of society who quite reasonably wish for security in retirement. Both these concerns will be met by the Government's joint policy of an income asset tested pension and a national superannuation scheme. I point out that the national superannuation scheme is not something which is suddenly whisked out of the hat by this Government; it has been our policy for some time. In fact, it was when Labor was in government that we commissioned the Hancock report on the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry to look at the feasibility of a national superannuation scheme. When was that national superannuation report kicked out? It was kicked out in 1979 by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. That is the extent of his response to a scheme which the Australian people need and want. Let us face it, we should be looking at the resources we have and the needs, and balancing the two. We do not want flibbertigibbet members of the Opposition, people who cannot even organise resources and put forward decent policies. We need an Opposition which can meet two strong expectations in Australian society. One is the absolute need of Australia or any healthy nation to meet the requirements of those people who reach old age, those people with families who have worked and saved what they could during their entire working years and yet at retirement have not been in a privileged position which has enabled them to have any backing other than the pension. They must be given that backing and we are not worth our salt if we, as a government, bow under to the spurious arguments put by Opposition members just so that some influential members of the electorate will pat us on the back and let down the needy. I think Opposition members underestimate Australians because those who protested against the assets test do not really want us to neglect the needy. They were merely afraid. It is not that they do not want us to put money in to help those who are poor, it is not that they do not want those less fortunately circumstanced to have a retirement income, it is just that they were afraid that in a position which is not affluent they would have to give up assets in order to maintain a pension. They were afraid, and mistakenly so, that they would be on the streets. I would like to point out which people will still be receiving the pension from this Government. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times, which states: The lifestyle concession would effectively mean a total asset exemption, including the pension-free area, of up to $47,100 for single pensioners and $58, 500 for a pensioner couple with no other income. For those people to whom the concession does not apply, exemption levels remain as previously announced: $17,100 for single pensioners and $28,500 for married couples in assessable assets before the pension is affected. . . . a pension will cut out at assets of $106,400 and $177,400 respectively with correspondingly higher limits where the lifestyle exemption applies. A single pensioner aged over 70 would be able to hold assets up to $105,500 before losing any part of the special-rate pension and $159,000 before entitlement stopped. The corresponding figures for a married couple are $175,660 and $264,890. For all pensioners, . . . the assets limit for fringe-benefit eligibility would be $31,140 single and $51,380 married. Those are the facts. People within those limits will still be getting a pension. There is a definite right for the people who have assets beyond the amounts which I have just quoted. These people will benefit from the national superannuation scheme. It is not a scheme that has been suddenly whipped up, but a scheme which this Party has held as policy for a number of years. The background work has been done on the national superannuation scheme and it will meet the needs of a special grouping in our society and those people who have the expectation of a Labor government providing income security in their retirement regardless of assets and income. These people have been troubled and made afraid by the outlandish statements of an opposition which is trying to capitalise on the situation as it has done on other situations. The type of thing members opposite are doing in opposition is all a pattern. We put extra money in and Opposition members shout loud and in an hysterical manner that things are worse, and things are not worse. It is dishonest. It is typical of the education debate and the distorted figures and facts that have been put up by the Opposition regarding the amount of money that we have put into non- government schools. Our Government has put into non-government schools $6.2m more than the Fraser Government provided. We have put in more money, but members of the Opposition have such tunnel vision that they adhere to old concepts. They cannot look at Australia as it now is. There are needs amongst the Catholic schools and amongst the many non-government schools and this Government is meeting those needs. The same situation and the same dishonesty applies to the Opposition's attitude to Medicare. Incorrect statements have been made that this Government is not giving Queensland the same money for health benefits as it is giving the other States. In fact, the Hawke Government is giving Queensland $130m more for medical benefits than did the Fraser Government. We are putting $173m more into public hospitals. We are looking at a real situation, and we are willing to do something firm and constructive to meet that situation. We believe that the young people of today, when healthy, will be willing to contribute to a scheme to see that all people, regardless of their income and assets, are covered in their retirement. They will do so in the knowledge that they, in their own old age, will be similarly covered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.01) —The Opposition today has drawn to the attention of the House for public debate the following matter of public importance: The Government's attack on the thrift of the aged in the imposition or the proposed imposition of its assets test. The honourable member who has just resumed her seat argued that the reintroduction of an assets test was a progressive step. It is not progressive, it is regressive. It is a backward step which attacks not only the affluent but also, as I will develop in a moment, the poor. What has the Government done to assist the poor? It has done nothing. Mrs Darling —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like the honourable member for Sturt to refer to me by name, as the honourable member for Lilley, which is provided for in the Standing Orders. Also, he was quite incorrect in saying that I said that just the assets test was a progressive test . I said that the assets test, in conjunction with a national superannuation scheme, was progressive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr WILSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, where is the national superannuation scheme? Was it contemporaneously introduced? No, it was not. Whenever the leading spokesmen of the Australian Labor Party refer to the national superannuation scheme they talk about putting it off for some future government at some time in the far distant future, while in the meantime they seek to penalise all those who endeavour to provide for their retirement by postponing expenditure during their lifetime. Whilst they do that, the imposition of the assets test will make thousands of pensioners change their patterns of behaviour. It will make them dispose of their assets by unwanted overseas trips. It will make them spend during their working lives in order that when they reach retirement they will qualify for an age pension. Where is this well developed, long planned national superannuation scheme? There has not been a word of it. Reference was made by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) to the report of the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry. The Labor Party has no clear policy of income security for those who are dependent because they are aged. Honourable members opposite talk about a national superannuation scheme and imply that imposing the means test and the assets test will make it easier to introduce a national superannuation scheme. I ask: Will the national superannuation scheme be universal? Will it cover every person who is aged? When it is introduced, will it be available to every person at a level of income that will enable him to take advantage of it or will it take 40 years to be phased in because the Government will want people to make a contribution to it now and in the future? Let me look at the taxation system that we have had operating in this country for the last 30 years and the way in which we have funded retirement incomes. We have had a pay-as-you-go superannuation scheme that covered 85 per cent of the Australian population. The Labor Party is trying to reduce the cover of that superannuation scheme. It is strange that honourable members opposite talk about Medicare and wanting universal cover, and yet when it comes to retirement income they want to put a wealth tax and an income tax on the aged. The imposition of an assets test is no different from the imposition of a wealth tax. Honourable members opposite need only to ask their own Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) whether he holds this view. In recent days he has published an article which talks of the relationship between income tax, tax policies and the assets test. He said: A fallacy common among critics of the welfare system is that any payments flowing otherwise than to the 'truly needy' are somehow wasted, or at least inefficient. But what really matters, given the overall objectives of helping some people and having others pay, is not the gross flows to and forth which comprise the tax-transfer system but rather the net result of those flows. The honourable member for Lilley has failed to identify or take into account the effect of the net flow that this assets test will cause. More, rather than fewer , people will be dependent upon the assets-tested pension because more people will reduce their level of assets and their degree of self-reliance. I shall quote again the Minister for Social Security: Those who argue that an assets test is necessary to properly assess need should consider the implications of that for the positive tax structure. Clearly assessment of 'need' is the other side of assessing ability to pay tax; to be consistent, those who argue for a pensions assets test should also argue for the personal income tax to be supplemented by a substantial tax on personal assets . . . Here we have exposed what the Minister for Social Security has in mind. The first step he is taking is to impose a wealth tax on the aged, the dependants, the people who are not in the work force. Mr O'Neil —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I point out to the honourable member for Sturt that he has frightened one old gentleman-- Mr WILSON —Mr Speaker, this is outrageous! He does not have the opportunity to point out such matters while I am in the middle of my speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr WILSON —Will you protect me, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will try to do so if the honourable member remains in his seat. What is the point of order of the honourable member for Grey? Mr O'Neil —My point of order is that the honourable member for Sturt has frightened one old pensioner, Frank O'Keefe, out of the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WILSON —Let me deal with our present tax system and the cost of meeting age pensions, including Service pensions, for those who qualify. The proportion of tax that goes towards retirement incomes is quite substantial. In the current year, 1983-84, the cost of the existing pension scheme for people of pension age is $6.6 billion. If there were universal eligibility the cost would be $7.4 billion. Dealing with the cost of the current scheme, if it were assumed to be taken as a flat rate of tax within the present rate structure so that it came out of the 30c in the dollar of taxable income above the threshold that applies to everyone, the tax that would be payable-8.7c out of every 30c in the dollar- would go towards providing the community's retirement income. If the scheme were to be universal, 9.8c in the dollar of personal income tax for those on the 30c rate would be payable to fund universal age pensions. That would be a very good foundation for a national superannuation scheme available universally to everyone. Honourable members opposite fail to recognise that there is an interrelationship between those who pay tax while they are working and those who receive the benefits of tax when they reach retirement. The Australian people believe and I believe that, because they pay their taxes, they are entitled when they reach retirement to a universal pension, a flat rate pension, as a right. Honourable members opposite talked about the Hancock report. They should look at its minority report. It recommended a universal flat rate pension for everyone. It also recommended that individuals, through employment and in other ways, should be encouraged to provide income on top of the flat rate pension. That could be funded today simply by nominating, as if it were a levy, 9.8c out of the 30c in the dollar that people pay in tax. If one wanted to make that tax levy progressive, the rates for a universal scheme would be 9c in the dollar for those on the 30c rate, 13.7c for those on the 46c rate and 17.9c for those on the 60c rate. The Labor Party is destroying its own capacity to help the poor by distorting the savings patterns of middle Australia, which people want to be self-reliant. But the Labor Party wants to impose a wealth tax on the aged, and follow it with a wealth tax on the whole community- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON —So that the only way- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON —Well, he took frivolous points of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Sturt. Mr WILSON —You should have warned him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Sturt. Before calling the honourable member for Canning, I remind the House to observe decorum while the debate is taking place. The Hansard reporters are having great difficulty in taking down this debate because of the continual noise from both sides of the House. I ask honourable members to remember that they are in a democratic House and to give each other his due. I call the honourable member for Canning. Ms FATIN(Canning)(4.13) —I have to admit that I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like this rowdy behaviour in the period I have been a member here . Over the years I have heard people criticise members of parliament for the way they behave in parliament. After today, I can understand why that criticism has been made. I begin today by addressing myself briefly to the pure hypocrisy of the terms in which this matter of public importance is framed. Members of the Opposition know very well why an assets test is necessary, but they have deliberately chosen to misrepresent the situation in a desperate attempt-- Mr Wilson —Why? Because you want to penalise-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Sturt. I shall not do so again. (Quorum formed) Ms FATIN —The pure hypocrisy of the terms in which this matter of public importance is framed reflects the interests being preserved by the people on the other side of the House. Members of the Opposition know very well why an assets test is necessary, but they have deliberately chosen to misrepresent the situation in a desperate attempt to gain political advantage for themselves. As usual, their cries of outrage have a hollow ring, for once again they are seen to be trying to protect the vested interests of the affluent and to perpetuate a system by which a relatively few well off people benefit at the expense of those who could not manage without financial assistance from the Government. The terms of this matter of public importance provide a graphic illustration of the illogical and poorly thought-out stance taken by the Opposition on this issue. 'Thrift' means economical management or frugality. It is nonsense to suggest that the introduction of an assets test discourages people from being thrifty. Of course, the Opposition is still trundling around the pathetic picture of human nature which suggests that, if people are given half a chance, they will spend their whole lives in idle contentment letting the welfare state pick up the bill for all their requirements. If this was the case, then surely the best way to encourage people to exploit the system is to do precisely what the Opposition did when in government-remove the assets test and turn a blind eye to the schemes that are dreamed up to allow people to exploit and cheat the pension system. What the Opposition consistently fails to point out is that the pension is not a right-it is not a carrot to be dangled as a reward for people to claim at the end of their working lives. The pension is a welfare payment which has to be directed towards those in need, not those who are going to use it as pocket money so that they do not need to dip into their investments. Four coalition Ministers responsible for social security retained the assets test between 1961 and 1972, presumably because they believed it to be a fair system. Are we really supposed to believe that when the Liberals removed the assets test in 1976 they did it to encourage people to be frugal? Even they must have known that they were opening the door to all kinds of artificially contrived schemes which would allow the rich to double dip with impunity. They took the easy way out, the soft option, which they believed would see them right in the eyes of the electors of Australia. They cited the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty as their justification for abolishing the assets test but they failed to read on and somehow overlooked the second recommendation of the Henderson Commission- Mr Donald Cameron —What about Neville Wran? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will remain silent. Mr Donald Cameron —What about Neville Wran? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Moreton. Ms FATIN —They failed to read that report and somehow overlooked the second recommendation of the Henderson Commission which stated quite categorically that if the assets test was abolished a capital gains tax should be introduced to discourage people from holding assets idle and waiting for capital gains to accrue. In bringing forward this matter of public importance the Opposition has once more betrayed the extent of its muddled thinking on the whole question of welfare payments. Australians are waking up now to the hypocrisy of this position which states that it is acceptable-- Mr Goodluck —Who wrote this? Ms FATIN —I did. That position states that it is acceptable for governments to come to the aid of the disadvantaged but only after the vested interests of the affluent have been protected and secured. May I now quote something which was not written by me. It is in today's Age-30 November. The article states: Philosophically and rhetorically, the Liberal and national Parties are attracted to the concept of a needs-based welfare system. If benefits can be restricted to the needy, then the tax burden can be reduced. * * * * The Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Howard . . . has reaffirmed his support of needs-based welfare policies but argues that the Government's asset test legislation is not the best way to achieve them. Well, what is? It is worth recalling the problem which the Government, against stiff resistance from some privileged sections of the community, is trying to eliminate. Some people have been able to amass a small fortune in superannuation, draw the lot in a virtually tax-free lump sum, either splurge it in a spending spree or invest it in low-income assets, and then go on the pension with or without all the fringe benefits. The community can no longer afford this 'double dipping' which has been costing taxpayers about 2,000 million in tax concessions for superannuation and goodness knows how much more in pensions for those who should be able to provide for themselves. So it goes on. As my time has now been cut down by the honourable member for O' Connor (Mr Tuckey), I want to make just one other statement briefly. Twenty years ago there were 11 people working to one receiving a pension. Today four people are working to one receiving a pension. By the year 2000 there will be 2. 5 people working to one receiving a pension. How are we going to pay for people to double-dip and to amass the fortunes that they have been able to amass? I suggest to honourable members opposite that documentation was given to them yesterday by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) which explained the detail and answered many of the questions that they have thrown across the floor of this House today about the farmers, elderly people and others. If the Opposition suggests that we in the Government do not care about the people in Australia who need us to assist them I suggest that, as I said earlier, the hypocrisy of this debate is unbelievable. Under the means tests applied in former decades double-dipping by well-off beneficiaries also receiving pension payments and fringe benefits was not a major problem. With the abolition of the former means test after many years of relentless pressure from the better-off groups in society there has been a great increase in arrangements by which retired groups effectively can retain their assets while containing their formal income to amounts which enable them to qualify fully for pension payments and benefits. May I suggest that honourable members opposite consider the half a million people in this country who are paying rent and who are being disadvantaged because they are not able to get adequate assistance? Under this program we will assist them and we will assist every needy person in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is clapping allowed in the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded. Report of Public Works Committee Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth report for 1983 of the Committee, together with the minutes of evidence relating to the construction of a chancery complex and staff housing at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the undertaking by the Government to establish a Prices Surveillance Authority. This body is an important part of the Government' s prices and incomes policy and its establishment will honour a major commitment by the Government as part of the prices and incomes accord. The Government's mandate to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority has been widely recognised in the community, including by business in the National Economic Summit Conference communique. Following the National Economic Summit Conference a working party was established to provide advice to the Government on the legislation for the establishment of a prices surveillance body. The working party comprising representatives of the trade union movement, business, State and local governments and community groups has been extensively consulted by the Government in drafting the Bill I bring before the House. Before explaining the measures provided for in the Bill I would like to make some remarks concerning the Government's approach to prices surveillance. The Government is firmly committed to restoring economic prosperity in Australia and to bringing about the sustained high rates of economic growth that are necessary to reduce present high levels of unemployment. At the same time inflationary pressures need to be reduced so that economic recovery can proceed unhindered. The Government's policies, based on an effective prices and incomes policy, are directed towards achieving these goals of sustained non-inflationary economic growth. Substantial portions of the Government's prices and incomes policy are now in place. Establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority will help to complete the implementation of this policy and will encourage price restraint as a counterpart to the wage restraint being exercised by wage and salary earners under the wage fixation principles established by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I draw the attention of honourable members to the title of this Bill, which indicates that the scheme embodied in the Bill is one of price surveillance, not price control. The Prices Surveillance Authority will monitor and examine prices . It will not attempt to hold down prices by administrative fiat. The Government is well aware that the private sector employs the majority or workers in Australia and that it must play a central part in any broadly based economic recovery. We recognise also that sound profits are an essential requirement for increased employment in the private sector. The approach of this Bill reflects these concerns. The best form of price restraint comes from the effective operation of competitive market forces. The majority of businesses in Australia operate in competitive market environments and the effectiveness of the constraints that this imposes on prices is illustrated by the very low profitability that has applied over the past 18 months. An increase in profitability from last year's historically low level will be a necessary part of any broadly based recovery. Prices surveillance will not be used to impede such a development. Recognising this need, the approach to price surveillance envisaged in this Bill is selective. The Bill establishes a broad framework for surveillance of prices set by corporations and public authorities, but the selection of goods and services subjected to surveillance will focus on areas where effective competitive disciplines are not present and where price or wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. Generally, both conditions will have to be met before a body is made subject to surveillance. As a result, the great majority of Australian businesses will not be subject to surveillance. In deciding which industries or bodies need to be covered the Treasurer will consult the Authority which, in turn, will liaise with the Trade Practices Commission as appropriate. This will be one of the first tasks of the new Authority. Initially, the new Authority will undertake surveillance of wholesale petroleum products prices which is presently carried out by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. The latter Authority will be abolished by the present Bill. In addition, major Commonwealth public authorities will, where appropriate, be subject to surveillance. We intend that Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be brought under surveillance from an early stage in respect of their principal charges, subject to suitable directions to the Authority regarding the matters to which it should give special consideration when examining those charges. The Bill does not apply to State authorities. However, as pricing guidelines are developed for application by the Authority, particularly in relation to public sector prices, we will consult with the States on the desirability of major State authorities observing similar guidelines. The Government intends that other Commonwealth authorities that are not directly subject to surveillance should also apply those guidelines where appropriate to their own pricing or price regulatory decisions. As with the present Petroleum Products Pricing Act and the former Prices Justification Act, there are no penalties in the Bill for failure to comply with the Authority's findings. Penalties attach only to failure by declared organisations to observe the required procedures for the notification of price increases or for the provision of information and evidence, or in relation to the freezing of prices during inquiries. The Government expects that bodies subject to the Authority will abide by its decisions. While compliance will be voluntary, consistent with the consensus approach on which the prices and incomes policy is based, the force of public opinion and companies' recognition of their public responsibilities will be powerful factors ensuring compliance with the findings of the Authority, as past experience here and overseas indicates. The Government does not wish to inhibit normal business operations. Every effort has been made to keep the costs of surveillance to business to a minimum. The Bill itself, which affects the rights and interests of individuals, is of necessity somewhat detailed. But our intention is, as far as possible, to keep the procedures simple, speedy and non- legalistic. Turning to the main features of the Bill, its broad thrust is, as I have indicated, to provide a capacity for price surveillance and inquiry which will be exercised selectively and with an emphasis on reducing as far as possible the amount of legalism in procedures. Thus, whilst the ambit of the Bill includes the supply of any goods or services by foreign, trading and financial corporations and Commonwealth authorities, referred to as 'persons' in the Bill, the notification procedures will apply only to those goods or services and those persons that have been declared under section 21. Declared persons supplying declared goods or services will be required to give prior notice of a price increase and to wait a statutory period before implementing the increase. The Authority will normally have 21 days to examine a proposed increase, although this period may be extended with the consent of the notifying person. Where the Authority objects to a proposed increase it will be able to suggest a lower increase to the person concerned or, where necessary, recommend an inquiry . Whilst the notification procedures will apply only to declared persons, the Authority will be able to inquire into prices charged by any person subject to the Act and will be able to conduct general price inquiries not necessarily tied to the justification of prices charged by a particular supplier. Inquiries, however, will be held only at the direction of the Treasurer or with his approval. The Treasurer will also determine limits for the duration of inquiries , which will generally be no longer than three months, and he will be able to direct the Authority regarding the conduct of inquiries and matters to be taken into consideration. Where an inquiry relates to the supply of goods and services by particular persons, prices charged by those persons will be frozen during the course of an inquiry, subject to a provision empowering the Authority to grant interim price increases. Reports on inquiries will be made public, as also will the outcomes of price notices dealt with outside of inquiries. Selection of areas and persons to be brought under price surveillance will be by the Minister, or by the Authority subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill does not stipulate criteria for selecting goods and services or persons for surveillance. I have already made clear, however, the principles on which that selection will be made . The Bill incorporates legislative guidelines which require the Authority, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, to have particular regard to the following matters: The need to maintain investment and employment including the influence of profitability on investment and employment; the need to discourage a person who is in a position substantially to influence a market for goods or services from taking advantage of that power in setting prices; and the need to discourage cost increases arising from increases in wages and changes in conditions of employment inconsistent with principles established by relevant industrial tribunals. These guidelines will ensure that the Authority's approach to price surveillance both conforms to and supports the Government's broad economic strategy. They are subject to any additional directions that the Minister may give to the Authority under section 20. The overwhelming majority of unions have undertaken to comply with the new wage index-ation guidelines by undertaking to make no extra claims during the currency of the wage system. We are heartened by this development. However, there is also a need for a comparable supportive mechanism on the employers' side. Section 17 (3) (c), which I have just quoted, provides this by requiring the Authority to have particular regard to the need to discourage cost increases arising from settlements that are inconsistent with principles established by relevant industrial tribunals. This approach thus places an obligation on business to comply with the wages side of the prices and incomes accord which matches the commitments already given by the overwhelming majority of unions. The Government recognises that, where a company has clearly and strongly resisted attempts at breaching the wage system, it should not be subject to a second possible penalty and in these circumstances it is not intended that the Authority would disallow cost increases. If necessary, where it is clear that a company has taken all reasonable steps to resist a breach, a ministerial direction under section 20 will be issued to the Authority that the resulting cost increases should not be disallowed. But where a company has not so resisted , or has offered wage or other increases to suit its own purposes in disregard of the national economic interest, it cannot expect that the costs involved will be accepted by the Authority as justification for price increases. As I have already indicated, the legislative guidelines under section 17 (3) are supported in the Bill by a provision, section 20, for ministerial directions to be given to the Authority. This will ensure that the operations of the Authority remain within the framework of government policy, including government policies on pricing by Commonwealth authorities. This provision will also allow, upon ministerial direction, the Authority to have particular regard to other matters which may be of special concern, such as the use of non-market transfer pricing if there were indications that these were being used to circumvent the intentions of the prices and incomes policy. The authority will consist of a chairman and three other members who may be appointed on either a full time or a part time basis. Whilst the members will not be representative of particular interests, it is intended that one of the members will have a background in the trade union movement and another in business. The Bill provides for the appointment of associate members for the duration of particular inquiries. This will enable the Authority to be assisted where necessary by persons who have special expertise in areas subject to inquiry. The Authority's secretariat will be located in Canberra. As a transitional arrangement, staff of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, whose operations will be subsumed by the new Authority, will remain in Melbourne as a branch of the Authority. The Bill provides for repeal of the Petroleum Products Pricing Act and for transfer of the records of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and the former Prices Justification Tribunal to the new Authority. Provision is made in the Bill to protect information and documents provided to the Prices Surveillance Authority. Establishment of the Authority will add only marginally to Budget outlays in 1983-84, but its operations are estimated to cost around $1.5m in a full year. This estimate is based on the proposed coverage of major Commonwealth authorities and assumes some increase in surveillance in the private sector beyond the present surveillance of oil company prices by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. The Bill is the result of extensive consultations with the trade union movement , with business, with State governments and with community groups. Throughout those consultations I have been greatly heartened by the spirit of co-operation and partnership exhibited by all the participants. I am confident that that spirit of co-operation will be extended to the work of the Prices Surveillance Authority. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to promote the establishment and development of a private sector venture capital market in Australia. The Bill provides for the establishment of management and investment companies-known to their intimates as MICs- which will be licensed by a board. The Government will encourage investors to participate in these management and investment companies by providing a 100 per cent tax deduction in the year in which the capital is subscribed. The Government's national recovery and reconstruction plan noted the importance of improved access to equity finance for developing new industries. It also referred to the need for support for private sector investment, to encourage installation of new capacity which is likely to strengthen market performance. The venture capital market which this Bill seeks to encourage will enable entrepreneurial companies to expand and take up new business opportunities. The need for government incentives to assist the development of the venture capital market in Australia has been recognised in a number of reports from such bodies as the Australian Science and Technology Council, the Small Business Advisory Council, the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, the Institution of Engineers and the Bureau of Industry Economics. In developing the Management and Investment Companies Bill, the Government has had the benefit of the report 'Developing High Technology Enterprises for Australia', prepared by the High Technology Financing Committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, chaired by Sir Frank Espie. The Espie report is the most detailed study yet undertaken in Australia of the development of high technology enterprises and their need for venture capital. The Committee spent two years analysing the experiences and performance of a broad range of young high technology companies. I think it is fair to say that the Committee was set up under the previous Government. I should pay a tribute to my predecessor, the Hon. David Thomson, for his interest in this area. The principal recommendation of the Committee forms the basis of the present Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the Espie committee for its work. Its members gave freely of their time and put many long hours into discussions with firms and in the preparation of the report. The overwhelming acceptance of the report by the business sector is a tribute to their efforts. The Espie Committee found that Australia is failing to generate new growth-oriented firms to replace those being lost in the older sectors of manufacturing. More seriously, Australia is failing to grasp the opportunities offered by high technology industries for wealth creation and employment growth. The Committee reported that it knew of no country which has succeeded in establishing a climate for investment in high technology enterprises without the Government taking positive action. The Committee pointed to the current unavailability in Australia of venture capital which it defined as 'the provision of funds, unsupported by collateral, in an enterprise whose future is itself subject to a high degree of risk'. The approach adopted in the Bill has the advantage of enabling the Government to control the cost to revenue. The Bill seeks to establish a partnership between Government and the private sector in developing a venture capital market. It provides a mechanism for combining equity investment with management support for eligible businesses, thus overcoming the frequent lack of management skills in small Australian firms. Complementary legislation from the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) will also minimise the degree of rorting that could occur. It will encourage the formation of new business enterprises in Australia and the expansion and diversification of existing firms. Part II of the Bill establishes an independent Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board. The Licensing Board has the power to issue, suspend, revoke and renew licences of MICs. It will approve the amount of tax deductible capital which each MIC may raise. Further, the Licensing Board will closely monitor the MICs to prevent any possible abuse of the system. The Bill establishes the broad terms and conditions under which MICs may operate. It provides criteria by which the Licensing Board will assess applications for MIC licences. Every effort has been made to give the MICs flexibility and to enable them to take decisions quickly. The board will certify the eligibility of those businesses in which the MICs are seeking to invest prior to any investment being made. This approach eliminates uncertainties regarding the eligibility of investors' funds to qualify for the tax incentive. The Bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that investments are directed towards those activities which are currently unable to attract adequate finance. This will ensure that funds which have attracted a tax concession are not used in place of other sources of finance already available in Australia. Although businesses which can be certified as eligible for investment under this scheme are not limited to technology-based enterprises, there is no doubt that the scheme will provide critically needed funds for Australia's sunrise industries. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated in his speech to the National Technology Conference: The effectiveness with which we apply new technology which we develop ourselves -will determine the efficiency of our industry, its competitive performance and its capacity to grow. The Government has decided that the cost to revenue for this scheme in 1983-84 will be $20m. Investors will include corporate taxpayers paying 46c in the dollar and individuals paying 60c in the dollar. The average cost to revenue is therefore anticipated to be approximately 50c in the dollar. As a result, $20m income forgone will result in $40m in licensed venture capital being available for investment. The cost to revenue in future years will be determined in the Budget context. Taking a longer term view of the scheme, these amounts represent income deferred rather than income forgone. There are some similarities between the provisions of this Bill and the United States small business investment companies program. A 1981 study of the United States program by the chartered accountants Deloitte, Haskins and Sells concluded that the increased tax revenue received as a result of the program greatly exceeded the cost to the Government. I wish to express my thanks to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for its efforts in preparing this complex piece of legislation so that it can pass all stages in 1983. I also thank Dr John Bell of my Department and his staff for their herculean efforts in this area. I appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition in enabling the Bill to be debated before I leave for Antarctica. This is an important innovation and signifies the Government's determination to promote not only our sunrise industries but also to assist the revival of traditional industries by the use of appropriate new technologies. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 215th report of the Committee relating to Finance Minute on report 190; that is, petroleum royalties and excise. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The 215th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 190th report which reviewed the procedures used for the collection of petroleum royalties and excise. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations as contained in the 190th report which was tabled on 27 October 1981. The Committee's inquiry into this matter commenced as part of its examination of the Auditor-General's 1977-78 report. As a result, the Committee decided to examine separately the matters concerning off-shore petroleum royalties and excise, which were again referred to in the Auditor-General's 1979 -80 and 1980-81 reports. The decision to enquire into this matter was influenced by the Committee's recognition of the significance of Commonwealth receipts from petroleum royalties and excise. These receipts are of the order of $3,000m per year. The Committee's concern, as expressed in report 190, was that even a small percentage error, resulting from inaccuracies in the back allocation procedures which are used to verify the amount of crude oil produced, could lead to errors of plus or minus millions of dollars. The report also highlighted some of the many complex legal issues in this area involving both Federal and State governments as well as the oil producers. These issues arise because of the many different Commonwealth and State Acts covering off-shore matters and the difficulties in resolving which areas and which activities should come under Commonwealth rather than State jurisdiction. The Committee recognised that the issues identified in its 190th report were complex, and involved policies and administrative procedures at both State and Federal government level. As a result, the significant delay in the finalisation of the Finance minute on this report was anticipated. The Committee has been kept informed of progress in the interim. The Committee is pleased to note the considerable effort which has been directed towards carrying out most of its recommendations. Overall, therefore, the Committee is satisfied with the timing and content of this response to its 190th report. I will summarise the Committee's recommendations and the responses. Recommendation 1: The terms of the 1980 legislation be discussed with the States with a view to having the legislation amended prior to being proclaimed, to empower the Joint Authority established under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1980 to function in relation to the territorial sea as well as the adjacent areas. In response the Committee was advised that the Government is reviewing the operation of the Commonwealth and State legislation covering off- shore petroleum and mining activities. The issue raised by the Committe will be a matter for consideration in the context of that review. Recommendations 2 and 3: Discussions take place between the respective Commonwealth and State authorities and between Auditors-General to ensure that royalty collection procedures compatible with the requirements of both governments are implemented under the existing legislation and under the 1980 Commonwealth legislation when proclaimed. The Department of National Development and Energy and the Auditor-General's Office should be involved, in co-operation with the Victorian Auditor-General, in ensuring the correctness of the procedures to arrive at the royalty payments. In response, an independent firm of consultants was commissioned to undertake a review of the sampling techniques employed for obtaining compositional data for the material balance program used in the calculation of royalties and the excise payable to the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. The recommendations resulting from that review have been implemented. Also, four sets of detailed procedures for the collection and verification of royalties and excise for the Bass Strait producing fields either have been developed, or are being developed. They are producers procedures, State procedures, Australian Customs Service procedures, and Department of Resources and Energy procedures. Recommendation 4: Arrangements be made for the Commonwealth's share of royalties to be paid immediately it is received by the State, with any adjustments being made in the following month's payment. In response, legislation has been amended to ensure the immediate payment to the Commonwealth of its share of the royalties. Recommendation 5: Officers of the Department of National Development and Energy and the Auditor-General's Office actively participate in the final verification of royalty calculations, which should be completed as soon as possible. In response audit by the Victorian Department of Minerals and Energy of royalty payments on the basis of wellhead values is progessing in consultation with the Department of Resources and Energy. Recommendation 6: The Department of National Development and Energy and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs treat finalisation of the documentation of excise procedures as a matter of urgency and the Committee will expect to see substantial progress in this area in the near future. In response, the Department of Resources and Energy advised that the procedures adopted to allocate and verify production from the various Bass Strait fields for excise purposes are the same as those used in the royalty calculation. The final recommendation in report 190 concerns the simplification of royalty procedures and refers to the United Kingdom experience where procedures have been revised so that wellhead value is no longer used as the basis for royalty payments. The Department of Resources and Energy responded to this by indicating the Government's intention to consider this issue in the context of its current review of taxation arrangements for resource projects. Consequently the Committee intends to review progress in this area in approximately 12 months time. I commend this report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(4.56) —The purpose of the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill is to validate export meat inspection charges levied by the Commonwealth between 1 January 1983 and 21 November 1983. The need for it is based on a technical deficiency in legislation which has been in existence from the beginning of the year. From that point of view the Opposition has no quarrel with the Government. It is reasonable that when a legislative deficiency is discovered a government should take the appropriate action to fix it. However, the Opposition is of the view that this Bill should not be passed by the Parliament until the Government has come to its senses on the whole question of export inspection charges. The only reason this validation Bill is before the House is because of the massively increased export inspection fees that the Government forced on the meat industry in the August Budget and the threatened High Court of Australia challenge by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council to the legislation and the powers of the Commonwealth. The Government decided in the Budget to hike up meat export inspection fees by a massive 200 per cent. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Darling Downs has said that this Bill is entirely about a technical deficiency. He has said that the Opposition agrees that the Bill rectifying this technical deficiency should be passed. He is now trying to expand the debate. The Bill is a very short one. It is about a technical deficiency; it is about an error made by the previous Government. We are trying to fix up the error. It has nothing to do with any prophesied High Court challenges. If the honourable member proceeds in this way he is contradicting what he said in his opening comments. The Bill has nothing to do with charges; it makes a purely technical correction to an error for which the previous Government was responsible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The point of order is upheld. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I question your ruling because the Bill is about the levying of fees. It is about the correction and the validation of the levying of those fees, and with the greatest respect to your ruling I ask you to reconsider it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect you have not allowed me to develop my point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member speaking to the previous point of order? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would appreciate it if you paid attention to the debate and did not read documents because you have made an error. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I remind the honourable member that he was addressing himself to the second reading debate and a point of order was taken by the Minister for Primary Industry. I ruled on the point of order; I upheld it. The honourable member then resumed the debate. He was not addressing the point of order. I call on the honourable gentleman to resume the debate. Mr McVEIGH —I am speaking about the relevant legislation to which the Bill relates. I believe it is appropriate for me to talk about the Bill to which the legislation relates, and it is about the collection of fees. The validation Bill is before the House because of those massively increased export inspection fees that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) forced on the meat industry in the August Budget and the threatened High Court challenge by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council to the legislation and the powers of the Commonwealth. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am afraid I must again draw your attention to the nature of this Bill and to the second reading speech of the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). The speech refers to a technical matter about validation. This is because the previous Government left out the definition of an abattoir. This legislation is not about the level of charges; it is about a definition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I uphold the point of order. Obviously it is necessary for the honourable gentleman to relate his remarks to the Bill which very much involves the issue of validation. Mr McVEIGH —I can understand how the Minister for Primary Industry is confused as he was overseas when this Bill was introduced. I will quote from that second reading speech of the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. As I have said, I can understand how the Minister is not conversant with this legislation. The second reading speech states: 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. I am talking about those fees. It is part of the second reading speech and I have quoted from that second reading speech. It is quite appropriate for me to talk about matters which are contained in the relevant legislation. I have quoted from the second reading speech of the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. It is quite appropriate for me to talk about fees. I have a copy of the second reading speech and I have quoted the actual words. I think it is appropriate for me to continue to talk about fees which are mentioned in the second reading speech. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. In terms of the charges, this Bill and related measures went through this House a few weeks ago. The Opposition did not oppose them in the Senate. Members of the Opposition had their chance then to talk about the charges themselves-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will confine his remarks to the point of order. Mr Kerin —The point I am trying to make is that the honourable member opposite is trying to say that we can have a general debate on the charges. That opportunity has been provided to the Parliament and to the Opposition, and members of the Opposition approved these measures in the Senate. What we are talking about is one line by way of validation of a charge. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. This obviously is a very contentious area. I wish to make just two points: Firstly, the Bill we are debating talks about the livestock slaughter export inspection charge. Clearly, if we are going to agree or disagree to the passing of legislation to validate a charge, the charge is very pertinent to the debate. The charge can be set by regulation. We are not debating the regulations, we are debating the charge. Let us say, for example, the the charge had been doubled between the last debate and this debate by regulation and the Government now wants to validate that charge. Clearly, the size of the charge is pertinent to whether we will agree or disagree with the validation of the charge. Surely we cannot debate the validation of a charge without talking about the charge itself . Mr Kerin —It is not the validation of a charge. Mr Porter —Well, what is the Bill about? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker has spoken. He will resume his seat. I think all honourable members will observe that this is a very difficult and technical matter to rule upon. I am inclined to allow a degree of latitude to allow the honourable member to continue at least until I get the opportunity to comprehend the legislation more effectively than I do now. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your very wise decision. I make allowances for the Minister. He was not here when the Bill was introduced so he does not know. The Government decided in the Budget to hike up meat export inspection fees by a massive 200 per cent from $1.80 to $5.40-an increase of $3. 60. That is a huge and totally unrealistic increase. I am referring to that part of the legislation which relates to the fees which are contained in the Bill. It is no wonder that the entire meat and livestock industry has been in an uproar ever since that decision. As soon as the Government got wind of the possibility of a legal challenge it went scurrying through the relevant legislation looking for possible loopholes. It found this one and it is now trying to rush this legislation through the Parliament-the Minister did not even want to debate it- as a stopgap measure in the hope of staving off any possible legal challenge. But that just will not work. I understand that this loophole is only one-I stress the words 'only one'-of the grounds on which the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council is basing its challenge. But that challenge will still proceed. Mr Kerin —Do you know the grounds? Mr McVEIGH —Would not the Minister like to know. As I have said, all this Bill amounts to is a crude attempt by the Government and the Minister to bring in stopgap legislation in anticipation of what it thinks the legal challenge might be. Let us look at why our meat and livestock industries are so incensed about these increased charges. The previous Government introduced export inspection charges in 1979. We set the fees at $1.80 per head for cattle which compared at the time with $1.50 charged in New South Wales, $2.08 charged in Victoria and $1 .06 charged in Queensland. The policy was to recoup 50 per cent of inspection costs from industry. But we realised, given the downturn in international markets and the recent critical drought situation, that any move to maintain the 50 per cent level or, in other words, to increase the charges, was an untenable proposition. Furthermore, with the inception last month of the export inspection service within the Department of Primary Industry and with all the modifications which were and still are being implemented in the export inspection field, we considered it inappropriate that increased fees should be levied on the industry . In other words, there were many compelling reasons why charges should not be increased. We recognised and accepted those reasons. However, this Labor Government has not. It has simply said it will implement the previous Government 's policy and collect 50 per cent of the costs from industry and the previous Government can take the blame. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Again I appeal to you. What we are having is a rerun of a debate that has already taken place in this Parliament and in the Senate. What we are talking about today is validation which concerns the definition of an abattoir; nothing else. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have had an opportunity to look at the Bill and the second reading speech. There is no question that the purpose of the Bill concerns the matter referred to by the Minister-the question of validation relating to an abattoir. I ask the honourable gentleman to confine his remarks having regard to that circumstance. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister's ploy has not worked. Industry has recognised that, under our administration, we were prepared to implement the policy with care and due consideration for the capacity of industry to pay. That was our approach. The legislation talks about prescribing an abattoir as a place for inspection fees to be collected. I am directing my remarks to the inspection fee collection . In order to inspect something one has to define what that something is. That is the line of argument that I am taking. The legislation talks about prescribing a place by regulation on 21 November to overcome, in effect, what could be construed as illegal collection of fees during that period. I am describing what fees are all about. In any legal matter at all-and Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand it if you do not understand this-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will proceed far more effectively and successfully if he does not reflect on the Chair. Mr McVEIGH —Each word is taken to have meaning and each word is allowed to be commented upon. I am talking about fees. The word 'fee' is in the Bill and in the second reading speech. Each word in a Bill has equal weight and is able to be commented upon. Industry leaders have variously slammed Labor's Budget decision as callous, bloody-minded and cynical. They have constantly told the Government that industry simply does not have the capacity to pay such increases . When the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill was before the House in September we of the Opposition warned in the strongest terms of the consequences of the proposed increases-I am talking about fees-mentioned in the Bill and in the second reading speech. We told the Government that industry could not be expected to pay a massive 200 per cent hike in charges at a time of depressed world markets and low returns, and when cattle and sheep producers were struggling to get back on their feet following the worst drought in history. We told the Minister and the Hawke Government that it was totally inequitable that industry should have to pay massively increased charges- Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable member for Darling Downs is ignoring your words on this matter. He is reading from a prepared speech. If it is your ruling that we are to have a general debate on this matter, speakers from the Government side will also not feel constrained. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I intend to rule on the point of order. The Bill is described in the long title as 'A Bill for An Act 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, and for related purposes'. I remind the Minister that it is within the competence of a Minister to introduce a Bill with a limited title. He has not availed himself of the opportunity to do so. In the short description of business and procedures of the House of Representatives reference is made to what constitutes a second reading debate. It is to this effect: The second reading debate is primarily an opportunity to consider the principles of the Bill and should not extend in detail to matters which can be discussed at the Committee stage. . . . . Debate however is not strictly limited to the contents of the Bill and may include reasonable references to: A number of matters are then referred to, which honourable members can read for themselves. I will not take the time of the House to enunciate each of them. In the circumstances I believe the honourable member is in order. I so rule and call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVEIGH —We told the Minister that the Government's sense of timing was abysmal and that it demonstrated a total lack of understanding of rural issues. The only reason we did not oppose the legislation was that it was Budget legislation, and it is our policy not to obstruct a Budget. We want to let the Government stew in its own juice. Regrettably, everything we predicted has come true. The meat and livestock industries of this country are being forced into an intolerable financial position because of the actions of this Labor Government and this ineffective Minister. Let there be no misunderstanding; this Labor Government is directly to blame for the crisis now facing these vital Australian industries. This Minister for Primary Industry, whether he likes it or not and whether or not he tries to squirm out of it, is directly to blame. It is barely two months since the increased charges were levied on 1 October. In barely two months there have been numerous examples of how meat works have been hit. The Government has been constantly warned in the strongest possible terms that the increased charges would place massive commercial pressure on export meat works, that this would prove an impossible burden and that works would shut down and even hand in their export registrations. We practical people were right; the academic theoreticians opposite were wrong once again. The Government has refused to listen. Even as recently as last Wednesday the Minister for Primary Industry told the Rural Press Club that the Government was determined to abide by its decision and enforce the increased charges. Just after the Budget he said he had been rolled on the same issue. He was not a member of the Cabinet then, but he is now and it seems that, when put to his first real test, instead of recognising the stupidity of the decision and fighting Cabinet to have it reversed, the Minister is merely maintaining the Cabinet line. He is not fighting for primary industry at all. Honourable members should look at what the Minister told the Rural Press Club. According to the West Australian newspaper of 24 November the Minister stated: The Government has taken a decision. It has been argued through and I don't know of any reason to believe that this is being reviewed. What tremendous support this Minister has given the meat and livestock industries! They have been hammering at his door on this matter for months. Certainly, he has been sympathetic. He told them that he had lost in pre-Budget considerations. Now he says the matter has been argued through. It certainly has not been argued through since his elevation to Cabinet. He is still trying to wash his hands of all responsibility. The Minister is a complete failure. His only asset is sympathy, but that does not help pay household bills or provide wages. Let us look at what has happened in the industry in the short time-barely two months-since these increased charges supposedly came into effect. I say ' supposedly' because virtually nobody has paid them. Meatpack (Vic.) Pty Ltd of Camperdown closed its mutton chain and put off 75 people two weeks ago. It has since closed its beef chain and laid off another 60 people. J. H. Ralph and Sons at Brooklyn, Victoria, has closed its export cattle and sheep operations, putting off 70 people. Watsons Foods at Spearwood in Western Australia has relinquished its export licence, meaning that $3m in export sales will be lost. Richardson's Meat Industries closed its Derwent Park export operations in Tasmania. It has since reopened in an attempt to compete. S. P. Holman and Sons at Devonport, Tasmania, has laid off 12 people because, according to Mr Bill Holman, of the substantial increases in Federal Government meat inspection charges. The Longford Meat Company at Longford, Tasmania, has laid off 30 people . The South Burnett Meat Works Co-operative Association at Murgon in Queensland has lost 50 per cent of its pig kill because traditional customers can no longer afford to send their stock to an export abattoir. The situation is so ridiculous that that total cost for export inspection of pigs slaughtered at export works where the Commonwealth charges have gone from 60c to $1.80 will far exceed the total value of all pig exports from Australia. Tancred Brothers at Shepparton, Victoria, closed on Monday, laying off 150 people. Mr Braithwaite —How many? Mr McVEIGH —One hundred and fifty. Whilst rationalisation has been occurring in the meat processing industry for some time, it should be stressed that all of the examples I have given have taken place since the increased charges were announced in the Budget. This Government is guilty of duplicity. Only today the Government introduced legislation to protect jobs in the steel industry, but it will not protect jobs in rural industries. The examples I gave are only a sample of what is happening in the meat industry. Export abattoirs are losing business to domestic works. It is obvious that they must do so. Why should people, say in Victoria, pay a State inspection fee of $2.80 plus the Commonwealth fee of $5.40 -a total of $8.20 per beast-in an export works when in a domestic works they have to pay only the State charge? Furthermore, what has happened so far is only the tip of the iceberg. The real impact of these increased charges has not yet been felt because many operators are hanging on. They refuse to accept that the Government could be so stupid as to jeopardise their operations and the livelihood of their employees. They have made interim arrangements with their client, pending further clarification of the position in view of the challenge before the High Court of Australia. In the meantime, however, thousands of employees working on the slaughter floors of export works around Australia are living from day to day in fear of being thrown out of work. Thousands of jobs have been put at risk by the actions of this Labor Government and this non-caring Minister. Meatworks around Australia are drawing up petitions in an attempt to make this Government wake up. Nearly 700 workers at the Blayney abattoir in New South Wales-I notice the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) is not here; he is not interested-have sent a petition to the Parliament. That petition was presented in the Senate yesterday. Other petitions have come from Tasmania and more are being gathered. Furthermore, the Government does not seem to realise that increased charges are directly threatening moves to bring about a single meat inspection service-something for which we in government strived and for which this Government claims also to be striving. It is quite incredible that this Government should so doggedly insist on carrying through a decision which directly threatens an associated policy area. Then again, perhaps it is not surprising, because this Government just does not understand these matters. The broader implications of these increased charges are equally frightening. Australia's meat and livestock industries earn over $1,500m in export income. Beef and veal exports alone make up the bulk of this trade and are expected to account for $1,165m in the current financial year. We are talking about one of Australia's most dynamic export industries. It has to compete under the most difficult conditions in the world market place. Most of our competitor countries pay huge production subsidies and pay the full cost of all inspection services. In New Zealand over $500m was paid in subsidies for sheep meat sales over the past two years. We all know the story about the European Economic Community and its subsidies. The Community is just about bankrupt because of them but it is still able to undercut just about any competition in the international market place. In the last Egyptian tender on 14 November, for example, Ireland won some 14,000 tonnes out of an 18,000 tonnes total for boneless beef. It was able to win that because it offered the product at 68c a pound, at least 20c a pound lower than Australia could offer for a comparable product. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have quite happily accepted your ruling on the matters I have raised before, but when we get onto the Egyptian meat tenders, I just wonder whether they are relevant to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVEIGH —This Government, however, is offering no encouragement at all. It is offering total and complete disincentive. Through the increased inspection charges it is putting our meat export industry $40m behind the eight-ball before it even starts looking for markets. It is threatening the loss of export markets and hence export returns. It is threatening thousands of jobs in meatworks right around Australia. It has forced the meat and livestock industries into an untenable position financially. Let us not forget that on top of all the difficulties the industry has to face, its competitive ability has been further eroded because of the revaluation of the Australian dollar. The effect of the 10 per cent March devaluation has been totally wiped out. No wonder this industry is gravely worried. The Government, if it had any understanding or genuine concern for the future of the industry, would acknowledge that the decision to increase inspection charges was totally wrong and it would reverse the decision. That is what the Minister for Primary Industry ought to be telling Cabinet. But he is not. He cannot win. He always gets rolled. The Government has already backed down to the tune of more than $100m on Budget announcements. We have seen it back down on fuel excise, Army Reserve pay, wine tax, superannuation, sales tax, the safe anchorages fuel freight subsidy for the fishing industry and the assets test. But this Minister cannot get it to back down on anything. There is no reason why, if the Government is at all fair dinkum in its so-called commitment to rural industries, it should not recognise its foolishness and back down on this issue also. But, of course, Labor has never really been interested in or tuned in to agriculture in this country. The Swiss banker, Mr Richard Schait, was acknowledged in the editorial pages of Monday's Australian as saying that our future lies with what we do best- producing food and minerals for the international community. Why does the Government hate the farmers? Everybody recognises that except this Labor Government. In this case the Government would rather see one of our major export industries blown to pieces than back down and further erode its Budget strategy. Its priorities are all wrong. How on earth can the Minister for Primary Industry claim, as he did at the Rural Press Club last week, that the Government is pursuing the recommendations of the 1982 sheep meat mission to the Middle East? Those recommendations are directly aimed at increasing our carcass trade to the region. It is simply not possible to achieve those aims by hiking up inspection charges in Australia. We cannot increase exports and hope to compete in international markets if back home we are hiving up taxes and charges all over the place to the extent that our end product is totally uncompetitive. It is staggering that this Government is so totally and utterly blind to the enormity of the damage it is causing. The Government announced these increased charges without any consultation at all with the industries involved. It has had numerous representations from industry pointing out that such increases are just not tolerable. It has thumbed its nose at those representations. The Opposition has continuously warned the Government of the damage it is causing but again it has refused to take any notice. Why does the Government not listen to those of us who know? The time has come when the Government must take notice. It has not provided industry with any adequate answer to its requests for a detailed cost analysis of the inspection charge structure. The time has come when the Government must account for its decisions. It must immediately call an industry conference and thoroughly review the entire export inspection charge issue; it must listen to industry views and take them into consideration; and it must weigh up the pros and cons of all the arguments and then come down with a considered opinion. Our primary industries can no longer put up with this Government's reckless and ill-considered policy decisions. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council will go ahead with its High Court of Australia challenge, as is its right. The Government should not be trying to stave off that challenge by taking a punt on what it might contain. The Government has to accept that there is legitimate challenge afoot. It has to accept that its Budget decision to increase charges was a monumental blunder which has horrendous implications for our export meat trade and the meat processing industry. If the Government cannot realise this, it is the role of the Opposition to force it into realisation. That is why we are strongly of the view that this Bill should not be proceeded with at this stage. We will be moving in this House and in the Senate that consideration of the Bill be deferred until next year. We will be voting on it in this place and in the Senate to let the people of Australia, the workers in the meat industry and the workers in the abattoirs know that the Labor Party does not care for them. It is not interested in them and it does not know what it is talking about. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'consideration of the Bill be deferred until the first sitting day of the Senate in 1984'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.27) —The Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act which was introduced by the Liberal-National Party Government on 28 May 1979 levied certain charges for the export inspection of livestock. That Act was introduced notwithstanding an interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on financing promotion of rural products which was placed in December 1975. These charges were to be recovered under the provisions of the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979. Rates of charges are prescribed by regulation. Until 1982 section 4 of the Live-Stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 defined 'abattoir' as premises registered pursuant to the Exports (Meat) Regulations as an export establishment. Section 4 of this Act was amended with effect from 1 January 1983 to redefine an abattoir as prescribed premises for slaughtering for export. By consequence of this legislation, charges have been levied. However, premises so intended to be prescribed have apparently not been prescribed. Accordingly, it is necessary that regulations made to prescribe abattoirs should apply from 1 January 1983 when section 4 of the said Act was amended. The introduction of this Act is necessary because of the incompetence, negligence, and bungling ineptitude of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. Clearly, if the Live-Stock Slaugh- ter (Export Inspection Charge) Act had been properly examined by the Minister for Primary Industry at the time this present legislation would not be required. The legislation resurrects the debate relating to the imposition of export charges and the recent increase of these charges. Most members would now be aware that carcasses and offals are inspected for export approval and also for domestic health reasons. Export inspection is the responsibility of the Federal Government. As a result the Commonwealth employs inspectors at each registered export establishment. This service is met by the Federal Government. The Department of Primary Industry employs approximately 1,800 persons on meat export inspections. The effects of an efficient export inspection service enhance national prestige. Obviously, benefits must flow to the meat export industry as a result of an efficient export inspection service by way of markets obtained or retained or by better prices through higher quality. The Australian meat export industry will benefit the Australian economy to the extent of approximately $1 billion in export earnings in 1983-84. The Live-Stock Slaughter (Inspection Charge) Act provides for recovery of approximately 50 per cent of the cost to the Federal Government of inspection services. Since 1979 the former Liberal-National Party Government pursued a policy aimed at 50 per cent recovery of such charges. The former Liberal-National Party Government apparently gave no consideration to the impact of such charges on Australia's meat export trade. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take two points of order. The honourable member for Calare used disparaging remarks against me. I would like the withdrawal of those remarks. They were very bad. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I am afraid the remarks escaped the Chair. If the honourable member for Calare made remarks that breached the Standing Orders in respect of the honourable member for Darling Downs, I ask him to withdraw. Mr Simmons —I am not sure which remarks the honourable member for Darling Downs wishes me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McVeigh —You can withdraw them here or outside; please yourself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is unable to adjudicate, not having heard those remarks. Mr McVeigh —Well-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is the situation. Mr McVeigh —I hope you do not hear the remarks that I will make about him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman has a persistent tendency to reflect on the Chair. I ask him to resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —No, a point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I asked the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —But the point of order in the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask him to resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —The second point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —I want to make a point of order during the honourable member's speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr LINDSAY —Again, since 1979 the system of dual Federal-State meat inspection in many export works has led to inefficiencies in inspection, demarcation disputes, significant additional costs to industry and reduced product security, all of which damage marketing opportunities. Without doubt, the inspection controls to ensure product integrity are an essential feature of the meat export industry. Authorities in the United States of America have quite clearly indicated that no relaxation of these costly controls will be accepted without a move within Australia to a national co-ordinated meat inspection service. It is claimed by certain industry leaders that the Australian meat export industry may be reduced to an uncompetitive position because of a lack of sufficient subsidy from the Australian taxpayer. One industry spokesman has suggested that over the last two years New Zealand has had its sheep meat sales subsidised by more than $500m. This statement ignores the many concessions, including taxation concessions, made by the Australian Government to ensure that the Australian meat export trade continues to be a robust, vital and aggressive industry. However, the Australian Government and the Australian meat export industry must be constantly vigilant in regard to attempts by overseas meat exporters to penetrate and secure markets in countries which have traditionally purchased large quantities of Australian meat. Of particular concern is the dairy legislation now before the United States Congress which will subsidise the slaughter of dairy stock. The impact of this will be twofold: First, additional domestic production will bear down on the total price for meat which could otherwise be obtained from the importation of Australian meat. Secondly, it will effect a counter-cyclical formula under the United States quota loss and create a supply-demand position whereby quota restraint could be placed on Australian exports. In the Japanese market Australia's share of the beef import quota has been eroded by competition from the United States of America, New Zealand and the European Economic Community. On 22 November 1983 the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to a Japanese decision to announce only a part of the global beef import quota for the second half of the Japanese fiscal year, that is, October-March. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 98 which states: Any Member may at any time raise of point of order which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question. Now, I raise a point of order. I presume that, according to that standing order, the point of order will be disposed of and the honourable member speaking cannot continue until the point of order is disposed of. Is that correct? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member was reflecting on the Chair and was asked to resume his seat. Is the honourable member taking another point of order? Mr McVeigh —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will hear the honourable gentleman. Mr McVeigh —The honourable member for Herbert is debating a validation Bill and talking about sales of meat and global quotas in Japan. The sale of meat or global quotas in Japan are not mentioned in the Bill and I suggest that the honourable member desist from referring to them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I regard the point of order as being totally facetious in view of the discussion that we had on previous points of order which resulted in the honourable member for Darling Downs being favoured and given the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate, despite the protestations of the Minister. I apply the same ruling to the point of order that the honourable member for Darling Downs has made as I applied to the points taken against him. Mr LINDSAY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was implied earlier that the increase in export charges may reflect on Australia's export trade. The Japanese decision creates uncertainty amongst Australian exporters, particularly having regard to the commitment which the Japanese have already given to the United States to increase imports of grain fed beef this year. The Hawke Government has secured an important place for meat exports in the Japanese market. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has made it clear to the Japanese authorities that Australia is seeking access arrangements for beef in Japan to safeguard the market Australia has secured. This market must be acceptable. Notwithstanding the whining of the Opposition with respect to export inspection charges, Japanese Ministers have given an assurance to the Acting Prime Minister of Australia that Australia's meat trade in Japan will not be discontinued in the future as a result of any arrangement which may be made with the United States. Korea has been a substantial purchaser of Australian export beef. Some 70,000 tonnes of beef per annum is exported to Korea. It is a source of concern that this valuable market is being penetrated by New Zealand and Sweden. Always lurking in the shadows is the EEC ready to poach hard-won markets secured by the Australian meat export industry. The hollow words of the Opposition relating to the export inspection charges do not address the fact that statutory export inspections are both necessary and effective. This fact has long been recognised by the Australian meat export industry. Recovery of costs of meat inspection was considered at length by the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the abattoir and meat processing industry. The report made available in January 1983 during the time of the Liberal National Party Government noted: One issue which was raised by a number of witnesses is whether all the costs of meat inspection should be totally funded by Government. For example, the Australian Meatworks' Federal Council stated that: . . . regulations covering meat inspection and health standards should be recognised as a basic protection of the public health of the community. On this concept, the Council believes that the cost of such protection should be a normal cost borne by the community so that meat has a similar standing with other food items which are not confronted with similar costs. The commission can see no reason why export inspection per se should be funded by the community as a whole. As a form of quality control imposed by overseas governments, it is a normal commercial cost which should be borne by exporters. The main benefits of export inspection are shared by the export sector of the industry (including livestock producers) and the consumers of Australian meat overseas. However, a move towards full recovery of export meat inspection costs would represent a significant decrease in the current low level of assistance to the meat industry. In respect of inspection of meat for the domestic market, the cost of inspection to maintain minimum hygiene standards is also a normal commercial cost which should be borne by the abattoir. Many industries are required to bear the cost of government imposed standards designed to protect the interests of the public. The Commission can see no reason why meat production should be treated any differently. Now that Australia is poised to rebuild the national cattle herd and to restructure the meat processing and meat export industry to secure a dominant role in the Pacific basin for meat exports, it is essential that the great Australian meat export industry institute urgent action to maximise industry efficiency. If Australia does not achieve efficiency with its meat export industry the hard won gains to the industry will be sacrificed at the altar of complacency and political expediency. Finally, I think the whole debate can be summed up in words that I used in this House on 13 September 1983 when dealing with the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill: It is important that Australia be regarded as a reliable supplier of products and produce of the highest standard and at an internationally competitive price. The meat industry is entitled to an efficient and reliable inspection service if it is paying part of the cost of such a service. The Hawke Government is determined to see that the Export Inspection Service is as effective and economical as possible. This Government is aware that the cost of the inspection services must be minimised and that the Government's advisers be sensible to the ever increasing financial burdens on meat producers and processors alike. This Government will continue to investigate vigorously every avenue of reducing costs for the Export Inspection Service consistent with its responsibility to ensure that the great Australian meat export industry maintains its high reputation for integrity and high quality products. Unfortunately this debate has been turned by the Opposition into a wild and ruthless attack on the efforts by the Hawke Government to ensure that a sensible and efficient meat inspection service is available to the Australian community. The House and the Australian people would be better served by far more constructive arguments being advanced in this House than the ones we have heard from the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). This legislation is necessary because of the bungling ineptitude and incompetence of the former Liberal-National Party Government. Yet this afternoon-the people of Australian should hear this-Opposition spokesmen have been criticising the Hawke Government for its efforts to provide a better inspection service, and for its efforts through the Department of Primary Industry, which efforts are at present being ignored, to ensure that costs are minimised and to ensure that government advisers are sensible to the costs being borne by exporters and producers alike. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I call the honourable member for Calare on a personal explanation. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SIMMONS —The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), in the course of his comments on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill, indicated that I was not interested in the problems of the Blayney abattoir because I was not in the chamber during his speech. I assure the House that I am most interested in the future of the Blayney abattoir. I have had numerous discussions with the chairman, councillors and management of the abattoir on a regular basis. I reject totally his mischeivous comments, which have been clearly designed just to make cheap political capital. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.43) —The Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill to validate the export meat inspection charge comes at a time of enormous discontent in the cattle industry over the size of the increase in export charges. That discontent has erupted by way of a refusal to pay the increased charges and by way of a proposed High Court challenge to the validity of the charges. I cannot recall any other such concerted action against a government move by cattlemen and by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. They are prepared to stand firm, and I believe they are prepared to withhold stock from the market if the Government does not reconsider the insane 200 per cent increase in export inspection charges. I cannot understand how a government can impose such an outrageous increase in fees at a time when cattlemen around Australia are endeavouring to get back on their financial feet after one of the worst droughts this country has ever seen. Mr Hodgman —It is callous. Mr PORTER —It is callous, as the honourable member for Denison states. He well knows the effect of the charges as some 200 people in his electorate have been put out of work by this measure. The 200 per cent increase in fees raises them from $1.80 to $5.40, but in fact that is only part of the story. In 1978-79 the livestock slaughter levy was $1.56. That levy is made up of an Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation administration levy, and Australian Meat Research Council levy, a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation levy, and a disease eradication levy, together with this export inpection charge . The total livestock slaughter levy was $1.56 in 1978-79. At Budget time last year it was $6.88. Now it is $10.98. The largest proportion of that 60 per cent jump this year in the slaughter levy was the 200 per cent leap in export inspection charges from $1.80 to $5.40. So the cattle industry has had to carry a very large burden. That burden has been imposed on it after all the problems it has been confronted with, be they the fall in prices on export markets or natural disasters such as the drought. The last thing it needs is a government trying to wring the last drop of blood out of it. I have no doubt that the Government will argue that the Opposition is applying double standards in opposing the latest increase. It will say that it was our intention to lift charges to recover 50 per cent of the cost of the inspection service. That was our policy, but the argument put forward by the Government totally fails to recognise that the previous Liberal-National Party coalition was sympathetic to and understanding of the problems of rural Australia. The point is that the timing of any increase in fees would clearly have taken account of the health of the industry, the progress towards a single meat inspection service, and the industry's capacity to pay. This was exactly the course which the coalition Government adopted. I suggest that honourable members cast their minds back to the 1978-79 Budget Speech. In that Speech the then Treasurer on page 12 said: Consideration has been given to levying producers to recover a greater share of the costs of providing export inspection services and cattle disease eradication campaigns. The Government has decided not to increase charges at this stage but will review the situation later in the year in the light of the economic situation of the cattle industry at that time. The Government would be well advised to note those words because it is ignoring the current situation for cattlemen around Australia. The previous coalition Government, being sensitive to the problems confronting rural Australia, did not move to increase the charges at that time. That is the difference between this socialist Government and the previous Government. This Government appears to have absolutely no idea or a total lack of concern about the fate of our farmers . Let us look for a moment at why this is not an appropriate time at which to increase the livestock meat inspection charges. Firstly, farmers generally and cattlemen in particular are going through a rebuilding period after the drought. Some are rebuilding their herds. There are debts to pay, mortgages to reduce, delayed maintenance to catch up with, and so on. I cannot emphasise to the Government enough that the fact that it has rained does not mean that suddenly farmers are well off. One of the reasons this enormous increase in charges has been imposed is that most Cabinet members just do not understand the time it takes for farmers to recover from such a severe drought. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is interjecting, publicly says: 'I am battling for you but I keep getting knocked off by Cabinet'. That is no wonder. He took about six points of order earlier today in this place and got knocked off. Until the Minister learns what is going on he ought to be quiet. The Government's insensitivity to rural problems, as exemplified in this case, reminds me of a boxer. It may well be the current Minister. Cannot honourable members just imagine a boxer down and out, on the mat; he is about to be counted out but the bell goes, it is the end of the round; he stumbles back to his corner, he is doused with a bucket of water and he revives. That is just like the cattle industry. At long last the drought has broken. But as the boxer struggles back into the ring for the next round the last thing he expects is a devastating blow beneath the belt from the referee. That is just what this Government has done to the cattle industry. It has dealt the cattle industry a devastating blow beneath the belt. Secondly, as a result of a number of inquiries into the efficiency of the inspection service and the problems of the dual inspection service in place in a number of States, the inspection service is in the process of change. Until the advantages of these changes are clear it is unfair to impose this new charge on what could be inflated costs of the inefficient service. Thirdly, since March there has been a significant decline in United States of America prices-the United States of America being one of our major export markets. I refer briefly to the United States of America weekly manufacturing cow prices which, according to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, have fallen from around 245c a kilogram to around 200c a kilogram. Our farmers are facing a difficult international market with cost increases at home under this Government's wages deal, a higher rate of inflation than that which exists overseas and a managed exchange rate revaluation which is disadvantaging our farm exporters. Finally, and more importantly, if we look at the real net value of rural production, that is, returns to farmers or the purchasing power of farmers after deducting costs and allowing for inflation, we can see that the real net value of rural production in 1983-84 is expected to be slightly below the 1981-82 level and also slightly below the level at the beginning of the 1970s. So let us keep this rural recovery in perspective. In fact, it is a recovery from a very low base. In real terms farmers are not expected to be as well off this year as they were in 1981-82 or at the beginning of the 1970s. So it is hardly the time, I would have thought, to increase the charges on our farming community. The result of these new export charges has meant that export abattoirs are being avoided. Those abattoirs are reducing their kill or closing. Men are being put out of work. If this continues inevitably cattle prices on the domestic market will fall, thus aborting the much talked about rural recovery. The blame for that will lie solely at the feet of this Minister and this Government. The increase in export inspection fees is just one more of the horrendous burdens this Government has loaded on to the rural sector. The Government has broken promises not to tax rural industries such as the wine industry. It has broken promises to support rural industry schemes such as the wool promotion scheme, the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign and the national soil conservation program. The list of broken promises goes on. We on this side of the House are sensitive to the problems confronting rural Australia. Therefore, we will vote to delay this Bill in the hope that the Government will come to its senses, reduce these horrendous charges which it has levied since October and allow our great rural industries to recover. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(5.55) —In speaking on this Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill I am reminded that one of the greatest sophists in history, the previous honourable member for Gippsland, was very good at giving in this House the sort of rhetoric we have heard today. It is no wonder that the man who has inherited the shadow portfolio of primary industry has the same speech writer. If one can remember the inane mumblings of the previous honourable member for Gippsland one must give only credit to that speech writer because he certainly lifted his performance. I must take up a few of the points the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has made. He said: ' You wicked people; you are hitting industry when it is down'. This legislation was mooted by the then Liberal-National Party Government in 1981 and 1982. That Government reaffirmed its legislation in its razor gang submission. That Government was going to introduce that legislation. There is no doubt at all about that. The honourable member for Barker, with all the sophistry that he as a sometime lawyer is capable of, said that the previous Government did not introduce the legislation because it did not think it was opportune at the time. The reason it was not opportune at the time was that an election was in the wind. When is the time ever opportune to have a rationalisation of an industry which is long overdue? There is no doubt that the then Government would have done so had it not been so incompetent as to leave out a vital piece of its Bill that would have enabled it to do just that. I do not think there is any doubt at all about that. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), this pompous, posing , limited little man, had the audacity to tell us that the Government did not oppose the legislation in the Senate because it did not want to obstruct the Government's Budget measures. The Opposition does not mind doing that now, of course. I think the people of Australia understand the nonsense and the rhetoric we have heard. Another thing I have been called on several times to do in this House is to try to explain to members of the Opposition how the free enterprise system works. Very few of them understand it. That is not surprising because very few of them have had to live in the real world where one has to fight to get value for money and where one is not protected by his friends, by his cronies, by inherited wealth or by rigging tenders. There is no doubt that the export charges in the meat industry are high. But the Opposition in the Senate did not even support the Australian Democrats' amendment to limit export charges to the present level of charges. The present proposal is for half recovery. The Democrats wanted to try to limit the charges. The Opposition did not even do that. What a lot of sophistry and a lot of nonsense honourable members opposite have come into this House with today. In terms of sophistry the honourable member for Barker is a champion. The honourable member for Barker came into this House and gave us bleeding hearts stuff about droughts. I can tell this House that they do not have real droughts where the honourable member for Barker comes from. Having lived through several real droughts in my time in primary industry I know what they are about. One of the natural consequences of a drought is that in the recovery after drought stock is withheld from sale as farmers build up their stocks. For the honourable member to come into this House and talk about farmers withholding their stock from sale is a nonsense suggestion. Every State sets out to achieve full cost recovery for the domestic sector. No one argues about that. Who pays? Of course, the consumer pays. I put it to honourable members that it is not the imposition of these costs that is affecting the abattoir system at all. These costs are only one of the very many things-probably one of the most insignificant things-affecting the industry. Let us look firstly at why the costs are high. The costs are high because this country was confronted with one of the greatest scandals that has ever beset this country-the meat industry scandal-a scandal perpetrated and encouraged by the Liberal-National Party. Honourable members opposite were in power at the time and they sheltered those people who did such outrageous and severe damage to the meat industry of this country. That is what has made meat industry export charges so high. We now have to take very special care to make sure that that vital industry of this country is not prejudiced as it was by actions under the previous Government. That is one of the reasons why the costs are so high to start with. Under the free enterprise system who pays if we impose meat industry inspection charges? This obviously could not price the meat out of the market because we are operating in a situation in which we are competing against overseas companies. The cost will be reflected ultimately in the saleyard prices. That is where the cost will be reflected and not in the abattoirs, because they will simply pass it on. That is how the free enterprise system works. I think that is beyond doubt. I do not think that even the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will be able to refute that, although I have no doubt that he will try. We heard today members of the Opposition exhibiting their great understanding of the industry! I am one of the people in the Labor Party who fought very hard for the live sheep export trade. I am not sure that the live cattle trade is in the same category. In fact, I do not believe that it is. Members of the Opposition live in a wonderland. They seem to believe that when things are good they will never get bad and that when they are bad they will never get good. They are like the farmer who sells his land in a drought when he does not have to, because he thinks it will never rain again. The truth of the matter is that there is a great threat to Australia's live sheep trade in the not too distant future. That threat probably does not come from the European Common Market; it probably comes from countries such as Turkey, Somaliland and the Sudan. The Sudan has enormous capacity to serve the markets that we now serve. Who could deny that very poor country a little of the prosperity that is long overdue to it anyway? That is where the threats will come from. The Opposition does not even consider where the real threats come from. It goes stumbling along, yesterday's man with yesterday's ideas. It is very saddening for the rural sector that for so long it has given so many of the total dunderheads of the Opposition support which they clearly do not deserve. Where will the threat to live cattle exports come from? Obviously it will come from East Africa and India. When India is able to come to terms with some of the religious bigotry which besets that country-bigotry that also besets us, of course, although I think we are starting to handle it a little better-it will have enormous potential to undercut us in the cattle industry. The truth of the matter is that our live cattle do not transport well. We have relatively disease -free conditions. When we lob our cattle in some of those countries where diseases are rampant, they are put out into paddocks and they very soon succumb. On the other hand, East African cattle are turning up extremely well indeed. Those are the threats that beset us. They have to be looked into. This Government inherited a total mess in the industry. We are told today that this measure will send the meat industry broke. Everybody knows that the meat industry has been going broke for years. The reason is that there was never any attempt at any sort of management. We have had massive over-capitalisation and over-capacity in the industry. We still have it. There will be further rationalisation simply because we have more capacity than we can possibly use. That has nothing to do with the introduction of this legislation. It has nothing at all to do with these costs. It is simply the result of years of National Party mismanagement. Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that. Two abattoirs in my electorate will be affected by this legislation. They are affected far more by their inability to get access to the American market than they will be by this legislation. This legislation is not the thing which will drive them to the wall or close them. It will be simply that they cannot sell their meat. Those are the real problems that beset the industry. For members of the Opposition to come into this chamber and bleat along those lines shows that they must not understand the industry, although the facts are so self-evident that I do not believe even they are that stupid. It is simply that they are prepared to take every advantage to cause trouble and to misrepresent the situation. They are prepared to come into this chamber and hold out to an industry that is frightened and struggling a view that the situation would be different under them. There is no way it would be different because it is subject to all those laws of supply and demand that the Opposition holds so inviolate, laws which it holds inviolate without understanding them. I am appalled that Opposition members have come into this House today and made the statements they have on this simple, validating legislation. It is a pity that this debate is not on air today so that farmers throughout the country could hear the posturing of the honourable member for Darling Downs and the way he opposed most strongly the initial ruling of the Chair on the extent of the Bill, an initial ruling which I thought was quite reasonable. When the position was reversed, he tried to make the same case in his own favour. The farmers of Australia are not stupid. They would have known what he was doing. They would have recognised that. The same honourable gentleman took advantage of the temporary absence of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) to mention that he was not in the House. This is the level at which this debate has been conducted by the Opposition. All I can say is that the farmers of Australia deserve far better than they are being given by the Liberal Party and National Party today. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, prior to your taking the chair, we had quite a consistent debate on procedure. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) took a part, taking several points of order, which in typical form he lost. Having heard the prepared speech by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay)-he read every word of it-and the speech by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) I am wondering whether, had the Minister maintained his position of objection, he would have been able to get off his feet during those speeches. Nevertheless, I commend the previous Deputy Speaker for the decision he took. Quite clearly, this is a matter concerning not half a dozen lines in a validating Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983, but the future of the Australian meat industry. The honourable member for Herbert-- Mr Lindsay —Talk about the issue. Mr TUCKEY —Let us just talk about some of the things the honourable member for Herbert had to say. He talked about bungling ineptitude. What more bungling ineptitude could we deal with than that which we are dealing with now, when a meat inspection service has to cost three times what it costs in abattoirs not controlled by the Commonwealth? I have made previously in this House three speeches on the Australian meat industry: One on 21 August, one on 13 September and one on 15 September. The honourable member for Herbert claimed that no constructive effort was being made . If he bothered to read those speeches he might learn something. The first thing he would learn is that in fact within my electorate-and I did this constructively-- Mr Lindsay —Tell us about the meat scandal that your Government condoned. Mr TUCKEY —We constantly hear from this Government-we have heard it all day today-that its excuse for its failures is our probable failures. The Government sold itself to the Australian public as the brave new front. Government members sold themselves to the Australian public as the people who were going to fix everything. Now, time and time again, they come into this chamber and, because they have not fixed everything, they say: 'It's all your fault'. That is the situation as the Opposition sees it. It is time the Government stood on its own record. It has been in government for nearly 12 months now. It will have a tough time standing on the record of the Minister for Primary Industry, because he loses every fight he gets into. The Opposition wanted some constructive stuff. When I made those three speeches I put the value of the industry and the value of Australia above petty politics. If honourable members opposite read those speeches they will see that. I drew their attention to the ridiculous relative cost between certain State and local government-inspected abattoirs and Federal government-inspected abattoirs. The figures that I gave honourable members-and these are the figures that the Government now wants to validate in this Bill-was that it costs $10.80 to inspect a bullock in a federal government-inspected abattoir and $2.80 to inspect the same bullock in the Tip Top Abattoirs in Northam, a local inspection . I conceded that there were additional costs, and I mentioned them. So I upped the figure by 50 per cent-a whole 50 per cent-and I arrived at a figure of $4.20 . The question before us today is not who should pay the bill. It is not a question of whether there should be Commonwealth or single inspection. It is a question of whether the Government is prepared to tolerate a cost of $10.80 for the inspection of a bullock when, in fact, the job can be done equally well at a lesser cost without all the problems the Government has had, which have been so clearly referred to by Justice Woodward-the problems that have been the responsibility of the meat inspection service. Without all those problems the Northam Shire Council can deliver an equal service for $4.20. If one gave it the opportunity to do so in Western Australia tomorrow, it would do it. That is the problem the Government has to face. Validating and creating a retrospective charge on the abattoir industry, the cattle industry and the sheep industry is no way to do it. The Government has failed to address in any way all the problems that Justice Woodward called to its attention. In fact, it has ignored some of the constructive proposals I put to it in my speeches which Justice Woodward at least recognised and with which he agreed. That is the situation the Government is in. I listened to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. He said it was a pity that this debate was not being broadcast on the radio. It is a pity it is not being broadcast in Broome, Derby and Wyndham. The fellows in those places would be thrilled to hear the honourable member's advocacy on their behalf, as would all the cattle growers and sheep growers in the other part of his electorate. The honourable member is prepared to put politics over and above the welfare of one of the major industries in Australia. He has let it down. The Government has ignored constructive suggestions, and it has failed completely. At least I am prepared to stand up for my constituents. When I was on the Government benches I made speeches in which I took issue with the Minister of the day and protected my constituents over and above his policy. That is something that neither the honourable member for Kalgoorlie nor the honourable member for Herbert are prepared to do. I wish that this debate was being broadcast so that their constituents could hear how they deal with their welfare. The situation is that we have substantially overcharged people because we have totally inefficient meat inspection services. There are ways to fix the problems . Why does the Meat Inspectors Association, one of the Government's union masters, want a single inspection service? It will impose this system on the people of New South Wales. That legislation has been introduced. Some people will have to pay four times more than they did before, or twice as much and the taxpayer will have to pick up the rest. That is what the Government has done. The Government has done that because the Meat Inspectors Association has more pull with it. But the Government does not care, of course, because it does not count on receiving many votes from farmers anyway, and that is why the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the honourable member for Herbert do not care about them either. I hope that the Minister will listen to some of the other problems that he has which affect the welfare of the industry that this Bill is all about. I draw his attention to the fact that he is about to sign some rules that deny large parts of the export industry any access to the European Economic Community market. He will do that because it has been recommended to him that he grant a quota of 17, 500 tonnes to people who have been in the market-place over the last two years. If a processor happens to live in a drought affected area and has not been able to sell any meat to the EEC over the last two years, he receives none of the quota. He will not be entitled to recover from the drought. That is the effect of the document that the Minister has on his desk to sign. I wonder what he will tell us about that. Why is that a necessity? Quite clearly, those processors who can make the sales should get the business and it should be evened out around the State. Surely, drought-affected people should have the same opportunity to get the business. The other problem that I wonder whether the Minister is addressing- Mr Campbell —You have no idea. Mr TUCKEY —No, I do not have any idea! I am the only person during the last five debates on this subject who has given the House examples of how the Government can save money. I gave them to the previous Minister. The only thing I can say is that both the previous Government and the present Government ignored me. Mr Hand —Like the time you saved the council money. Mr TUCKEY —That is quite right, too. There is another question I want to raise with the Minister during the few minutes remaining to me; that is, what is he doing about the effect on some of our Middle East markets of the activities of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils which convinces, through religious bias-I heard the honourable member for Kalgoorlie mention that-certain countries to demand that the Council should have the monopoly in Australia over the Islamic and the halal killing of stock. I do not know what the Minister is doing about it. I draw to his attention that these people are working very hard through their religious connections to get a monopoly over other people who have been in the business for years. I assure the Minister that this is not a criticism. I am just making sure that Australia is aware of the activities of this group and the fact that its charter, its activities and where its money goes are highly questionable. I sincerely hope that the Minister is taking action to ensure that any person who has the religious qualifications to engage in the killing of meat has that right. I have heard rumours that the Minister plans, through the Department of Primary Industry, to certify people to carry out this work. Nevertheless, already we find certain countries-I believe Kuwait is one of them-which are demanding that the Council conduct the business. That is a matter for Australia and our trade practices. I make it quite clear that I support the holding over of this Bill. The industry is in grave trouble. It is easy to say that the growers should pay. It is easy to say that the processor can pass on the costs to the producer as he has done in the past. But what is happening now- Mr Lindsay —Well, who do you think should pay? Mr TUCKEY —I am not arguing that they should pay. But when the costs become excessive, the problem is that more and more people are taking the choice of getting out of the livestock industry and into the grain growing industry. The farming community does have solutions. People can get out of the livestock area in many cases, and when they do so, especially in the mixed farming areas, that means that more abattoirs and more constitutents are out of a job. It means, of course, that Australia will lose a massive export industry which it needs. So there are solutions for the producer. There are no solutions for the processor. The Government has driven him into the ground. The reason that the Government has driven him into the ground is that it has failed completely and utterly to come to grips with the cost of the system. Yet other people quite clearly are able to do so. A question was answered in this Parliament by the previous Minister to the effect that there is no obligation on the Government to employ meat inspectors. The obligation put by the importing countries is that we supervise the inspection. If we took that step in the first place there would be a chance of reducing the price. But while the Tip Top Abattoir and the Northam Shire Council can supply 10 meat inspectors at, let us say, $4.20, or actually $ 2.80, there is no reason in the world for this legislation to validate a charge of $10.80. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.16) —I enter this debate because I believe there is a very serious crisis in the Australian cattle industry and the meat processing industry which needs to be aired. The tension and the concern in the meat industry is as high as I have known it for a number of years. Certainly it was in a crisis situation in the middle 1970s, and it is in that situation again. In fact, the situation of the processors is worse than it has ever been. This situation has been highlighted by the Government's decision to increase the inspection charges from $1.80 to $5.40 for beasts and from 60c to $1.60 for pigs. The reason that this Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill is before the House is that the industry, in its desperation to try to get the attention of the Government, to have some consultations with it and to get some reasonableness out of it, is now threatening to go before the High Court to challenge the existing legislation. The Government, feeling threatened, immediately revised the legislation to improve any errors that might exist which could be ruled out by the High Court. Mr Campbell —You mean errors you made. Mr ANTHONY —It does not matter who made them. The industry is now taking the decision-- Mr Campbell —Did you make your errors deliberately? Mr ANTHONY —The honourable member says that we made them deliberately. The fees have been collected throughout the period. The industry will be charged the fees retrospectively. Nobody is against validation of the Bill and we will not indefinitely block it. But we expect some reasonableness from the Government. It should consult with the industry but it is not doing so. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, has a lot to answer for in his impertinence in taking points of order to prevent debate on this very serious issue. It shows his self-consciousness, guilt and inadequacy in dealing with the industry on this very serious matter. All we are asking is that consultations take place. There might not even be a High Court challenge. The Government should learn to consult with people, as it promised to do during the election campaign. We are seeing no consensus at all between the Government and the industry. This is what is causing all the concern and hardship at the moment. We are suggesting that this legislation be deferred until 1 January next year to give the industry time to teach the Government that there are some problems in the cattle industry; that the increased inspection charges are creating utter confusion between export and domestic abattoirs and, as a result, are threatening the viability of many abattoirs. They are having to be closed down; people are being laid off. I could have understood a Labor government showing complete contempt for the farming community. But it is showing the same contempt for all workers in the abbatoirs. They are being affected as a result of this bungling by the Government in increasing charges at a time when there is no capacity for the industry to be able to pay. In circumstances such as these, if we had been in government, instead of increasing charges I think there would have been a good case for giving a temporary exemption for the industry to be able to recover. That is exactly what we did when the industry was in desperate circumstances a few years ago. But no, the Government blatantly goes ahead and increases these charges by 200 per cent without realising the full consequences of what it is doing. Mr Simmons —Your policy. Mr ANTHONY —Our policy was an inspection charge of $1.80; the Government's policy is an inspection charge of $5.40, a 200 per cent increase against very serious circumstances in the industry. The Government will have to pay the price . During this period-the two months which I hope we are going to have-I am looking forward to the Australian Democrats giving us support in the Senate so this legislation is not validated. There is good reason for the validation Bill to be passed as it corrects an error, if there is an error in the legislation. Nobody is going to deny that. But why does the Government not come to reason with the industry? Why does the Government treat it with such contempt? The Government has no compassion, no humanity at all for the circumstances of people out in the bush. The cattle industry is not booming. The Government seems to be carried away with all this talk that there have been good seasonal conditions and everybody in the bush is a millionaire. There has been some slight improvement for some rural producers, that is, basically the grain producers. However, most other areas of rural Australia are suffering. This year the real net income for rural producers, as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has pointed out will be less than last year. One can hardly believe that but the statement is from the BAE. The beef industry is in very grave circumstances. Why? It is because the national herd has been declining. Whereas at its peak it was 34 million the forecasts are that by next March it will go down to 22 million. So the total number of cattle in Australia is declining and with the general atmosphere that is now being created there is no encouragement whatsoever for people to want to build up their stock numbers unless they are very fortunate producers- Mr Campbell —People are building up their stock numbers; they are not selling. That is what is happening. Mr ANTHONY —In sheep producing areas. The price has gone down. In the last month the American market has deteriorated from 229c a kilo; it is now down to 209c. It is getting worse; it is looking worse. But what does the Government do? It puts a further impost on the industry that is going to cost $40m in a full year. No wonder primary producers are finding it hard to sell on overseas markets and compete. Look at what they have to compete with. The European Economic Community has a subsidy on its exports of beef to the extent of $1,200 a tonne. That is the subsidy that our producers have to compete against. Yet the Government is putting a tax burden of $40m on this industry. How do our producers compete against New Zealand? New Zealand does not even have an inspection charge. There is no inspection charge at all but in this country we have an inspection charge. I am not saying that there should not be some charge but it should be related to the circumstances of the industry. The cattle industry is one of our best industries. A few years ago it was our largest exporting industry. Today it has declined; it is our sixth largest exporting rural industry. That is a marked decline and it is going to get worse if present circumstances do not improve. The problem amongst the abattoirs is that if one sends a beast to an export abattoir one now pays $5.40 under the new inspection charges. If the abattoir is in Victoria one pays another $2.80 on top of that which takes the charge up to $ 8.20 on each beast. Yet if one sends it to a domestic abattoir-one that is not licensed for overseas export-one pays just the Victorian fee which is $2.80. Of course people are opting to go to a domestic abattoir. The same situation exists in Queensland. One pays $2.20 more in Queensland. However, if one goes to the domestic abattoir in Queensland, one pays only $2.20. So the export abattoirs- these important abattoirs which are all part of our export performance-are finding that they are getting no throughput or a declining throughput and their economics are going down. In recent times 35 abattoirs have closed down and many more are under threat. Six thousand people have been put out of work and what does the Government do? It aggravates the situation even more by imposing a charge when there are circumstances that the industry cannot meet. The Government is complicating and confusing the industry. It has produced a crisis in the industry. What we are saying is that if this Government has a competent Minister who is responsible he should immediately meet with the industry and consult with it as to how it will have a system that works properly. I have always advocated a single inspection service. It is the only sensible way of doing it. But now with the arrangements that have been put into place I venture to say that people are pressing to have independent inspection services because the slug of the Commonwealth charge and the State charge on top of it is making it virtually impossible for these abattoirs to be able to exist. They are not getting the throughput. In the case of the pig industry, if one sends one's pigs to an export abattoir to be killed one pays $1.60 but this year the collection fee for pigs will be more than the total value of pigs exported. How absurd can it be? Who would want to sell his pigs to an export abattoir to help with their performance if he has a domestic abattoir to which he can send them where he pays only whatever the local State charge is which is very much lower. The Government is cruelling the whole industry. It is putting up costs to the ordinary consumer. There is absolute bungling by this Minister and his Government. The Minister has been going around, winning no respect from the rural industry, saying: 'I opposed it before but Cabinet would not listen to me'. Have honourable members ever heard such a weaseling out of a proposition? That is a quisling attitude for a Minister to be taking. He is dobbing in his own Cabinet. I thought there was a certain degree of ethics and loyalty once one became a Minister. The Minister is in Cabinet now. I wonder whether he will continue to use that same excuse. Certainly nobody in the rural industry respects him for taking that type of attitude. I hope in future he shows a bit more gumption. If ever there were a case for persuasion before one's Cabinet of putting a logical case it is now because of the circumstances. If ever there were a case for a Minister to show that he has a bit of fire in his belly, that he is prepared to stand up and fight for an industry, it was on this occasion. But this Minister has deserted the industry. It is time that he stood up, explained and consulted with industry . We are opposing this legislation because we believe it is desperately important that the industry has time to consult. Ultimately we are not going to oppose it. We have passed the increased charges. We have passed all the Government's financial measures in the Senate, as we said we would do in the early stages of the Labor Government. We are not prepared to have a crisis between the Senate and the House of Represenatives. Australian Labor Party members are the elected people. They have to take responsibility for their own faults and errors. If we can help the industry to have time to talk and consult and see whether there is any reasonableness amongst Government members, if they can understand the huge problems that are facing one of Australia's best industries, we will be doing it by delaying this legislation for a further two months. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.19) —I close the debate which has been very wide-ranging. Opposition members-Oh! Mr KERIN —An arrangement has been arrived at. This again shown how much hypocrisy and irresponsibility there is in this Opposition. The final point that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) just made is that we should delay the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill for another two months. Of course what he does not realise is that since 21 November the charge has been validated by regulation. Mr McVeigh —Twenty-first November. Mr KERIN —As I said, the twenty-first. The charge has been validated by regulation and it is being paid except by those people who have chosen not to pay it. However, let me get back to the main part of the debate and to a matter which was raised by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). He and other speakers on the other side said the only reason that this Bill was being brought forward was that a High Court of Australia challenge is under way. They must have seen the High Court challenge and they must know what the grounds are to make this accusation. We have not seen the High Court challenge, we have only heard about it. We do not know what is in it. This is just a simple, straightforward measure to fix up a technicality. There has been a very general debate on all aspects of the meat industry. Much of the debate duplicated the debate that took place when Opposition members opposed the changes verbally, but of course they did nothing about it in the Senate. They have said that this Bill is a Budget Bill, but they could have gone along with the Australian Democrats because it was simply a measure to hold the charge at $5.40. I would just like to go into the background of this matter so at least the record will show what this Bill is all about. It is about the validation of an Act due to the negligence of the previous Government. Let us go right into it. It is necessary really to go back many years to the passage of the Export Control Act in June 1982. Before the Department of Primary Industry's export inspection and related control activities, these inspections were carried under four Acts, none of which was administered solely by the Minister for Primary Industry. These were the Customs Act 1901, the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905, the Quarantine Act 1908, and the Navigation Act 1912. The major export inspection powers were drawn from the Customs Act. Advice received over the years was to the effect that the Department had limited powers to operate under this Act. Because of this restriction a number of administrative requirements had been introduced over the years, with doubtful legal backing. The Attorney-General's Department suggested that the use of orders made by the Minister be considered to give effect to detailed requirements. Substantial legislative amendments were necessary to overcome the difficulties which had arisen over the years. The most logical course to follow was the establishment of new and specific legislation administered by the Minister for Primary Industry. In chronological order, in September 1981 the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry was initiated. In March 1982 the new export inspection service came into being. The Export Control Act came into effect in January 1983. At that time the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 and the Export Control (General) Regulations became effective. It is rather invidious that this debate should boil down to sides blaming one another. Surely any rational observer of this debate would realise that a process had been long underway, initiated by the previous Government, to give legislative clarity to the export inspection powers. The former Government was proceeding down that path, and this Government has proceeded down the same path in implementing legislation. A lot of play has been made of the fact that I said I could not win on the question of going to 54 per cent of export inspection charges. I make no apology for that; I have said it before. I could not win because it was the policy of the previous Government. It had been its policy since 1979. In particular it had been its policy since March 1981. The former Minister for Primary Industry was on the Review of Commonwealth Functions committee, the so-called razor gang. That committee reaffirmed that clear policy . The basic legislation we are talking about today went back to 1 January this year when the 50 per cent policy commenced to be implemented, and further legislation was to be implemented on 1 July. When I took over the Department of Primary Industry all the legislation was there. Let us get back to this exact package of legislation. As a total package the objective was to introduce new legislation administered by the Minister for Primary Industry, together with associated regulations and a system of orders made under the regulations governing day to day technical and administrative matters. The development of this proposal was accelerated by the meat substitution scandal in late 1981. The House will recall a number of legislative amendments which had to be in place as of January 1983 as a result of the changes last year. The Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act amended 19 Acts consequential upon the Export Control Act. A number of those Act contained a provision which governed the effects of those Acts on the Customs Act, the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act and regulations made under them. The Act also provided for appropriate amendments to other legislation, including legislation relating to the recovery of costs associated with the provision of export inspection services. Of particular interest is the definition of abattoir in the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979. Previously it meant premises that are registered under the Export (Meat) Regulations as an export establishment for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughtering and dressing of animals from which meat intended for export is obtained. As a result of the repeal of the Export (Meat) Regulations by the Export Control (General) Regulations it was necessary to incorporate a new definition of abattoir. It was defined as meaning prescribed premises used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughtering and dressing of animals from which meat intended for export is obtained. By an oversight no premises were prescribed under the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection) Charge Act, as required by the new definition. Very recent advice from the Attorney-General's Department was that the original regulations made under the Act needed to be amended to prescribe the premises. As a result, collection of the export inspection charge has not been properly authorised from 1 January 1983 until 20 November 1983. On 21 November 1983 regulations came into effect which defined an abattoir as premises registered under the Export Control Act. The Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill which is now before the Parliament is intended to correct this technical oversight by the previous Government. The Parliament failed to sight it when it went through this House in about September 1982. Because of the failure to take legislative action there is provision in the Bill now before us to exempt from the validation penalties for late payment imposed in the period from 1 January 1983 to 20 November 1983. However, fees paid or payable are proposed to be retained as this was the clear purpose of the amendment of the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Act made by the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act. I have gone through those matters in great detail because I wanted to put before the House what this Bill was all about. We have had a very lengthy debate on all aspects of the meat industry. We have talked about Egyptian tenders, halal slaughter, foreign affairs, and even pigs. Let us now go in to the hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the Opposition. The charges went through the Senate. The intent of Parliament has been clear ever since 1979. The previous Government's policy was 50 per cent cost recovery. If the previous Government had not been so administratively incompetent on 1 July 1983 all products would have had to be subject to 50 per cent cost recovery. This had been the former Government's policy since 1979 and was reaffirmed by the razor gang. The need for the validation Bill is a further indication of the previous Government's administrative incompetence. When it amended the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 last year it omitted to ensure that the legislation was watertight. It failed to put in the definition of premises. These great administrators opposite failed to ensure that the premises were duly described. It is all right for the honourable member for Darling Downs to stand up in the House now and say that he would not have enforced the policy of 50 per cent cost recovery because the industry could not stand it at this time. If the policy had not been enforced, as far as the legislation goes, as far as the intent of the Government goes, and as far as all the administrative material I can see goes, it would have been by default and not by design. The previous Government's incompetence has hounded the meat industry. Meat inspection is inherently expensive because of the need to set up the export inspection service as the previous Government tried to do meat inspection on the cheap. It set up the export inspection service. It set in process the procedures that are going on. This Government has tried to do something about the costs. We have set up an Inspection Policy Council. We have reported to that Council today on the new systems of charging in an effort to try to do something about the cost of charging, giving industry an exposure to costs and the reasons for them. The previous Government's incompetence has hounded the meat industry. The present state of the industry reflects the neglect of the Liberal-National Party Government over more than seven years. The meat substitution scandal rocked the industry to its foundations. The result is the need for the EIS. If Australia is to maintain its access to valuable export markets this Government is determined to make the EIS as lean and efficient a service as possible and it considers that it is appropriate that the industry should carry some of the cost of the service. I should now like to turn to the matter of over-capacity. I ask honourable members to look at what the previous Government did to the meat industry. When I was in Opposition meat industry representatives came to me saying: 'The Government is rejecting us time after time. We want a better spread of the charges on the abattoirs. We want the Government to do something about reconstructing the industry'. After two years the government of the day referred the matter to the Industries Assistance Commission. The Opposition is now bleating. It never said a word when meatworks closed. It suddenly thinks that this Government is responsible for the problems that have occurred over the last six or seven months. Opposition members are conspiring with the meat processors to defer this legislation because they think they will go to the High Court of Australia. I do not know whether the Opposition realises what will happen if it blocks this legislation. There are 92 licensed export abattoirs. If they want to reclaim the money that the previous Government took from them from 1 January to 5 March or that this Government has taken by way of recoupment, there will be a need for 92 court cases for them to take the Government to court to reclaim that money. If this Government wishes to get the fees due between 1 October and 20 November, I guess there will again be the initiation of court cases. The Opposition is leading us down a rather dangerous and irresponsible path. Let us look at the inspection charges and the recoupment involved. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) said that this legislation is retrospective. There is no retrospectivity. We are simply validating something that was done. He said there has been no consultation. I would hazard that there has been more consultation with the beef industry by this Government than any other government. When decisions are taken in the Budget context one cannot very well go to an industry and say: 'Look, a decision has been taken in the Budget deliberations. May we consult you on that?' That is not the way Budgets are framed. The 50 per cent means that the taxpayers pay 50 per cent. This year only 39 per cent will be collected. The problem, of course, was that over the years, with the service becoming inherently more expensive, the amount of recoupment was reduced to 19 per cent. The other point the Opposition fails to realise is that the fee increase of $3. 60 took place only last Monday; that is, two days ago. Suddenly all those abattoir closures have taken place because of the imposition of fees that were collected last Monday. The honourable member for Darling Downs told me that the abattoirs are not paying. I suppose he phoned them and found out how many are not paying. But I should not have thought that after two days, abattoirs would collapse because of an increase in fees. They were not to be collected until 28 November. Mr McVeigh —Yes, but they were due on 1 October. The fees started on 1 October. Mr KERIN —No, they were not. They are due on 28 November. The problem is a lot deeper than saying that an increase in recoupment costs of $3.60 has caused all the abattoirs to shut, when abattoirs have been shutting over the last two or three years. The basic problem is that we had 180 million sheep in 1970; we now have about 134 million sheep. We had about 33.4 million cattle in 1976; we now have about 22.8 million cattle. There was massive over-capacity in the abattoir industry. There have been efficiency gains. This year 61 per cent of the recoupment will be paid by the taxpayers on a 1983-84 basis. The industry is inherently expensive. Another confusion in the minds of members of the Opposition concerns who is to pay. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has done studies that show that between 70 and 80 per cent of fees charged by meatworks is passed back to the producers in the saleyard price. Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is a cost to the abattoir and to the producers at the same time. Eventually it becomes a cost on the consumers, particularly with respect to domestic consumption. Export costs are a little more confused and are more difficult to work out, but there is a pass-back mechanism. There is diversion taking place from mixed domestic-export abattoirs to purely domestic abattoirs. There is a problem with respect to charging, particularly when we do not have a national meat inspection service. Members of the National Party would be well advised to put some pressure on their colleagues in Queensland, who are basically in the business of putting stamps on meat, to take the money. The States claim up to 95 per cent of the cost of meat inspection. Again what the Opposition fails to realise is that the reason that export inspection is more expensive is that veterinary surgeons are involved and we have to meet the requirements of overseas markets, and in particular the requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture. Let us return to the IAC report. The honourable member for Darling Downs would be interested to realise that when I met abattoir owners in his electorate they were very much of the view that the Government should go along with the IAC's recommendations and not impose a levy that would disadvantage the small abattoirs and advantage the larger abattoirs. The matters that have been raised today reflect a problem for the beef industry . The Government accepts that. This cost is to be paid by the taxpayers. This was the policy of the previous Government. The Bill that we were discussing today until the debate broadened refers purely and simply to validation due to the negligence of the previous Government. The Government rejects the motion for deferment. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(6.48) —I appreciate the Government giving me the opportunity of speaking for five minutes on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill. Australia's export beef trade is in jeopardy as a result of the severe increase in meat inspection fees implemented by this Government. These increases come at a time when the Government is calling for general economic restraint on one hand, and blatantly increasing charges by a substantial degree on the other hand. Livestock producers will have to pay for these charges at a time when they can ill afford to shoulder additional costs. After the droughts which producers have gone through and the floods that occurred afterwards, the primary industry, particularly the cattle industry, is in dire straits. It is a classic example of the Government ripping off the livestock producers and at the same time introducing a hidden tax. These high fees for export meat inspection will result in the closure of many abattoirs. Indeed several abattoirs have handed back their export licences because they cannot pay higher inspection fees. Other abattoirs will take similar action in the near future. Works suffering the disparity between export and local inspection charges are being compelled to share the difference with domestic operators in the interests of holding kill that may otherwise have been directed to local abattoirs. This is causing great concern to many of the abattoirs in my electorate of Paterson, in New South Wales and the rest of the Australia. With the downturn in abattoir trading in recent years this situation could cause the death knell of some abattoirs. Many export works throughout Australia have closed. Surely, given that situation, the continuing heavy cost of export compliance-with the European Economic Community for example-and the inefficient, overstaffed inspection service, the Government is certainly causing problems for the producers. Thirty-five works have closed in the last three years. There was a report a few days ago, for instance, to the effect that the sheep and calf chain at Meatpack (Victoria) Pty Ltd at Camperdown in Victoria had closed with the higher inspection charges being a major reason for its closure. J. H. Ralph and Sons Pty Ltd shut down its beef chain in Melbourne a few weeks ago, saying that the higher charges had made export impossible. The South Burnett Meat Works Co-operative Association Ltd at Murgon has lost more than 50 per cent of its pig kill because operators are abandoning the works in favour of cheaper local works . Here is an interesting point: The export inspection charge on pigs this year will exceed the export earnings from pig meats. Mr Cowan —What are the charges at Gunnedah? Mr O'KEEFE —The increased costs are causing great concern to works in my electorate, such as the Gunnedah Shire Abattoir works. This had been a valuable export works for the over 20 years it has been in operation and has brought great export income to this country. Under the old rate of inspection charges, for the month of October the abattoir has paid $18,340. Under the new rate the charge is $55,020-a rip-off of $36,680. Mr Cowan —And the producer pays. Mr O'KEEFE —And the producer pays. Meatworks that at present are paying inspection fees of the order of $250,000 under the new inspection charges will be paying $750,000. I would like to have incorporated in Hansard figures which have been provided to me by Mr Jim Rintoul, the Manager of the Gunnedah Shire Abattoir. He is well known in the meat industry in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Chair has not had the opportunity to see the documents. Mr O'KEEFE —They are figures under the old rate and figures under the new rate of inspection fees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is a question of whether the request complies with the guidelines as outlined by the Speaker. The Chair will give consideration to that matter. Mr O'KEEFE —Many works in New South Wales have closed down over the past 12 or 18 months. The works that still exist are being absolutely forced out of the export business because of these increased inspection fees. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, and the Government, must be under great pressure to have another look at these meat inspection fees which will cause considerable problems for Australia's meat export industry, which is one of our greatest export earners. I join with the other speakers from this side of the House and seek the deferral of this legislation until some common sense is put into meat inspection in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have had the opportunity to look at the documents. It would be in compliance with the guidelines to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Department of Primary Industry LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION ACT 1979 RETURN OF LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTERED AT REGISTERED EXPORT ESTABLISHMENTS Month of October 1983 Name of abattoir Address Postcode............ Number slaugh- Rate of Levy Type of livestock tered levy payable $ c *Cattle-over 90 kilograms 2,440 1.80 4,392.00 *Cattle-over 40 kilograms but not exceeding 90 kilograms 8 .60 4.80 *Cattle-not exceeding 40 kilograms 1 .18 .18 Sheep 46,996 .18 8,459.28 Goats Pigs 9,140 .60 5,484.00 Horses, donkeys and mules Total Levy payable 18,340.26 * Including buffaloes DECLARATION I declare that the information contained in the return is true and correct. Name and address of declarant Signature of declarant /....../19...... Designation* * The proprietor, or one of the proprietors, the authorised agent , a director or the Secretary, as the case may be. On completion, please forward return, together with remittance, to the Department of Primary Industry at the address shown in the Notes for Guidance. PLEASE LODGE RETURN INTACT Department of Primary Industry LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION ACT 1979 RETURN OF LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTERED AT REGISTERED EXPORT ESTABLISHMENTS Month of October 1983 Name of abattoir Address Postcode............ Number slaugh- Rate of Levy Type of livestock tered levy payable $ c *Cattle-over 90 kilograms 2,440 5.40 13,176.00 *Cattle-over 40 kilograms but not exceeding 90 kilograms 8 1.80 14.40 *Cattle-not exceeding 40 kilograms 1 . 54 .54 Sheep 46,996 .54 25,377.84 Goats Pigs 9,140 1.80 16,452.00 Horses, donkeys and mules Total Levy payable 55,020.78 * Including buffaloes DECLARATION I declare that the information contained in the return is true and correct. Name and address of declarant Signature of declarant /....../19...... Designation* * The proprietor, or one of the proprietors, the authorised agent , a director or the Secretary, as the case may be. On completion, please forward return, together with remittance, to the Department of Primary Industry at the address shown in the Notes for Guidance. PLEASE LODGE RETURN INTACT Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. 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. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.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 Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Ruddock, P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(7.04) —The Opposition will support the Insurance Amendment Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. These Bills for the most part implement in principle decisions that were taken by the previous Government to improve the supervisory provisions of the Insurance and Life Insurance Acts. The Life Insurance Amendment Bill will amend the Life Insurance Act to strengthen and improve the existing supervisory machinery to overcome certain difficulties experienced by the Life Insurance Commissioner with its administration. Specifically, the Bill will provide for a minimum paid-up capital requirement of $2m for life offices seeking registration, enable either the Treasurer or the Commissioner to impose conditions on initial or continuing registration and empower the Commissioner to exercise specified but limited controls over certain forms of investment made by life insurance companies and related companies and in trust schemes, and to require the provision of data on such investment activities. It will effect a number of administrative changes to extend the effective period for the furnishing of the Commissioner's annual report to Parliament, to give recognition in the Act to the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and to enable the Commissioner to have greater access to documents in the possession of a life office relating to its assets or business. Finally, it will allow appeals against certain administrative decisions that may be taken in accordance with the Act and upgrade the Act's appeals mechanism to bring it more into line with that contained in other Commonwealth legislation. The need for these amendments was canvassed with me by the Commissioner while I was Treasurer in the former Government and that Government had agreed in principle to the changes. The amendments contained in the Life Insurance Amendment Bill are sensible ones which the Opposition will support. The Insurance Amendment Bill will strengthen the minimum financial standards imposed on general non-life insurance companies under the Insurance Act and will effect a number of improvements associated with the existing supervisory machinery, including the addition of further appeals provisions. The strengthening provisions of the Bill will increase the minimum paid-up capital and solvency requirements to be met by general insurance companies. These increases will be subject to appropriate phasing-in arrangements. Supervisory amendments include increasing various monetary amounts in the Act, including financial penalties, to bring them into line with present day conditions; provision for improved requirements relating to accounts; more comprehensive quarterly returns; and measures to facilitate the revocation of authorisation under the Act where a company is withdrawing from the industry. This Bill in the main reintroduces legislation of the previous Government which was lying on the table in the House at the time of the dissolution of Parliament before the March election. The Bill also incorporates minor drafting changes recommended by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. One omission from the Bill which the Opposition greatly regrets is the provision contained in the Fraser Government's Bill to enable the transfer of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to the private sector. This had been a decision of the Fraser Government and I very much regret personally and on behalf of the former Government that it was not possible for that decision to be given effect to before the change of government at the time of the last election. I believe very strongly that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was precisely the sort of commercial body that ought to have been sold to the private sector. Whilst the Opposition supports the other provisions that are contained in this legislation, we regret very much indeed that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation continues quite unjustifiably to remain in public ownership. Another major omission from the revised Bill is the somewhat controversial paragraph 15 (1) (d) which relates to insurance brokers. Provisions contained in this paragraph would have limited the extent to which premium moneys owing to insurers from insurance intermediaries could be counted as assets for solvency purposes. The basic rationale of the paragraph was to limit the extent to which an insurers compliance with the solvency provisions is dependent upon the ability of brokers to meet their commitments to insurers in respect of premium payments. An incidental effect would have been to help step up the flow of premium payments to insurers. The House will recall that as Treasurer I circulated amendments to the Insurance Amendment Bill late last year in response to objections from insurance brokers with respect to this provision: Paragraph 15 (1) (d) had the support of the Insurance Council of Australia, representing the general insurance industry, but not of the brokers. I note that the Government will implement provisions dealing with the practice of extended credit in the insurance brokers Bill shortly to be introduced into the House and allowed to lie on the table for examination and comment by interested parties. As the Insurance Council of Australia has pointed out, the omission of the provisons dealing with extended credit arrangements from the current Bill will, of course, further delay their implementation. Until the Opposition sees the insurance brokers Bill we will naturally reserve our judgment about the adequacy of the provisions related to extended credit arrangements. The insurance agents and brokers Bill foreshadowed by the Government will, as I understand it, implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on insurance agents and brokers. In 1981, in response to the Law Reform Commission's report, I indicated that the former Government considered that the need to regulate the insurance broking industry had not been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant the interference in the commercial relationships within the industry recommended by the Commission. I inform the House that currently that remains the view of the Opposition parties. We will need some persuading that the sort of intervention recommended by the Law Reform Commission ought to be given our support. In that vein, I give notice that the Opposition will be critically examining the insurance brokers legislation to ensure that unwarranted regulation is not implemented. At this stage the Opposition will naturally withhold further criticism of the proposed Bill until it is presented to the House and details are available. I should also give notice that in the Committee stage of the debate on the Life Insurance Amendment Bill the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will move an amendment relating to insurance collapses which will seek to minimise risk of a repeat of the Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd experience. My colleague the honourable member for Mitchell, who has taken a very close and intelligent interest in these matters over a very long period, will speak to that amendment. I hope that the Government might see its way clear to accept a very constructive and sensible amendment. I hope that in the spirit of a relatively bipartisan approach my friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), in his customary way, will give very careful thought to what the honourable member for Mitchell has to say. With those remarks, and subject to the exceptions that I have entered, the Opposition will support these Bills and wishes them a speedy passage through the House. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(7.12) —The basic thrust of the Insurance Amendment Bill is to increase the minimum paid up share capital of general insurance companies from $ 200,000 to $500,000 and to increase the solvency margin from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, with a minimum net tangible asset of at least $1m compared with the current figure of $100,000. There are other provisions which will strengthen the Act. But the all-important question is: Will it give policy holders, the industry and the community the protection they deserve? The blunt answer is no. The last major review of this legislation was in May 1973, after 24 years of Liberal neglect. Why is it inadequate? Why will it be ineffective? Let me quote from a speech I made dealing with the principal Act in 1973: Over the preceding 23 years all tory governments have failed to enact appropriate legislation to regulate the insurance industry. The failure to act has had disastrous consequences. We have witnessed over the last three years the collapse of no fewer than 16 companies, involving millions of dollars . . . Tens of thousands of policy holders have needlessly suffered hardship, anxiety and financial loss because of the failure of previous governments to update the existing Act . . . I am equally conscious of the need for sound legislation directed towards the protection of both policy holder and share holder against unscrupulous predators, the result of which has been the extraordinary number of company crashes which have had such devasting effect on the industry. Above all we must acknowledge that a sound and well regulated insurance industry is an integral part of the national economic structure. In discussions with Treasury officials in 1973 leading up to that Bill I tried to have incorporated in it provisions which to a large extent would have blocked off the appalling disasters, particularly the recent Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd collapse. They were completely refused by the Treasury, to its eternal discredit, despite my persistent effort time after time. The Notice Paper since 1973 attests to the fact that the Treasury flatly rejected any moves to put in place amendments that would have blocked off the appalling Bishopsgate disaster. In 1973 I won from Caucus approval for 'a constructive independent inquiry into the general insurance industry' because I was conscious that the industry deserved better legislation. I was right in my assessment that the 1973 legislation would not block the charlatan, the corporate crook, from exploiting gaps in the legislation. Again the Treasury did not want it and successive Treasurers rejected it. The Bishopsgate fraud proved that beyond any doubt. The Bishopsgate collapse in August of this year was due to fraudulent extraction of funds by its principal. It collapsed with debts of nearly $19m. The Acting Insurance Commissioner has launched an investigation into the implications for the Insurance Act of the collapse of the company. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that the collapse of Bishopsgate was 'a case of clear fraud'. It seems to me that Andrew Stathis was the man behind AEK Nominees Pty Ltd, but the fraud squad is finding it difficult to discover details because certain relevant information was never given to the Corporate Affairs Office. In August 1983 sources said that Stathis, understood to have left the country on a Japan Air Lines flight to Tokyo a week before, was arrested in 1979 and charged with conspiring with four other people to grow marihuana near Cowra in New South Wales. He and three others were charged with conspiring to grow marihuana with a street value of $60m and faced a committal hearing of 22 days involving 39 exhibits. Bail for him was opposed and the police said that he had a record of dishonesty. It was also revealed that the same man wanted for questioning under the name of Stathis in connection with the Bishopsgate $18 1/2m collapse was made bankrupt in 1981. An insurer is a special type of commercial operation. Individuals seek protection against a given contingency. It is the essence of an insurer that he is able to offer secure and sound financial backing for policy holders over a period of years. It is axiomatic that an ordinary Australian has almost no means whereby that financial integrity can be easily judged. Nothing in the legislation gives him that right. It has been considered that the insurance industry must be oversighted in a special way by governments in order that insurance is not sold by persons who are unscrupulous or incompetent. The consequences of an insurance collapse are so profound as to make the task of oversight one of the most important obligations on government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) failed as Treasurer, as did his officers. It is an obligation that ought to have been accepted by all governments. It is taken for granted by the great bulk of policy holding Australians who put their reliance in the legislation to protect them from insurance collapse. In the framing of our Federation there was a provision in the Constitution giving an obligation to do that. The collapse of an insurer ought to be regarded as a major failure by any Federal government. We cannot step away from our responsibilities by leaving it to the market place. We have failed, and my persistent efforts have failed. This extraordinary admission of failure is bluntly set out in a telling and excellent speech on the 8th of this month to the Australian Insurance Law Association by Mr Peter Duerden of Royal Insurance Australia Ltd. Before I quote that, prior to the 1973 Act and time after time down the years I have tried to have inserted into the Act provisions identical to those in the United Kingdom Act which would have given the Insurance Commissioner power to examine whether a director was a fit and proper person. Time after time since 1973 the Treasury has rejected those provisions. Let me quote from Peter Duerden: None of these proposed changes- that is, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations- would have saved Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd . . . nor is it likely that the implementation of the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations on investment control would have served that purpose either. The basic recommendations were largely concerned with achieving a secure spread of investments. However, under the section headed 'Control over Directors' in report 20 the Commission did explore the possibility of the Insurance Act being amended to include provisions similar to those incorporated in the United Kingdom's Insurance Companies Act 1974. That Act requires insurers to give notice when any person becomes a director, controller or manager. Each of those persons must provide certain particulars. These include details of personal identification, of qualifications and experience, whether convicted of an offence, censured, disciplined, or publicly criticised by any professional body, or adjudged civilly liable for fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct in connection with the management of any corporation. Such a net would almost certainly have caught Mr Andrew Stathis before he gained effective control of Bishopsgate and thus before he could position himself as Bishopsgate's executive director in charge of finance and investment. Thus, the United Kingdom legislation followed the disastrous collapse of the Vehicle and General company in 1970. It seems that the Australian Insurance Act has left the problems of fraudulent practices to the powers of the authorities administering the companies legislation in each State. Indeed, the Insurance Commissioner in his 1979-80 report stated: Similar considerations probably apply to the important area of company law, relating to the fiduciary responsibilities of the directors of companies, which is not specifically dealt with by the Insurance Act. Bishopsgate therefore gives rise to some fundamental questions about the efficacy and competence of our corporate affairs officers in preventing the kind of basic abuses which led to the Bishopsgate collapse. After all, the Companies Act has been the primary line of defence, and that is a failure. Why do we have laws and expensive government departments if they do not or cannot, for whatever reason, prevent the kind of basic abuses which led to the Bishopsgate collapse? The reason is that the previous Government did not have enough courage to put in place the regulations that would have blocked such practices. It left that for the market-place, for somebody else to pick up. It appears on the face of it that certain responsibilities were not fulfilled long before the Office of the Insurance Commissioner needed to become involved. The first and important line of defence was vulnerability, and vulnerability was obviously exploited. What prompted the piece of United Kingdom legislation? The answer is simply that after an extensive debate in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons that Parliament made the clear distinction that the insurance industry was different from any other section of the corporate area. Yet, if an insurance company collapsed the downstream effect was devastating. We failed to do anything at all in that area. I have repeatedly called for the legislation. It is long overdue. It would have provided flexibility and powerful sanctions for the Insurance Commissioner in cases where shady directors, in this case Stathis, were the subject of widespread disparagement within the insurance industry. It is the law of the land, strangely enough, in Thatcher's England, but it is not the law in this country. I have never heard from the Treasury a convincing reason as to why we have failed to mimic this protective provision, as we have mimicked the general provisions. Time after time I have proposed amendments identical to the United Kingdom Act to effect greater control, but without any success at all. Taking the case of Palmdale Insurance Ltd, a single investment in a relatively speculative venture did much to destroy the company. Now, almost a decade later, I understand that employers are still facing claims from injured employees, in some cases representing scores, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars, in potential liability. Those claims, once indemnified under now worthless public risk or employees' indemnity policies, will never be able to be met from the fund left by the liquidator. So the market-place has to pick them up. It is a disaster. I have repeatedly referred to the need to establish an appropriate arrangement for a principal investment officer. That is long overdue. Such a provision ought to be included in the Insurance Act if it is not available under the provisions of the Companies Act. I have referred before to the existence of the Policy Holder Protection Act of 1975 in the United Kingdom. That matter has been on the Notice Paper since 1975 and has been repeatedly rejected by the Treasury and respective Treasurers. It is very strange that that legislation was bitterly opposed in the United Kingdom in 1975, but it was ultimately accepted as being beneficial. Nothing is in place in the case of Bishopsgate, and my guess is that there will be nothing left for the unsecured creditors when the liquidator comes to disburse. It is an utter disgrace. Again, the Treasury stands condemned. I want to turn to the last issue that needs to be looked at in some depth and to make some rather blunt observations. How can one legislatively extend protection and security to the community? From what areas of the law, of regulation and of supervision can we expect that protection? If one is to judge from the track record of the past 36 years of Treasury control, in my humble view it has been an utter failure. Two critical areas need to be effective, efficient and enforceable if people are to have any trust in the legislation. Firstly, company law needs to be effective and efficient. It is defective and inefficient. Secondly, people are entitled to adequate consumer protection law. In my humble view, the department best structured to put the appropriate laws in place is not the Treasury, it is the Attorney-General's Department. If ever a case highlighted the deficiencies in the Insurance Act and on the part of officers responsible for its administration it is Bishopsgate. I repeat that there is no excuse for the Bishopsgate collapse. Had appropriate laws been in place Stathis would never have become a director of Bishopsgate. We can sheet home the blame to only one area, and that is to the Ministers of the Crown who were responsible and who failed to regulate the industry. Let me say that if I do not get adequate and appropriate answers to the 64 questions on the Notice Paper which highlight deficiencies in both the Companies Act and the Insurance Act, and if those laws are not put in place, my advice to the Government is that it should take the legislative responsibility for insurance out of the dead hand of the Treasury and put it into the Attorney-General's Department. Finally, the Government ought to recognise, as I am sure it has-I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-that all the regulation in the world will not be a panacea, but certain areas of regulation are. There ought to be and there must be attention by government to ensure that adequate disclosure provisions of the Companies Act and the Insurance Act are constantly monitored and investigated, that offence provisions are pursued rigorously, and that solvency provisions of the Act are maintained and updated. How can Australians put any trust in regulation against the unscrupulous and the incompetent? That trust, we ought to remember, ought to be underwritten by Parliament. The insurance industry, as everybody agrees, is extremely complex. We have well over 200 non-life companies and, as I recall, something like 120 brokerage firms . Together with the life companies they play a critical and important role throughout this country economically, socially and otherwise. I want to repeat that the general insurance industry is bigger than the vehicle building industry in this country. It warrants a standing committee of the Parliament to enable industry and the public to talk directly to legislators. We need to break the bureaucratic nexus which has dominated this industry for the last 30 to 40 years . For too long much-needed legislative reform has been bottled up in Treasury. It needs to be aired and acted upon if the industry is to operate in a secure framework of legislative protection, yet with the freedom the market demands. I say to my good friend opposite, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have tremendous respect, that he and I have failed in our battles over the years. We have failed the public in terms of insurance law. We cannot dodge our responsibility. It is not a question of over-regulation. It is a question of appropriate regulation. I do not subscribe to the view of over-regulation in either the company or the insurance area. What I do subscribe to is that a government should put in place sufficient regulation to block the spiv, the charlatan and the corporate crook. When it does that it builds a framework around the industry to give it that protection, to allow the consumer at least the maximum protection. Above all, such regulation would restore to the industry the credibility it deserves. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition looks back over the last 15 years in which he and I have battled this out, that has been the result of our failure to give the legislation what is needed. We have the position where the general insurance industry has a question mark of credibility against it. Until we get to the stage of bringing in appropriate brokers legislation we will be placing the industry in the same position. We have a national responsibility to bring in national legislation. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILL: LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(7.30) —I think that all members of this House who are present for this debate would have some sympathy with the views expressed by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who for many years has fought, in a sense, a one-man campaign-at least on his side of the House-to reform various aspects of life insurance and general insurance in this country. The purpose of the Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 is, of course, to strengthen existing arrangements for supervising both general insurance companies and life companies. As the honourable member so rightly pointed out, both these areas are vital to the overall economic health of the Australian nation. The life insurance industry, for example, as at 31 December 1982 had some 44 companies registered under the Life Insurance Act. In the area of general insurance we see that 197 companies were authorised under the Insurance Act 1973 to carry on insurance business in Australia. So one can see that the total committed funds to these areas depends to a large degree not only on the credibility which insurance companies have within the financial community as a whole, but also on the fact that they play a vital role in maintaining the wheels of commerce and industry and giving to all Australians a capacity to insure both their lives and their property against unforeseen circumstances. The Insurance Act 1973, which is the principal Act, is the Commonwealth Government's legislative basis for the regulation of general insurance companies . The legislation aims to protect the interests of policy holders by requiring general insurers to meet certain minimum financial standards such as prescribed liquidity ratios, reserve and entry requirements. In addition, the Insurance Commissioner is empowered to monitor closely the financial condition of authorised insurers and to publish industry statistics. Basically, the current Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 is similar in content to the Insurance Amendment Bill 1982, which was introduced into this Parliament last year, but which lapsed following the dissolution of the Parliament and the election. There is a major difference however, between the earlier text and this one, and that is specifically that adjustments have been made to the 1982 Bill to reflect the Government's decision not to sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which was one of the decisions taken by the previous Government and which we believe still is something with which the Government should have proceeded. Paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the 1982 Bill, which covers the question of registration and control of agents, is also amended by this Act. As we understand it, the Government proposes to proceed with a specific piece of legislation relating to the practice of agencies in the insurance field. It is our strong belief that agencies can best be controlled by self-regulation through the industry. I think that a reasonable indication of this can be seen in terms of the law, for example, where solicitors who are registered are expected to make contributions to the solicitors' trust funds, which is therefore a basis upon which any breach of the law can be adequately compensated for. The arguments which have been presented for a closer control of insurance agents, in my opinion, do not overcome the simple fact that they are made up essentially of independent, small businessmen whose ability to act within the industry in most cases is beyond reproach. We are talking about the exceptions, not the generality. Therefore, again there is a real risk of establishing a legislative framework which ultimately will sink of its own weight and not necessarily give to the Australian people and the companies, which are the titular employers of the agents, the degree of protection which they deserve. The overall provisions in these amending Bills were designed to limit the extent to which premium monies owing to insurers from insurance intermediaries could be counted as assets for the purposes of the solvency provisions of the principal Act. Proponents of the original paragraph 15 (1) (d) maintain that premiums outstanding through brokers could cause the collapse of an insurance company, particularly the marginally solvent insurers. Nevertheless, when one sees the situation as it is on the ground and relates it to conditions as they have developed over time, one must question whether, in a situation such as that of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd, which was referred to by my honourable colleague, the honourable member for Hawker, the situation is related to that. I think it would be preferable to refer to the Bishopsgate situation, which was that of a general insurance company which failed, in such terms as to see whether insurers were compelled to disclose information currently provided under the Insurance Act 1973. Then more onus or responsibility would be placed on the insured to exercise caution when effecting insurance. This would no doubt encourage companies with higher standards to publicise the fact, using it as a competitive weapon in the market place. Such proposals are in line with the philosophy of our Party which believes that we should, where possible, have less government regulation but ensure that the regulations which stand on the statute books be effectively implemented and be able to achieve the objects for which they were introduced in the first place. Another element which is worth considering is the question of an early warning system. The Insurance Commissioner reported in his fifth annual report for the year ended 30 June 1979 that he was introducing new procedural arrangements which would provide an early warning system. This was apparently designed to indicate to the Insurance Commissioner in advance the possibility that an insurance company might default in meeting policy holders' claims. While the introduction of such a system was not dependent upon any legislative changes, improvements to the system have been sought by the Commissioner from time to time. However, the question which must be asked in this House of the Government is: Why was this not a useful technique in trying to indicate the Bishopsgate- type situation in advance? I believe it is relevant to point out that the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System noted: The criticism by the liquidator of one insurance company concerning the inability of the Insurance Commissioner to take immediate action to investigate the affairs of an insurance company. That is the type of problem which must also be looked at in that context. I believe that the Government should review the powers of the Insurance Commissioner and be assured that he has sufficient resources available to him to conduct the day to day investigations which are obviously important. My honourable colleague the honourable member for Hawker also referred to the question of the suitability of directors. He also noted the provisions in the Insurance Companies Act 1974 of the United Kingdom, which specifies that they must be fit and proper persons, that they must be of good fame and character and that they must have knowledge of the insurance industry. I believe that these three criteria are perfectly reasonable and should be the basis upon which people are permitted to maintain directorships of insurance companies where they are in a position not only to reflect upon the integrity of the industry as a whole but also to have enormous power over the capacity of both industry and individuals to maintain a viable position within the community and within the economic structure of Australia. In relation to the question of the control of investments, investment policies of insurance companies are influenced indirectly by the various provisions in the Australian Government legislation supervising general and life insurance companies. These include, for example, the eligible assets in calculating the solvency margins under the Insurance Act 1973. That legislation looks at type of investment rather than at the diversification of investments. I suggest that this is a key question which again should be looked at very carefully by the Government in deciding upon any further amendments to legislation of this type. It is obviously of imperative importance that the basic security of both the investor and the policy holder should be the reason government regulations are established. But what one has to question is whether the regulations to date have effectively achieved those two most important points. The Campbell Committee, in its report, emphasised the desirability of spreading investments. It believed that as a general principle all such companies should maintain a diversified investment portfolio. That is something I strongly applaud. The Committee recommended that: (a) For the purposes of calculating the solvency test, the value of any individual asset (including related assets) should be taken into account only up to 5 per cent of an insurance company's total assets. It went on to suggest that: (b) Where the value of an individual asset exceeds this figure (arising, for example, from an asset revaluation or change in the market valuation of an investment), an insurance company should be exempt for 12 months from the applicable solvency margin discipline in respect of that asset. (c) Where any of an insurance company's assets exceed the 5 per cent limit at the time these arrangements are implemented, an exempt period of three years should be permitted. The question, therefore, is whether the management of a company investment portfolio should go outside the company's control. It is my strong belief that this should not be permitted. The directors of a company are the people who, by law, are responsible to the shareholders, the policy holders of a company. It is not satisfactory, therefore, that investments of company assets should pass outside the company's basic control. It has been argued that the Act is not designed to deal with the problem of fraudulent practices and is limited in the amount of protection it provides to policy holders. If that is so-and I believe there is some evidence to bear that out-it is a weakness in the legislation as it currently stands. In the circumstances, consideration should be given to making provision in legislation for indemnity or other assistance to policy holders, similar to that contained in the provisions of the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 in the United Kingdom. That legislation provides inter alia for payment to the United Kingdom policy holders of 90 per cent of the amount of any liability of a company in liquidation. Broadly, such arrangements would be similar to deposits insurance, with a government established solvency pool funded by levies on insurers or perhaps a levy by the insurance industry, establishing its own pool, independent of government control but perhaps subject to government regulation. From this pool policy holders would be able to make claims in the event of the failure of an insurance company. We will not see a perpetuation of situations such as occurred in regard to the Bishopsgate scandal. The existence of a safety net, however, has been regarded by some as being an incentive for a lack of responsibility or prudent management. That, of course, is seen as a moral hazard . But surely the present position is not satisfactory and all of these options need to be looked at most carefully. I briefly make a few observations also on the second piece of legislation, which relates to life insurance companies. Like the first group I mentioned, they have a most important role to play in Australia. However, it is also worth pointing out that they have the capacity to harness a significant proportion of the savings potential of the Australian people. Therefore, they will continue, during our lifetime at least, to be an essential ingredient in providing the capital to develop the resources of this nation. Because the companies are acting as trustees for many millions of Australians who are making small but significant investments in life insurance or superannuation which are controlled by these companies, their responsibility to the nation is one of primary importance. It is an area to which I believe the Commonwealth and this Parliament must give further consideration. In this context I make a very brief reference to the question of superannuation . Much examination has been given to this by parties on both sides of this House in recent years, especially in the context of the introduction of a so-called national superannuation scheme. It is my belief that the term 'national' is not appropriate in this context; rather, it should be called a universal occupational superannuation scheme. I make that point for one important reason. A national scheme, as seen in the context of its introduction in other countries , particularly in the United Kingdom, has essentially been an extension of the social welfare system, which has thus been under the basic control of the United Kingdom Government or, in the case of France and the United States of America, under the administration of their respective social welfare agencies. I am strongly of the belief, because we have in this country a firmly based private enterprise controlled insurance industry which is perfectly capable of developing programs which would be to the advantage of both government and all Australian citizens, that we must, in the development of programs in this area, emphasise the fact that it is the private sector essentially to which we will look to see that programs can be developed which will take into account concepts of portability, vesting and preservation. Those concepts are fundamentally important if we are expected to go to the Australian people at any stage in the future and suggest that there should be a wider expansion of the base of superannuation in Australia, thus encouraging all Australians, in the work force at least, to make a personal and lasting financial commitment in their financial viability when they ultimately retire. It is quite clear that the present situation is virtually getting out of control. I seek the permission of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, to incorporate in Hansard statistics in relation to total pension commitments from the Government in this regard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Percentage 1973-74 1983-84 Increase % Total pension commitments $1,600 .1m $8,236 .0m 415 Pensions as a percentage of Commonwealth Budget out- lays 13 .08% 14. 52% 11 Expenditure on aged pensions $1,146 .4m $5,325 .0m 365 Number of welfare pensioners 1,228,775 2, 011,542 64.7 Number of aged and wives pensioners 950,459 1,417,218 49.1 Number in labour force 588,700 6,916,700 17.5 Mr CONNOLLY —These statistics are based, of course, on figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They demonstrate quite clearly that total pension commitments between 1973-74 and 1983-84 increased by 415 per cent, that pensions as a percentage of Commonwealth Budget outlays increased over the same period by 11 per cent, that expenditure on aged pensions increased by 365 per cent, that the number of welfare pensioners increased by 63.7 per cent, that the number of aged and wives pensioners increased by 49.1 per cent and that the number in the labour force increased by a mere 17.5 per cent. Those figures demonstrate that if this nation is not prepared to make some fundamental changes in this area or, alternatively, by some miracle achieve a very high rate of productivity growth-which we have never seen-we will have major problems before us. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.45) —in reply-Briefly, in closing the second reading debate on the Insurance Amendment Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill, I thank the honourable members who took part in the debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) announced the support of the Opposition for these measures. I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies. But he did also say in the course of his remarks that he did not agree with the fact that we had omitted those provisions which provided for the sale of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to the private sector. Of course, we have not taken that course of action. One of the promises that we made during the election was that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation would stay in the public sector. That was strongly supported by the vast majority of those involved in this sphere in the private sector, including such bodies as the permanent building societies. We will pursue the matter to see that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation continues to give the public service that it has provided in the past. The second point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made was that, quite correctly, he would reserve judgment on the matter of extending credit from insurance companies to insurance brokers. He said that he and the Opposition would withhold their views on that matter until the agents and brokers regulations legislation was brought into this House. That is precisely what we on this side of the House as well are doing. We will bring in this legislation, confer with the community generally and reserve our judgment, too, as to whether the provisions of paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the Insurance Act should be included in this sort of legislation. But it seemed to be stupid to- Mr Howard —It is silly to pass legislation and then consult. Mr HURFORD —It would be absolutely stupid to do it in that way. Therefore, as the brokers legislation will focus on this same subject of the provision of credit from insurance companies to brokers, we believe that that will be the appropriate time to consider this particular measure. I particularly congratulate the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) for his energy and expertise in this area. He has applied it for the good of the insurance industry , the protection of the insured, and the value of this House. He ought to feel some satisfaction that at last legislation is being brought into this place which follows to a great extent those matters which he has advocated for so long . I certainly value him as not only a good friend but also a close adviser in these areas. I have listened closely to his speech tonight and to the advice he has given. Once again that advice will be closely considered. He must also be pleased to know that the Insurance Contracts Bill 1983 will be introduced into the Senate either tonight or tomorrow. He will also, of course, have taken note of the fact that the agents and brokers regulations Bill will be introduced shortly. More than that, I hope he has noted that in my second reading speech, in introducing these two Bills, I announced that further legislation must be expected in the next session, the autumn session of this Parliament, when we will take into consideration all the options which he has put before the House and which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has put before the House. We will consider ways and means of improving this legislation to look after not only situations such as the disgraceful situation that occurred with regard to Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd, but others also, so that we can do our job in protecting the insured. Not only have I noted other things the honourable member for Bradfield has said; I also congratulate him on managing to make during the debate on these Bills some remarks on national superannuation, which was probably gilding the lily a bit and going slightly wide of the mark. But he did let his ideological slip show a bit by mentioning that national superannuation should be covered to the greatest extent possible by the private sector. That may be his view but I put to him that that is not necessarily the view of the Life Insurance Federation of Australia-LIFA- the body that is involved in private sector life insurance. It wants a national superannuation scheme and this Government, as has been noted today in the Press, is getting on with the job of examining whether or not such a national superannuation scheme can be introduced. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.52) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, omit proposed sub-section 4 (9), substitute the following sub -section: '(9) For the purposes of this Act, the question whether companies are related to each other shall be determined in the same manner as the question whether corporations, within the meaning of the Companies Act 1981, are related to each other would be determined under that Act if, in section 7 of that Act- (a) the reference to a corporation controlling more than half of the voting power of another corporation were a reference to a corporation controlling more than one-quarter of the voting power of another corporation; and (b) the reference to a corporation holding more than half of the issued share capital of another corporation were a reference to a corporation holding more than one-quarter of the issued share capital of another corporations.' The amendment seeks to pick up some of the definitional deficiencies of the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. Under the current legislation the Life Insurance Commissioner is the protector of the public interest. That is a perfectly satisfactory circumstance under most conditions but in recent weeks it has been necessary for me to gain information concerning an insurance company called Skandia-Preservatice. That company had some difficulties and I sought to establish the details of those difficulties and what had been done to rectify the problems. It was not possible, in a direct approach to the Commissioner, to gather information to assure investors and former employees. I inform the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) that I do not wish to name in this house individuals whom I consider may not be following their responsibilities in regard to that company or who have not in the past followed their responsibilities in relation to the company, but unless I get some assurances I will do so. I do not think any honourable member wishes to name individuals in the House if he is unsure of the information that he possesses. However, unless I have a response I will be forced into that position. It is something that I would deeply regret. The Commissioner is the public protector and we have two options in regard to the way in which insurance and the activities of insurance companies are handled . We can place complete reliance in the Commissioner or we can say that there should be greater public disclosure and the public should be the watchdog. Those are the alternatives. If we allow the Commissioner complete trust we must provide sufficient regulation to ensure that he can operate effectively. If there is greater disclosure, perhaps the same amount of regulation will not be necessary. I have views about that matter but will not debate the process at this stage except to bring to the notice of the House the case involving Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd. The Commissioner had been involved with that company for five weeks. I would have thought that that was sufficient time in which to make a fair assessment of what was going on in Bishopsgate. The fact that in that period the Commissioner had not been able to warn the public or take action under the Act in a way that prevented the syphoning off of funds and the absconding of the principal of that company indicates that there may be deficiencies with the current process. There is a move within the legislation that the House has just debated for the Commissioner to have greater access to documents. It is proper that the Commissioner should have access to documents. That is an extension of the regulatory process. The amendment which is before the House seeks to deal with the relationship between companies. The provision that the Government introduced in this Bill relies upon the Companies Act and the relationships between organisations under that Act. The Companies Act is fine when it comes to definition of control of one organisation by another, defining what a subsidiary corporation is, a holding company, an ultimate holding company and a wholly owned subsidiary. Those definitions are extremely good; they are sound. However the shortfall in the Companies Act is that in dealing with subsidiary holding companies and related corporations under section 7.1 (a) (ii) it defines the relationship of voting powers as the control of 50 per cent of the votes which indicates that there is a relationship between the organisaions. Perhaps that is normal under the Companies Act. However, one has to refer only to the Insurance Act to find different provisions. The Life Insurance Act does not have the same provisions. The Life Insurance Act should have the same provisons as the Insurance Act. This amendment takes the definitions of related companies from the Companies Act but refuses to accept the voting control which the Companies Act outlines. Instead it takes up the voting control as defined in the Insurance Act. It is a simple matter of defining what are subsidiaries, holdings, ultimate holdings or wholly owned subsidiaries and indicating in the legislation that a related situation between companies occurs when a corporation controls more than one-quarter of the voting power of another corporation. That would tighten the definitions and give the Commissioner a greater capacity to look at the relationship between related companies. It would assist in such matters as the Bishopsgate case. Of course it would not do that completely because the Bishopsgate case involved a relationship between individuals within companies rather than between related companies. The Bishopsgate case was a problem because P and O Australia Ltd sold Bishopsgate to a company that continued to trade as an insurance company but its investment portfolio was picked up by a related company which had a common directorship. It was by that common directorship that some funds from the holding company, the investment company, were syphoned overseas with the approval of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Some $19m was unaccounted for. I hope the Minister will give very close attention to that matter when he examines the details of the Act and the review that has been concluded. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that the review is finally concluded. As I understand it the review commenced in 1978. At last we have the result of that review. The Minister said so. He will act on that review to produce further amendments. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Life Insurance Commissioner, in his report of 1978, instanced exactly the circumstances of the Bishopsgate case. I believe that, both in the Life Insurance Act and in the Insurance Act, changes must be made. That was a matter that was identified as far back as 1978 by the Life Insurance Commissioner as a possible problem. He put his finger right on it. An individual could have read his annual report and said: 'There is an option that I will use'. Bishopsgate is a classic example of what the Commissioner said could occur. I think this matter has been well canvassed in the House. I seek the support of the Government to the amendment which I have moved in the direction which I think is necessary. However, I hope that the Minister gives consideration to the greater prospect of disclosure for insurance companies. I do not think the Commissioner alone is the proper person to safeguard the community interest. There should be greater public access and knowledge about the activities of insurance companies as there are about banks. If the banking industry has to present annual reports and proper reports so should insurance companies. There should be more disclosure. The quality of directors must be taken into account and also the capacity of the Commissioner to execute his duties in a way that will give full encouragement to the community to trust him with the authority that he is given. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(8.03) —I commend the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). His proposal certainly needs and deserves a careful study by the Government. As I understand it, it will need to be looked at by the Treasurer ( Mr Keating), by the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and certainly by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). I wish to make a couple of comments in relation to what the honourable member said. I think he is correct. There needs to be more adequate disclosure of the position of insurance companies, be they general insurance companies or life insurance companies. I think there has been a totally inadequate disclosure for the policy-holding public as to the viability or otherwise of insurance companies. In fact honourable members might look at the 164 lengthy questions I have on the Notice Paper. I commend to my colleagues opposite questions 34 to 39. In fact it was the Department of the Treasury, in a submission to the Law Reform Commission, which suggested that there be more appropriate and adequate disclosures to enable the insuring public to be in a better position to make an assessment of a company's viability or otherwise, or whether they ought to take out policies with a particular underwriter. The other thing that I commend to the Minister in the brief period that I have is the obvious question of the need for fit and proper persons provisions, the obligation of principal officers to certify certain documents, particularly forms within the general insurance area. If the United Kingdom Policy Holder Protection Act is not acceptable by Treasury-regrettably I do not think it is-we ought to move to a winding up of companies which is what I proposed as a private member. Finally, in speaking to the matters my colleague opposite raised I think this is long overdue. In regard to the collapse of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd, one of the deficiencies was the question of the investment advisers. The Companies Act needs to be tidied up. My personal view, which is set out in the question, is that we ought not to wait for the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities to do that. I think the Government ought to put an appropriate provision in the Insurance Act, particularly the general Act, to ensure that the same provisions and surveillance of insurance advisers to general companies are vetted by the Life Insurance Commissioner. In that way we will not get into the position we got into with Bishopsgate. Mr Cadman —You have the problems of workers compensation. Mr JACOBI —Exactly. I agree with the honourable member. But as all honourable members know, that is principally a problem for the States. It is not an area in which we would legislate. We had the problem with Northumberland, as honourable members would remember, when it collapsed in South Australia where there are no nominal defendant provisions. We had to go through that problem. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the legislation regrettably is far too weak. The tragedy is that we have to wait for a disaster such as Bishopsgate before legislators really do anything about it. I agree with the honourable member for Mitchell. I commend to the Minister the amendment proposed by my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Mitchell and ask the Minister to look seriously at it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.07) —The Government is sympathetic with the objectives of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in the amendment that he has moved. However, every other clause in this legislation has been thoroughly canvassed with the industry generally. We are reluctant to include this change at this last moment in the legislation, at this stage anyway. I thank the honourable member for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of his amendment a little earlier. It was only an hour ago and it was not long enough for me to get in touch with those with whom it is necessary to confer on matters such as this. I say to him, as I said in my second reading speech and indeed in my speech in closing the second reading debate, that the Government will bring further amending legislation into this Parliament in the next session. That is our intention. This amendment of his will be taken closely into consideration at that stage. This Government is devoted to seeking one way of achieving the objective of not allowing another case such as that of Bishopsgate to happen but other options are before the Government at the present time. I promise the honourable member for Mitchell that I will be looking very closely at his suggestion. I ask him not to press the amendment any further in this debate. We will be conferring with him, as well as others, when looking at further amendments to be made to the Life Insurance Act. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. House adjourned at 8.09 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Braithwaite-to move- That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its intention to index the Australian Bicentennial Road Development excise levy of 2c per litre of petrol and to receive that increase into consolidated revenue; (2) notes that, of the $491m expected to be received from that indexation for the 6 years to 1988-89, local government would have expected to receive 12 per cent of that amount or $59m; (3) notes that this is a further denial by the Government of funds to the 839 local governments in Australia additional to the $13m already denied by breaking its promise to maintain real term values on its Income Tax Sharing Grant; and (4) requests the Government to reconsider either the indexation of the ABRD content of the present excise levy or allocate the additional revenue to local government for use on local roads. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 30 November 1983: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations- 1983- No. 15-Marine Orders, Part 23 No. 16-Marine Orders, Part 21 No. 17-Marine Orders, Part 31 No. 18-Marine Orders, Part 20 No. 19-Marine Orders, Part 25 No. 20-Marine Orders, Part 26 No. 21-Marine Orders, Part 29 No. 22-Marine Orders, Part 33 No. 23-Marine Orders, Part 13 No. 24-Marine Orders, Part 15 Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- No. 347-Meat Inspectors' Association, Commonwealth Public Service No. 348-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association Nos. 349 and 350-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others Nos. 351 and 352-Association of Drafting, Supervisory and Technical Employees and others Nos. 353 to 359-Royal Australian Nursing Federation and the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia No. 360-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia No. 361-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) No. 362-Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia* No. 363-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association No. 364-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others* No. 365-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) No. 366-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment and others (* Not accompanied by statement) Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1983/6-Holders of public office on the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry and other bodies The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 360 Mr Rocher asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 23 August: (1) How many persons were employed full time in each Commonwealth Department, in the case of the Department of Defence, distinguishing between civilian and Service personnel, and what sum was paid by each Department in the nature of wages and salaries at the end of each of the last 10 financial years. (2) What significant fluctuations were caused by transfer of functions between Departments. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The number of Public Service Act staff employed full time in each Commonwealth Department at June each year from 1974 to 1983 is provided in the following table. The annotations to the table provide a brief summary of the major reasons for movements in staffing numbers from year to year. Further explanations are provided in the Public Service Board's annual reports in the sections 'Structure and Staff Numbers' in 1974 and 'Machinery of Government' in subsequent years. Details of salaries, wages and overtime payments to Public Service Act staff are also published on a departmental basis each year in the Public Service Board 's Annual Report. The following information is provided to assist the location of relevant machinery of government and wages and salaries information in the Board's Annual Reports. Page Reference PSB Annual Report for Machinery of Wages and Year ended June Government Changes Salaries 1974 16-23 152 1975 24-30 178 1976 97-105 130 1977 43-45, 112-119 134 1978 38-42, 97-104 117 1979 31-34, 109-116 131 1980 32-38 136 1981 26-28 82 1982 16, 113 94 1983 11-12, 117-120 122 Australian Public Service Full-time Public Service Act staff: department, June 1974 to June 1983 Department, etc. 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Department: Aboriginal Affairs (a) 1,437 1,524 1,248 1,102 999 891 874 760 727 770 Administrative Services (b) . . . . 6,881 6,473 6,286 6,050 6,239 6,192 7,146 5,547 Agriculture 2,604 2,682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attorney-General 's (c) 2,132 2,275 1,635 1,778 1,828 1,895 1,872 1,869 2,229 2,400 Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,201 11,199 Business and Consumer Affairs . . . . 5,488 5,186 5,147 5,181 4,946 5,104 . . . . Capital Territory 3,097 3, 363 3,396 3,518 3,445 3,512 3,462 3,401 3,442 . . Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 754 781 Construction . . . . 14,358 13,260 12,645 . . . . . . . . . . Customs and Excise 4,998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defence (d) Civilian 20,146 19,423 28,361 27,848 27,597 26,904 26,607 26,689 20,297 24, 537 Service 67,457 69,154 68,774 70,081 69,870 70,198 71,531 72,518 73,185 72 ,782 Total 87,603 88,577 97,135 97,929 97,467 97,102 98,138 99,207 93,482 97, 319 Defence Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,794 6,015 Education (e) 2,444 2,671 3,106 2,395 2,379 2,435 1,403 1,439 1,468 . . Education and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,524 Employment and Industrial Relations (f) . . . . 5,332 5,322 6,028 . . . . . . 6,496 7,573 Employment and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . 5,892 6,061 6,388 . . . . Environment . . 227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment and Conservation 156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment, Housing and Community Development (g) . . . . 1,948 721 670 . . . . . . . . . . Finance . . . . . . 1,037 953 976 978 972 959 964 Foreign Affairs (h) 4,198 4,674 4,168 4,044 4,088 4,053 4,009 4, 053 3,850 4,012 Health (i) 6,123 6,428 5,780 6,383 6,628 4,906 4,873 4,835 4, 851 5,003 Home Affairs . . . . . . . . 195 280 309 . . . . . . Home Affairs and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 403 305 Housing and Construction 16,015 16,757 . . . . . . 10,236 9,813 9,577 . . 9,018 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs . . . . 1,453 1,461 1,711 1,836 1,919 1,956 1, 907 2,068 Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . 380 469 505 . . . . Industry and Commerce (j) . . . . 4,168 389 399 420 438 3,930 5,083 5,485 Labor and Immigration 6,399 7,178 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacturing Industry 9,064 9,639 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media 489 586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minerals and Energy 817 889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Development . . . . . . . . . . 782 . . . . . . . . National Development and Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . 801 806 776 . . National Resources . . . . 919 867 . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern Australia . . 2,519 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern Development 102 . . . . . . 732 . . . . . . . . . . Northern Territory 2,180 . . 2,266 1,907 1,899 . . . . . . . . . . Overseas Trade 1,181 1,222 1,149 1,092 . . . . . . . . . . . . Police and Customs . . 5,416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postal and Telecommunications . . . . 422 543 578 645 729 . . . . . . Postmaster-General' s 120,452 121,966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Industry . . . . 2 ,790 2,832 2,911 2,980 2,923 2,902 2,851 3,004 Prime Minister and Cabinet (k) 715 552 532 573 542 548 544 576 524 522 Productivity . . . . . . 3,702 3,728 3 ,838 3,880 . . . . . . Repatriation . . . . 10,901 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repatriation and Compensation 10,570 11,321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources and Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Science 683 . . 752 727 734 . . . . . . . . . . Science and Consumer Affairs . . 782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,364 1,115 1,088 Science and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . 846 867 . . . . . . Services and Property 2,210 2,478 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Security 7,446 9,649 9,307 9,687 10,565 12,001 12,294 12,370 13,275 16,531 Special Minister of State 639 1,061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,358 Special Trade Representative . . . . . . . . 10 12 11 . . . . . . Sport, Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Territories and Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,532 Tourism and Recreation 62 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,196 Trade and Resources . . . . . . . . 1,214 1,210 1,234 1,233 1,231 . . Transport 12,299 12,146 11,436 10,978 11,010 11,315 11,486 11,934 . . 1,302 Transport and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,900 . . Treasury (1) 1,515 1,591 1,489 417 515 543 551 568 552 558 Urban and Regional Development (m) 189 317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Veterans' Affairs . . . . . . 11,746 11,697 11,727 11,667 11,587 11,476 11,790 Vice President of the Executive Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . Authority or agency: Auditor-General's Office 572 594 554 568 605 614 631 624 623 608 Australian Archives 270 319 284 291 296 321 324 312 320 320 Australian Broadcasting Control Board 246 252 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Australian Broadcasting Tribunal . . . . . . 114 108 112 120 110 99 99 Australian Bureau of Statistics 3,590 3,901 3,779 3,678 3,594 3,654 3,621 3,725 3,578 3,587 A.C.T. Schools Authority . . . . . . 682 788 803 831 840 895 920 Australian Development Assistance Agency 450 704 630 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Australian Development Assistance Bureau . . . . . . 525 521 502 509 497 435 416 ADAB Aid Experts . . . . . . . . 155 210 133 109 92 106 Australian Electoral Office 522 702 690 740 741 742 750 739 746 741 Australian Film Commission . . . . 176 183 178 169 165 143 . . . . Australian Government Publishing Service 1,054 1, 201 1,085 1,075 1,074 1,061 1,058 1,025 . . . . Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office 437 522 513 580 538 463 430 423 416 426 Australian Heritage Commission . . . . . . . . 15 13 17 18 16 15 Australian Legal Aid Office . . . . 363 354 334 301 255 232 182 181 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service . . 4 5 22 35 48 68 67 77 88 Australian Science and Technology Council . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 11 13 14 Australian Taxation Office 12,061 12,401 12,481 12,387 12,345 12,505 12,948 12,981 13,410 14,923 Australian Universities Commission 38 40 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Australian War Memorial (n) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 138 167 Bureau of Agricultural Economics 299 333 324 320 322 313 283 284 297 293 Bureau of Meteorology 1,890 1,958 1,833 1, 741 1,721 1,665 1,692 1,652 1,659 1,696 Bureau of Mineral Resources 674 673 622 575 566 558 558 542 539 542 Bureau of Transport Economics 84 114 116 120 98 104 115 113 105 97 Capital Territory Health Commission . . . . 983 996 994 988 991 954 1,003 1,016 Commission on Advanced Education 39 43 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner for Community Relations . . . . 9 10 13 13 15 22 . . . . Commonwealth Ombudsman . . . . . . . . 34 41 48 46 52 56 Commonwealth Schools Commission . . 123 125 117 125 117 115 109 114 152 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission . . . . . . 90 92 89 84 93 86 86 Curriculum Development Centre . . . . 20 32 35 33 37 36 . . . . Forestry and Timber Bureau 248 241 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority . . . . . . . . 13 16 26 35 34 44 Hospital and Health Services Commission . . 15 17 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Rights Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 Industrial Relations Bureau . . . . . . . . 141 197 208 209 215 222 Industries Assistance Commission 401 524 484 468 452 397 371 354 331 311 National Library of Australia 689 742 719 710 710 718 705 699 604 635 Office of Children's Commission . . 59 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office of National Assessments . . . . . . . . 47 56 58 68 78 78 Office of Parliamentary Counsel 25 31 30 28 28 33 33 32 33 31 Office of the Supervising Scientist . . . . . . . . 4 14 21 41 46 61 Papua New Guinea Office 126 99 89 77 64 60 . . . . . . . . Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office 498 540 516 490 477 476 484 488 481 490 Petroleum Products Pricing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 31 18 Public Service Board 964 986 916 876 857 868 837 838 815 803 Mandata Program Office 56 67 90 89 142 179 158 106 . . . . Service-wide Trainees 245 241 55 50 77 64 129 143 197 164 Royal Australian Mint 285 308 323 318 281 294 329 331 367 318 Social Welfare Commission . . 54 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Broadcasting Service . . . . . . . . 37 58 114 230 265 290 Technical and Further Education Com- mission . . 18 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trades Practices Commission 87 204 217 207 205 197 203 181 171 183 TOTAL 334,209 346,609 226,539 224,593 225,865 221,567 222,274 224,279 224, 085 231,972 (a) Reduction in staff primarily due to transfer of functions to the N.T.P.S. and to the Aboriginal Development Commission over the period. (b) Includes A.G.P.S. from June 1982. Reduction during 1982-83 due to transfer of functions, principally to the Department of the Special Minister of State. (c) Reduction during 1975-76 due to transfer of bankruptcy and other functions to Business and Consumer Affairs. Increase during 1981-82 mainly due to the return of these functions to Attorney-General's. (d) Note that civilian staff figures relate to those employed under the Public Service Act only. Increase during 1975-76 due to transfer of defence research and development staff from Manufacturing Industry and to the transfer to employment under the Public Service Act of 2000 former Supply and Development Act staff and 4000 Naval Defence Act staff. Reduction during 1981-82 due to functions transferred to Defence Support. The science and research laboratories were returned from Defence Support during 1982-83. Note also that Service staff figure for 1974 excludes 38 Army National Servicemen. (e) Reductions during 1976-77 due to transfers to the ACT Schools Authority and during 1979-80 due to transfers to the NTPS. (f) Increases during 1977-78 and 1982-83 primarily due to additional staff recruited for the Commonwealth Employment Service. (g) Reduction during 1976-77 due to transfers to Commonwealth Hostels Ltd and the transfer of responsibility for Defence Service Homes to Veterans' Affairs. (h) Increase during 1974-75 due to transfer of Overseas Property Bureau from Services and Property and locally engaged staff from Labor and Immigration. Overseas Property Bureau transferred to Administrative Services during 1975-76. (i) During 1978-79 approx. 2550 staff transferred to N.T.P.S. and approx. 625 staff transferred to Health from the Health Insurance Commission. (j) 1976-77-transfers to Productivity. 1980-81-defence factories transferred from Productivity. 1981-82-great majority of staff transferred to Defence Support. New department comprised mainly of staff from Business and Consumer Affairs. (k) During 1974-75 responsibility for the arts and the Prices Justification Tribunal were transferred to Special Minister of State. (l) 1976-77-transfers to Finance. (m) Defence Service Homes transferred from Housing and Construction during 1974 -75. (n) The Director of the Australian War Memorial was accorded the powers of a head of department with effect from 1 July 1980. Prior to that date staff numbers are included with the Department of the Capital Territory. Note: Additional information on transfers of staff into and out of the Public Service Act is summarised in pages 136-137 of the 1981-82 PSB Statistical Yearbook. Question No. 372 Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Is it possible for Telecom to intercept or monitor private telephone and other telecommunications services without first obtaining the Attorney-General's warrant; if so, (a) under what circumstances can this be done, (b) is there any limit on the length of time it may do so and (c) is there any obligation on Telecom to disclose to the subscriber the fact that it has intercepted such communications. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: Yes. (a) The need for Telecom staff to intercept communications in this manner is recognised in sub-section 7 (2) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. For example section 7 (2) (a) (1) of the Act exempts an act or thing done by an officer of the Commission in the course of his duties, in connection with the installation of a line or equipment or the operation and maintenance of a telecommunications system. Section 7 (4) of the Act prescribed heavy penalties for disclosure by officers of Telecom of information obtained by intercepting a communication. (b) No. (c) No. Question No. 386 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What is the estimated likelihood, at least in terms of 'more likely than not' or the opposite, of the following occurrences in the event of a one megaton nuclear explosion 2,000 feet over (a) Brisbane's business centre and (b) Amberley air base: (i) destruction of half the buildings within 20 kilometres within 60 seconds, (ii) destruction of all public hospitals within 10 kilometres , (iii) a fire storm and major fires for more than two days and nights destroying half the remaining undamaged or repairable damaged buildings within 32 kilometres, (iv) death within one minute of half the population within 32 kilometres (v) death between one minute and 48 hours with severe pain, or severe vomiting and diarrhoea, or weakness from loss of blood, or some combination of these, of half the survivors of the first minute within 40 kilometres, (vi) premature death between 48 hours and 25 years from similar causes, their complications or malignant disease of half the survivors of the first 48 hours within an elliptical area 120 kilometres by 16 kilometres extending mainly in the most common direction of wind travel from the target assuming a wind speed in that direction of 15 kilometres/h for 12 hours, (vii) loss of traditional food supply, water, electricity, communications, road, rail, air and sea transport for 48 hours for half of the survivors within 48 kilometres, (viii) infectious epidemic deaths within one month within 48 kilometres and (ix) 9 out of 10 health workers casualties for 48 hours within 48 kilometres. (2) When does he expect to have the report being prepared for the World Health Organisation on nuclear war. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following responses to the nine questions are based on information given in the United Kingdom Government publication 'Nuclear Weapons', which is a manual for civil defence in nuclear attack. As requested, the situation examined is the explosion of a one megaton nuclear weapon at 2,000 feet, but no distinction is attempted between an explosion over Brisbane's business centre and one over Amberley air base because to do so would entail an extensive and separate study. (i) It is not likely that half the buildings within 20 kilometres would be destroyed within 60 seconds, but many would be destroyed and others could become irreparably damaged. For example, the limiting distance for severe to moderate damage to houses by blast is given as 9 kilometres, with light damage extending to 15 kilometres; whereas, the induction of fires by thermal radiation could extend as far as 15 kilometres, for very clear atmospheric conditions. (ii) It is not likely that all public hospitals within 10 kilometres would be destroyed, but many would be severely damaged by blast and all would be subjected, to some extent, to fire. (iii) It is not likely that a fire storm would occur, nor a catastrophic fire of the magnitude and extent suggested. (iv) It is not likely that half the population within 32 kilometres would die within one minute. For example, the limiting distance for LD50 (lethal dose for 50 per cent of the population group exposed) for blast over-pressure is about 1 1/2 kilometres; for initial gamma radiation it is given as 3 kilometres; and for thermal radiation it would be somewhat greater. (v) It is not likely that half the survivors of the first minute within 40 kilometres would die between one minute and 48 hours. For example, for exposure to the initial gamma radiation from the explosion, there would be no appreciable risk of sickness at distances beyond 3 kilometres. For thermal radiation, charring of the skin would occur out to 8 kilometres for unimpeded exposure in a clear atmosphere, but even modest screening would give substantial protection; the limiting distances for blistering, and for reddening, of the skin are given as 10 kilometres and 14 kilometres, respectively, for exposure in the open in a clear atmosphere. Blast-induced injuries-due to drag forces from the blast wind, rather than the direct overpressure-would occur out to 10 kilometres or so; these injuries would result, for example, from being hurled bodily against an obstacle or impaled by a projectile. (vi) It is not likely that half of the survivors of the first 48 hours within the close-in fallout field would die of malignant disease during the subsequent 25 years. For example, for the idealized conditions postulated in the question, calculation indicates that: if the population stayed in the area for 48 hours after the explosion, but remained in the open throughout rather than sheltering in buildings, then all would approach or exceed LD50 for radiation exposure if the population stayed in the area for 48 hours after the explosion, but took effective shelter in buildings throughout, then about 10 per cent would approach LD50 for radiation exposure but the remainder could walk out of the area after 48 hours incurring a total risk of about one in 100 of contracting fatal malignancy. (vii) It is more likely than not that there would be loss of traditional food supply, water, electricity, communications, road, rail, air and sea transport for at least part of the area. Public utilities above ground would receive severe to moderate damage to distances of about 9 kilometres, but underground services would be little damaged outside the crater zone. (viii) It is more likely than not that there would be an increase in incidence of infectious disease. (ix) The fraction of health workers unable to resume their duties after the explosion would depend to a large extent on injuries incurred during blast damage to the major hospitals and the extent of their inclusion in the close-in fallout field. (2) I understand that the report referred to was completed some months ago by the WHO committee of experts and is now with the publisher. Question No. 413 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communi- cations, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Did Telecom Australia pay for the installation of a mobile telephone in the Sydney ministerial car of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; if so, (a) what was the installation cost, (b) what will be the annual maintenance cost and (c) who authorised the installation. (2) Will all Commonwealth Government Ministers receive similar telephones; if so, at what cost. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Administrative Services, is as follows: (1) On 11 August 1983, a mobile radio telephone service was installed for a trial period of three months in the ministerial vehicle used by the Hon. John Brown, MP, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and Minister for Administrative Services. The Australian Telecommunications Commission approached the Department of Administrative Services which is responsible for operation of the Commonwealth car fleet and asked whether it would be interested in a trial installation for three months. Mr Brown subsequently agreed to the trial in his ministerial car in Sydney. The trial was arranged on the basis that the Department of Administrative Services would pay for all installation and call usage charges, retaining the option to cancel, or to purchase or rent the service at the normal rates at the end of that period. The Australian Telecommunications Commission agreed to waive the rental charges totalling $450 for the trial period: this amount comprises network rental (three months) of $200, and mobile unit rental (three months) of $250. (a) Installation costs amounted to $425. (b) Maintenance costs are included in the annual rental charges, which are currently $800 a year. (c) In his capacity as Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Brown authorised the installation on a three months trial basis to evaluate the applicability and efficacy of the equipment. (2) Any installation of similar equipment in other ministerial vehicles after the trial period would be a matter for individual Ministers to authorise if required and be subject to endorsement by the Minister for Administrative Services. Costs would be met by the individual Minister's departments and the amount would depend on whether the facility was leased or purchased and the number of calls made. Question No. 420 Mr Wells asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question, as it relates to my portfolio, is as follows: (i) nil. (ii) nil. Question No. 436 Mr Wells asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Beazley —In relation to my portfolio the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Local government grants under the Local Government Grants Act 1974 and 1975 (i) 1974-75: $8,954,000; 1975-76: $13,808,000. (ii) Nil. (b) to (e) Nil. Question No. 474 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1)Is he able to state whether the Soviet Union offered to (a) reduce all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact medium range missiles to zero, or ( b) reduce those missiles on each side to 300, or (c) reduce Soviet missiles to the number now possessed by Britain and France with similar parity in medium- range nuclear delivery aircraft along with equality in numbers of warheads in the European zone, and liquidation, not relocation to Asia, of the dismantled Soviet weapons. (2) Can he say whether (a) any of these measures will reduce Soviet stockpiles in Europe below the 1976 level when there were no SS20 missiles and (b) the United States has proposed a zero option alternative being zero medium-range missiles for the Soviet Union in Europe and Asia, and zero change in NATO intermediate range weapons. (3)Will the Government seek the support of citizens of the United States, Soviet Union and Australia to press for an internationally agreed disarmament authority to determine equity, compliance and timetables for both disarmament and diversion of arms race resources to peace-building, peace-keeping, peace- making and development projects in north and south countries on the basis of human need. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. This was in fact 'zero option' which was the United States opening position when the INF negotiations commenced in November 1981. (b) No. The opening Soviet proposal in the INF talks was that the number of intermediate range nuclear systems (missiles and nuclear capable aircraft) on each side should be reduced to 300 over a five year period. (c) Yes. (2) (a) The United States zero option proposal summarised in Question (1) (a) would have had this effect. It is doubtful, however, that the Soviet proposal outlined in Question (1) (c) would have produced the same result. Although the claim enumerated in part (a) of Question (2) is frequently made by Soviet Government spokesmen, including President Andropov, its basis in fact is questionable. Britain and France currently have 162 missiles in their arsenals. Although there were no SS20 missiles deployed in 1976 (deployment of the SS20 did not commence until the following year), the Soviet Union had already deployed a considerable number of SS4 and SS5 intermediate range ballistic missiles at that time. While precise figures are not available, publications such as the SIPRI Yearbook and the Military Balance indicate that the number of these missiles deployed in 1976 was considerably in excess of 162. (b) This description of the zero option proposal, which is frequently made by Soviet Government spokesmen, including President Andropov, is disingenuous. It overlooks the fact that NATO has no intermediate range nuclear missiles currently deployed in Europe to reduce, while the Soviet Union has well over 500 SS4, SS5 and SS20 INF missiles already in place. A more accurate description of the opening US position in the INF talks, which subsequently became known as the 'zero option' or the 'zero-zero option', was given by President Reagan on 18 November 1981 when he said: 'The United States is prepared to cancel its deployment of Pershing II and ground launch cruise missiles if the Soviets will dismanle the SS20, and SS4 and SS5 missiles'. (3) The Government has noted the suggestion that an internationally agreed disarmament authority should be established to determine equity, compliance and time tables for both disarmament and diversion of arms race resources into peace keeping, peace building, peace making and development projects in north and south countries on the basis of human need. The Government considers that progress on disarmament can and should be made through negotiation and through existing international institutions and that all such efforts should be strengthened. It also considers that a necessary condition for meaningful progress is a greater degree of confidence and trust between and among states which the Government is actively encouraging. Question No. 496 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Will he provide details of all employment positions in Australia Post that are planned to be abolished within the electoral division of Calare in 1983. (2) Can he provide background information on these decisions. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) and (2) From 1 January 1983 to 31 October 1983, the following positions in Australia Post in the electoral division of Calare were abolished: Post Office Position Background Carcoar Postmaster, Grade 1 Part time cleaner (8 hours per week) The level of business conducted at the Post Office had been below the level required to justify provision of an official post office for some years. The position of Postmaster had been nominally vacant since April 1983. The office was converted to the non-official method of operation on 12 September 1983. Lithgow Postal Officer Grade 1 The principal duty of the position was telegram delivery. A study of telegram traffic at the post office indicated a significant decline in recent years. Duties at the office could be arranged so that the duties of this position were absorbed elsewhere. The position was abolished on 2 August 1983. Orange Postal Officer Grade 2 (Two Positions) These two positions formerly handled the Telecom Australia telephone accountancy agency function at the Orange Postal Office. Telecom is now performing that function in Orange. The positions were abolished on 28 June 1983. The occupants were permanent officers of Australia Post, and transferred to Telecom in Orange. Postal Officer Grade 2 (part time: 20 hours per week) A survey of the telegram delivery function at the post office indicated insufficient work for two full time Postal Officers, Grade 2. The duties of these positions were rearranged to absorb those of this part time postal officer position. The position was abolished on 10 August 1983. No other positions in the electorate have been identified specifically for abolition in 1983. There are five positions, however, which at this time are to be abolished should the positions become vacant. Question No. 504 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice on 13 September 1983: In respect of the present position with the use of lightweight on-ear headsets in Australia, is he able to say whether (a) Australian made headsets have proved unsuitable and (b) Telecom Australia has stated that it would agree to such headsets being a deregulated item. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (a) Telecom considers its lightweight headsets are generally suitable for use in Australia. (b) No such statement has been made. Telecom has no plans at this stage to deregulate the market to allow the use of privately supplied headsets on equipment attached to the public switched telephone network. Question No. 532 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Does the Government regard (a) Indonesia (b) The Philippines (c) Vietnam and (d) Sri Lanka as countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. (2) If so, will the Government review the provision of aid to these countries to ensure that these funds are administered by welfare agencies with well established international bona fides and not by, or in support of, defence forces, or used by the countries for national development of strategic military importance. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Indonesia Government in Indonesia is based on the 1945 constitution which provides for a strong centralized presidency, but one which is ultimately responsible to the Supreme Consultative Assembly. This body is composed of elected and appointed members which meets at five year periods to elect the President and approve state policy guidelines. The President is advised by a Peoples Representative Council of elected and appointed members. The last presidential election was held in March 1983 and the last parliamentary election was held in May 1982. (b) The Philippines The 1981 constitutional amendments provided for a modified presidential system of government in the Philippines. The President governs with the assistance of a Prime Minister and an appointed Cabinet. The interim National Assembly provided for in 1976 by amendments to the transitional provisions of the Constitution, was convened in June 1978. It has 200 members, 165 of whom are directly elected. The remaining seats are appointed by the President, including 20 members of his Cabinet and 14 members indirectly elected by youth, agriculture and labour organisations. In January 1981 the National Assembly assumed formal legislative powers and full general elections are scheduled for 1984. Martial law was lifted in 1981. (c) Vietnam All political power within the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is exercised by the Vietnamese Communist Party, which is controlled by a fifteen-member Political Bureau of the Party's Central Committee. The National Assembly, elected every five years by universal suffrage, is the highest State authority in Vietnam. Members of the Assembly are elected to the Council of State, whose Chairman is Head of State. The Assembly elects the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. It is common for Ministers to be concurrently members of the Central Committee. (d) Sri Lanka No. Sri Lanka is a mixed parliamentary/presidential democracy. The last parliamentary elections were held in 1977, and the last presidential election in 1982, following which a referendum was held which extended the life of the parliament for a further six years without elections. (2) I refer the honourable member to my reply to his Question on Notice No. 332 (Hansard, 1 November 1983, page 2151). Suggestions that Australian aid should be discontinued to certain countries overlook the fact that the result of such action would be to punish the most needy people in a developing country without influencing those who direct affairs. Australian official development assistance funds provided for Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka are administered by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau in consultation with the civilian governmental authorities of those countries. They are not administered by, or in support of, defence forces. Information about defence co-operation programs with any of these countries should be sought from the Minister for Defence. The Government has made no decision to move in practical terms towards the resumption of Australia's bilateral aid program with Vietnam. Question No. 552 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Parliamentary Library's occasional paper No. 1-1983 entitled 'Competitive Health Care Delivery Systems' discussing benefits of health maintenance organisations in the United States of America; if so, is the method employed by these organisations of paying medical practitioners preferable to the Australian fee for service system for (a) medical and (b) budgetary reasons. (2) What steps does he propose to take after the introduction of Medicare in February 1984 to encourage the setting up of health maintenance organisations as an alternative and competitive system. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of the paper referred to in the question and the benefits which the many proponents of the HMO concept claim would flow from the introduction of HMOs as a method of payment for health care services. I am certainly not convinced that fee-for-service charging is always the most appropriate method of funding health services and I have an open mind so far as alternative charging methods are concerned; as indeed I have to any proposals to improve our health care delivery system. The paper referred to points to the similarities between the Australian and the American health care delivery and financing systems. For example, both are based largely on fee-for-services charging for medical services. The existence of such similarities would seem to indicate that alternative health financing systems, which operate successfully in America, might well operate just as effectively and efficiently in Australia. There are also considerable differences between the two systems and these differences will compound with the introduction of Medicare. As an example, Medicare will provide publicly funded benefits of at least 85 per cent of the schedule fee for medical services. These benefits will, where the doctor agrees to direct bill the Government, represent payment in full for the service. Medicare will also make free hospital treatment and accommodation available to all Australians. These types of Government funded assistance, which could be available to 100 per cent of the Australian population, are not available to most Americans. Most Americans face a choice between meeting potentially very high medical and hospital charges, if and when they arise, by way of out-of- pocket payments and obtaining financial cover for health services through one of a number of competing insurance and pre-payment schemes, of which the HMO is but one type. Because Medicare is still in the process of being introduced, I am not in a position to assess the possible effect its operation will have on the viability and effectiveness of HMOs in Australia. The overwhelming consideration of the Government, so far as major initiatives in the health financing area are concerned, in the very short term, has been to ensure that Medicare is introduced as smoothly as possible. Our resources have been concentrated on that task and this has meant that I have not had the opportunity to give other matters, such as alternatives to fee-for-service funding of medical services, the degree of attention which would enable me to make firm commitments about possible steps to be taken in this area after 1 February 1984. At this stage the only firm commitment I am prepared to make in this regard is that assessment of alternatives to existing funding arrangements will be one matter which will receive consideration in the light of our early Medicare experience. Question No. 562 Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent statements by Mrs Gracie Baylor, Liberal Party spokesperson for Senior Citizens Affairs in Victoria, criticising pensioners who are overseas for escaping the Government's proposed assets test. (2) Can the Minister reassure Australian pensioners, many of whom are being confronted with criticism if they have 'non-Australian' names, that the Government does not plan to discriminate in any way against them with respect to pension entitlement. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The assets test will apply equally to all pensioners regardless of where they live and regardless of where their property is located. Question No. 563 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983. (1) Can he confirm whether Telecom Australia advised all districts on 15 November 1982 that all functional managers should be paid the same rates of pay; if so, was this to be phased in over two stages. (2) When will the second phase for customer services and administration managers be introduced. (3) Does the introduction of the second phase depend upon wages policy, economic conditions and performance; if so, why did these same conditions not apply to district telecommunications managers, internal and external plant managers. (4) Is Telecom Australia prevented from introducing this second phase because of Government policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) On 15 November 1982, in recognition of the levels of performance achieved and as part of an integrated management structure for district and functional managers, Telecom Australia did announce that, within each district, all functional managers, who were assigned the full range of functions and district wide responsibilities, would be paid the same rates with implementation being phased over two stages. There were some exceptions not relevant to the question. (2) Implementation of phase two for customer services managers, Grades 1 and 2 and administration managers, Grades 1 and 2 is dependent upon wages policy, economic conditions and the performance of the individuals concerned. (3) As stated above, introduction of phase two is dependent upon the factors mentioned. These factors did also apply in the case of internal and external plant managers. Phase one resulted in salary increases of 6.8 per cent for customer services managers, Grades 1 and 2 and administration managers, Grades 1 and 2. The 6.8 per cent increase was the maximum increase given to any Grade 1 or Grade 2 designation. It should be noted that internal plant managers, Grades 1 and 2 received an increase of 0.2 per cent. Had the salaries of customer services and administration managers, Grades 1 and 2 been aligned with their counterparts, without phasing, increases between 12 per cent and 18 per cent would have occurred. Given the wages policy of the Government of the day and the economic circumstances then prevailing, a decision was made to phase introduction of the integrated structure. (4) The Government firmly supports the principles of wage fixation announced by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 23 September 1983. Proposals concerning the functional management group will be considered against the principles established by that Commission. Question No. 587 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department on mental health, as distinct from intellectual handicap, in each State in the areas of (a) research, (b) public education, (c) accommodation, (d) day activities, (e) sheltered workshops and (f) voluntary organisation projects such as crisis telephone services, in 1982-83. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, 1974 the majority of subsidised services are multi-diagnostic, that is, they provide services of training, activity therapy, sheltered employment and associated residential accommodation, holiday accommodation, recreation facilities and rehabilitation facilities for a variety of disabled people who are physically or mentally disabled. There is no provision under the Act for services which include only research activities or which are ancillary to the main services such as public education and crisis telephone services. It is not possible to identify the proportion of funds expended solely in relation to mental health in those particular services. However, there is a small number of services subsidised under the legislation which caters specifically for people with psychiatric problems and/or drug and alcohol related disorders. The tables below outline the expenditure incurred on this latter group of services during 1982-83. HANDICAPPED PERSONS ASSISTANCE ACT 1974: GRANTS FOR 1982-83 New South Wales $ (b) Public Education 3,000 (c) Accommodation 196,355) (d) Day Activities 78 ,292) * (e) Sheltered W/Shops 516,429 Total $794,076 Victoria $ (c) Accommodation 83,253 (e) Sheltered W/Shops 253,205 Total $336,458 Queensland $ (c) Accommodation 37,730 (d) Day Activities 21,861 (e) Sheltered W/shops 34 ,630 Total $94,221 South Australia $ (e) Sheltered Workshops 38,410 Western Australia $ (c) Accommodation 24,206) (d) Day Activities 24,206) * Total $48,412 Tasmania Nil Northern Territory Nil Australian Capital Territory $ (c) Accommodation 6,800 (d) Day Activities 90,818 Total $97,618 Total Australia $ (b) Public Education 3,000 (c) Accommodation 348,344 (d) Day Activities 215 ,177 (e) Sheltered W/shops 842,674 Total $1,409,195 * Break up between expenditure on accommodation and day services in New South Wales and Western Australia are estimates only due to the existence of combined residential/day activity services oriented towards people with mental health disabilities in those States. Question No. 599 Mr Les Johnson asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 October 1983 : What consideration has been given to the need to provide domestic airport facilities to serve the needs of the rapidly growing Illawarra Region of New South Wales and the City of Wollongong. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department is currently preparing the National Aerordome Plan which will indicate the aerodrome faclities required to meet both the current and future air transport demand throughout Australia. In order to develop this plan Australia has been divided into a number of zones , each of which will be studied in detail. The needs of the Illawarra region will be examined as part of the study of the New South Wales South Coast Zone but at this stage a commencement date for that study has not been decided. In the meantime the aviation needs of the area will continue to be monitored and, should significant new demands arise, their impact will be assessed to see what actions are necessary to overcome any problems associated with the new demands. Question No. 604 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 October 1983 : (1) Has his attention been drawn to a group called the New South Wales Council for Children's Films and Television. (2) Is it a fact that this group is attempting to establish either a separate television channel for children's programs or an extension of Australian Broadcasting Corporation services to include more children's television. (3) What action is being taken to assist this group in their efforts to secure better television for children. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the New South Wales Council for Children's Films and Television ( NSWCCFT) has written to me. (2) Yes. (3) I am sympathetic to the desire of the NSWCCFT to improve the quality of children's programs. Unfortunately, very little can be done at this stage to assist the NSWCCFT to obtain a nation-wide children's television channel for a variety of reasons including the shortage of suitable programs. I have referred the proposal to the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for its consideration. As an independent statutory authority, the ABC is responsible for determining its own priorities for programming. I cannot direct the ABC to extend its service to include more children's television programs. I have, however, referred this proposal both to the ABC and to the Special Broadcasting Service for their consideration and response. Question No. 606 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 October 1983 : (1) How many RX or step exchange rural automatic exchanges are in operation in each State. (2) What is the timetable and the estimated cost for the replacement of these exchanges. (3) What type of exchange will the replacement be, and will it be analogue or digital. (4) If analogue, when will Telecom Australia begin installing digital exchanges and when will the program be completed. (5) When will (a) metropolitan, (b) city and (c) town exchanges be fully digital. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The number of Step-By-Step Rural Automatic Exchanges (RAXs) existing is each state and nationally, at June 1983, is as follows: NSW 318 VIC 248 QLD 45 SA 128 WA 70 TAS 32 NAT 841 (2) Some replacement of Step-By-Step Rural Automatic Exchanges is already occurring using crossbar (analogue) equipment. A replacement programme using digital equipment is being studied. The present objective is to commence the replacement of the exchanges in 1986- 87, at an estimated cost of $51.5m. (3) The equipment which will be used to replace Step-By-Step Rural Automatic Exchanges will employ digital switching. The particular type of equipment to be employed, which will best meet the needs of the Australian rural environment, is the subject of current studies in Telecom. (4) Analogue (crossbar) equipment will only be used for essential replacements pending the availability of digital rural switching equipment. (5) At present there is no specific timetable for Telecom exchanges becoming fully digital. However the present strategy for digital network development is to provide digital exchange equipment for growth and for the progressive replacement of step-by-step equipment to the year 2000. Question No. 611 Dr Klugman asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 October 1983 : (1) What has been the total expenditure by the (a) Commonwealth Government and (b) Victorian Government on the Royal Commission into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (2) What is the estimated future expenditure by the (a) Commonwealth Government and (b) Victorian Government on the Royal Commission. (3) In respect of payments to the Royal Commissioner (a) what sum (i) has been paid and (ii) will be paid, (b) on what basis are they made, (c) how do they compare with the cost of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and (d) have the Royal Commissioner's fees increased since the so-called wages freeze. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Total identifiable expenditure by the Commonwealth to 30 September 1983 was $7,483,986. This includes assistance to parties appearing before the Royal Commission. (b) The Victorian Government is meeting the costs of the Victorian Instructing Solicitor and Victorian Police Officers who have been seconded to the Royal Commission. I have no knowledge of the expenditure involved. (2) (a) An amount of $1,008,708 remained unexpended at 30 September 1983 from that provided in the Budget for the period to 31 December 1983 when the Commission was earlier expected to complete its operations. The estimated cost of the Commission beyond that date is not yet available. (b) See 1 (b) above. (3) (a) (i) $1,003,750 to 8 October 1983. (ii) It is estimated that $97,500 will be met until 31 December 1983. (b) When Mr F. X. Costigan, QC, was originally appointed as Royal Commissioner on 1 October 1980, the previous Government set a daily fee of $1,200. That Government increased the daily fee to $1,300 on 1 July 1981 and then to $1,500 on 1 February 1982. $1,500 is the current fee. (c) It has been the policy of successive Victorian Governments not to make Victorian Judges available for Royal Commissions. I understand that the annual salary of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria is $76,450 and there is, in addition, an annual allowance of $3,666 payable. The total payments of $80,116 per annum do not of course include any overhead costs. Question No. 612 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether Indonesia banned Red Cross visits to East Timor from early September 1983 ostensibly because of military operations around Viqueque and Los Palos aimed at flushing out members of the East Timor independence front. (2) Will Australia cease military aid to Indonesia until an internationally endorsed act of self-determination occurs in East Timor; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The relief operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC ) on the main island of East Timor were suspended in July 1983 as a result of restrictions placed on the movement of ICRC delegates by the Indonesian authorities. However, the ICRC's family reunion activities on the main island and its food and medical program on Atauro Island have continued uninterrupted. The Indonesian representative at the United Nations said on 14 October that the 'temporary suspension was due to recent security disturbances and here ( Indonesia's) concern is solely with the safety of ICRC personnel in the area where the earlier mentioned incident (that is the attack near Dilor on 8 August in which 15 Indonesian soldiers were killed) occurred'. The fact that the ICRC still has access to East Timor was shown by the arrival in Dili on 27 and 31 October respectively of the ICRC nurse and the ICRC doctor from Geneva. The ICRC tracing officer is expected to visit East Timor shortly. As a major contributor to ICRC operations in East Timor, the Government is naturally concerned by the restrictions which have been placed on relief operations on the main island and has made its concern known to the Indonesian authorities. The Government hopes that the negotiations now taking place between the Indonesian authorities and the ICRC will result in the ICRC being able to resume the full range of its operations without delay. (2) The Defence Cooperation Program developed in recent years with our neighbours in South-East Asia forms an important facet of our overall relationship with most of them. Activities under the Defence programs complement those in the political, economic and cultural fields which are designed to encourage friendly and cooperative bilateral relations with our near neighbours, serving both their interests and those of Australia. In the case of Indonesia, I announced in Jakarta on 8 April that existing programs, projects and exchanges with Indonesia would be maintained subject to a thorough review of all aspects of our bilateral relations, including defence cooperation. When that review is concluded it will then be possible to make informed decisions on the nature of the relationship. In the meantime, and as a matter of realistic practice, relations will continue to function as they have to the present. Question No. 619 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 13 October 1983: Is the Minister able to say whether local manufacturers will be able to handle the demand for the production and supply of FM radio transmitters in a reasonable time, when supplementary commercial FM licences are granted? Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. I am advised that FM broadcast transmitters are not currently being manufactured in Australia, but there is capability to do so if there were sufficient commercial incentive. This would depend on, for example, the number and rate of applications for supplementary licences and the rate at which licences are issued. At this stage it is not possible to make an accurate prediction on these points. Question No. 629 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : With regard to the State and Territory Advisory Councils of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a) what is the procedure for appointing members, (b) how often and where will the councils meet, (c) what expenses will be paid to the members of each council, (d) what budgetary allocations have been provided for the operating costs of the various councils, (e) how were these estimated costs calculated and (f) who are the members of the councils and what are their qualifications for membership. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (a) the ABC advertised in the press, on radio and television inviting applications from individuals and from organisations wishing to nominate individuals for membership of the State and Territory Advisory Councils. From these applications, the Board decided upon the Councils recently appointed. (b) The State and Territory Advisory Councils will meet at least twice a year, normally in the State or Territory capital city. (c) Where it is necessary for members to be absent from their homes overnight, travelling allowance at the rate of $85.00 per 24 hours will be paid. Any transport costs from the member's home involved in attending the meeting will be paid. (d) An amount has been provided, based on carefully calculated costs of fares, accommodation and incidentals for an anticipated number of people from different areas, participating in a specified number of meetings in a financial year. However, this is subject to review. (e) As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 had not been passed at the time the Estimates were prepared, and the requirements of the Act and resultant decisions of the ABC Board were therefore not known, a well-researched estimate was made, assuming that travel and accommodation would be involved for some members. (f) Membership of the Councils, together with the pertinent qualifications of members, are as follows: NORTHERN TERRITORY ADVISORY COUNCIL RAY PLIBERSEK, who is Legal Adviser to the Bureau of the Northern Land Council, has a BA (Honours) and a Bachelor of Laws Degree (Interim convenor). MICHEAL DILLON (Alice Springs) is Manager-Administrator of the Central Land Council and has lived for six of the past 10 years in northern Australia including two years in a remote Aboriginal community. He has a Bachelor of Economics Degree. JOHN MACUMBA (Alice Springs) was the founder of the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. During 1982 and 1983 he has been co-ordinator of the Northern Territory National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat. JOHN KELLY was a National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) trainee with the ABC in Darwin for a year. He then joined the office of Aboriginal Liaison, Department of the Chief Minister, where he works in video production. He also produces the weekly Aboriginal Hour program on Darwin's community radio station. JOAN CARPENTER (Tennant Creek) is employed by the Department of Education as School/Community Liaison Officer in the Barkly Region. She is a member of the Barkly Isolated Children's Parent's Association. CATHERINE WEBER, 23, (Alice Springs) is employed in the Salaries Section of the Northern Territory Department of Education. She was born and attended school in Alice Springs and is involved in sporting and community activities. DAVID CARMENT, Director of the National Trust of Australia (Northern Territory) has a BA (Honours) from the University of New South Wales and a PhD. in History from the Australian National University. ROBYN O'TOOLE (Alice Springs) trained as a primary school teacher in Victoria and has lived in the Territory for 10 years. She is interested in the effect of radio and television on children, particularly on those in isolated areas. HELEN GALTON is a physical education teacher who is active in sporting groups and parent associations. ENZO FLORIANI, an accountant, is Chairman of the Co-ordinating Committee of the Alice Springs Committee Refugee Settlement Scheme. He is also active on other community affairs organisations. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL BARBARA BIGGINS is Television Officer for the Australian Council for Children's Film and Television and since 1982 has been a member of the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. (Interim convenor). DAVID HARDY, as a member of the Board of the Royal South Australian Deaf Society Inc, is conversant with deafness issues and the areas of technological development and television access for the hearing-impaired. PETER WELLS (Mt Gambier) is a sheep and cattle farmer and President of the Elliottdale Sheep Breeders Society of Australia (SA and Victorian Branch), Secretary of the Mil-Lel Branch Agricultural Bureau of South Australia and a student at the South East Community College, School of Rural and Timber Studies. MOLLY BRANNIGAN has a Bachelor of Education degree from Sturt Campus of the South Australian College of Advanced Education, a qualification she attained as a mature-age student. She represented the South Australian Government as a delegate to the non-government conference on International Women's Year held in Mexico City in 1975 and is at present employed as a teacher-librarian. IAN WILLIAMS is active in many associations concerned with the welfare of the disabled. He lectures in universities and colleges and in 1981, International Year of Disabled Persons, took part in special seminars to promote understanding of the special problems of the disabled. BARBARA KRAYEWSKA is a Master of Arts from Warsaw University and has a Diploma from the Sorbonne in Paris. She worked on Polish Radio and translated 42 films from French to Polish for Polish Television. She is Tutor in French at the University of Adelaide. TIM DODD is a Chair of the Media Affairs Committee of the Students' Association , University of Adelaide, and writes a weekly science column for the student newspaper. He is studying for an honours degree in Mathematical Physics. KATH BENTLEY lives in Morgan and is a committee member of the Waikerie-Morgan Community Development Board and the Riverland Regional Council for the Handicapped. RICHARD COSTI, 23, is Head Teacher at Hesso Rural School, 65 kilometres north of Port Augusta. He is Secretary of the Hesso Progress Association and a member of the Port Augusta/Quorn Principal's Association. JEAN BLACKBURN, Nominee, Department of Education & Youth Affairs. She was associated with the Karmel Report. QUEENSLAND ADVISORY COUNCIL IAN WALLACE, now Principal of Richlands High School, has taught in schools throughout Queensland. He has close links with Aboriginal and multicultural communities and interests with sporting, historical and musical groups. (Interim convenor). DAVID BAILEY is 19 and a first year student in Economics at the University of Queensland. He spends holidays in Darwin and the Northern Territory with his parents and feels concern for the needs of people in remote areas. ELLIE GAFFNEY is a Torres Strait Islander (From Thursday Island) and a member of the Far North Queensland Regional Advisory Committee and Chairperson of the Steering Committee of the Torres Strait Islander Media Association, which broadcasts in co-operation with the Townsville Aboriginal Media Association. SANDRA FERGUSON (Southport) has written and researched for the ABC's Education Department and for commercial television. She wrote for the Bellbird series and devised the ABC-TV drama series Twenty Good Years. DR DALE CRAIG has degrees in Music from Millikin University in Illinois, Cornell University in New York and Stanford University, and has studied musicology at the University of Pittsburgh and Chinese language at Stanford and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has taught, broadcast and written about music and has wide administrative experience. RON TOOMBES is President of the Queensland Tape Service for the Print Handicapped and is a member of the Subscribers' Committee of the Queensland Symphony Orchestra. DENZIL MILLS (Charleville) is a member of the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, the Australian Agricultural Economics Society and the United Graziers Association. She has been a Tutor in Farm Management at the University of Queensland and from 1972 to 1982 was employed as an Agricultural Economist with the Economic Services Branch of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. RAYMOND MAXWELL is an Engineer working in an Australia-wide consulting practice serving local government, government and industrial organisations with design and contract management of development works such as bridges, gas pipelines and roads, bringing him into contact with many people at all levels of society. CATHY BAUMAN (Dingo) is Chairperson of the Cattlemen's Union Rural Services Committee and an executive member of the Queensland Pastoral Industry Training Committee. RUSSELL FRENCH (Cairns) is Director of the Australian Heritage Gallery in Cairns and a graduate in Architecture from the University of Melbourne. He has worked as a university teacher, environmental researcher, architectural lighting and acoustics consultant and an architect in private practice. SHIREEN MALAMOO is Aboriginal Liaison Officer with the Department of Social Security in Townsville. She is especially interested in the promotion of Aboriginal and Islander culture and art, and is well known for her work with these communities. W. D. KELLY of Mount Isa is active in community affairs and takes a keen interest in ABC Radio. He attended a meeting of the Dix Committee when it sat in Mount Isa. He has made submissions to ABC Townsville about their broadcasts to western Queensland. NEW SOUTH WALES ADVISORY COUNCIL YVONNE PRESTON, nominated by the women's Electoral lobby, is a distinguished Sydney journalist, former correspondent to Peking for the Sydney Morning Herald, and an activist for women's rights. ( Interim convenor). MARGARET McLEAN (Brewarrina) is a member of the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, part-time librarian and part-time interviewer with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. DR W. L. BONNEY is co-author of Australia's Commercial Media and President- elect of the Australian Communications Association. He is closely associated with 2SER-FM. MARY ROSE LIVERANI (Wollongong) is a Commonwealth Film censor who is also a journalist, author and teacher. She has wide connections in the ethnic communities and is an activist in an organisation working to put women into local government. DR R. J. BAWDEN is Head of the School of Agriculture of the Hawkesbury Agricultural College and involved in a series of innovative approaches to learning. EDITH WALLER is Secretary of the Friends of the ABC. She lives at Seaforth in Sydney. BARBARA FLICK (Broken Hill) is Co-ordinator of the Western Aboriginal Legal Service, which operates in almost half of the state, Secretary of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, and former member of the New South Wales Women's Advisory Council. SARAH McLOUGHLIN is 24. She is deeply concerned about broadcasting philosophy, particularly about daytime television broadcasts and the community they serve. MATTHEW STEPHENS is a 19 year-old second-year Arts student concerned that the national broadcaster should fulfill the needs of the youth of today. GIAMPAOLO PERTOSI is a national graduate of the Australian Film and Television School, a member of the executive of the Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW, Elected Councillor and Public Relations Director of the Dante Alighieri Society and has made several submissions regarding broadcasting and the arts. DR BRIAN CONNOR is a training advisor with the Family Medicine Program of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and responsible for the rural health elective program of this College in New South Wales. He is involved with Armidale Community Radio (2ARM-FM) and Armidale community service organisations. ROBYN WALLACE is a Senior Lecturer in English at the University of Newcastle and a member of a number of conservation and community organisations in the Hunter River area. WESTERN AUSTRALIA ADVISORY COUNCIL PETER NISBET is a Perth barrister and solicitor who assisted in the establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Perth. He has been a presenter of music programs on the Perth Universities Radio Station 6UVS-FM and describes himself as a ''committed Australian''. ( Interim convenor). TIRZA COHEN, Secretary of the Ethnic Broadcasting Committee of Western Australia has been involved in multi-cultural broadcasting for seven years. She is Secretary of the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia's ethnic and multicultural standing committee; a member of the Western Australia Institute of Technology's 6NR management committee; a member of the management committee of the Ethnic Communities Council; and Senior Vice-President of the Council of West Australian Jewry. D. G. BURNSIDE is Officer in charge of the Department of Agriculture office in Kalgoorlie. He takes part in many rural community activities and has a particular interest in the broadcasting needs of people in the country and isolated communities. THOMAS BABAN, a public servant in the Department of Social Security, was nominated by the Aboriginal Committee on Education in Western Australia. He is Chairman of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee of the Western Australian College of Advanced Education; Vice-President of the Intercultural Youth Exchange Support Group; and a member of several youth and community service groups. BRENDA CONOCHIE of Darlington is Convenor of the Western Australian Teachers for Nuclear Disarmament Group and an active worker in the field of ''education for peace''. She is particularly concerned with the quality of television programs available for families, children and adolescents. VIVIENNE CASS, nominated by the Western Australia branch of the Campaign Against Moral Persecution, is a Master of Psychology and studying for her PhD. She has acted as a consultant psychologist, lectured on sexuality and sexual therapy, and written and delivered several academic papers on aspects of homosexuality and lesbianism. GREG BROTHERSON, formerly an airline pilot, is disabled by multiple sclerosis and was endorsed by the West Australian division of the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled (ACROD). He is a director of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Western Australia. He has completed a degree course at Murdoch University, and is a part-time tutor in the University's History Department. ANNE WALLACE runs a small business from her home. A strong supporter of the ABC , she believes it should publicise its programs more. She made a submission to the Dix Committee. DIANNE FORSYTH of Bryah Station, Meekatharra, was nominated by the Isolated Children's Parents' Association. The ICPA nomination says: ''. . . she represents the group of Australians who receive only the ABC's Radio 3 . . who look forward to receiving their first television service from the ABC via the proposed (Aussat) satellite . . .''. ERIN BOON manages a property near Carnarvon and is especially interested in the broadcasting needs of country people. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ADVISORY COUNCIL SHIRLEY KRAL is Co-ordinator of the Continuing Education Program at the Centre for Continuing Education at the Australian National University, and a member of Narrabundah College Board. She has been a regular writer of suggestions, praise and criticism to the ABC. ( Interim convenor) JOHN WOOD was nominated by the ACT Council of Social Service, of which he is an executive member. He is Chairman of Rupert Public Interest Movement Inc, and through this organisation has presented a number of papers on broadcasting matters to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. DAVID CRAIG is a public servant. He is a member of the executive committee of the United Nations Association of Australia (ACT Branch) and a member of the Australia-Japan Society and the Australian-American Association. DAVID SWAIN is Senior Lecturer in Professional Writing at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. He is the author of six books and many articles, reviews and poems. STEVEN GILFEDDER is Public Relations Manager of the Australian National Gallery . He has a background in journalism, arts administration and broadcasting. He is the author of several poems. CAROLYN PENFOLD, who is studying for an Arts degree at the Australian National University, has worked in a wide variety of jobs in New South Wales and Queensland and is especially conscious of the broadcasting needs of young people . MARY MARGRETTA SCULTHORP, a music teacher, is a former chairperson of the ACT Arts Council's music commitee. She has wide-ranging interest in education generally. FRANK PANGALLO runs a small business and was formerly chairman of the N.S.W. Ethnic Affairs Commission. He is Deputy Lord Mayor of Queanbeyan, and was a founding member of the Multilingual Information Centre. GAIL HASSALL has taken an active part in community organisations for 15 years. She is particularly interested in young people, children, education and the arts . She is an educator with the A.C.T. Family Planning Association. DR CORAL BELL, a former professor of International Relations at the Australian National University, has had a wide-ranging academic career in Australia, Britain and the United States. She is the author of several books on international politics. TASMANIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ANN HUGHES, a widely experienced social worker, was nominated by the Tasmanian Council of Social Services. She is an executive committee member of the Council and has worked in government and non-government welfare organisations in the areas of unemployment, women's affairs, youth issues, ethnic affairs and the arts. (Interim convenor) CAROL THOMPSON is Convenor of the Tasmanian branch of the Women's Education Coalition (AWEC) which is committed to attaining equality of opportunity for girls in schools and for women in education. She is Publications Officer for the Tasmanian Education Department, and is the author and editor of many articles, pamphlets and booklets on education. FAIE WATSON of Burnie has indicated an informed awareness of any of the problems facing ABC program planners. M. KLARENBEEK was nominated by the Municipal Council of King Island, of which he is Council Clerk. The Council made a strong case for having a representative of the Bass Strait Islands on the Tasmanian Advisory Council. GORDON GOWARD, nominated by the Australian Association for Community Education, is National President of that organisation. WILLIAM LUCK, of Launceston, was nominated by the Tasmanian Northern Regional Consumer Group. He is a deputy branch manager for the Tasmanian Government Insurance Office. He has wide interests in community affairs and is Secretary of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, aged 26, of Ulverstone, was nominated by the Rural Youth Organisation of Tasmania, of which he is State Vice-President. He is a farmer and a volunteer firefighter. KAYLENE CHUNG is a teacher especially interested in children's television. GINA SALIER of Gunns Plains, is keenly interested in public affairs, especially rural affairs. She is studying for an arts degree in literature and philosophy. STELLA BUCHER was nominated by the Ethnic Communities' Council of Tasmania. She is also a member of the State Council of the Youth Hostels Association of Tasmania. VICTORIA ADVISORY COUNCIL DAVID SCOTT is Chairman of the Victorian Government's Child Development and Family Services Council, Vice President (Asian Region) of the International Council of Social Welfare, and publisher of a magazine-founded by himself-titled Australian Society. (Interim convenor) ANN VILLIERS, a member of the Women's Electoral Lobby for some years, is co- convenor of WEL (Victoria) Media Action Group and has taught psychology, behavioural studies and media studies at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. BETTY RANKIN is editor of the Monthly Diary of the Victorian Council for Children's Films and Television and Adviser on the preparation of several submissions to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; and a member of the Advisory Committee on the Media of the National Council of Women. JAMES CLARKE has wide experience as a journalist in Australia and overseas. A resident of Warrnambool, he is active in professional and community organisations and has been selected to join a 15-person Victorian delegation to participate in media seminars in The People's Republic of China. LINDSAY McMILLAN is Manager of Rehabilitation Services with the Association for the Blind and Secretary of the Victorian Division of the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD). He holds a Masters Degree in Special Education. EVE FESL, Director of the Aboriginal Research Unit at Monash University, was previously Senior Tutor in Aboriginal Studies and Researcher into Aboriginal Linguistics. A BA with Honours in Linguistics, she is studying for her MA. ESMOND CURNOW (Castlemaine) is a training officer with the Australian Trade Union Training Authority with involvement in sporting, youth and community groups. LUIGI TARTAGLIA, a former Mayor of Broadmeadows, is well-known in ethnic communities. GARNETT ZNIDARIC (Camperdown) is self-employed in a number of activities including part-time work for a regional television station. He is 27 and through his work has contact with a wide cross-section of the community. ELIZABETH BOND a Commissioner with the Liquor Control Commission, worked in radio and television from 1964 to 1981. She has received the NSW Chamber of Commerce Award for Excellence in Broadcasting Business and Economic Affairs, the Gold Citation United Nations Peace Award and attended the US Media Conference as guest of the US Government. MARGARET ROBINS was nominated by the Committee of Aunty's Nieces and Nephews. This association made submissions to the Green Committee and to the Dix Enquiry into the ABC. SONIA BORG is a screenwriter with extensive experience in television. Formerly senior screenwriter for Crawford Productions, she won acclaim with the series Women of the Sun which was shown on Channel 0.28 and ABC Television. Question No. 631 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) Has he received any complaints concerning possible abuse of section 126 of the Broadcasting and Television Act by test transmission permit holders. (2) Does he intend to amend the legislation to restrict test transmission to technical procedures, and disallow their use for program purposes. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. The purposes of a test transmission could legitimately range from engineering tests to program evaluation, audience response and the building up of community support. The responsibility for issuing test transmission permits rests with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which recently published a policy statement on this topic. Question No. 634 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 18 October 1983: (1) Have negotiations for an agreement between the Government of Norfolk Island and the Auditor-General been completed; if so, will he table in the House a copy of the agreement. (2) Will he table in the House a copy of the audit report pursuant to Section 63 of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 resulting from the audit and inspection of Norfolk Island's administration accounts for the period ending 30 June 1982. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No; an agreement between the Norfolk Island Government and the Auditor- General on the procedural arrangements for the audit of the accounts of the Territory is yet to be finalised. I am advised that the Deputy Auditor-General is to visit Norfolk Island during November for discussions on this matter. (2) Under section 63 of the Norfolk Island Act the Auditor-General makes his report to the President of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The report for the period ended 30 June 1982 was tabled on 11 May 1983. I will make a copy of the report available to the honourable member. Question No. 638 Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: Does the Government oppose barriers to, and distortions of, interstate trade; if so, will steps be taken to legislate to force the Victorian Government to remove its 20 per cent duty on South Australian wine. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government opposes interference to interstate trade. In this context, the Government is taking firm action to persuade the States to remove their individual State purchasing preference schemes. I understand the Victorian Government plans to reduce the level of its wine licence fee from 20 per cent to 15 per cent plus 5c a litre of wine. I also understand that the fees to be levied on wine retailers in Victoria are calculated by reference to all wine purchased by them in the previous year from any source, including Victorian production. The Government's view is that the Victorian wine licence fee does not appear to be a barrier to interstate trade and legislation by the Commonwealth is unwarranted. Question No. 640 Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: (1) When were the local government grants under the personal income tax sharing arrangements paid to each of the State Governments for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. (2) If there was a delay in the payment of the 1983-84 grants (a) what was the reason for the delay, (b) what was the saving to the Commonwealth in terms of interest for the time it remained undistributed compared to the 1982-83 year and (c) will this interest be disbursed to the States to be passed on to local government. (3) Was the grant for Victoria passed on to local government immediately; if not, how many days delay were involved. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Grants under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 were paid to the State treasuries on the following dates: Grants Paid State 1982-83 1983-84 N.S.W. 26.8.82 21.9.83 Vic. 25.8.82 1.9.83 Qld. 25.8.82 5.9.83 W.A. 27.8.82 8.9.83 S.A. 26.8.82 20.9.83 Tas. 26.8.82 8.9.83 (2) (a) (b) and (c). There was no undue delay in the payments of the 1983-84 grants to the States. Grants are checked and processed as soon as possible after the receipt of the determinations of the Local Government Grants Commission in each State. (3) This is a matter for the Victorian Government. Question No. 643 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: Further to the answer provided to question No. 495 (Hansard, 18 October 1983, page 1891) can he provide an anticipated commencement date for the construction of the Army Reserve training depot for C Company 17 Royal New South Wales Reserve at Bathurst, NSW. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is currently planned to start construction of the depot in 1984-85. Achievement of this target, however, will depend on resources available and competing priorities. Question No. 663 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Is he able to provide the latest estimates for the manpower strengths of the military forces of (a) China, (b) Cuba, (c) German Democratic Republic, (d) France, (e) Federal Republic of Germany, (f) Japan, (g) Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (h) Republic of Korea, (i) United Kingdom, (j) United States of America, (k) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and (l) Vietnam. (2) Is he also able to state which of these countries have compulsory military service. Mr Scholes —The information sought by the honourable member is contained in the following table: UNCLASSIFIED MILITARY FORCES MANPOWER STRENGTHS AS OF JULY 1983 Country Navy Army Air Force Other Totals Conscription China 360,000 3,250,000 490,000 4,100,000 No Cuba 12,000 125,000 16,000 153,000 Yes German Democratic Republic 14,000 116,000 37,000 167,000 Yes France 68,000 314,200 100,400 10,250 (1) 492,850 Yes Federal Republic of Germany 36,400 335,500 105,900 17,200 (2) 495,000 Yes Japan 42,000 156,000 43,000 241,000 No Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea 33,500 700,000 51,000 784,500 Yes Republic of Korea 49,000 540,000 33,000 622,000 Yes United Kingdom 71,727 159,069 89,827 320,623 No United States 569,000 780,800 592,000 194,600 (3) 2,136,400 No Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 460,000 1,800,000 365,000 1,500,000 (5) 5,050,000 Yes 100,000 (4) 500,000 (6) 325,000 (7) Vietnam 8,000 1,200,000 12,500 1,220,500 Yes Notes: (1) Includes 10,250 personnel on inter-service staff and medical services (2) Consists of Ministry of Defence, Central Military Agencies, Central Medical Agencies, and Reserve Duty Training Personnel (3) Marines (4) Aviation Armies of the Soviet Union (5) Command and General Support troops (6) National Air Defence troops (7) Strategic Rocket Forces Question No. 700 Mr Charles asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: Further to the Prime Minister's answer to a question without notice on 6 October (Hansard, page 1444) concerning the phasing out of the National Women's Advisory Council, have some 30 organisations been invited to meet the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) in Canberra on 9 November to consider new consultative arrangements; if so, what are the names of the organisations. Mr Dawkins —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I have invited representatives of major women's organisations and interest groups to meet me in Canberra on 9 November to consider new and broader consultative arrangements for women, to replace the National Women's Advisory Council. The organisations and interest groups to be represented are: National Council of Women of Australia United Nations Association of Australia National Status of Women Committee Country Women's Association Business and Professional Women's Association YWCA Union of Australian Women Federation of University Women Women's Electoral Lobby Women's International League for Peace and Freedom ACTU Women's Committee Federation of Aboriginal Women Women and Development Network of Australia Australian Women's Education Coalition Catholic Women's League Australian Council of Churches Commission of the Status of Women ACTU Working Women's Centre National Council for the Single Mother and her Child NSW Women's Advisory Council National Council of Jewish Women Victorian Women's Advisory Council Army Wives Association War Widows Association Women's Refuges Civilian Widows' Association WA Women's Advisory Council National Women's Advisory Council In addition, a number of other organisations in which women have a particular interest will be represented-the National Aboriginal Conference, the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations, the Australian Pensioners Association, Disabled Peoples' International, the National Association of Community Childcare and the Ethnic Communities Council. All State Governments have also been invited to send a representative. Question No. 704 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report from Lisbon in the Canberra Times of 2 November 1983, page 6, that Indonesian troops are conscripting East Timorese to help burn villages suspected of harbouring guerillas, that internees have been moved from Comarca and Atauro to Bali, and thousands of troops with tanks and munitions have passed through Dili since mid-August. (2) Has he seen recent reports that, through rapid transmigration, Indonesians will outnumber Melanesians in West Irian within a few years and that Melanesians are dispossessed and treated as second-class citizens. (3) Does Australia support self-determination and freedom from cultural genocide of all peoples; if so, will Australia monitor the situation in East Timor and West Irian and make clear to Indonesia its concern. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have seen the report in the Canberra Times to which the honourable member refers. The information available to the Government does not substantiate the more extreme claims made in the article or in other media reports appearing at the time. The Government is, however, concerned at these reports and further information is being sought. The Government has already made it clear that it believes that the resumption of hostilities in East Timor will delay any chance of reconciliation. It has conveyed its concern to the Indonesian authorities and will continue to urge restraint on all sides. (2) I have nothing further to add to Senator Evans' reply in the Senate on 13 September (Hansard, page 590) and to the additional information I provided on 18 October (Hansard, page 1685). (3) As the honourable member is aware, during my visit to Jakarta in April this year, I noted on behalf of the Australian Government that Indonesia has incorporated East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia but I also expressed our deep concern that an internationally supervised act of self-determination has not taken place in East Timor. The Government's strong support for the protection of indigenous populations is also well known and is reflected in its instrumental role in helping to establish, and its subsequent active participation in, the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. The Government continues to believe that the drafting of an internationally accepted set of standards to protect indigenous rights, which is the principal task of the Working Group, should make a major contribution to promoting indigenous welfare on a global basis. In the meantime the Government will keep the issue of indigenous rights under review and will make its concerns known as and when appropriate. Question No. 765 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To achieve delivery of urgent mail from Canberra to other destinations use was made of normal departmental interstate bag deliveries by overnight road services for mail to be posted in Melbourne and Sydney. No addditional costs were involved. Question No. 790 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Has the Standards Association of Australia Draft Uniform Code for Earthquake Resistance Buildings, been adopted by his Department. (2) Are the provisions of the Code included in all designs undertaken by his Department, or are they only applied to buildings to be erected in identified seismic zones. (3) Is he able to say which design authorities in the States have adopted the Code for all design work within their jurisdiction. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Housing and Construction has adopted the Standards Association of Australia Code for the 'Design of Earthquake Resistant Buildings' since its issue in 1979. (2) The provisions of the Code apply, and are applied, only to buildings to be erected in identified seismic zones. Very special facilities outside the seismic zones may be designed for individually assessed earthquake loads. (3) No. Information is not available on the attitude of all the many different design authorities in the States to the Code. However it is known that Western Australia is the only State to adopt the Code in building legislation. Question No. 379 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article from United Press, Warsaw, in the Australian on 5 June 1981, refuting an article damaging to the Polish Government and the Solidarity union by a syndication outlet of the New York Times. (2) If so, does the Government support the claim that in war the first casualty is truth on both sides before a shot is fired in anger. (3) Will he consult with the Minister for Communications with a view to Australia setting an example to antagonistic major powers by promoting bilateral exchange of comparable coverage of news and views between mass media in Australia and comparable media in countries antagonistic to Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the article has been drawn to my attention. (2) This is a matter of opinion on which the Government does not believe it is possible to generalise. (3) My colleague the Minister for Communications has informed me that his responsibilities for news media extend only to radio and television and not the print media. He notes that the programming of radio and television stations, be they national (ABC/SBS) or commercial is not a matter for Government interference; consequently, the bilateral exchange advocated would not be appropriate. Question No. 434 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) A total of $64,628,042 was paid to the Queensland Government during the period 1 July 1972 to 31 August 1983 through programs administered by the Department of Primary Industry. An analysis of the total payment made during this period is set out below: $ (a) Grants-Commonwealth Extension Services 14,590,671 (b) Subsidies-Nil. (c) Special Purpose Grants Rural Adjustment/Reconstruction 14,601,455 Eradication of Exotic Poultry Diseases 471 Australian Agricultural Council-Pig Carcase Classification 10,000 (d) Dollar for Dollar Contributions Apples and Pears Assistance 33,604 Agricultural Research 152,600 Locust control 349,000 (e) Other Contributions Bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis 34,878,968 Eradication of Bluetongue 11, 273 Total 64,628,042 (ii) A review of departmental records for the period in question has not disclosed any record of refusal of funds by Queensland. The only records of refunds is in relation to grants made under the Commonwealth Extension Services Grant and Commonwealth Special Research Grant Schemes. In these cases the amounts involved are small residual amounts of individual grants remaining unspent on completion of projects. These have been required to be refunded in accordance with the Grant conditions. Because of the period involved and the number of individual grants involved the aggregate amount of these refunds is not readily ascertainable. The total however would be relatively insignificant when compared to grants paid under the Schemes. Question No. 727 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether France has offered facilities for a foreign fact finding mission to its nuclear test site, if so, when was the offer made. (2) Is he also able to say whether any other countries carrying out nuclear tests have offered similar facilities to foreign countries; if so, (a) which countries, and (b) when. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In June 1983 France invited scientists from South Pacific countries to visit Moruroa Atoll to ascertain whether or not the nuclear tests have had harmful effects on the environment. The invitation was from President Mitterrand and was conveyed to Australia and to other South Pacific Governments by the President's special envoy, Mr Regis Debray. Two Australian scientists joined with scientists from New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in a visit to Moruroa Atoll and to Papeete in French Polynesia from 24 October to 6 November 1983. The report of the scientists will be made public when it is completed. (2) The Government is not aware that any other country to have carried out nuclear tests has offered similar facilities to foreign countries. Question No. 728 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: Has consideration been given to provisions adopted by the Victorian Government relating to the Penalty Unit System recently introduced with the enactment of the Victorian Penalties and Sentences Act 1981 (Part 1); if so, does the Minister intend to take action to amend Commonwealth law to give effect to this system. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Consideration has been given to the Penalty Unit System introduced in Victoria and also to an alternative penalty structure whereby offences are categorized, a penalty being provided for each category of offences. No decision has been reached to take action to amend Commonwealth law in this regard but this question will be addressed as part of the review of the Crimes Act 1914 which it hoped to commence during 1984.